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

Buy the book "A Concise introduction to LOGIC" again, by "Patrick J. Hurley" before you make ignorant comments like that. Go to page 163 where it talks about fallacies of suppressed evidence. Then come back here and let me know if you still doubt it.

<<<His discourse in his post -05 April 2002 12:15 PM- was pursuant only to defining the intent of the framers of the amendment>>>

My reason for breaking down the wording and using a logic text to back me up was to prove intent!

<<<What he did do was go straight to addressing the intent of the law by illustrating the mindset of its framers.>>>

Its framers? I thought those were just opinions from predecessors. But hey, what do I know huh?

I apologize that I did not have time to read the entire thread so bear with me in case some of these items have been posted. I just wanted to shed some light on this debate.

First, the Democrats are not "bought by a better group" of special interest parties as stated by Info. The largest individual donor to the Democrats last year was Gary Winnick. Mr. Winnick is the former founder, Chairman and CEO of Global Crossing. He is the same guy now being investigated in connection with the bankrupcty of Global Crossing this past January wiping out billions in shareholder value and leading to significant layoffs while he netted out $723 million personally.

In addition, Global Crossing and its affiliates were the largest corporate donors to individual Democrats, the Democratic National Committe and Democratic causes in 2000 and 2001. Enron was, the second largest donor. So, the Democrats are taking money from the same places and people as Republicans.

Secondly, pure socialism has only been tried once. It turned out to be a failure and several million people died. In 1975 the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot seized total control in Cambodia. The country thus began a 4 year experiment in agrarian socialism that led to the deaths of an estimated 4 million people. Pol Pot and the leaders of the Khemr Rouge were all descendants of wealthy Cambodians and were educated in Paris where they learned the teachings of Marx which became the basis for the economic system put in place under the Khmer Rouge. The system failed and millions who survived were either displaced or returned to the cities and homes they had been to leave only to find nothing remained. The country is still trying to put itself back together 23 years after the Khmer Rouge were driven from power.

Third, corporations layoff workers not so as to sustain high executive pay in times of economic retrenchment, but rather because as the demand for goods and services diminishes, companies often find they have to do 2 things; reduce fixed costs and cut back on the production of goods and services. Thus, layoffs result.

Fourth, I belive Rock made the point that corporate profits jumped 600% as a result of World War 2, while worker compensation only went up 3%. I don't know where he is getting that number as the facts as produced by leading economists both here in the US and overseas site different numbers. However, let's assumes Rock's numbers are correct. He forgot to mention some important facts. One, the country had been in the throws of the Great Depression prior to WW2 and corporate profits were abyssmal with many companies either losing hemorraging money and/or operating at break-even. Thus, the profits had nowhere to go but up. Secondly, perhaps individual pay did not raise as quickly, but several million people, who had previously been unemployed, found jobs in the 12 months after the US declared war.

Now, since Info appears bound and determined to base his arguments on his interpretations of commonly known information and extrapolations thereof, I won't bother to bog him down with more facts. I will just say this, I too live in NYC. If you want, drop me an email and I'll take you down to where I was a volunteer of the rubble of Ground Zero. I'll show you where I dug with my gloved hands hoping to find someone, anyone to save from the awful mass of twisted debris and I'll debate with you until you've had your full, why it is that we are right, the terrorists are wrong and the US is the greatest country on the face of the earth.

God bless all who have sacrificed for my freedoms. I am sorry that I was unable to help anyone escape the World Trade Center tragedy but wish to say thank you to those helping to guard against such attacks in the future.

Info: ZING! (passing my hand over my head)

My comment was far from ignorant, it was deduced from observation and simple logic. You claim that Hurley&#8217;s book has reference in it about the right to bare arms. I find it highly unlikely that he word use the word &#8220;bare&#8221; incorrectly and even more improbable that the proof readers would miss it. It is far more likely that the book reads &#8220;the right to bear arms&#8221;, eh?

