The reason large cities are liberal (leaning toward socialist) is because the cities are full of poor people who want the government to give them something without them working for it. The rural area know the value of working from sunup to past sunset, and realize that it is the individual who makes their life possible, not the bestowings of some government entity. Just look at the welfare percentages (especially chronic welfare (those who will never be off it) ) of cities compared to rural... It's not because cities are full of erudite intellectuals.

ebbertt
That's the most funniest, yet most ignorant comment I ever heard in the realm of politics! I won't even try to counter that one. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

On the second part, yes, there is an exception to any rule. Its the generalization that I'm trying to get through which speaks for itself.

NN, tell that to New Yorkers.

I guess that's why all the wealthy's come here huh?

I think you'll find the standard deviation is greater in the cities than in rural areas, but you won't find as many homeless/welfare-recipients in rural areas as large cities. That's a fact. And why do you think democratic liberals are always courting the poor/minority vote while republicans have the "wealthy fat-cats"? Because liberals promise gifts without work while playing on the victim mentality. (Is it my fault I'm poor and destitute? No! It's someone else's fault...)

"Because liberals promise gifts without work while playing on the victim mentality. (Is it my fault I'm poor and destitute? No! It's someone else's fault...)"

Have you ever lived in a big city and seen poor people before to even attempt such a comment? Or do you just sit at home and watch Allen Keyes making sense to formulate your opinions? Your so quick to call people lazy and you don't even know their story. I've lived it, I've volunteered, and I've seen it first hand! Have you?

You, just like most conservatives take the small % that are a bad example and exploit it as if they are the model of what being poor is about. Imagine I showed you an ugly fat racist rich white arrogant snob and told you that he was the model for the rich? Why don't you attempt to walk the walk before you talk the talk?

gifts without work? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

Another note: Many wealthy people live in NYC. I see celebrities and media people almost on a daily basis. I wonder why they're liberal as well. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

Todd,

I was civil especially for an old, retired operator. LOL No I don't see things in black and white. I evaluate the gray and place them in either black or white category. There is a big difference!

Jym

Info,

I would rather take a homeless person into an establishment and purchase a good meal instead of giving money. This ensures the funds are used for the intended purpose. Conservative solution to the problem; while the liberal solution is to give money then insist that the person can use it as they see fit.

The problem with your medical card is already documented previously with information from the Canadian system. Are you insisting that the doctors treat everyone even if the government doesn't pay? How do you control costs and abuse of the system? It is easy to say, we should fix this problem. The hard part is devising a solution that is attainable. Your solution is not attainable!

Liberals in the big cities? Maybe you should look at a map. I elaborated on this previously. I'll give an example. Houston is one of the largest cities in America. Consistently votes for Republican representatives except for the "poor" areas. We do have a Democrat representative who abuses her position by riding in a government financed vehicle, the 1 block from her apartment to the House chambers. Oh, this isn't a good example, OK I'll give you another one. How about North Dakota, they vote for Democrat members in Congress while always voting for a Republican president.

Ah yes, the old CFR. Now why shouldn't everyone want to be told to shut up, you can't talk anymore while the media can continue to talk until the election. Seems to me that the media should also be included in this violation of the 1st amendment. Oh but Jym, it takes out the big money from campaigns, NOT! They increased the amount that can be gained from contributions. This increase is at least twice as much as the previous amount. Oh and if the person running finances their own campaign without contributions then there is no limit. Seems to me that we have not reformed campaign finanaces. Any easier solution would be to set spending caps on the campaigns based on the population represented and have all ads, required to be approved by the candidate, PERSONALLY. This would bring personal responsibility back into the system.

New area of discussion. Why do we allow terrorist to continue to operate every day especially in our cities. The terrorists I am talking about are also known as "gangs". I previously cited the definition of terrorists and terrorism. Look closely and see if gangs don't fit this definition.

Finally, I have seen the situations you try to describe first hand. Hell, some of the places I have been to are much worse. Your ideals are noble but your solutions are unattainable.

Here&#8217;s what I believe: Corporations and businesses with more than 50 employees should shoulder the majority of taxes in this country, followed by home owners and finally, citizens and legal immigrants who are without property should pay the fewest amount of taxes (Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill favors abolishing corporate income taxes, by the way). As it stands now, individuals make up 80% of the taxes collected in this country.

I believe military pay should not be taxed, or if taxed, raised to a level approximate equal to the median level of income in the U.S. The pay increase recently proposed by the Bush administration is the last best thing done for the military in a very long time. But it is not enough.

I believe the only regulations that any political authority can be justly entitled to enforce are those best adapted to public utility. One form of government is preferable to another in exact proportion to the security it affords that nothing shall be done in the name of the community that is not conducive to the welfare of the whole.

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state." &#8211;Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Rev. James Madison (Oct. 28, 1785). I believe Jefferson was right.

I believe that a free society is one in which capitalism emerges out of a nation built upon the relationships established for the protection of the citizens upon which capitalism depends and flourishes. Capitalism, by its very nature is at odds with government and will, by its predatory nature, try to replace a government of the people as security for its own prosperity. Capitalism undermines the very precepts of popular sovereignty, which is the foundation of the democratic principles the constitution binds.

I believe that liberty and all its attendants belong to every citizen engaged in the laws of this country, and not just to the rich and the privileged. Liberty is at the basis of our democracy and to afford it to the few individuals and corporations who can best afford to manipulate, rationalize, and redefine it is equal to denying liberty to the common citizen.

I believe, like Jefferson, that the common person "&#8230;and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom." --in a letter to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

I believe that putting an economic system outside the control of government ignores the natural tendency of individuals to use all powers for their own interests and to the detriment of others, if they can get away with it. Economical considerations form some of the strongest motivations in man. The idea that absolute economic freedom is conducive to justice and fairness, not to corruption, might work in the world of fiction, but it has no relationship to the real world. I believe that a socialistic form of government is the political system that best addresses the realities we live in today.

ctclaus,

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> I believe that a socialistic form of government is the political system that best addresses the realities we live in today.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So you want to rescind the Constitution of the United States? I realize my question is simplistic but I am trying to understand how you can have a socialistic form of government that conforms to our constitution.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Flame:
<strong>So you want to rescind the Constitution of the United States? I realize my question is simplistic but I am trying to understand how you can have a socialistic form of government that conforms to our constitution.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nowhere in the constitution does it say we have to have capitalism as the economic engine. It says only that we shall have a Republican form of government, which isn&#8217;t a recommendation for or against any specific political format. The Constitution defines the fundamental law of the United States federal government, setting forth the three principal branches of the federal government, outlining their jurisdictions, and propounding the basic rights of U.S. citizens. The essential principle of the document is that government must be confined to the rule of law.

