Discord-You must be doing something right, Info just ignored all the points I made in my posts and never answered a single question I asked.

Info-I'm so glad you always just say Ockham's Razor, that's very informative. Kind of Al Gore-ish "I knew that too!" Good for you!!

Info-Just a few more facts, here's what you said:
"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."

The fact is that more blacks are on death row in the US but more whites are executed than blacks. Another fact is that there is not a single shred of evidence to indicate that an innocent person has been executed in this country in the past 40 years (which was as far back as the study went), even Alan Dershowitz admitted to this fact in a recent death penalty debate.

Discord,
If you was trying to convince me that politicians on both sides of the coin are sneaky and self interested, well then, you were preaching to the convinced. However, when you choose a career in politics, you choose a path of two evils. And either way you go, the mighty dollar will follow. So then what makes one choose a certain path? That to me is where the difference lies. Yes, they're both evil. But one side is a little bit more evil than the other. That's all I'm trying to say.

The majority of Americans are working class people. And liberals and democrats represent that group best while republicans represent big business and the wealthy class which is actually the minority in this country. However, its a minority with a whole lot of power.

Marty,
Don't put a lot of faith on that study. If someone is found guilty, it doesn't mean that there was proof beyond a shadow of a doubt although the law will claim that that is what it seeks. So just like its impossible at times to prove guilt, just can be just as hard to prove innocence.

ex#1: If you don't catch any fish, does that mean that there are no fish in the lake?

ex#2: Is the bible true simply because it hasn't been proven false?

Whoa, in a few cases the Bible has been proven false, but that's a whole other discussion, lets not go there.

And if you don't catch any fish, then it very well could be because there are no fish in it. The difference is if only one person on the lake catches nothing, or if hundreds of people on the lake catch nothing. Marty's study wasn't soemthing researched by just one person with one view, it's from all the states with death penalties, all the different courts, with people with different views, over four decades. And all of those people from all of those demographics, places and times, were convinced, that the death penalty was deserved. You have to admit that is a pretty good and diverse spread, and a more trustworthy statistic than any poll taken by any news or gallop, which are politically biased.

"Yes, they're both evil. But one side is a little bit more evil than the other. That's all I'm trying to say." That's the problem people are having with you in this forum, you are swearing up and down YOUR side is better, when everywhere around people have evidence of doing things just as stupid and bad and flat out illegal as any conservatives, who you swear are always more evil than liberals. I'm just trying to get you to realize you need to take it case by case, and not automatically declare one is better, simply because it is your side. You're just to far on one side of the spectrum, and people see no objectivity, and you lose credibility in people eyes. This is not an attack on you or anything, I'm just trying to get it through how you are coming off to folks. If you stop making the claims that liberals are obviously the best path and always a step ahead, and always the lesser of two evils, which are at least slightly extreme statements, people will be more willing to listen to what you have to say. But when you automatically declare your side right and their side wrong, they shut you out as a brainwashed extremist. Hell, the only reason I got involved and didn't ignore you is because I like challenging arguments and fights.

"The majority of Americans are working class people. And liberals and democrats represent that group best while republicans represent big business and the wealthy class which is actually the minority in this country. However, its a minority with a whole lot of power." let me tell you something real quick. My folks, and myself, and damn near all my friends, are working, middleclass, and a few lowerclass. And they are overwhelmingly conservative and vote for republicans, because they do better by us. My folks could have moved to a better home, and my dad would have moved to a better, higher paying job, but my mom wouldn't have found work at the new place, and they would have made less money. (Why couldn't she find a job? Because democrat, liberal changes made to her career field greatly reduced the opportunities for the middle class workers in that field). So far, liberalism has not supported or helped us middle class folks. Ever been to Berkley? Hugely liberal, and very, very rich. Rich actors and celebrities, mostly liberal. And rich people are just middle or lower class people who worked their way up. Everyone, or at least everyone's family, started out without money. If people are rich, and have power, it's because they worked for it, and good for them. If people who aren't rich and have power are complaining, the answer isn't to bring down those folks who earned their power, and were smart enough to do what they had to to stay rich and in power. The answer is for the complainers to stop complaining and work hard and gain their own place in life.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Info-I'm so glad you always just say Ockham's Razor, that's very informative. Kind of Al Gore-ish "I knew that too!" Good for you!!
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ummm, Marty that was me.... I did actually know Ockham's Razor, and what it means. I was just stating that it's fun to say, kind of like "pejorative", and "antidisestablishmentarianism." (I think that is actually the longest english word too....)

My apologies to both Discord and Info!

Info-you don't put any faith into anything I write but you never come back with any proof of your own. "Oh, ye of little faith..."

I think we should have a new standard for convicting criminals (in honor of Info and the excellent education he is providing all of us dimwitted conservatives)-let's just ask them if they are, in fact, guilty. That way we can let everyone out of jail right now because you know they're all innocent.

Discord
<<<That's the problem people are having with you in this forum, you are swearing up and down YOUR side is better, when everywhere around people have evidence of doing things just as stupid and bad and flat out illegal as any conservatives, who you swear are always more evil than liberals.>>> --- We have a miss communication. I'm not talking about the liberal politicians being better. I'm talking about the liberal ideals.

<<<Why couldn't she find a job? Because democrat, liberal changes made to her career field greatly reduced the opportunities for the middle class workers in that field>>> --- Being a liberal is about social freedom which inadvertently oppresses the poor (abortion, death penalty, drugs, etc.). Your confusing it with economic policy which is a democratic/republican political issue.

Info- I'm afraid you have a different view than damn near everyone else. Liberalism and conservatism ARE political things. They are not seperate. The policies that gave problems to my mom were ones made by democrats, following their liberal beliefs. You're right, a person who is a liberal might not be employed as a politician, but their political views will be liberal ones. Liberal ideas influence the liberal democrats who made the decisions. Cause and effect.

"We have a miss communication. I'm not talking about the liberal politicians being better. I'm talking about the liberal ideals" Again, you say 'you're right the politicians aren't better, but liberalism itself is always better.' Even with politicians aside, and people who might be liberals aside, you cannot make it an absolute that liberal ideas always better. There are too many differences in the world, too many grey areas and differing circumstances for any one set of ideas or ideals to be perfect for all of them. I'm sorry, but whether you're talking about the politicians, the nonpolitically employed believers, or simply the ideals, it's folly to assume one side or the other, has the perfect solution to every problem. I understand you are not just talking about politicians, you're talking about the great Aura of liberalism, but it is not black and white, like you seem to think. It is not perfect for everything. In fact, the way voting looks like it's gonna go this year, the majority of folks (who go to the booths at least), feel that it is less perfect than conservativism. I say we just end this now and see how the votes go this year. Conservative ideals lead people to vote republican, liberal ideals lead people to vote democrat. We'll see who wins...

And if you stick to your ideals, hell, good on ya son. I'll respect it, even fight and die to defend your right to believe it, but I ain't gonna agree with you, you are just too absolute and black and white. In fact that is my main problem with liberalism, it is not realist enough for me.

Oh, btw, you do seem to be ignoring my new friend Marty, it is a bit rude. You and me started off just as snappy at each other, and look how civilized our discussion has gotten.

Discord-You have to go back and read through some of the past pages (I think we started back and forth on page two) to see why Info ignores me. Basically it's because I know too much about issues and I don't "feel" enough about them. He also doesn't like the fact that I back my ideas up with facts and sources for those facts. In his world view there are no true facts, only different spins on the facts. Although he acknowledges that the biggest problem that faces America is the ignorance of its citizens he has told me that I "read too much."

He cracks me up!

I have, "perused" the back pages, but I really don't have thhe inclination to read all of them. 9 pages now! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

But sometimes he has a point or too, he just needs to realize, that if you act solely by your ideals in all situations, eventually you will wrong people, and you have no right to say you no better for them than they do. Adaptation for different people and problems is the key, and his slight fanatacism and unswerving belief in all things liberal leaves no room adaptation.

Damn, lets just see how the voting goes this year, and we'll see which side is favored more by the people who care enough to get out and vote. People who don't care enough to vote, I ignore if they complain, because they wasted their chance to change things. Me, Marty, Info, CtCluas, anyone, no matter how much we talk about it, voting is the only choice we have to change things we disagree with. And that's as it should be.