The use of logic is essential to deducing answers to problems, but it is folly to try and use it to prove motive if the motive is already recorded or readily available.

It reminds me of how one of my college professors had elaborately dissected the &#8220;real meaning&#8221; of the works of Kurt Vonnegut. In all honestly, his deductions did seem logical. I happened to meet Mr. Vonnegut years later and big surprise, my professor was well off the mark. The relevant part of this was that Mr. Vonnegut assured me that had the professor taken the time to just ask him directly by postal mail he would have responded with the correct answers.

BTW, your profile says you are a writter/journalist. What the hell is a writter?

(these spelling and word usage mistakes are even funnier since its supposed to be your profession!)

I AM BACK BABY! Hey all, sorry I missed a few days and such good discussion, I was down in Charleston running the 8th largest 10K in the world..

A few back issues...
AAneeded, thanks man, you got my back, being rich was the only way to get educated, thanks for covering the then and now thing for me.

DavidEllzey, I already asked Info for some spellchecker and double checking and rereading and all, I wasn't making fun of him, it just really started to annoy me. But you are right, it does seem strange for a writer journalist, but maybe he really is really busy, and has a REALLY good proofreader where ever he works.

INFO! "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." OH MAN! this absolutely slays me. Radical, to me, is absolute thinking. Ya know, like all of yours, let me demonstrate....

"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." (Mine is the way of the future! All will follow, and all will go the way I believe!)

"Liberalism is a set of beliefs that anyone can have; beliefs that attempt to answer what is "just" in the world." (My beliefs answer what is just and make things right, and since conservatives hate and fight "tooth and nail" against us, that means conservatives are the evil ones, the wrong ones, the UNJUST ones)

"The fact that those who aquire knowledge and teach are liberal should tell you something" (Again, I just say teachers are shut out from the reality of doing, those who can't, teach...)

"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" (Because of course, I, being great and omniscient, know what is best for people I've never even met...)

"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" ( My way is the right way, it is prescient, and the evil sides doesn't like it at first, but eventually all will come around to the "correct" beliefs....)

Sorry bucko, but these are all extreme comments from your posts. I don't know if you meant them to sound the way they do, but the comments in parentheses are how they sound to me, and if I may, I'll bet that's how they sound to Marty and a few others, at least. And you continue to say things like "oh, I know not ALL conservatives are bad" or "I don't think all liberal plans are right and I don't agree with them all" but eventually, you'll say something like the above again. I might sound radical to you, but at least I don't sound like a brainwashed zealot waiting for a false prophet to come and make all the world follow "the true path."

I think you need to put your absoluteness in check, and quit calling folks radical till you stop saying things like this. There is NO ONE ANSWER. People always, throughout history, think their way is the right one,and you know what? Their ways always fail, just like liberalism will, and just like conservatives, and everything else we have now, they'll pass on into something that works a little better, and that'll fail too, and it'll keep on going, getting a little better and more evolved, but nothing is ever going to be perfect. Just the realist in me peeking out.

Man... it feels good to be back.... How is everyone doing this fine daylight saved day?

Well, I have to agree that it does SEEM like I have too much time on my hands but, for the most part, the topics of this thread have been such that I have been able to use past research I've done and papers that I have written, and articles that others have written that I have referenced in my own work. These topics are also items that I am passionate about and thus, I'm fairly knowledgeable.

Glad to see we picked up another reader (and even more glad that he's just given more weight to my past posts) and thanks to David for pointing out where Info is wrong again---unless his brief discourse is truly about the "right to BARE arms" which I stand behind 100%!!! (and thanks for the nice comments about past posts).

1) Info: "Your Fallacy:
"The Second Amendment it the Constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.(-----so far so good!) But a law controlling handguns would infringe the right to keep and bare arms. Therefore, a law controlling handguns would be unconstitutional."
-----------Okay, I never said the second part so the fallacy here, in my point of view, is yours for putting words into my mouth. Some 2nd Amendment laws are just fine, others are ridiculous, some are un-Constitutional. If you want to argue specific laws then you may find I have some flaws in my logic but you can't define my argument for me and then tell me it's flawed---because that's just, well..., flawed!