Socialism would conform quite readily to the constitution and it would in fact, I believe, be truer to the intent of the constitution than capitalism (&#8230; in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty and our Posterity&#8230;) Capitalism is too predatory in nature to do any of those things. We could tailor socialism to fit the intent and allow for a regulated and controlled form of capitalism to flourish.

<<<the liberal solution is to give money then insist that the person can use it as they see fit.>>> --- Are you serious???

<<<It is easy to say, we should fix this problem. The hard part is devising a solution that is attainable. Your solution is not attainable!>>> --- But financing the poor's college education is?

ctclaus - Your 100% right. If your point doesn't come across, I don't know what will.

As far as taxes, you know what they say. The rich don't pay a dime in taxes. They have smart accountants who know how to stash their money through loopholes so they don't pay anything. Donald Trump can write off his yacht for business dealings. Wait, now that I think about it, he can write off his cars, his 1st class trips, and practically everything he does. In the end, lets see what % he actually pays. While the rich cheat their way to paying no taxes, the poor and middle class suffer the burden! So Marty, Flame, NN, all who apply, sound just to you?

And like I said, whether your on the left or right, at least the left is trying to correct society's problems. The other side just loves it how it is because they stay rich and get richer. Then they argue that man is a greedy animal and knows no better.

Flame - Not only does the constitution not mention capitalism as the correct and just form of government, but even some of the basic ammendments are a bit outdated or misused. Taxes alone go against the constitution. I pray that 200+ years later we can understand that we have grown as a people and don't need to be dragged along by an outdated contract with the people. We have freedom of speech, yet, we cannot scream fire in a crowded theater. We have a right to bare arms, yet, felons cannot buy guns and in some states, you can't even carry a gun unless you're an officer of the law. Small private militia's are a thing of the past. Don't you think its time to move on as a people? You talk about conservatives going out and exploring new ideas, testing them and so on, but it seems like all you ever want to do is conserve history and never learn enough to move forward. Sound like exploration and innovation to you?

The basic principle of the constituion is one I live by, honor, and respect and cherish. However, I think we as people try to squeeze out intent that serves selfish needs. If it was interprited in the way our forefathers intended, I think this country would be very different today.

ctclaus,

True, the constitution does not state an economic engine. It does state that we shall have a Republican form of government. No matter how you state it, socialism is a form of government, not an economic system. Your own words state that socialism could be tailored to fit the intent (not the actual fact of the constitution) and allow for a regulated and controlled form of capitalism. Thereby socialism is a form of government not an economic system.

So your answer is YES. You do want to rescind the constitution and replace it with socialism as the form of government in the United States.

Info,

No one is mandated to pay taxes. It is a voluntary system (read the code) that applies to profit. You can only be prosecuted if you sign a false tax return. Again, you make statements without documentation.

So the left is trying to correct society's problems? How come a private school, receiving less money per child, is able to provide a better education than our public school system? How come more people are getting off welfare and earning a living? Could it be because the right forced a bill through that required able bodied adults to work instead of endlessly collecting welfare? It only took 3 times before Clinton (definitely left) would sign it. Of course he only listened to the polls so he signed it.

If growing as a society means returning to the system which our founding fathers fought and died to leave; or socialism which our grandfathers and fathers fought and died to protect us from; then I am all for not growing.

No, wrong again! Only in New York City (and a few other leftist dominated areas) is it illegal to carry a gun. Look at that map again and notice that the majority of area that voted for Bush also protects the right to bear arms. I am all for denying felons the right to arms, the right to vote, etc. because they have lost those rights through their own actions.

I now understand, both you and ctclaus want to rescind the constitution, abolish the republic and replace it with socialism.

I noticed that ctclaus didn't have much to say about the military and medicine. I would think that the vaunted Tricare socialized medical system for retirees and dependents would be a focal for this discussion. Especially since it is a government funded medical system.

I would only ask one question. If socialized healthcare was so bad, would you support a bill to abolish tricare all together and pay out of pocket for all your medical needs?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Flame:
<strong>ctclaus,

True, the constitution does not state an economic engine. It does state that we shall have a Republican form of government. No matter how you state it, socialism is a form of government, not an economic system. Your own words state that socialism could be tailored to fit the intent (not the actual fact of the constitution) and allow for a regulated and controlled form of capitalism. Thereby socialism is a form of government not an economic system.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have absolutely no idea what you mean by any of this, Jym.

I work for TRICARE and I'm more than happy to discuss the military health care system with anyone who has a legitimate question. And if you don't already know how I feel about the military, you haven't been paying attention.

Another topic I'd like Flame to elaborate on. You said that no one is mandated to pay taxes. I'd love to know what you mean by that. 1/3 of my check goes to taxes. If its voluntary, ****, I think I need to get a clue huh?

Todd: Would that be: "TRIANDGETCARE" you're working for?

Info,

It is real simple. Read the tax code! I don't expect you to accept my information. I provide the reference and you can determine the truth yourself.

You can use the same methods that corporations use. The Supreme Court has ruled that the word "income" as it pertains to the tax code means profit. If you do not have a profit then you do not have to pay tax. This is the primary method used by corporations. Also, corporations are considered a "legal person".

On the subject of voluntary assessment. When you file a tax return, you are making a voluntary assessment of your profits for the year. Once you sign the statement then you have provided a certified, legal document. Most people do not want the hassle of researching the dry, boring, legal writing that is the tax code, so they file according to the instructions. Some people feel it is appropriate to voluntarily pay taxes for the services provided by the government. There are some provisions that you need to look at while perusing the code. These include your use of government service (i.e. Medicare, Welfare, etc.) if you choose not to volunteer. This is probably the most likely reason that people file returns per the instructions. There are no enforcement provisions for the IRS to make you pay taxes. There is legal precedent and provisions if you falsify your return.

Check it out for yourself. Don't just take the word of the left or right, do your own thinking.

Let me add one more thing. I pay taxes according to the instructions because I feel it is right to help support my government. I may not agree nor accept some of the programs but that is my right as a citizen. Something to ponder is the reduction in rights that a military member undergoes upon entering service. They accept the loss of these rights to serve their country protecting those same rights for all citizens. Our country also extends some, not all, rights to foreign nationals that have entered the country LEGALLY. Why do we want to extend those rights to people that have broken our laws by entering the country ILLEGALLY?

Todd or ctclaus (depending on your location,)

It is simple. Our Constitution states we shall have a Republican form of government. Socialism is a form of government. This would make socialism unconstitutional! In plain English, the United States of America will never have a socialist form of government, period.