Discord,
<<<Info- I'm afraid you have a different view than damn near everyone else. Liberalism and conservatism ARE political things.>>> --- Liberalism is a set of beliefs that anyone can have; beliefs that attempt to answer what is "just" in the world. Politicians formulate political actions through it. So although it is connected, in general terms, being liberal is not political as it is not a party.

So why is this important? Because then you can think of the true reasoning for these ideals without looking at the politicians that tend to represent those ideals; politicians that most on the opposite side don't like. And because they don't like them, they close themselves from researching the true reasoning for their root beliefs.

Marty,
I'm not ignoring you on purpose. We went at it in the beginning and at some point we have to just agree to disagree. But when other people come on and share new opinions, then I feel a response is warranted. But don't worry, I'll attempt to break down your responses whenever I can. I just don't have a lot of time some days. I also don't have time to search for sources on the net like you might. I get mine mostly from multiple television news reports which cannot be documented here.

<<<In his world view there are no true facts, only different spins on the facts. Although he acknowledges that the biggest problem that faces America is the ignorance of its citizens he has told me that I "read too much.">>> --- You just said it best. However, its not so much that you read too much. Reading is the first step to aquiring knowledge. The problem then becomes, either your reading from extremely bias sources or your just interpiting facts very subjectively.

ex: some of the most ignorant people (many elderly people) I know have lived twice as long as I have and have read and experienced much more then most including myself.

discord,
Your right on that last part. And that is why I believe so strongly in campaign finance reform. With a more even playing field for candidates, everyone can earn their place in office based more on their beliefs and effort rather than their finances. The civilian market should have no place in the election of out leaders because then our leaders answer to them. With the reform in place, no matter what direction we go, whether its left or right, at least "WE" the people would have chosen it fairly for ourselves.

"So although it is connected, in general terms, being liberal is not political as it is not a party."
Something doesn't have to be a party to be political. George Washington was a politician, before there were parties, and he actually warned against forming parties. Sorry bub, but liberalism is political. Economics are political. Hell, if you ever join the military, you'll see it's political (unfortunate, but true). Being a party is not the definition of political. I belong to know party, yet I have political views. They are neither democrat, republican, or independent. I avoid labels. But under your reasoning, that means my views aren't political.

"Liberalism is a set of beliefs that anyone can have; beliefs that attempt to answer what is "just" in the world. So why is this important? Because then you can think of the true reasoning for these ideals without looking at the politicians that tend to represent those ideals; politicians that most on the opposite side don't like. And because they don't like them, they close themselves from researching the true reasoning for their root beliefs." Exact same thing can be said by any believer of any set of ideals, and it would be just as true for them You simply won't agree, because they aren't your set of beliefs. It's okay, EVERYONE is prejudice, it's human nature.

And you better be careful about telling people their sources are biased. You admit most of your info comes from TV and news shows, which is never objective, and is almost always biased, towards liberalism. TV is heavily biased, if you want to have credibility as having studied unbiasedly, watch the shows, read papers from all over, and force your self to read, openly, sources biased the other way. If you only go off of tv news shows, you are only exposing your self to views tailor made for your prejudice.

And not to sound patronizing, but other folks have been right, you are still in school, and they tend to be hugely liberally biased also. You don't have much chance to see the other side or get balanced opinions. Fortunately, I went to a military academy, which is more diverse than any other college I've ever been to, and got an early start. I really think you will tone down a bit once you get out of such a sheltered, closed-in one-sided environment.

And sorry, i think it's rather arrogant of you, still in school, to tell Marty, who is obviously older and more accomplished, the steps to acquiring knowledge, when you are still learning those steps, and admit to acquiring most of your data from the boob tube. For all you know, those older "ignorant" knew more than you have even learned how to know, and merely let you go on being a disillusioned, unexperienced, well, child. Just because they didn't agree with your views, or offer argument, didn't mean they were ignorant or slow, maybe they just didn't think a student who hasn't been around wasn't worth their time. Not trying to insult you, but like I said, you are still in a "learning" institution, you don't know everything yet. Hell know one does, but you are the only one making claims to know what is right for all occasions, and you are the youngest, least accomplished (as far as I can tell from profiles) person in this discussion. I think once you get around to more diverse situations, you'll realize there is no right answer. It just don't exist son.

And I am a little rusty on this, but wasn't campaign finance reform first made really big in the public eye by conservatives, after Clinton was bought by the chi-coms (chinese for those not in the know), and Algore did something with the White House phones and raised some funds illegally? and didn't Janet Reno, a known liberal, play it all down and get the liberals (yes, their party was democrat, but they all professed to being liberals too), involved out of a lot of hot water?

Campaign finance reform was started by democratic senator Russ Finegold and republican senator John MCcain. However, its a democratic supported bill. Republicans and conservatives (like your friend Marty) hate the idea of campaign finance reform. I guess he likes our government to work for corporate America rather than for the people.

Lets also remember that republicans raise much more money than democrats do so its in their interest to stop the bill from being passed. The only reason why it went through was because the people demanded it and their representatives knew that if they went against it, they'd have a lot to answer for come next election.

<<<And you better be careful about telling people their sources are biased. You admit most of your info comes from TV and news shows, which is never objective, and is almost always biased, towards liberalism.>>> --- My friend, everyone is bias. Newspapers are bias, TV is bias, studies are bias, facts are bias. There comes a point where you have to take multiple sources and put them together to create something we call "common knowledge." Get enough information together and eventually, you can get enough circumstantial evidence to know where the truth might be.

<<<And not to sound patronizing, but other folks have been right, you are still in school, and they tend to be hugely liberally biased also.>>> --- I Finished college. And please don't assume my beliefs came from a liberal education. The fact that those who aquire knowledge and teach are liberal should tell you something but nevertheless, By assuming I'm preaching from someone else's teachings not only belittles my intelligence, but also seems to be your safe haven to discrediting my points without any real counter argument.

<<<And sorry, I think it's rather arrogant of you, still in school, to tell Marty, who is obviously older and more accomplished, the steps to acquiring knowledge, when you are still learning those steps, and admit to acquiring most of your data from the boob tube.>>> --- again, your assuming I am a student and now your assuming I'm not accomplished. But let me say this. No one is here trying to tell anyone what is definitively right or wrong. We have beliefs, we share them, we debate them, and we end it. But to assume I am claiming to know what is right and wrong (as if I was God) is idiotic and clearly not what this debate is about. Consider the fact that I can say the same thing in reverse about you as well. So lets be mature here and go back to the interesting debate. Last thing I want to do is start fire here considering we been giving the privilage of even having this debate. Maybe in the end, we all will have learned a thing or two.

I apologize for saying you were a student, but I did say that that was as far as I could tell from the profiles. Can I request you update your profile? I think that addresses about half of your last post. Apologies, I was just going off your profile, which says "Student." And as to "The fact that those who aquire knowledge and teach are liberal should tell you something". Those who can, do, those who can't teach. The teachers tend to be just as isolated and sheltered in learning institutions as the students.

And I'm not saying you think you're god, but I am trying to say you come off SOUNDing like you think your belief, liberalism, is the right answer for everything. I can go back in your posts and find several quotes to the effect of Liberals and democrats are the best representavies for a whole group of people, or liberalism is the best course of action, or liberals have always been one step ahead on everything, and eventually, the nation will realize and everyone will become liberal, because it is the best and right answer. You have repeated that belief several times, and it SEEMS like you truly believe liberalism can answer all problems. I am not saying this is true, but all people have to go off here is how your words come across, and sorry, but you come across sounding like you think liberalism is the answer to everything. I am not trying to attack you personally, but I can only go off what you type. If you want me to give examples, please let me know, and I will post all the quotes from your posts that led me to this...

About the TV thing, you are absolutely right, everything is biased, that is why I said expose yourself to everything, even things biased against your personal views. Again, I'm just going off what you typed "I get mine mostly from multiple television news reports which cannot be documented here." You stated yourself you do not get your info from heavily varied sources and differently biased sources, you get it MOSTLY from one medium, which is almost exclusively (Fox news is changing that) and traditionally liberally biased. TV is one source, that you get your info MOSTLY from. This does not show the variety you were just preaching.