2) "Its framers? I thought those were just opinions from predecessors. But hey, what do I know huh?
------Indeed, that is the question here, what do you know? So far-not much, but hopefully you're learning. Those quotes come from individuals who were central figures in the writting of the Constitution.

Since some people ejoyed hearing from the Framer's earlier--here's an encore with some new quotes:

Thomas Jefferson said: "No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Writing in the Federalist Paper No.46, James Madison said, "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Noah Webster said, "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

Tench Coxe said: "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

The Framer's were certainly clear in their intent even if Info has some trouble grasping it. During the 20th Century there were more than a few tyrannical governments that turned against their people. The governments that led in this slaughter are the former USSR (at least 65 million murdered) and the Peoples Republic of China (35-40 million murdered). The point to remember is that these governments were the idols of leftists here in America. Part of reason for these and other tyrannical successes was because the people were first disarmed. "If we fail to learn from the past..."


NYR: "Now, since Info appears bound and determined to base his arguments on his interpretations of commonly known information and extrapolations thereof, I won't bother to bog him down with more facts."
-------Info can't be bogged down with facts-it's all just spin to him! Welcome to the debate!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Thomas Jefferson said: "No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'd be careful with this one Marty. According to the non-radical, perfect thinking of the one-step-ahead guy, the tyranny in government is the conservatives, fighting tooth and nail to keep us from marching (goose-step no doubt) into the glorious future that the great god "L'Beral" is leading us into.

I bet you if I hadn't had posted this, that is the only thing Info would have commented about in your post... Damn, Schroedinger's Cat, I guess we'll never know now. (If anybody understands the Schroedinger's Cat thing, I'll give ya a cookie...)

I'm just waiting for him to change his position again to defend himself. Personally, my favorite shiftiness of his was when I commented about him just being a student, then he quietly changed his profile to "writter/journalist" over night, without saying aloud he updated it, and posted that he is NOT a student, and I should quit assuming things. I may be false in this, but since he never apologized for an outdated profile or acknowledged updating it, he had hoped it would look like it never said student to any newcomers, thus discrediting me... But that's spun, I'm biased because that's how the majority of all the liberals I know act. Apparently, they are not only one-step ahead, but they can change the past to make it right, too.

I know I'm getting less diplomatic, but this whole selective memory and selective reading is getting on my nerves, and maybe saying thoughts like this out loud will get through the haze better than common sense arguments.

And does anybody else wonder: How much Info's schooling cost, how much his folks are worth, and just how much he makes? I can help but have the feeling he isn't poor at all, and yet he knows what's best for all the poor and we middle class proletariat types..... If that's too personal, then no one answer, I will graciously and humbly recind the last...

Doesn&#8217;t &#8220;Schroedinger's Cat&#8221; have something to do with the quantum theory that reality doesn&#8217;t exist unless we observe it?

Well good on David!

Discord-Jefferson's vision of tyranny could come from the right or the left, no doubt! Although as a good little conservative I believe in his government which governs least governs best idea so there's less to fear from my side.
I can understand your frustrations with Info, (I share them!), it would be interesting if he divulged a bit more about where he comes from and how he got to be such a good little socialist!
As to his being a student--I referenced this in an earlier post as well after looking at his profile. Don't know why he would be upset that you called him such, nor why he would try to cover it up. I'm sure he'll grace us with an explanation-if it doesn't take up too much of his time.

DAVID GETS A COOKIE!

Schroedinger's Cat is a thought experiment (can never actually be done) that has to do with cats, boxes and poison, but maybe that's a whole other buffoonery post.

Marty, I agree with you about Jefferson, I was just making some predictions about the response. But I think it's gonna be a big good one, Info usually doesn't go this long without a reply. Maybe he's planning something big.