On TriCare: You know the problem with finding providers that are willing to accept government programs with it's rules, requirements, etc. You also know the difficulty that members have getting approval for needed services. Yet you believe that a system like this is good for the people of our country? You think the government can handle the fees associated with this program to provide everyone with socialized medicine? How about those that can't pay the co-pays or fees beyond the government determined levels? I know how these expenses pile up quickly especially if your family member has a disease like cancer where treatment is needed regularly. TriCare sounds good but in practice it leaves a lot to be desired. The same applies to the idea of socialized medicine. It sounds good but the reality sucks.

I am not knocking you nor TriCare. I am using it as an example of a program that has to deal with the reality of our world. Or should I say a program that inherently can not handle the reality.

When you guys get tired of bashing each others head in and want to find out who our enemies are check out: http://www.ncix.gov/news/2001/jun01.html

Sorry to say, we seem to be our own worst enemies.

It is simple. Our Constitution states we shall have a Republican form of government. Socialism is a form of government. This would make socialism unconstitutional! In plain English, the United States of America will never have a socialist form of government, period.

I&#8217;m not a constitutional scholar so I can&#8217;t say definitively whether a socialist form of government is unconstitutional, but I doubt it. The U.S. will have a socialist government at some point. It may happen in this century or it may not, but eventually we&#8217;ll have one. The world is becoming too small and the governments running it are becoming too similar for anything otherwise to happen. Power is a vacuum and as long as the predominate number of countries are socialist all the countries who want to do business with each other will fall in line with some sort of agreeable nature. And if you look at the history of business and government over the last century my bet is that you&#8217;ll see that the U.S. has moved closer to the Western European model of government than they have towards ours. The forty-hour workweek, labour unions, public education, social security, governmental regulations and watch dogs on damn near every form of business and growing stronger with every instance of a corporation or individual giving in to the lust of greed (the savings and loan debacle, Milken and Enron are just the last three examples that rocked the world money rules); this country is slowly but steadily moving to the left. In Mexico the ruling conservative party in power for a generation has lost to populism, in the Eastern Bloc, the rush of democracy is giving way to the development of an easier and gentler socialism, in Canada the conservative party (who would be considered quite liberal in the U.S.) is in disarray with problems of leadership and direction with the majority of the country favouring a more communal and populist brand of governance, Argentina watching the death throes of the dying vestiges of the last century&#8217;s great industrial and capitalist barons. The list is long and getting longer. The meaning of conservative is changing, again (the way we understand conservative theology today is very different than the father of conservativism, Edmund Burke, understood it). The only question remaining is what kind of socialism we will have and what we will call it.

On TriCare: You know the problem with finding providers that are willing to accept government programs with it's rules, requirements, etc. You also know the difficulty that members have getting approval for needed services. Yet you believe that a system like this is good for the people of our country? You think the government can handle the fees associated with this program to provide everyone with socialized medicine? How about those that can't pay the co-pays or fees beyond the government determined levels? I know how these expenses pile up quickly especially if your family member has a disease like cancer where treatment is needed regularly. TriCare sounds good but in practice it leaves a lot to be desired. The same applies to the idea of socialized medicine. It sounds good but the reality sucks.

TRICARE does have a lot of problems. It&#8217;s a massive HMO program with an executive leadership that has a number of different egos that need satisfying and agendas that require a tweaking of the system in every region. But itt also has a lot of dedicated and highly educated mid-level officers trying hard to do what&#8217;s right for the beneficiaries (the people who are entitled to use the program for those of you who don't know). As a federal employee I have a huge choice of healthcare insurance programs to choose from and I still find that the DoD funded US Family Health Plan that I&#8217;m eligible as a retiree is by far the better program. The civilian plans can&#8217;t touch it. If you haven&#8217;t&#8217; already looked into CHRISTUS Health of Houston, check it out (http://www.usfhp.com/html/texas.htm). They serve southeast Texas and southwest Louisiana.
When I retired in 96 I used TRICARE Standard exclusively until I got a job in 2000 with a local government agency in Portland, Oregon, that offers an incredible medical/dental plan (Trimet; if anybody is interested in public transportation, public policy or planning you owe it to yourself to check them out, http://www.tri-met.org,) so I understand the complaints. When I first got home to Portland after retirement and was looking for a doctor I called an office listed in the than current provider directory and was told the doctor I was asking for had been dead two years. Information can be scant and difficult to understand and customer service often takes a back seat to bad attitudes and an unwillingness to admit the caller may be right. But to be fair, the rules and requirements are no more tedious and arcane than any insurance program and the attempts at saving money at the expense of the patient is par for the course for insurance companies. TRICARE has historically been given a budget not quite big enough to make due and told to increase the benefits every year. A number of difficult decisions have to be made keeping in mind our core beneficiaries are active duty personnel and everything must be done with them in mind. To make it work, retirees and family members are going to feel the brunt of budget cuts and bad decisions. Still, the military healthcare system routinely is on the cutting edge of research (practically, all the advancements in AIDS and flu research has taken place in the military healthcare system and much of the advancements in emergency and trauma care have taken place on the battlefield).

Socialized medicine is expensive, and nowhere is it without problems, but for every problem there is a solution. We can make it work if we want. It will require by a lot of give and take, compromise and a practice of fairness and justice not practiced by everyone in the medical community right now, but it can it be done. Not on the TRICARE model. TRICARE because of whom it services is a different animal and will always remain so, regardless of what type of political system runs the country or medical care.

Ctclaus, I believe if the world goes socialist, the United States will be the last bastion of capitalism before everything goes to hell. Think about it, Europe has always been heavily socialist, and yet it took the capitalist US to completely rebuild the whole continent after devastating war. Not once, but twice. They couldn't do it themselves, and no other country besides the US could have helped them. But how many times has the US rebuilt itself? Two huge stock market crashes, the Great Depression. Hell the country STARTED broke and owing boat loads of cash to a few countries after gaining independence. But it was capitalism itself that allowed us to become rich and strong, and to constantly help others. It was the opportunity everyone in the country had, to make their own way and get rich, and earn their own money. Socialism doesn't allow that opportunity, and that spirit will not be there. Economics are dictated by the government, not the people, which is the great thing about capitalism. If the government dictates the economy, and the government is just as broke as everyone, no one will be able to rebuild, and no one will have the desire to, because what they build will be regulated and controlled by socialism. In the end, capitalism provides freedom that no other economic or political-economic system provides.