As for the campaign stuff, again, I never said I thought the system was perfect, but I do think if someone is better at making money, they should not be penalized. You seem to differ on that. And I don't like politicians controlled by companies (unless they are must keep companies in their state/district alive in order for their constituents to keep and have jobs). But I would rather a politician be paid for by an American corporation, than have THE PRESIDENT BOUGHT BY LEADERS OF A COMMUNIST NATION!!!!!

Disclaimer: No personal insults were intended by this post, all comments on one's beliefs are based merely of the perception of one's typed words. There is no tone of voice or inflection, so people posting must brave the understated risk that people are going to go off of how a post sounds, and cannot read minds to understand what the true, hidden meaning is. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Nevermind, I see your profile has been updated. A journalist... hmmm....

Okay Info-First we'll take this---"However, its a democratic supported bill. Republicans and conservatives (like your friend Marty) hate the idea of campaign finance reform. I guess he likes our government to work for corporate America rather than for the people."

Please explain to me how not allowing an ad to use the name of a candidate 60 days before an election helps anyone? If I told you right now you can't run an ad that says anything good about Al Gore you would say--that's limiting my free speech. Exactly!
I hate the thought of Congress amending the Constitution with a simple majority vote-and so should you!
This bill is as idiotic as it is ridiculous-not one less dime of money (be it corporate, union, or PAC) will roll into DC-I guarantee you that. This bill simply empowers the media and helps the incumbents. That's all it does.

Next Info-please tell me what a special interest is? And why are they evil?

Marty,
Lobbyist are very powerful. Advertisements are very powerful, especially when they are one sided. Imagine the people knowing every "twisted" fact about one candidate and then knowing little of another because he doesn't have the finances to get himself out there in the spotlight (ex: Ralph Nader). No one will take him seriously.

ex: imagine in a court trial, the prosecutor gets to say everything while defense counsel stays shut. What will most likely happen? I bet conviction!

Average people don't have the money to finance any politician, corporations do. So now, money is the biggest factor in getting elected. And there are even times, although rare, that a democrat will have more finances than a republican (John Corzine of NJ). So what did his rival do? Scream out unfairness because he didn't have the money to put up 100s of ads a day. Corzine spent more money than any politician in history. And guess what, he won. And some called that unfair as well.

But the ads, the lobbyist, the influences in the campaign is not even the major problem. Now they owe the corporations bigtime for their effort to get them elected. Now that means that with any public policy or action, the corporations will be in mind, not because they are important to the benefit of our country, but because they put money in his pocket.

ex: Bush will always preach about drilling in Alaska instead of aggressively pressing for the initiative for seeking new alternative environmentally friendly sources. Who will that benefit? Oil of course! See, oil will run out eventually! Do you see him addressing that concern? Nope. Why did he go against the Kyoto treaty? Because its in the best interest of corporations to not have to regulate their pollution. When scientist talk about global warming being a major problem, why do you think Bush will say "global warming is a myth?" The list can go on. I want my politicians to be for the us the PEOPLE, not the corporations. That goes for both democrats and republicans.

YO! Ecology Police! Problems here. Kyoto, not a true "treaty", and damn near no one signed it, I think only two countries even put anything like an agreement down on paper. It was a joke. The US is less polluted than almost every other country in the world, and our antipollution standards are among the highest. In Russia, the amount of land never again inhabitable due to pollution is equal to the size of Montana. The land not inhabitable for the next 200 years is equal to ALASKA! Children are constantly born with no left hands in parts of Moscow. Our pollution probelm is really not that big.
Global wraming and the ocean levels rising? The levels of the oceans have risen at a steady rate for more than two hundred years, before the industrial revolution, which means factories and pollution didn't cause it, and actually hasn't changed it either way. Off shore oil fields have been found that are as large or larger than any in the Middle East, and they are completely untapped. We aren't running out of oil that soon. Not saying smog and all isn't bad, but it is not as bad as some people make it out to be.

As for buying politicians, people vote for who they agree with, not who has the most commercials. Unless you are a brainless sheep, people putting out more commercials that say something you don't agree with just make you change the channel and make sur eyou don't help that person get elected. Bush was contributed to by Enron, and all the liberals swore up and down that he was gonna bail them out of the scandal, and yet he has had nothing to do with, he left them high and dry, because that's what the voters would have wanted. Oh, and I know plenty of normal, AVERAGE folks who contribute to the politicians they agree with, it is not a exclusive thing for rich folks to do.

AND NADER! Nader and his whole family are rich. How do I know? I went to school with his rich bitch little nephew, who always had the latest, most expensive trendy crap. And he was a bitch, I got in a fight with him twice (this was in high school, I know, a little immature, but he deserved it), and gave him eight stitches. Nader had lots of publicity this last presidential election, I heard about him everyday, the reason no one listened to him, is BECAUSE HE'S AN IDIOT! In my own opinion, that is.

I always thought most lobbyist were liberal with liberal agendas. It's gotta be at least half....

Info-you didn't answer the question. How does it help to not name the candidate in an add 60 days before an election?

Nor did you answer as to what defines a special interest. Yes, lobbyists serve a special interest. I know this but I want YOU to tell me what YOU consider a special interest.

Will drilling for oil help oil companies-sure it will. Will it also help America-sure it will. Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to depend on the most unstable region in the world for the energy upon which our nation depends. As to alternative sources--when they are economical and there is a market for them the energy companies will supply them.

Info,

I already addressed CFR with a suggestion that meets your standard of fairness. CFR allows more money to be collected (1,000 now 2,000) per person while stopping ads from being run 2 MONTHS before an election.

A much simpler method would be to determine an amount based on the population. X amount for presidential election based on the US population, X amount for Senators based on the population to be represented, X amount for Representatives based on the population they represent. Then it doesn't matter if they get the funds from 1 or 1 million contributors and all funds donated must be accounted for and reported.

On the subject of ads. I would make all ads, from any source be approved by the candidate personally. Whether it is positive for the candidate or negative against the opponent. These ads are also part of the reporting system on use of campaign finances.

This simple process brings personal responsibility to campaigns. The candidate is responsible for the source of funds and the use of funds during the campaign run. Now you can tell if your candidate is receiving money from big business, communists, etc.

So tell me Info, doesn't this meet your often touted sense of fairness and a just solution to CFR instead of the illegal constitutional amendment just passed?

More for Info (soon to be known as the Lone Liberal)---You said "I get mine mostly from multiple television news reports which cannot be documented here."

And then you said--"The problem then becomes, either your reading from extremely bias sources or your just interpiting facts very subjectively"

So my sources MUST be extremely biased (even though I post what they are) and YOUR sources MUST be totally neutral and factual-how nice for you! If you get your news on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS...there are ALL BIASED! I get my facts from multiple sources TV, Radio, newspapers, magazines, and some websites. Now who's getting better info-me or you?

GLOBAL WARMING? For every scientist you can get that supports this theory I can find two that don't!

Here's just one for you:

According to Dr. Kenneth Green, environmental director of the Reason Public Policy Institute:

"Our ability really to know what the climate is doing is limited by a short observational record and by the uncertainties involved in trying to figure out what the climate was like in the past or might be like in the future, for comparison with recent climate changes. While the Earth's climate has been evolving and changing for over four
billion years, recordings of the temperature only cover about 150 years &#8230; In fact, temperature records are spotty before the 1950s and only cover a tiny portion of the globe mostly over land."

Marty,
<<<How does it help to not name the candidate in an ad 60 days before an election?>>> --- I never said that this specifically will help. I don't know what the reform entails, I only know that campaign reform needs to be made. But many times a bill does seems really odd and unfair. Howver, that is because it is all they can get in a compromise. Basically, sometimes a middle ground seems very odd.

For ex: The band on rifle collapsible stocks, barrel lengths, and hi capacity magazines. Naturally, those bands don't stop anything. How does it help to have 10 shots in your 9mm pistol verse 15? It just forces people to carry more magazines if they want more rounds. Either that or they can just stock up on hi caps made before the band in 94. But considering that the laws that work will never get through congress, they have to take what they can get. Thus, odd laws that make little sense. Sensible gun laws would allow thorough background checks, licenses similar to the way we obtain a license to drive a car, closing loopholes at gun shows, and maybe even making it mandatory to take a gun safety and yearly shooting qualification course. We do it with cars! No reason why we can't do it with guns. Plus, it doesn't infringe on the first amendment because you will be allowed to have a gun. A law like what I mentioned just allows us to do it more responsibly. Same with driving a car. But of course, the "right" will never allow those sensible laws to be passed because the NRA is in their pocket.