Just for fairness, I come from a middle-class family, my folks, in their fifties, are just now getting out of debt (aside from the standard morgage). I went to the AF academy, and without the government (evil bastards) paying for it, I probably couldn't have afforded to go to a real college. Oh, I make 0-1 pay, working on paying off $30000 in debt. I went out and bought everything I needed for a house and all, since I had nothing, really sets ya back, ya know? That's my situation, and sorry, I don't feel liberals represent my interests best. Hell, the only person in DC I feel really represents me is an *** -kicker named Donny Rumsfeld.

</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>DAVID GETS A COOKIE!
Hell, the only person in DC I feel really represents me is an *** -kicker named Donny Rumsfeld.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I like Rumsfeld too, but keep in mind seven months ago he (with the president's enthusiastic blessing) was getting ready to make huge cuts in the budget and rearrange the military into something barely recognizeable. As late as September 9, he and the Pentagon leadership were rolling up their sleeves and preparing for a knock-down drag-out fight on Capital Hill.

Todd--Barely recognizable?? Care to offer any proof of that?

Here's an article I found-sounds pretty good to me but I'll let people judge for themselves:

Rumsfeld vs. the Pentagon
by Ivan Eland

Ivan Eland is director of defense policy studies.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has presented the preliminary findings of his secretive defense review to President Bush. If initial press leaks are any indication, a 21-gun salute is in order. According to senior defense officials, Rumsfeld may go after some of military services&#8217; crown jewels -- despite opposition from the kings of the Pentagon&#8217;s bureaucratic fiefdoms.

First and most important, Rumsfeld appears willing to abandon the nation&#8217;s two-war strategy. That mainstay of President Clinton&#8217;s overextended defense policy required the United States to be able to fight two wars nearly simultaneously (with Iraq and North Korea, for example). Yet even during the Cold War when a rival superpower could have orchestrated trouble in two regions at once, the United States never fought two wars simultaneously. The Soviets never took advantage of U.S. involvement in conflicts in Korea, Vietnam and the Persian Gulf to attack U.S. vital interests elsewhere.

In a more benign post-Cold War era in which no hegemonic enemy exists, the possibility of one regional power taking advantage of a U.S. war with another regional power to commit aggression is even more remote. In the rare event that it did occur, however, the United States could merely crush each minor power sequentially. The congressionally mandated National Defense Panel recognized that fighting two wars nearly simultaneously was an unlikely scenario and that the strategy was merely being used to justify existing military forces. Rumsfeld sees through this ruse.

Amazingly, Rumsfeld also seems inclined to ask the Navy to end production of the 100,000-ton supercarriers because they have become vulnerable to attacks by anti-ship missiles, which are proliferating around the world. Such large ships are expensive, costing $5 billion each. They are also vulnerable, requiring six surface escort ships (at about $1 billion apiece) and two submarines (about $1.8 billion each) to protect them. As this vulnerability has increased, more of the embarked aircraft are required to provide air defense against the growing capabilities of the air forces of regional powers -- leaving fewer planes for offensive action. The carrier admirals who dominate the Navy will not take this lying down.

Equally astonishing is Rumsfeld&#8217;s apparent willingness to cut back the pride of the Air Force -- manned tactical fighter aircraft. Since the Vietnam War, the tactical fighter generals have pushed out the bomber generals to gain control of the Air Force. As a result, the Air Force is planning to buy two of the three new fighter planes in development -- the stealthy F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter. In contrast, the Air Force will not start research and development on a new bomber until well into the next decade and will not begin producing that plane until after 2030. The B-52s will be more than 80 years old before those new bombers replace them.

The Air Force&#8217;s emphasis on shorter- range fighters at the expense of long-range bombers comes at a time when bases close to the fighting will most likely come under increasing threat from enemy ballistic missiles. The bombers, operating from more remote bases in the theater (or even from the United States), would be less vulnerable to such attacks.