And you're right, we have swung towards socialism some, but it will never swing all the way, and if it does, it will fail, just like communism failed. And there's a simple reason. Now, everybody understand, I am red blooded die for the stars-and-stripes American, but if communism was carried out properly, it would be the prefect form of government and living. Socialism would be a fairly good system too, but there is one big monkey wrench in the works that will always keep these two from working. Humans. People. They don't want to work for everyone else. They don't want to have exactly what everyone else has. They want to be able to get what they can for themselves. Communism fails because the people in charge (when there shouldn't be people in charge under communism) want more, and the people on the bottom get screwed and lose most of what they work for. Socialism would go the same way. People controlling how much money and benefits a person can earn and what is done with those profits, will be corrupted. As long as people are involved in the system, idealistic systems like socialism and communism will never work. All communist and full socialist nations have fallen or are poor and struggling. All the european socialist countries are tempered by capitalism. Capitalism runs off greed (an ugly word, I know, but lets face, everyone wants to provide and make themselves and their loved ones comfortable, or at the very least, not have to struggle), and people knowing they get to keep what they work for. They know they can keep what they earn, and if they work hard enough, or work it right, they can get where they want. Socialism and communism only gaurantee you'll get exactly what everyone else has, and people just won't settle for that.

Pure socialism might, and pure, true communism could lead to a utopia, but it will never happen. The man who first came up with the name Utopia knew what he was doing. It means "No Place"

I do see one major change not only in the world, but specific to this country. It has definitely gotten more liberal and is becoming more so with each passing decade. The military was EXTREMELY conservative (and racist) in the early 1900s on up and has done a huge 180 since then. Although it still will always be one step back from the civilian way of thought, it is clearly moving forward and its most radical conservatives and conservative ideals are slowly becoming more liberal in nature. Some hate it, some love it. Some call it "our kinder, gentler military," while others call it "baby-sitting." However you choose to interpret it, I think its clear where this country and our military ideology is headed.

As far as socialism, there is nothing wrong with a free market economy (capitalism) mixed in with forms of socialism. Its the right balance of the two that will put this country in perfect harmony

The military is conservative in the truest sense, in that it doesn't believe in change for change's sake. Changes must be made according to tried and true standards that have proven themselves over time.

The military addressed racism and sexism (and like issues) long before the rest of society caught up.

Absolutely! But as new generations creap in, I'm sure it can only change for the better. Consider the nature of the service during the WW2 and Vietnam era to how it is today. Much improvement is needed but I only see it getting better. It might be micro steps but little by little, the liberal ideology is creaping through by force.

From the military's history on racism and the change it was forced to undergo, to gays in the service today. I'm sure in another 10 years or so, the don't ask don't tell policy will be done away with.

During times of racism, most liberals fought or believed in racial equality while most conservatives thought white was superior. But they were forced to change that view by the changing society. Today, many of those people's children in the service now feel that homosexuals should die. I've heard it many times from many radicals in uniform. And there is still racism but its buried within the groups.

So its clear to me that liberals are always one step ahead of the game. Their thoughts are outragious to many to many conservatives at first, but then it becomes accepted as the best for society down the road. Still holds true today

So its clear to me that liberals are always one step ahead of the game. Their thoughts are outragious to many to many conservatives at first, but then it becomes accepted as the best for society down the road. Still holds true today

Infoseeker, I'm sorry, but you are deluding yourself as much as any ultraconservatives delude themselves. No one ideology is perfect and right. Strict conservatism won't always work, and strict liberalism won't always work. Many of the liberal ideas are outrageous to people because they simply are outrageous. Same for conservative ideas. I don't belong to either side, I simply do what I know in my heart is right, sometimes it is more "left", but honestly, my idea of right leans to the "right". But I am not christian, I don't automatically agree with Rush Limbaugh, but neither can I let you get away with saying liberalism is the best road for society and the true path to all things great.

Why do you think so many have swung away from Clinton? He was a liberal, but that didn't keep him and his wife from being criminals. Liberalism is always one step ahead of the game? Liberalism tried to protect a non-endangered species of fish, and caused a delay that cost six, or was it seven?, young firefighters their lives. Liberalism led to a plan that encouraged young unwed, non-working mothers to have get pregnant again out of wedlock, so they could get more welfare, instead of getting a job and truly supporting the children they had. Liberalism led to people with two jobs driving up to cash welfare checks in nice new cars. Liberalism has led to parents' money paying for classes in which students have orgies and/or learn how America, by being the most charitable country in the world, was totally to blame for the 3000 deaths on Sept 11. Liberalism led to "prolifers" killing doctors at abortion clinics. Liberalism led to affirmative action which cost many better qualified white males jobs they were perfect for, because the people hiring where afraid of offending a minority. Liberalism has weakened the military by lowering standards (in the Army, women don't have to be able to throw a grenade past it's blast radius, because that's a sexist test). I can go on if you really want. Is this ahead of the times? How are these beneficial? How are these examples the true path to righteousness?

I'm not saying conservatism does everything perfectly either, but they seem to be more realist than liberalism. They look for answers that work in today's s***ty world, not for perfect answers in an ideal world that doesn't exist. Neither are perfect, but you spouting out how correct and always right liberalism is and how always wrong conservatism is, is just as bad as the ultraconservatives you seem to have a problem with. If I read you wrong, sorry, but you really come off sounding a little brainwashed here....

Oh, by the way, conservative homophobia in the military is actual completely responsible for there even being a gay community. Prior to WWII, homosexuals simply kept to themselves, didn't speak out, didn't admit anything in public, and didn't consider themselves a "group" or "community." It wasn't until the generals and brass in charge started talking about the "gay problem" did the homosexuals begin to see themselves as a community, like the brass saw them. So, without the conservative homophobia in the military, the likelihood is much smaller that the gay community would be as big and strong as it currently is, and homosexuals would be as outspoken and would have as many rights as they do today. Hmm, maybe sometimes conservatism can walk the true path also....

Info,

It amazes me how you spout this excretement without having a clue to the reality. Liberals were in charge during Vietnam and created a losing situation. It was conservatives that fought for racial equality or have you forgotten about that great liberal democrat Robert Byrd. Get your facts straight! You also need to include the fact that racism is not only practiced by whites but by black, hispanic, asian, etc. It is a human problem not a white only problem.

Liberals are a step ahead, more like one step forward and two steps back. How about the racism by that bastion of liberalism, Hollywood?

Oh, I forgot, Info doesn't answer questions or provide facts. He/she only provides the spin of the liberals!

It seems we have a troll on the board!

Todd,

Thank you for the info on TriCare. I already looked at the availability in Houston but my company policy is similar in price and provides better service. Also you need to correct you area of your discussion on TriCare. It is not for the military members primarily. It is for the family members of active duty personnel instead of the military providing the "promised" care for the military member and their dependents. The military member will have expenses, for required services, paid whether there is a TriCare provider or not.