Same with democrats as well. Al Gore kept saying during the campaign that we needed more teachers and more recognition for their hard work (teachers union in pocket). But no where did I hear anything about teacher testing so we can have qualified teachers in the classroom. Also, incompetent teachers should be fired on the spot without the lengthy bureaucracy that will only serve to hurt children! I didn't hear him support that either. It again just shows how important it is to take the money out of politics. It will fix just about all the problems we have. And for the problems it doesn't fix, at least we choose it.

<<<As to alternative sources-when they are economical and there is a market for them the energy companies will supply them.>>> --- You don't think its important enough to start creating a huge initiative for these companies to convert instead of promoting more digging for oil that will eventually run out and reek havoc on our environment?

<<<I get my facts from multiple sources TV, Radio, newspapers, magazines, and some websites. Now who's getting better info-me or you?>>> --- I get them from the same places. What is your point? Are you trying to childishly prove that you know more then me?

Info- This may seem childish, but it has been really bothering me during all your posts, as much as I try to ignore it. I always double check my posts before sending them, and try really hard to make sure things are spelled right and all, could you please start doing the same? I hope your journalistic forays are better proof read.

It's a BAN, not a band, you INTERPRET, not interprit. And the FIRST admendment has nothing to do with bearing arms. It's the SECOND. Before you make any statements about our political system, and what is constitutional, or smart for the country, you had better become more familiar with our founding, principal, and (to military members at least) most sacred document.

Again, not a personal attack, I know I've have a couple mistypes, but I try really hard to prevent them, to the point of cutting and pasting to word just to spell check. But you have several in almost every post, and for all I know, things you typed might not be what you meant to type, and it might just be the reason for most of our miscommunications.... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" />

SORRY TO ALL for swerving off topic, it's just been eating at me. Oh, and I'm just getting a friend stationed at Ramstein to buy and send me some hi-cap rounds for my H&K USP .40. You guys oughta see it, it's such a gorgeous weapon....

And compromise might not always come out with a perfect solution (since there are none), but it is the best way to come up with workable solutions for such a diverse group of people like a heterogenous nation, as large as our own....

I apologize for the error. I don't have much time to make my post completely correct without error but I will try the copy/pasting thing you mentioned. But do have some common sense to know what I mean as it is not that hard to decipher when simple errors occur; whether it is a spelling, or if I say first amendment when I clearly meant second.

Okay Info--here I will address a HUGE problem you have in your posts.

This is what you said in an earlier post'"I get mine mostly from multiple television news reports which cannot be documented here."===That's an exact quote.

Then you post this:
(This is quoted from my post)I get my facts from multiple sources TV, Radio, newspapers, magazines, and some websites. Now who's getting better info-me or you?
(Then you say this) --- "I get them from the same places. What is your point? Are you trying to childishly prove that you know more then me?"

So which is true? You get them from multiple TV news reports that you can't document, or you get them from the same sources I do (which somehow I seem to document, time and again, and you never do) and you simply choose not to name them whenever you post something from them.

See in your mind your upright and honest and factual. But in your posts you are none of these things. You say I'm childish for saying where I get my info (as if mentioning where I get it makes it better) and then you say you get it from the same places, even though your previous statement totally belies that.

Does anyone else see this as being a bit odd?

Info-Another HUGE flaw you have is that you have no idea what you are talking about!!

Case in point: You say "Plus, it doesn't infringe on the first amendment because you will be allowed to have a gun. A law like what I mentioned just allows us to do it more responsibly. Same with driving a car. But of course, the "right" will never allow those sensible laws to be passed because the NRA is in their pocket."

The right to keep and bear arms is in the 2nd Amendment (yes I saw you correct that earlier--thus proving that I actually read your posts--would that you could say the same for mine!). It has absolutely nothing to do with driving cars--which is a privilege(--NOT A RIGHT--)that is regulated by each state. The comparison is insane and you are so constitutionally ignorant that you can't see that. Have you EVER read the Constitution?

2nd Case in Point;"It again just shows how important it is to take the money out of politics. It will fix just about all the problems we have. And for the problems it doesn't fix, at least we choose it."

You will never take the money out of politics! Be it Union money or corporate money or individual money--money buys you access, and it should! Doesn't it make sense that the head of the teachers union can pick up the phone and talk to a member of the cabinet? There's no reason that I should be able to have the same access is there? You are so clueless as to how things really work that you let your idealism guide your tought process.

I bet you think we should just have publicly funded campaigns--that would fix everything right?? Well Info--take a few minutes and think about how this might work-then get back to me.

Lastly-you'll notice that in almost all of my posts I pose questions to you. I don't accuse you of childish games or anything else. All I ask is that you answer my questions, when you do I will begin to answer yours. Fair enough?

Info-As to whether I know more than you--I'll let the readers decide that.

<<<It has absolutely nothing to do with driving cars--which is a privilege--NOT A RIGHT--that is regulated by each state. The comparison is insane and you are so constitutionally ignorant that you can't see that.>>> --- Driving is a right protected by the constitution. Its called FREEDOM! And even our freedom to driving is regulated to promote safety. The right to bare arms should be held to the same standard. I believe it should be regulated at the highest level because of its danger. Not regulated with silly laws that don't accomplish anything. I mean real laws that serve a real purpose and are proven to work to promote safety, while still allowing individuals to have personal security.

Another note: As the second amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia", being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Focus on the first 4 words I placed in quotes. The constitution does not uphold the rights of average people to bare arms. It upholds the rights of its people to form militias for the purpose of defense. I believe that is why we have a military.
------------------------------------------------------------
<<<You will never take the money out of politics! Be it Union money or corporate money or individual money--money buys you access, and it should!>>> --- Money buys voices for only the few who have enough to give, disenfranchising the rest who don't. Its pretty simple to understand. It does not represent the needs of the "PEOPLE." Isn't that what democracy was about, everyone having a voice? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

<<<I bet you think we should just have publicly funded campaigns--that would fix everything right?? Well Info--take a few minutes and think about how this might work-then get back to me.>>> --- There are so many ways to do this. How about this one...Corporations can, by law, fund campaigns but have to donate to a blind fund that goes directly to the party or candidate. How will this help? Because the candidate will have no idea who donated money and how much, therefore, they cannot solely represent that particular group disenfranchising the rest of his constituency.

<<<Info-As to whether I know more than you--I'll let the readers decide that.>>> --- To each his own. I never say I know more or less than anyone nor do I care to compete with you on who knows more. I share my opinion like everyone else. And that and a buck 50 will get me a cup of coffee.

Info - "A well regulated Militia" - as in, not an anarchy formation. NOT the Military. It's totally different. And no - confusing ammendments to the constitution are not acceptable. Actually, it offends me that you take it so nonchalantley that you confuse the first with the second.

"The constitution does not uphold the rights of average people to bare arms. " -- UHHH! Read the second part.. Where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "... there's your average people right there.

SHOW OF HANDS (use thunbs up/down or something) ON WHO HAS READ THE CONSTITUTION! And I mean honestly...

Info, being a history major from a military academy. I've studied constitutional history more than most (due to the fact we swear to it and nothing else). First, we have a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, we are not set up for every citizen to have an audible voice. Their way to speak out is through who they elect, not with their own voice. Can you imagine every one of us having to vote on every bill and every decision? Chaotic, to say the least. We were never meant to be a pure democracy. The people getting money from corporations, lobbies, whatever (both liberals and conservatives), are there because people voted and wanted them there.

And "Money buys voices for only the few who have enough to give, disenfranchising the rest who don't. Its pretty simple to understand. It does not represent the needs of the "PEOPLE."" The founding father's actually only wanted the successful and well to do to vote and decide things for the nation. They felt poor dumb farmers and non-land owners weren't bright enough to make things better for themselves, how could they be smart enough to make things better for a nation. The founding fathers were rich landowners, and they wanted rich landowners, who proved smart enough to succeed, to make the choices. I know this destroys some of the Aura around our founding fathers, but I can run right downstairs, open my big ol trunk of history books and perfectly document it for from quite a few different books.