In addition, manned aircraft may become more vulnerable to proliferating surface-to-air missiles. Rumsfeld grasps those likely trends in future warfare and seems inclined to spend more on bombers and unmanned aircraft and while putting less emphasis on tactical fighters. One defense official even predicted that Rumsfeld would purchase fewer F-22s.

The F-22 is the most sophisticated tactical fighter ever built and also the most costly ($180 million per aircraft). The plane was originally designed to fight for air superiority against two Soviet fighters that were never built. In the post-Cold War era, the aircraft is a relic.

Despite Rumsfeld&#8217;s good instincts, he has not yet specified which weapons he would skip to generate savings for research and development on futuristic systems. This is the crucial step. When the specifics are provided, special interests in the military services, the defense industry, and Congress (in short, what Dwight Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex) will undertake a furious effort to defeat Rumsfeld&#8217;s heroic efforts. Rumsfeld is trying to reform a gargantuan bureaucracy that still buys the wrong weapons with an industrial policy more at home in the old communist bloc than in the freest nation on earth.

The president supports Rumsfeld&#8217;s efforts to tame the behemoth, and the American people should too. You can&#8217;t have too many allies in a fight against the most powerful military in the world.

Marty, we gotta get together and down some beers.

Todd, I think Marty pretty much had me covered. I love being in the military, but it has some problems, and from what I've seen, Donny is out to fix them, and he doesn't take any crap. I've actually sat and watched C-Span just because he was on (only guy I'll sit through C-Span for). He addressed one right after the other all kinds of issues in the military, and I agreed with everyone of them. I was cheering while watching C-Span. You're right, he wants to make big changes to the military, and some of them might make things unrecognizable. But who wants to recognize an Army that wants to buy thousands of new Crusader mobile artillery units, (only marginally more effective than it's predecessor, can't remember what it's called), when they can't even find hundreds of their current mobile artillery units?

One of the first things Rumsfeld did on the job was a massive review of the military, showing that the military couldn't account for thousands of weapons, pieces of equipment, and whole military vehicles. Add to that the good ol' boy networks that keep promising men and women down in the ranks, and the jacked up promotion system (at least for officers) that gets politicians instead warriors in the top ranks, then the fact that the military is changing becomes a nice thing. I don't care if you make changes, as long as they are good changes, and as far as I've seen, Rumsfeld has our best interests at heart.

And what does David getting a cookie have to do with Donald Rumsfeld?

I would love to debate more but this is way too one sided and I don't want to be the lone liberal here.

On a softer note, I like Rumsfeld too <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Aw man, don't cop out! We've been having fun! I still like you as a person. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> Things always get heated when discussing beliefs. If you keep debating, you'll get a cookie too.

And not to be last wordish or anything, but you've kinda been the lone liberal here for like the past week, bub... What's different now?

Maybe we should start a Donny Rumsfeld thread, and see if we can get him to start posting.....

The vision Rumsfeld now has of the military is more like that of the Pentagon of pre-9/ll than it is of his own pre-9/ll vision. he deserves props for his ability to be flexible and to do what's necessary to secure our needs, but don't be blinded by the political realities either. I don't believe Rumsfield scrapped his plans of change soley because of battlefield requirements. He's a good politician and political winds of favour follow best sails pointed in the right direction.

(Marty, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest arguing you point-for-point.)

(The cookie quote didn't have anything to do with my reply, I just missed deleting it during the edit)

I think he was ready to give the military a complete overhaul, and now realizes it can't be done in the middle of a war. I think he still has the same goals, he just knows he has to make changes that are a lot smaller now, since too much of the force is otherwise occupied. And it helps a little that now there is a war on, the generals are showing that they aren't only interested in keeping power and money in their little kingdoms, but they can go kick *** for the flag too.

Gents...you now have the honor of the LONGEST forum in history...keep up the good debate, keep it on topic, and keep it professional!