The same points that you make against our republican form of government occur in socialist governments too. In fact the abuse of power is more pervasive when the people do not have a say in their government under socialism. Most of the socialist government continue to survive because people have become accustomed to the free services not because they prefer their form of government. Just because the lemings prefer to head over a cliff doesn't mean that we have to follow. Europe was rebuilt thanks in part to American capitalism, Japan was rebuilt thanks in part to American capitalism. Do we have problems, hell yes. Do we need to give up our freedom to socialism to get rid of the problems, hell no. Take a close look at the socialist governments and you will find big business influence in them also. The watch dogs of Europe are not as vigilant as you seem to think. The US has higher wages, stricter safety policies, stricter pollution requirements than every country in the world. All accomplished under capitalism and a republican form of government.

It has been proven time and time again that socialism works either poorly in the best cases or is dangerous to it's citizens in the worst cases. I enjoy debating with you on this subject but I will never accept socialism.

Info,

Let me say first off that I believe you've had some professional debating training...you answer some and/or most questions, some you don't, and keep the debate going because of it, and your manipulation of this debate is laudatory...if you're not trained, I believe you have a future in politics! Well done.

Regarding the gays in the military, let me say I am a tried and true conservative, but on this issue I differ...I truly believe they should be allowed in the military...so don't stereotype all conservatives as being against said policy. Same with the "During times of racism, most liberals fought or believed in racial equality while most conservatives thought white was superior"...let me tell you, I've risked my life by jumping out of airplanes into bung f**k middle of the Pacific ocean to save some Chinese sailors, and also risked my life by running to a fellow black team mate's side when he hit wires in Korea and had 3rd degree burns over 60% of his body (when I got there, I didn't know if he was still "wired" to the power poles, but I treated him...)...bottom line is, most in the military don't care about race, religion, or sexual orientation (and by most I mean 50% or more) so all I ask is watch the sterotyes in your posts...I've risked my life for more non-whites/non-Americans than I have US Citizens...and I do so freely, and will do so in the future.

Jym,

You're absolutely right about TRICARE being responsible for more dependents (family members for the more politically correct) than active duty members. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but the Northeast Region (the National Capital area north to New England) has just over 1.2 million beneficiaries and the majority of them are dependents, but the core, the people for whom TRICARE exists in the first place, is active duty folks.

I also agree (as would everybody in Northeast Region's Lead Agent office) that the military owes a contractual obligation to care for those of us who made the military a career, including spouses and family members who aren't of legal age (21 with a couple of exceptions). Unfortunately, the people who administer TRICARE don't legislate it. I don't want to pass the buck but it's congress who tells the military who and how the beneficiaries will be treated. If it was up to the executive leadership and their staffs, who are composed primarily of active duty and retired personnel, the system would look and act quite different.

I don't believe anybody on active duty thinks that dependents and retirees don't deserve full medical care always. But when the Medical Corps is told to administer acts like the Defense Authorization Act of 1994 which required "nominal charges" and "partial reimbursement", they're required to see it through. They don't like it anymore than you do, but I believe they do their best to make sure as many people are included as they can.

With every victory (the Senior Pharmacy benefit and the recently enacted 'the interim waived charges benefit,' which waives cost shares, copayments and deductibles for AD family members who accompany their sponsors on remote location assignment) comes a loss (chiropractic care for dependents and retirees, who composed 60% of the users of the services at Walter Reed) however. The budget requires some difficult decisions and the people who make them take it seriously, if not personally.

Still, all in all, TRICARE works if you pay attention and don't let yourself fall between the sometimes huge cracks that do exist (the computer system, which includes DEERS and CHCS, is practically impossible to understand and causes a lot of problems with enrollment).

My wife is pregnant and gets all of her care at Johns Hopkins at a fraction of the cost ($12 total, including genetic testing and check-ups and delivery) civilians pay because I'm a retiree with access to something other than TRICARE Standard (of which I think very little about).

TE, all conservatives are not the same. I've said that on many occasions about every group of people. When we talk on here, I like to stay away from too many facts because there is a wealth of information out there and if I post it all, you'd have more then 100 pages on boring non sense. Plus, this is an abstract debate that facts cannot support, as our opinions are a meir interpritation of the facts. You can find a debate on both sides of any one fact. So the best thing for me to do is come out with generalizations, some might find hasty, but it at least shows you how the liberal mindset sees most of the conservatives and their actions.

But I want to make one thing clear, I am not a hard line liberal in any sense of the word. Countless times on here I have talked about balance between the two. Balance between the rich and the poor, and balance between republicans and democrats. I only like to point out the motivation of the two and show that one side is just more humble and consistant than the other. Believe me, there are a lot of things liberals support that I don't believe. But even when I don't, I understand why they do it and like the cause.

However, conservatives (or most republicans) contradict each other way too much and I clearly sense the deception while liberals (or most democrats) stay on track with wanting to help the middle-class people; sometimes unfairly, but nevertheless, their motivation is in check with their actions.

Example: In the republican party, their big pitch is, get government out of our lives. One minute they support this cold heartedly but when it suits their needs, they want government all in your face; when they try to legislate morality. When they try to tell a woman what she must do with her own body parts. When they are against anything that warrants the saying "to each his own." Like sexuality, marriage and its morality, etc. When they try to stop FREE adults from doing things to themselves that might harm them some. How marijuana is condemned by them (black man's drug) but alcohol is accepted. Yet Alcohol causes more death. So, we imprison them for the same amount of time that we imprision many rapes and murders in this country. ANd what a coincidence, the majority are black.

But then they fight so hard for the right to bare arms. Why one freedom over another? Why total economic freedom, but not social freedom? Why would they break free from their beliefs for only certain issues?

That's when I begin to see what their motivation is. They can condemn actions of others while they do it themselves quietly (ex: John MCcain was against abortion, but when asked about what he would do if his daughter got pregnant, all of a sudden, abortion was an option on the table). That is when you then begin to realize that all they truly support, is not a universal ideal for all, but an ideal that supports their selfish cause. Freedom for where THEY like it for themselves, and oppression for the issues they don't like. Issues that affect mostly the other races and classes. That angers me.

Marijuana was made illegal illegally, but this isn't about that now is it. Not really significant to anything <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> When we talk on here, I like to stay away from too many facts because there is a wealth of information out there and if I post it all, you'd have more then 100 pages on boring non sense. Plus, this is an abstract debate that facts cannot support, as our opinions are a meir interpritation of the facts. You can find a debate on both sides of any one fact. So the best thing for me to do is come out with generalizations, some might find hasty, but it at least shows you how the liberal mindset sees most of the conservatives and their actions.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You destroy your own credibility with this. You state that you aonly put generalizations with no facts, but if you did put all the facts, it would be 100 pages of non sense. A debate with out facts is not a debate, You make cases and points and generalizations, but with out facts, they are nothing more than party line rhetoric. And you stated yourself that what you put in this forum is how the "liberal mindset" sees conservatives and their actions. You are admitting huge bias, and admitting that you only see there actions from an opposing side. You don't try to see their views, and you give in to the prejudice of them not being like you, and you let it taint all your thought processes. If you truly want to be objective and honest, you can't look at their actions as a liberal. Every hard core conservative looks at liberals the exact same way, and says liberals are only about keeping themselves in power, and merely prey upon the poor in the country, becasue they are generally the uneducated, and will percieve everything liberals do as helping (whether it is actually helping or not), and will re-elect them.