I have read the Constitution. I will continue to debate about it, I say if you can't honestly say you've read it, you should show some discipline and SHUT IT till you know what you are talking about.

This is not directed towards anyone in particular, I just get pissed at all the people who bitch about their rights and the problems with this country, when less than 5% of the country has read the Constitution, 10% think "The Nation Anthem" is actually the name of the song, and 16% think Abe Lincoln was the first president.

Info-The fact that you think you have the RIGHT to drive is scary.

Discord and I are together on this-if you don't know anything about, or have never read the Constitution (and have a good fundemental understanding of both the Federalist and non-Federalist arguments that surrounded it's writing) you should just admit it or keep quiet about it.

Discord-Don't you think they were on to something with the idea that only educated wealthy folks would get to vote? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

The 2nd Amendment was written due to the fact that the founders were extremely sensitive to the idea that the government would revert to tyranny.
So let's educate Info some more with words right from the lips of the framers:

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in
importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
American people's liberty teeth and keystone
under independence."

Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can
preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned
from time to time, that this people preserve the
spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The
tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is
essential that the whole body of the people always
possess arms and be taught alike, especially when
young, how to use them."

Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 28): "If the
representatives of the people betray their
constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government." And in Federalist No. 46, Hamilton said, "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

James Madison (Federalist, No. 46): Predicted that encroachments by the federal government would provoke "plans of resistance" and an "appeal to a trial of force."

Tench Coxe: "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize ... the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Liberals try to obfuscate the clear language of the Framers by saying the Second Amendment applies only to regulated militias, of course, regulated by government. George Mason settled that issue by asking and answering: "Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers."

Clear enough for you?

INFO-another question for you (since you skipped over it again) if you and I get our info from the same sources (as you said) then why is my info bad or biased but yours is good and truthful?

Marty, I think they were right about educated, informed people voting. Personally, I don't give a flying rat's @$$ if you're rich though. You might not have made your fortune yet, if you're young, or you might have gotten screwed out of money by people like the Enron d*ckheads, or you might have been just robbed or something. Personal wealth shouldn't matter now (it was just that the only well educated folks back then were the rich ones), but education and demonstrated intelligence should. Like Heinlein said in Starhip Troopers (book, not crappy movie), I'd rahter have a 15 year old genius vote than a 40 year old moron.

Personally, I like the system from that book, you can't be a citizen or vote until you've served the nation and risked your life for it. It will make you think twice before voting on something stupid...

And very good question about using the same sources but your's being biased and his not being. I would really like to see Info address that.

Info, thanks for taking my spell checking request lightly. But I do think mixing up the second and first amendment is bigger than just a typo....

Hey guys, the three of us, with a cameo by flame and CtClaus have made two whole pages of this thread all by our lonesome. Don't we have anything better to do? Wait, I'm on casual duty, guess I don't have anything better.... hee hee

Obviously I have nothing better to do! Although I think I'm going to be invoicing Info for the cost of educating him!

Could it be that it's just the three of us reading this thread now? Have we bored everyone else out of their minds??

I hate to think my brilliance is being wasted!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

No way Marty! If it makes you feel any better, I've been reading all the posts! I've learned quite a bit from this, and although I do not have the knowledge or wisdom, I add what I can. Frankly, I don't think there is a post on this board that gets away without me seeing it <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> .

By far, I have never seen more radical comments in my life. It shocks me how some of you (particularly Marty) think. Let me try to help make sense of all these absolutely crazy comments made here.

Discord,
<<<The founding father's actually only wanted the successful and well to do to vote and decide things for the nation. They felt poor dumb farmers and non-land owners weren't bright enough to make things better for themselves, how could they be smart enough to make things better for a nation. The founding fathers were rich landowners, and they wanted rich landowners, who proved smart enough to succeed, to make the choices. I know this destroys some of the Aura around our founding fathers, but I can run right downstairs, open my big ol trunk of history books and perfectly document it for from quite a few different books.>>>

Assuming their motivation is true, do you agree with this? Apparently not, for 2 reasons. #1, you said it destroys some of the aura around them, showing that even you think its wrong. #2, I'll paste something you wrote that answers it for me.

<<<Personally, I don't give a flying rat's @$$ if you're rich though. You might not have made your fortune yet, if you're young, or you might have gotten screwed out of money by people like the Enron d*ckheads, or you might have been just robbed or something. Personal wealth shouldn't matter now -it was just that the only well educated folks back then were the rich ones-, but education and demonstrated intelligence should. Like Heinlein said in Starship Troopers -book, not crappy movie-, I'd rather have a 15 year old genius vote than a 40 year old moron.>>>

So, now that you disagree with the mentality of our predecessors, I pose this question for you. In a free democratic society (which I think you believe in), how do you determine who has enough intelligence to vote and who doesn't? Maybe we'll eliminate black people because they are not as bright as whites. Maybe women too because they will never understand politics like us men do. No, I know, lets eliminate everyone who makes under a 6 digit salary cause we know that if you make 6 digits a year, you must be wise beyond your years.

My point is, while I don't think you'd agree with any of those options, they are the type of issues that people in power will debate about when selecting who is intelligent and who isn't. Why? Because oppression for self-fulfillment is a human instinct. That is why we have so many checks and balances in the design of our country.

Lastly, you support capitalism because we are a self interested animal and it goes with human nature correct? So why would the rich be any less selfish and make laws that help others besides themselves? Would they really choose what is best for everyone?

While we are debating this topic, aren't you the same person that argues for freedom and limited government? I have seen many contradictions posted on here by you and Marty as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty,
<<<Don't you think they were on to something with the idea that only educated wealthy folks would get to vote?>>>

I guess that eliminates both of us my friend. So, why should you and I both follow laws when we are not allowed to vote equally for our representatives?

Lastly...

<<<INFO-another question for you -since you skipped over it again- if you and I get our info from the same sources -as you said- then why is my info bad or biased but yours is good and truthful?>>>

Same facts and some, if not most of the same sources, however, different spin based on the famous psychological nurture issue. Answers your question?

Info, it shocks me that you can't decipher between then and now comments if they're so radical.

Then: The founding father's actually only wanted the successful and well to do to vote and decide things for the nation.

Now: Personally, I don't give a flying rat's @$$ if you're rich though.

Back then, the only way to get education was to pay for it. It was easier for wealthy landowners that had the money to send their children to school. Today, K-12 education is free. And with scholarships, it's possible for anyone to get free education throughout college also. So now more of the population is educated and competent to vote for what is right for them.

Info-SHOW me any inconsistency in my statements.
When I put a <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> next to something I write that means I'm joking. Get it?

Although I do wish that people would educate themselves before voting, I don't wish for it to be the law.

So when I post facts, and give the source, how exactly am I spinning the fact?

I noticed you didn't choose to voice disagreements with any of the 2nd amendment comments from the framers--why is that? Or did I spin those too??

AAneeded
<<<And with scholarships, it's possible for anyone to get free education throughout college also. So now more of the population is educated and competent to vote for what is right for them.>>>

Education at the college level has been reformed and financial aid has helped millions of people succeed that would never have without it. However, high school reform is desperately needed. What's the point of college if we're losing our children in middle school with overcrowding and poor teaching. We also need to change our one size fits all mentality and remember that every mind learns and understands differently.

Lastly... Yes, changes are happening and that is what I been trying to say. Little by little, things are changing more in a way that the conservative end hates. Its inevitable. We are turning more and more liberal by the decade giving more and more aid to our people then ever in history which only serves to level the playing field and make competition fair for all. But mark my words, with each step of progress we make, they will always fight it tooth and nail. Once a poor kid gets to go to Harvard, he has the potential to take the job away from the rich kid. And its extremely fair! But the rich don't like fair, they just like to win.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty,
Your inconsistency lies in your idea of democracy. You want this to be a democratic nation that is free, especially when it comes to baring arms, yet, you want one group of people to make decisions for another group. So when it helps what you believe in, you argue freedom, but when it hurts what you believe in, then freedom goes out the window.

Also...