Well done.

Marty and Discord, thanks for sticking up for the conservatives and right wing. Thanks to the way you guys are handling this, I've only had to chime in four times. You guys are doing a GREAT job.

Matt

Thanks for all the kind words!

Ctc-My point wasn't to get into any pissing contest about the Sec. Def, but when someone puts a charge out there (in this case he's going to totally change the military--with the implication that it will be worse) I'm just naturally curious as to where they get their information. Could be that you know something I don't and I'm always looking to be educated!

Discord-Where is SJ AFB?

This goes back to an old topic but it's new data out today-pretty interesting.

WASHINGTON (AP) - As a group, Americans whose incomes are in the top 5 percent are footing an increasing share of the national income tax burden. People in the bottom half, on the other hand, are paying only a fraction of the total take.


Two-income households are increasing, which puts more families in the top slice of taxpayers. Millions of small businesses and partnerships are up there, too, paying on graduated personal income tax scales instead of the flat corporate rates. Many other incomes were boosted by the 1990s stock market boom.

President Bush (news - web sites)'s big tax cut will prevent the wealthy from paying an even greater share in coming years. Some crucial provisions, however, such as the gradual doubling of the child tax credit, will reduce or eliminate income taxes for many middle-income people, while the rich won't qualify.

"This trend is not going to reverse," said Scott Hodge, executive director of the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax education and research group. "This will be the demographic for the 21st-century taxpayer."

The income tax deadline for most of the country is midnight April 15, next Monday.

For 1999, the most recent year for which complete Internal Revenue Service (news - web sites) statistics were available, 6.3 million taxpayers whose incomes were in the top 5 percent paid more than 55 percent of all income taxes. They had adjusted gross incomes above $120,846 a year, meaning spouses could earn a bit over $60,000 each and be considered among the nation's richest.

"It's very easy to move into the top echelon of taxpayers," Hodge said.

The wealthiest 1 percent &#8212; those earning $293,415 and up &#8212; paid more than a third of the taxes, while their share of the nation's taxable income was 19 percent. They pay income taxes at the top rate, now 38.6 percent, compared with a maximum rate of 15 percent for most lower-earning taxpayers.

Taxpayers in the bottom half paid only 4 percent of income taxes in 1999, according to the IRS. These 63 million taxpayers earned, on average, less than $26,415 a year.

Going back to 1989, the top 5 percent income group paid about 44 percent of income taxes, the bottom almost 6 percent. Then, the top tax rate paid by high earners was 31 percent.

Looking ahead, the 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut enacted last year reduces income taxes in three steps, with the final step coming in 2006. In that year, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, taxpayers earning over $100,000 a year will pay almost 59 percent of all income taxes.

Those with annual incomes of less than $30,000 a year will pay about 4.4 percent in 2006, roughly the same as they do today.

INFO-That's just part of the AP report, no slanting or opinions added by me.

We need to recruit more liberals to this board!

TE, just for prides sake (be my downfall, I know), who made the record breaking post?

Ebertt, thanks! But just for the record, I'm not a conservative or right winger, and I'm not fighting for them, just what I happen to believe is correct coinsides with them more than with left-wingers. That and fanatic belief in one side's ideals is a deluded way of living. If I have to be labeled, just call me a realist.

Marty, Seymour Johnson AFB, funniest named base in the AF. Stuck here in Goldsboro, North Cackelacky...

I like the post about taxes, I think it makes since and shows the falsehood in all the comments about the rich screwing over the poor and tkaing everything they can get for themselves. But I think it is fitting they pay a heavier burden, the freedom of this country allowed them to make so much more, and those who gained more from the country, should give more back to the country. I think those on the bottom, who are content to stay there on welfare and not move themselves up, are the real leeches, contributing the least, and taking the most while working the least.

Info, come on back, a lone liberal is better than no liberal.... Otherwise it's just gonna be all of us agreeing with each other....