If you were truly objective, you'd step out of your Berkley mindset, and realize conservatives make mistakes, but aren't as bad as you villify them to be, and liberals are not these saintly people you make them out to be, and there are just as many idiots, criminals, and hypocrites in their ranks as in the conservative ranks. You prejudice that liberals (the group you coincidentally belong too) is automatically and in all ways superior to conservatives, is just as closedminded and wrong as the prejudice of whites being superior to others.

And the vast majority of potheads I know, are rich whites. Most of the middle and lower class blacks I know (friends with quite a few) are too focused on improving their station in life, through capitalism, to do something stupid like drugs....

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Discord:
<strong>Oh, by the way, conservative homophobia in the military is actual completely responsible for there even being a gay community. Prior to WWII, homosexuals simply kept to themselves, didn't speak out, didn't admit anything in public, and didn't consider themselves a "group" or "community." It wasn't until the generals and brass in charge started talking about the "gay problem" did the homosexuals begin to see themselves as a community, like the brass saw them. So, without the conservative homophobia in the military, the likelihood is much smaller that the gay community would be as big and strong as it currently is, and homosexuals would be as outspoken and would have as many rights as they do today. Hmm, maybe sometimes conservatism can walk the true path also....</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">On Friday evening, June 27, 1969, the New York City tactical police force raided a popular Greenwich Village gay bar, the Stonewall Inn. Raids were not unusual in 1969; in fact, they were conducted regularly without much resistance. However, that night the street erupted into violent protest as the crowds in the bar fought back. Thirteen employees and rioters were arrested. Four police were injured, including one with a broken wrist. That night's riot and the several nights of protest that followed have come to be known as the Stonewall Riots.

Prior to that summer there was little public expression of the lives and experiences of gays and lesbians. The Stonewall Riots marked the beginning of the gay liberation movement that has transformed the oppression of gays and lesbians into calls for, and symbols of, pride and action.

I know this because my mother is a lesbian (she also claims to be a pacifist but she holds a great deal of pride in the actions of people who have resisted oppression with violence) and she loves the fact that gay men that night trashed a police car and the stores and bars of the neighborhood (kind of ironic, don't you think) and she loves to tell stories like this to prove that gays and lesbians are just like everybody else. Which I believe, but not because of her.

Discord,
no, they are generalizations that come from facts. But believe me, I use facts for formulate me beliefs. I just also choose to go by what I see as well since facts which can be spun in different directions to suit one's arguments.

For example: Facts define what is legally poor in this country. What I see and experience is not what the facts say. Facts say poor is considered a household with an average of 3 TVs, 3 VCRs, a car, and a 150,000$ home. My experience of poor is nothing close. So who will I go by? Facts are only as credible as their providers. And for the view that are credible, interpritations can be made on both sides. So I like to call my points, "common knowledge."

<<<You are admitting huge bias, and admitting that you only see there actions from an opposing side.>>> --- in the grand picture, I am a liberal. However, I have some ideals that fall on the conservative end and am not afraid to say liberals are wrong. But again, in the end, I am liberal and their motivation is what makes me one. And facts can never answer for motive.

<<<And the vast majority of potheads I know, are rich whites.>>> --- Yet, who goes to prison more on drug related offenses? Blacks and minorities. And its a clear cut injustice to these people. And who promotes that concept? Conservatives! Do they know what their doing? Absolutely! And that is just about as bad as you can get without directly being called a racist. Their credibility to me just shoots downhill from there.

On the gay note, gays are people too and while I don't agree with the fact that they parade their sexuality while straight people do not, it is at least understandable why they do it. They are the minority that need to band together because of the homophobia in this country. And religion just promotes the tention between both sides. But again, who promotes that way of thinking? Conservatives!

Economic freedom to benefit the few, social opporession to benefit those same few

Info,

I hope my children never become as prejudiced and close minded as you appear in your writing. You write about fantasy while ignoring reality. Instead of truly looking for a solution to the root cause, you just mouth the liberal line. You say: "Believe me, there are a lot of things liberals support that I don't believe. But even when I don't, I understand why they do it and like the cause." Interesting choice of words as this translates into: The end justifies the means but only for liberal ideas"

You say: "When they try to tell a woman what she must do with her own body parts." So let's talk about abortion. Just like the man involved in the pregnancy, she chose what she wanted to do with her body and knew the consequences. If she decides to keep the baby then the man is responsible for his actions, no later choice for him. What if the man wanted to keep the child and the woman didn't, she gets to choose and the man has no say. This is blatant discrimination. The woman knew the consequences just like the man. They chose their actions. That is the root cause of the pregnancy so both should be held accountable for that choice and both should be responsible for choosing any actions involved after that point.

And what about children that are already alive? Does the woman have the choice because they are part of her body? Did you know that the majority of homicides committed against children are committed by the mother? Maybe because she feels that she determines life or death for them. Amazing how you will give more thought to animals than to a growing, living fetus.

Oh I see, it is only the (insert favorite liberal label here) that can abuse others rights. So if so many of these people are being imposed upon by government then why don't they change it? According to you, the majority of people in America want liberalism and socialism. Why don't they vote this belief and change the government? Oh, they don't understand how to do this unless the liberals tell them and we could get the conservatives to just stop talking common sense.

Please keep posting so everyone can see the "Real" liberal in words. (I would say action but there is very little substance) Keep reminding them of how the Clinton's were thinking only of helping the (insert favorite liberal label here) while stealing and lying. That's right, Hillary represents you in Congress. How does it feel to have a representative that belittles the effort by the people of NYC during and after 9-11? Oh, you don't agree with her but understand why she does it and like the cause.