I gave you a solution to CFR that allows corporations to fund campaigns without those funds solely helping out their special interest. Never did get your reaction to it.

In case you don't remember:
<<<I bet you think we should just have publicly funded campaigns--that would fix everything right?? Well Info--take a few minutes and think about how this might work-then get back to me.>>> --- There are so many ways to do this. How about this one...Corporations can, by law, fund campaigns but have to donate to a blind fund that goes directly to the party or candidate. How will this help? Because the candidate will have no idea who donated money and how much, therefore, they cannot solely represent that particular group disenfranchising the rest of his constituency.

Lastly... scroll down. You have ducked so many questions I have posed. In case you forgot, here are a few:

<<<As to alternative sources-when they are economical and there is a market for them the energy companies will supply them.>>> --- You don't think its important enough to start creating a huge initiative for these companies to convert instead of promoting more digging for oil that will eventually run out and reek havoc on our environment?

<<<You will never take the money out of politics! Be it Union money or corporate money or individual money--money buys you access, and it should!>>> --- Money buys voices for only the few who have enough to give, disenfranchising the rest who don't. Its pretty simple to understand. It does not represent the needs of the "PEOPLE." Isn't that what democracy was about, everyone having a voice?

Also, second amendment: ["A well regulated Militia", being necessary to the security of a free State], - [the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.]

Consider the brackets I placed. Those 2 statements belong to the same sentence. If you read the second bracket alone, then your right, it says we have the right to bare arms. Now, considering that there is a first part to that sentence, it changes the intent quite a bit. So because it is focusing on maintaining "a well regulated militia" and the main idea is security of a free "state," its logical to believe that they are talking about a free people to be armed in a "regulated(by the state)" militia. Last I checked, that was our military.

But whether we agree or not, it can be interpreted either way justly. So because of that, don't you think we should interpret it as what is best for the nation TODAY?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on those questions...

Wow Info doesn't like it when I ignore his questions!
So I'll do the right thing and answer them all:

"I gave you a solution to CFR that allows corporations to fund campaigns without those funds solely helping out their special interest. "
---Well you never did answer mine as to what a special interest is but I'll answer this one anyway. You want corporations to secretly fund people--this makes little sense. Why would I give money to a guy without him knowing I gave it to him. If I'm some big corporation giving millions of dollars I'm pretty sure I'll let the guy know, somehow, where he got that cash. So here again is a perfect example of why you are so consistenetly off base. Sure this idea SOUNDS good but it has no practical application because it would NEVER work in real life. How's this for a much simpler and eminently more workable idea. Anyone and any corporation, union or PAC can donate as much as they want but they HAVE to disclose every penny they give and who they gave it to. So when Candidate A gets $50 million from the Trial Lawyer's Assoc. you'll KNOW where he got it. Then you don't have to guess which special interest is slipping him the cash.

"You have ducked so many questions I have posed. "
---That really cracks me up coming from you. This weekend I'll go through and repost every question you ducked!

"You don't think its important enough to start creating a huge initiative for these companies to convert instead of promoting more digging for oil that will eventually run out and reek havoc on our environment?"
----You can't convert to what you don't have! What shall we do? Build more windmills? MOST of what the radical environmentalists preach is wrong or exaggerated, and sometimes it's simply outright lies. MTBE, overpopulation, global warming...
According to reputable scientists like Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling, mankind's activities account for a minuscule 2 percent or 3 percent of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Geophysicists estimate that just three volcanic eruptions -- Indonesia (1883), Alaska (1912) and Iceland (1947) -- spewed more carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxides into the atmosphere than all of mankind's activities in his entire history. Science magazine reports that termites annually generate MORE than twice as much carbon dioxide as mankind does burning fossil fuels. One termite species annually emits 600,000 metric tons of formic acid into the atmosphere, an amount equal to the combined contributions of automobiles, refuse combustion and vegetation. Thinking that mankind's activities can have significant effects on the environment is the height of arrogance. If you really believe mankind's activity can change the Earth's temperature, you probably also think that if all of us jumped up and down we'd change the earth's orbit, or if we all got out our paddles we could change the direction of the tides. The Earth's climate changed numerous times before we even EXISTED. Dr. Fred Singer, president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project in Arlington, Va., says there are four different independent data sets for measuring temperature. First are thermometers at weather stations around the world. They show warming over the past 30 years, but not in the United States. The second are weather satellites. They show no warming. The third are weather balloons. They show no warming. The fourth are called proxy data -- tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments, etc. They show no warming.

Oh wait more facts from Marty I must be spinning again. There is nothing WRONG with us using oil, drilling for oil, or making money off of oil.

"Money buys voices for only the few who have enough to give, disenfranchising the rest who don't. Its pretty simple to understand. It does not represent the needs of the "PEOPLE." Isn't that what democracy was about, everyone having a voice?"
-----Have you ever heard of the NRA, the NAACP, AARP, Unions, ...what do these groups have in common? Well they are made up of INDIVIDUALS of a like mind who give SMALL amounts of money to help their cause. This idea you have of disenfranchisement is ridiculous, the only people in this country who are disenfranchised are those that WANT to be. Didn't the last election teach you how important each INDIVIDUAL vote is--were it not for a few hundred people Al Gore would be president (shudder). Everyone has a voice in this country (and if you live in Chicago you have two or three voices).

"Consider the brackets I placed. Those 2 statements belong to the same sentence. If you read the second bracket alone, then your right, it says we have the right to bare arms. Now, considering that there is a first part to that sentence, it changes the intent quite a bit."
----You talk about changing intent yet I gave you quotes from the very people who framed our Constitution which made their intent very clear unless you are brain dead.

"So because of that, don't you think we should interpret it as what is best for the nation TODAY?"
----And with this quote we now know you are one of those people who think the Constitution is a LIVING document. As my econ Professor loved to say "Well then, I'd like to play you in a game of poker where the rules are LIVING rules." The document was written to mean EXACTLY what it said-the threat of a tyrannical government has not disappeared since the 1700's if anything it has grown even greater!

Now there's a post that answered all of your questions. But you also made this statement:
"Your inconsistency lies in your idea of democracy. You want this to be a democratic nation that is free, especially when it comes to baring arms, yet, you want one group of people to make decisions for another group. So when it helps what you believe in, you argue freedom, but when it hurts what you believe in, then freedom goes out the window."
----Again you can't SHOW me where I've been inconsistent so you make it up. I've never said I want this be a democratic nation! Democracy = the tyranny of the masses! The Constitution's Framers feared tyranny of the majority. That's why there's an Electoral College, even though California's population is 69 times that of Wyoming's, both states have two senators. I want this to a nation that follows the Constitution. And I'm not especially concerned with the 2nd Amendment-you may notice that I'm against the CFR bill because it violates our 1st Amendment rights. So who exactly is inconsistent there? Well, you're consistently wanting to give up your rights (except of course your famous RIGHT to drive). I never said I want one group to make decisions for another group--unless you can SHOW me that. You on the other hand want one group to PAY for the decisions of another group-I can SHOW you that!

"I'd like to hear your thoughts on those questions..."
----And so you have. I actually enjoy answering your questions. I think you cringe when I ask you to answer mine--that is when you don't just refuse to answer them.

All the questions Info has ducked&#8212;just for shi*&#8217;s and giggles (edited to save space--and this is just from pages 7-10!):

1) Info you say--the Government is owned by big business Well then why is that there is so much regulation of business in this country?
2) Why do you see the rich as being so evil?
3) Do you know who the average millionaire is? (To be fair I answered this one for him-but I&#8217;d still like to know who he thinks the rich are)
4) 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?
5) Why is it that the Democrats are the majority party there (in Congress)?
6) And why do the Republicans only control the House by a slim margin?
7) 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? (Being fair once again he did answer part of it but not very well. And never how high is too high.)
8) What's the point of paying 200 people to do a job that only takes 100?
9) 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?
10) 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?
11) Info said: "Is it not worse to have a president that experimented with crack"---Where did you get this bit of disinformation?
12) How can Congress pass a law that goes against the 1st Amendment?
13) You do know what that Amendment says don't you?
14) Info wrote: "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?
15) Did you make it up? (Goes with question 14).
16) Info wrote: "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?
17) Your a big union fan so how much do you think the heads of unions make as opposed to the people they supposedly represent?
18) Do you understand what it means when I say economics is not a zero sum game?
19) Info wrote: &#8220;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?
20) You're 25, have you ever started a business?
21) Have you ever been in upper-level management?
22) Or do you simply view this world from the bottom up?
23) Are there any great centrists in our (by that I mean American) history?
24) You babble on and on about equality and fairness but where have you shown that our system is unfair?
25) Can you name for me some of these people who have gotten to the top and were undeserving?
26) INFO--"A note: Your profile says you like giving advice. Maybe you should take a little time to take advice first."
---If I liked taking advice I would have put that in my profile. What's your advice anyway? Stop sticking up for my country. Stop reading about political/social topics so that I don't show up other people on BBS's? Stop picking on 25 year olds? Open my mind up to psychobabble about how great socialism would be if we had it here? What??

Okay a few of them are rhetorical but still I'd like to see Info answer them honestly. (Yes, it's Friday night and I'm wasting my time on this project-the wife is sick and I was bored!)

<<<Why would I give money to a guy without him knowing I gave it to him.>>>

Your right, most corporations won't want to. And that just shows you how corrupt it is. Why won't they? Because they want it to be known how much they spend so they can get something in return. Therefore serving those special interest and not the people. That's not what our great country should be run on?

Special Interest - (my definition) Interest that support a personal and profitable cause.

<<<How's this for a much simpler and eminently more workable idea. Anyone and any corporation, union or PAC can donate as much as they want but they HAVE to disclose every penny they give and who they gave it to.>>>

That's another idea that can work as well. If the people know who is giving what, then they have more knowledge that they can take with them to the voting booth. But then again, both sides are bought and I assure you, both groups will advertise negatively on the other side's finances. So in the end, its really going to be a debate about who are the better groups to be bought by. Confusing if you ask me.

<<<You can't convert to what you don't have! What shall we do? Build more windmills?>>>

Really? I already seen those hybrid cars. Pretty good if you ask me. They get good mileage on the gallon too. And you know, my calculator, well, the **** runs on light just like the international space station... go figure <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

As far as the environment, well, you can get spin on both sides. Both views come from reputable sources too. But you know what, if the "right" is wrong and the environment is falling apart, we can't undo the damage. So isn't it better we stay on the safe side considering that we only have one place to call home?

But considering the fact that we are not scientist, we can still get a general idea who is right here. All you need to do is look at their motivation. The "right" says that global warming is a myth and gets scientist to prove that. But the "right" is also bought by big oil and energy companies that want to make a profit, so they slip money in the government's pocket to protect their interest, remaining on oil.

The "left" says global warming is a reality and has their scientist to prove that as well. However, one thing is missing. I don't see this side having a special interest as their motivation. I don't see the "left" with a clean energy company influencing their actions. So what does that tell you about the motivations on both sides? Its logical to presume that the "left" is likely to be less bias or less self interested then the "right."

<<<Oh wait more facts from Marty I must be spinning again. There is nothing WRONG with us using oil, drilling for oil, or making money off of oil.>>>

I see 3 major problems. #1, it will run out. #2, we depend on the middle east for a lot of our oil, not directly of course, but indirectly through other countries who give us oil like Canada. So why is this so bad? Because if we didn't depend on oil, we would be able to handle the middle east crisis and deter terrorism much more affectively. Its simple, oil funds terrorism. Our presence there fuels rage within the muslim community and marks us for terrorism. #3, back to the earlier topic. The drilling and the usage both polute the environment.

<<<The document was written to mean EXACTLY what it said-the threat of a tyrannical government has not disappeared since the 1700's if anything it has grown even greater!>>>

And somehow you think your gun will beat the government's guns? lol How realistic is that? Just goes to show you that this is a different era. The constitution mierly stated that each of the 13 colonies had the right to defend itself with a regulated militia.

<<<I've never said I want this be a democratic nation!>>>

I stand corrected

<<<The Constitution's Framers feared tyranny of the majority. That's why there's an Electoral College>>>

So isn't it just as easy for tyranny to occur from the other side as well? Considering the government has the power regardless of what the people say. Seems like we have a problem on both sides. Somehow, I trust the people instead.

<<<You may notice that I'm against the CFR bill because it violates our 1st Amendment rights.>>>

In your own psyche, do you really believe that money should be considered free speech? Please don't recite the case where the US Supreme court ruled as such. I'm asking you personally. Does it seem fair that some have a voice while others don't?

<<<I never said I want one group to make decisions for another group--unless you can SHOW me that.>>>

Your words:

<<<Discord-Don't you think they were on to something with the idea that only educated wealthy folks would get to vote?>>>

If that was a joke, I failed to see the humor in it.

(Only time I will do this) extremely brief answers to your list:

1) The bills that put regulation on business are born from the left and fought hard by the right from start to finish. They are usually shamed into giving in. Which is what happens to every commmon sense law the "left" comes up with that might hurt the rich. CFR is a current example.
2) A large portion of the rich are greedy people who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. That is why they fund politicians to make policies that increase their wealth and oppress the poor.
3) Not sure where this question is going.
4) The rich aren't as powerful as an extremely determined people. And it pissed off the republicans too which is why they obsessed with Clinton with every move he made.
5) Dem. are not the majority in congress.
6) Again, a determined people. However, it still doesn't change what the rich are trying to do.
7) Its not about what's too high. Its about what's humane for an American.
8) What's your point?
9) People work for businesses. They do not own the businesses. Lower taxes on business does not affect the taxes of its workers. Plus, are you saying that one party is NOT for the working class? (delusional)!
10) The one with health care. Now I pose a counter question. Why would any employer be motivated to offer healthcare benefits if no one else does? Fact - benefits are gradually diminishing, especially in the inner cities.
11) From Bush's statement about why he will not discuss his drug history.
12) I never suggested that.
13) Yes I do
14) I was paraphrasing but he said it right in front of the execution building in Texas during the campaign. Reporters asked him about past drug use and he remained silent. He then spoke out and that is what he said. He never admitted or denied past drug use.
15) No
16) Everything we say are opinions, even when they come from factual sources.
17) You just invented that question now?
18) Yes I do
19) Big lie
20) Don't worry
21) same as 20
22) No, I make a decent living
23) No, but we're coming out <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />
24) Almost every post I've posted I have mentioned an injustice. Class warfare, racism, exploitation, CFR, the law, the list goes on.
25) All the land owners who were given land for free at the birth of this country
26) My advice is to believe everything I have to say unconditionally <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Happy?

Okay here we go (Discord, AA, & Info anyway):

Info-Only time you'll do this? You wouldn't need to do it if you answered them when I asked them. This is only from pages 7-10 I'm sure I asked at least this many questions in the rest of the pages. Pay attention!

&#8220;Special Interest - (my definition) Interest that support a personal and profitable cause.&#8221;
---Oh so groups like the Sierra Club, and NAA(L)CP aren&#8217;t special interests? Give me a break. Just because you lack the ability to turn a profit doesn&#8217;t mean your interest isn&#8217;t &#8220;special&#8221;. Actually Info, you are special interest of one. As are all the rest of us&#8212;you never have answered as to what is wrong with groups of us individuals getting together to increase our bargaining power.

&#8220;I already seen those hybrid cars. Pretty good if you ask me. They get good mileage on the gallon too. And you know, my calculator, well, the **** runs on light just like the international space station... go figure.
----Yeah go figure! Those hybrid cars are really selling like hotcakes! So much so that the social engineers are now designing ways to get people to buy them. The car companies were forced to make them at a huge loss. That&#8217;s great economics there. And yes Info your calculator is probably solar powered so I guess that means everything else in the world could be as well! Are you that simple? Your calculator doesn&#8217;t require much energy, hence the ability to get its power from a very small source. The amount of solar cells required to power a normal house is quite amazing. As a matter of fact the money saved by not being on the power grid would never be recouped from the initial cost of buying those solar cells. I own stock in PLUG power (which makes rechargeable hydrogen power cells) and they have yet to be able to overcome the initial cost hurdle so that their product would be profitable. Hopefully, in time, they will acquire the technology to overcome that hurdle (and I&#8217;ll make a lot of money) but for now that technology doesn&#8217;t exist.