TE-I agree that Info could have a future in politics but he sucks as a debater. He answers no tough questions, he'd rather not deal in fact but he has an endless supply of meaningless anecdotes, he likes to state things like "most people..." or "we give less than any other country..." or "polls say..." without citing any source for where he gets this data, he rarely asks a pertinent question, his ideas are rooted in fantasy, and he refuses to acknowledge when his points are factually rebuffed.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">they are generalizations that come from facts. But believe me, I use facts for formulate me beliefs. I just also choose to go by what I see as well since facts which can be spun in different directions to suit one's arguments.... Facts define what is legally poor in this country. What I see and experience is not what the facts say. Facts say poor is considered a household with an average of 3 TVs, 3 VCRs, a car, and a 150,000$ home. My experience of poor is nothing close. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You've fallen into the trap of hypocrisy. You're so far gone you cannot recognize your own contradictions. You say you make generalizations from fact, yet you never provide the fact to back it up, and when you do state a "fact", it's completely wrong and valueless. Your "fact" on what defines poor is completely bogus. Poverty is determined and defined only by income, not possessions. No where in government is poverty defined by anything else than your gross income. Your fact is actually just propaganda party line, a biased spin made by liberals as an attack against conservatives. Mirriam-Webster defines a fact as a piece of information presented as having objective reality. Objective. Nothing you have written was objective. If you want to say you're putting down facts, you MUST leave the liberal camp when you do it. Facts are truths, not subject to political leanings or spins.

"who goes to prison more on drug related offenses? Blacks and minorities. And its a clear cut injustice to these people" It is not injustice to send people to jail for committing crime. ITS A CRIME! And I bet you that the ratio of blacks to whites in jail for illegal drugs is pretty close to the ratio of blacks to whites who USE drugs. More of them commit crimes, more of them will go to jail. No white person made them do it. White people go to jail for it. No one forces them to commit the crime, but they deserve to go to jail for it. Did you know the FBI reports, factually, that the majority of violent crimes in the country are commited by blacks? And the majority of those are black on black crime? Tell me how that is caused by whites. Tell me how someone forces another person to commit crime. And you can't say it's caused by their situation, because I know to many lower class people who work hard and transcend their situation. Bottom line, the people choose to do the crimes, and they are rightfully forced to do the time. Hell, I think everyone who committs crimes should go to jail, I don't give a damn what color you are. The answer isn't to make it harder on some and easier on others, it's to make it harder on all, so crime won't be an option.

You claim to be open minded, but the only time you step away from the party line is when someone on this forum tells you they were insulted by something you said, you apologize, say you realize not all conservatives are that way, and you don't always agree with liberals, but then you automatically fall back into professing everything the liberals say as gospel and everything conservatives do are evil. I'm begging you for no more generalizations, no more spin, just put out verified, truthful facts. But you are so far in the liberal camp, I doubt you can see anything without a taint to it. And don't take it personal, I know conservatives just as far gone, and I have problems with them to. The first step to getting rid of a prejudice is to recognize it. I know I have prejudices, and but I realize it and fight against them everyday, and it is a struggle to open your eyes, but it is worth it.

And CtClaus, I don't doubt you're right about the riot, I haven't studied that, but I'm sure it's true. And I personally don't care what people do or believe, as long as they don't try to force conversion on me. And I'm glad your mother is proud of her lifestyle choice (I assume it had to be a conscious choice since she is a mother). But the point I was making was that without the actions of conservatives in WWII, there would've have even been known gay bars in 1969, they weren't even an underground community before WWII, there was no sense of community at all.

Hey, Marty, my latin is pretty rusty (and virtually self taught). What does your signature mean?

Discord-Finally someone asks! It has to do with Ockham's Razor - the principle pronounced by the English theologian and philosopher Willam of Ockham (circa 13th Century) that, other things beings equal, the simpler of two explanations is to be preferred. The Latin translates to: entities are not to be multiplied unnecessarily.

discord, wow, your statement about crime shows where you stand. You actually believe that the system is just fine and that it arrests and punishes people accordingly???

Let me show you a chain reaction of events that says otherwise. And lets use Enron as an example. The executives of that company swindle millions from their employees before the company crashed. That's just as illegal, if not more than selling illegal products on the street. Why? Marijuana never hurt anyone. Ask the employees of Enron if their hurt.

Now, here's why they (Enron execs) get better treatment and never go to jail. #1, their rich and defend themselves accordingly. #2, its all white collar crime which automatically lessens the crime when it should actually be the opposite. A poor black man cannot get these benefits not to mention the fact that his color helps in most cases determine guilt and punishment. Why? Blacks are punished more severely then whites. I don't have time to search and look for statistics online but they are there if you look for them objectively. How do I know? I've read them! Now call me a liar if you choose, its up to you.

So, it just so happens that most rich people are white (OJ is a rare occurrence). So if most rich people are white, it lets you know who's getting away with what. Is that a fair system? Doesn't it serve to help rich people who are inadvertently white anyhow? I don't know but I see clear signs that say so. Again, most conservative politicians support it or fail to see the injustice while liberal ones do not. So who creates most of the injustices in this country? I strongly feel that there are clear lines as to which party does.

That's only one scenario for injustice in this country. There are a list of issues that fall within the same pattern and I've mentioned them before and don't care to go into again.

But anyway, you call me close mined when you are too far gone to see this yourselves. Yet, you call yourselves objective? Stop reading reports that claim to be objective and live it and see it for yourself. Watch the news and see cases unfold. 12 year old black kids going to jail for life. Death row inmates who are almost all black. And what happened to our American taliban? White kid huh? Then Bush feels bad for the kid and says it on public TV. But hey, lets maintain that blacks commit most of the evil crimes in this country right? lol. I guess deviance in the upper income white communities just aren't that bad looking as the ones in the lower black communities.

Info -
And you said I was ignorant????? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

Matt

And you claimed to be in the middle? You're about as far to the left as one can get without falling off the cliff into INSANITY. But hey, you're almost there, you're clearly delusional.

Matt

InfoInventer- Damn son, you are out there. Before I address you putting words in my mouth, I think everyone except you will agree that is it liberals who are most ferociously defending Taliban Johnny. They are the ones saying he was misled, they are the ones calling for leniency. You're forgetting Bush has a record of approving the death sentence, for damn near everyone, and not just blacks, lots of whites get gassed in Texas.

Now, for your putting words in my mouth and reading me wrong. I never said the criminal justice system was perfect, and I never said it gets everyone. And you're right, the Enron folks deserve to be in jail, getting @$$raped right along side druggies, including potheads. MJ never hurt anyone? You ever been around potheads? I've seen people with incredible potential waste their lives away because they're addicted to getting high, I've seen potheads make mistakes on the job, skip their job and make others take up the slack. And if you can tell me you want a pothead jumping and fighting in a fox hole with you, you're either far braver or stupider than I am.