&#8220;As far as the environment, well, you can get spin on both sides. Both views come from reputable sources too.&#8221;
----Except you never say what your sources are, I think the fact that the Earth is NOT warming is pretty irrefutable at this time. &#8220;

&#8220;So isn't it better we stay on the safe side considering that we only have one place to call home?&#8221;
-----Yes Info, so stop driving your car and turning on your electrically driven computer if you are so concerned!

&#8220;But considering the fact that we are not scientist.&#8221;
-----Actually my degree affords me the ability to call myself a scientist.

&#8220;But the "right" is also bought by big oil and energy companies that want to make a profit, so they slip money in the government's pocket to protect their interest, remaining on oil.&#8221;
-----Once again here you are spouting some liberal platitude without any real knowledge. Guess who also takes HUGE amounts of money from oil companies? The Democrats. Get a clue, Info.

&#8220;I don't see the "left" with a clean energy company influencing their actions.&#8221;
----- Oh no, the left gets it from both sides&#8212;oil companies and the environmental groups who give BIG money to the Democrats. Just to be clear, I have nothing against them taking money from whoever gives it to them. But the fact that you have no idea about this and yet you spout the party line like you&#8217;re some kind of Daschle clone is amazing.

&#8220;I see 3 major problems. #1, it will run out. &#8220;
---There is enough oil in the Earth to provide our needs for numerous generations (several hundred of years). The president of BP oil is on the record as saying there is more oil in the Gulf of Mexico than in all the Middle East states combined.

&#8220;The drilling and the usage both polute the environment.&#8221;-----Well I showed that the pollution is miniscule from the use of it-can you give some data that says otherwise or is it just more of your (so called) informed opinion?

&#8220;In your own psyche, do you really believe that money should be considered free speech?&#8221;------Well yes, do you think you should be banned from giving money to a candidate you support? If you aren&#8217;t allowed to give money who says the next step won&#8217;t be banning people from volunteering?

&#8220;If that was a joke, I failed to see the humor in it.&#8221; ------Well I humbly apologize that I failed to amuse you. Actually the joke was directed at you, so I&#8217;m not surprised you didn&#8217;t get it.

Now some comments on your (mostly pathetic) answers:

1) &#8220;The bills that put regulation on business are born from the left and fought hard by the right from start to finish.&#8221;
----Really-care to provide some proof of this idiotic statement? (You probably believe that the civil rights amendment was pushed through by Democrats as well)

2)&#8220;Blah, blah, blah&#8230;. oppress the poor.&#8221;
--------- Ah, so that&#8217;s why poor people in America are the envy of the rest of the world&#8217;s poor? All that oppression!

3) &#8220;Dem. are not the majority in congress.&#8221;
------ You&#8217;re right I meant to write the Senate. The question is still valid though.

4) &#8220;Its not about what's too high.&#8221;
------That&#8217;s all it is about-and you can&#8217;t answer that question can you?

5) &#8220;People work for businesses. They do not own the businesses.&#8221;
---------Really, who owns businesses then? That&#8217;s a really dumb comment there! As I&#8217;ve stated before small businesses are the major employers in this country-so who owns those small businesses? Robots? Aliens? Clones?

6) &#8220;Lower taxes on business does not affect the taxes of its workers.&#8221;
Take an economics class and get back to me. You&#8217;re so ignorant on this topic it&#8217;s pointless to debate you.

7) &#8220;Why would any employer be motivated to offer healthcare benefits if no one else does? Fact - benefits are gradually diminishing, especially in the inner cities.&#8221;
----Gee, I don&#8217;t know, to attract better employee&#8217;s maybe! Benefits are diminishing?? Prove that one!

8) (Previously #17) &#8220;You just invented that question now?&#8221;
------- No, I pulled it from an earlier post of mine. You still won&#8217;t answer it though. Is that because Union bosses makes many times more than the people they supposedly represent-just like corporate bosses make many times more than the average worker they employ?

9) &#8220;No, I make a decent living&#8221;
---How dare you while others are so shamelessly oppressed! You are no better than their oppressors!

10) &#8220;Almost every post I've posted I have mentioned an injustice. Class warfare, racism, exploitation, CFR, the law, the list goes on.&#8221;
----No this is a list of supposed injustices! Yes, there are sometimes injustices that happen within our systems but the systems themselves are just when carried out properly. (Or can you only envision Utopias when they have to do with Socialism?) Class warfare is engaged in by the left as a means to get elected! It&#8217;s your bread and butter!

11) (Previously #19 this one&#8217;s hard to follow but stick with it!) &#8220;Big lie &#8220;-----------Info wrote (initially): &#8220;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?&#8221;
-----You think this is a lie? Your ignorance (notice my continued use of ignorance and not stupidity!) is astonishing!! Do just a modicum of research and you&#8217;ll see this is the straight up truth. No spin needed&#8212;I&#8217;ll get the numbers for you but you&#8217;ll just discount them if I do.
12) &#8220;All the land owners who were given land for free at the birth of this country&#8221;
--------Wow-you really hold a grudge! Can you NAME some of them like I asked?

13) &#8220;My advice is to believe everything I have to say unconditionally&#8221;
------I fail to see the humor in that. Most of what you write has no basis in truth, and you haven&#8217;t provided a scrap of evidence to back your opinions yet.

Info-I just came across this, I think you may want to cogitate on it for a bit (it's written by Thomas Sowell):

Even more harmful in the long run are failing public schools in the ghettos, where much of the next generation has its hopes of advancement destroyed before they can even get off the ground.

No group is more in favor of vouchers than blacks -- and no one is more opposed to vouchers than the Democrats, including the Congressional Black Caucus. This doesn't mean that Democrats are racist. It is just that they need the support of the teachers' unions, and they are not going to get it if they vote for vouchers, whereas they can count on the votes of blacks regardless.

Under these conditions, who should be surprised that Democrats are ready to sacrifice another generation of black youngsters for the greater good of the teachers' unions?
Urban Renewal, policies artificially forcing up the price of food and many job-destroying policies promoted by Democrats all work against blacks. But these are only deeds, while words seem to be supreme in politics.

Marty, you have much too much time on your hands. And like I said, I won't post anything that large in content again as it just takes too much of my time.

On a different note, I was reading a book on logic by Patrick J. Hurley and I came across something interesting talking about the Second Amendment. The book breaks it down logically to show a huge fallacy (or error) in your interpretation. Let me briefly type what it says about it and why your argument is what logic calls, "a fallacy of presumption (or fallacy of suppressed evidence)."

Your Fallacy:
"The Second Amendment it the Constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. But a law controlling handguns would infringe the right to keep and bare arms. Therefore, a law controlling handguns would be unconstitutional."

Your flaw:
In fact, the Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms will not be infringed." In other words, the amendment states that the right to bare arms shall not be infringed when the arms are necessary for the preservation of a well-regulated militia. Because a law controlling handguns (pistols)would have little effect on the preservation of a well regulated militia, it is unlikely that such a law would be unconstitutional.

The flaw with the "suppressed evidence" fallacy is that it leaves out a key premise that requires a different conclusion.

Marty, this is what your doing...

Info: I doubt the Hurley book stated anything about the right to &#8220;bare arms&#8221; since that&#8217;s really more of a preference of style and comfort.

In reference to Marty&#8217;s statements regarding the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms: Do you actually read what he&#8217;s written? First off, he stated clearly that he&#8217;s not too concerned personally with the Second Amendment in a post (06 April 2002 12:39 AM) and I don&#8217;t recall him defending handguns or any firearm in particular. His discourse in his post (05 April 2002 12:15 PM) was pursuant only to defining the intent of the framers of the amendment (A highly educational post I might add) to counter your interpretation of the constitution in your post of 05 April 2002 02:28 AM.

Anyhow, your recent rebuttal claims Marty made a contextual error in presenting his facts (suppressed evidence) and therefore produced a flawed argument. In actuality, Marty never quoted the Second Amendment at all, certainly not a partial of it. What he did do was go straight to addressing the intent of the law by illustrating the mindset of its framers. He did so quite clearly with direct quotes that left little for misinterpretation.

I find it humorous that you latched on to the logic example in the book with such enthusiasm that you blindly applied it to Marty.