Now, I said more blacks commit VIOLENT crime. Backed up by FBI facts. It's been that way for about a decade. Before you denounce me, please reread my post. You must have missed the words VIOLENT CRIME. You're right, more white commit white collar crime. And more whites are serving lower sentences, and more blacks are on death row. BUT THERE IS A REASON. White collar crimes are lesser crimes, and deserve lesser punishment. People lose money, they get swindled or embezzled. Violent crimes, rape, murder, assault, armed robbery, things where people are physically hurt, traumatized or killed, those crimes deserve much harsher punishment. So you are right, more blacks are on death row, but that is because they commit more heinous, VIOLENT crime. And you're right, more whites commit white collar crime, BUT THERE ARE MORE WHITES IN JAIL FOR WHITE COLLAR CRIME. You can't only put half a fact out there, it isn't objective.

By the way, Mendez brothers: rich, went to jail. Jeffery Daumer: not poor, white, went to jail, now dead. I can find more rich folks who went to jail if you want me to.

Now, I want you to notice something. I have admitted all the instances where you were right. And all the ones where I think you are wrong, I support my argument. You, on the other hand, have never even considered anything I said might be true, and in fact read things in such a way that they get twisted in your head, simply because I do not agree with you on all counts. Every argument I give to one of your "facts" or arguments, you do not redress, you merely say I am wrong, and say the same thing you've already said. You address none of my new arguments. I am willing to and have been considering your points of view, which is why I admit some of your statements are true. That is open-mindedness.

You are one of those people I often meet who believe if you talk to an "open-minded" person, they will automatically agree with you. Just because the person you talk to is open-minded, it does not mean they will agree with everything you say, it just means they will listen to all of it, and considered all of it honestly and fairly. You do not even give me that much, you misread my posts, and jump to conclusions far different from what I actually said, you do not fairly and openly consider my views. You don't even give them a chance, not even consider "hey, he MIGHT be right." That is close minded. Go back and reread my post objectively, and if you are truly honest, you will see that I did not say what you seem to think I said. I never said the system was perfect, I merely said all criminals should be punished. And I have openly considered your views, I have given them a fair chance, some of your facts are true, but I still wholeheartedly disagree with you on most. Can you honestly say you've even given me a chance in your mind?

TE- what's the ETA on getting a spellchecker on the posting page??

Marty- I must say, excellent sig, always liked just saying "Ockham's Razor."

<<<You're forgetting Bush has a record of approving the death sentence, for damn near everyone, and not just blacks, lots of whites get gassed in Texas.>>> --- Find me a credible source that shows Bush applying the death penalty equally to both sides while he was governor of Texas.

<<<MJ never hurt anyone? You ever been around potheads? I've seen people with incredible potential waste their lives away because they're addicted to getting high, I've seen potheads make mistakes on the job, skip their job and make others take up the slack. And if you can tell me you want a pothead jumping and fighting in a fox hole with you, you're either far braver or stupider than I am.>>> --- I grew up n NYC. I think I know a thing or 2 about MJ. I suppose Alcohol abuse is different? Look for a credible source that shows how marijuana is worse health wise, is more addicting than alcohol, and harms more secondhand people with accidents and violent crime. Also find how what does more damage, casual marijuana use, or obesity.

<<<You're right, more white commit white collar crime. And more whites are serving lower sentences, and more blacks are on death row.>>> --- Don't compare it to rape and murder sentences. Compare it to the drug dealers on the street (who happen to be black). Who hurt more people and deserves a greater sentence? The white collar criminal or the street dealer? I believe the white collar criminal is the main foundation of the drug industry in this country and affects it on a much larger and more significant basis. Similar to the way we associate Bin Laden with terrorism although he does not actually commit the acts of terror physically. So find me a statistic that shows that white collar criminals get harsher sentences then your average street dealer.

<<<By the way, Mendez brothers: rich, went to jail. Jeffery Daumer: not poor, white, went to jail, now dead. I can find more rich folks who went to jail if you want me to.>>> --- You can only name major players that actually made the paper. What about your average unknown white collar criminals. Are they doing time proportionate to their lower scale counterpart, the young black street dealer?

<<<And all the ones where I think you are wrong, I support my argument>>> --- where are your facts and sources?

<<<You address none of my new arguments>>> --- I'm doing so now piece by piece.

<<<I am willing to and have been considering your points of view, which is why I admit some of your statements are true. That is open-mindedness.>>> --- Well, I have noticed that as well. As far as the other hard liners, try getting them to do the same. As far as me considering your points, come up with counter arguments to my current breakdown first and I'll let you know if you pointed out some good views.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by InfoSeeker:
<strong><<<You're forgetting Bush has a record of approving the death sentence, for damn near everyone, and not just blacks, lots of whites get gassed in Texas.>>> --- Find me a credible source that shows Bush applying the death penalty equally to both sides while he was governor of Texas.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmmm, I wasn't aware that the Governor had any say in the matter of whether a person is put on death row or not. Except in the case of pardons... Speaking of which, who remembers Bill Clinton's last minute free-for-all? That was a great example of the "fairness" and "willingness to look out for the poor" of the left.

Matt

I think the governor has the final say in the matter but I can be wrong. Either way, whether its Bush or not, the question still holds true. I wasn't asking it to bash Bush. The question is, was it applied fairly in Texas? And the sad thing is, if we make a mistake, we can't go back and undo it. And the class that suffers most from these mistakes are generally poor whites and minorities.

Your right, I don't agree with the Clinton last minute free-for-all. However, it is not limited to Clinton alone. So this injustice runs along all areas of politics. Just another reason why campaign finance reform is so important.

"So this injustice runs along all areas of politics" BINGO! That is what everyone has been trying to get you to see. Politicians on both sides are after one thing, staying in business, and that means staying in power, and few of them do it completely honestly and virtuously. No one has been trying to say conservatives are always right, but you have to understand that you come off sounding like you think no liberal can do any wrong. I know you are just sticking to your personal belief, but you sound like you believe all liberals are automatically right.

And remember, equality with the death sentence doesn't mean for every one black that gets it, there is one white, it just means that everyone regardless of color, gets the same sentence for the same crime. So if 7 blacks get gassed for murder one, say, and 4 whites get gassed for murder one, and there where only 11 murder one convictions, you have equality with the death sentence, because everyone fairly gets the same punishment. The governor, or anyone, has nor bearing on who actually commits the crime.

Info, sorry I haven't answered your whole previous post, I had a whole long one written out, that took me the better part of an hour, but I dorked up and deleted it before I could send it, and am in a bit of a time crunch, and don't have time budgeted to retype it all. I will address the rest of the stuff later if you want.

I am glad you answered my last the way you did, not to sound patronizing, but it shows improvement and mature debating skills. All I was asking for. Though I would have gotten warm fuzzies if you could have just said "you're right, rich white folk do go to jail too." But I think it might hurt for you to say I'm right even once....