Sorry, dorked something up, posted twice. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

Schrodinger's Cat

Schrodinger,Erwin. Professor of physics.
Wrote daring equations, confounded his critics.
'Win saw that the theory that Newton'd invented
By Einstien's discoveries had been badly dented.
What now? wailed his colleagues. Said Erwin."Dont panic.
No grease monkey I, but a quantum mechanic.
Consider electrons. Now, these tiny articles
Are sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles.
If thats not confusing,the nuclear dance
Of electrons and such is governed by chance.
No sweat though--my theory permits us to judge
Where some of 'em is and the rest of 'em was.
Not everyone bought this. It threatened to wreck
The comforting linkage of cause and effect.
Einstein had doubts and so Schrodinger tried
To tell him what quantum mechanics implied.
Said Win to Al, "Brother suppose we've a cat,
And inside a tube we put that cat at--
Along with a solitaire deck and some Fritos,
A bottle of Night Train and a couple of mosquitoes
(Or something else rhyming) and, oh, if you got 'em
One vial prussic acid, one decaying ottom
Or atom--whatever--but when it emits,
A trigger device blast the vial into bits
Which snuffs our poor kitty. The odds of this crime
Are 50 to 50 per hour each time.
The cylinder's sealed. The hour's passed away. Is
Our pussy still purring--or pushing up daisies?
Now you'd say that the cat either lives or it don't
But quantum mechanics is stubborn and won't.
Statistically speaking, the cat (goes the joke)
Is half cat breathing and half cat croaked.
To some this may seem a rediculous split,
But quantum mechanics must answer, "Tough @#&!
We may not know much but one things fo'sho'
There's things in the cosmos that we cannot know.
Shine light on electrons--you'll cause them to swerve
The act of observing disturbs the observed--
Which ruins your test. But then if theres no testing
To see if a particles moving or resting
Why try to conjecture? Pure useless endeavor.
We know probability--certainty, never.
The effect of this notion? I very much fear
Twill make doubtful all things that were formerly clear.
Till soon the cat doctors will say in reports,
"We've flipped a coin and we've learned hes a corpse."
So saith Herr Erwin. Quothe Albert, "You're nuts
God doesn't play dice with the universe, putz.
I'll prove it!" he said and Lord knows he tried.
In vain--until finally more or less he died.
Win spoke at the funeral: "Listen dear friends,
Sweet Al was my buddy. I must make amends.
Though he doubted my theory, I'll say of this saint:
Ten-to-one he's in heaven--but five bucks says he ain't.
Now thats the QM feline story as told by a rookie
And now I ask DISCORD, wheres my damn cookie?

-Cecil

Did you say Seymour Johnson in Goldsboro NC?
Named for Army Air Corp Lt. Seymour Johnson who was the first fatality there while he was flying a training mission in 1917.
Would you mind going by Wilburs Barbque on Hwy 70 south and eating a big plate of chopped Q with potatoe salad, cole slaw, hush puppies and a glass of ice tea or beer? Then come back and describe every bite of it on your next post.
Now theres a subject I could argue even with Marty about. BarBque, is it a noun or a verb? Is it anything you cook on a grill (No) or just pork?
What the best sauce, use gas or real charcoal?
We have so-called barbeque here in Bahrain, but I've learned there ain't but one place in the world you can get real barbeque and thats in the Piedmont area of North Carolina.

I'm being unfairly labeled as argumentative! I'm just passionate and informed (or misinformed if you disagree!) and like to make points, I enjoy the debating and I learn quite a bit from it.

William-I will not argue barbeque with you! It's just good.

Discord-Realism and conservatism are very compatible!

Discord, Marty is right on. Conservatism (and Republicans to an extent) are what I would call "realists". I'm with you though, I'm more of a realist than a right winger, conservative, or Republican, its just that it is better to identify with a group and help a group if 99% of what you and that group believe are identical.

Anyway, for Info, go check out http://www.rnc.org/gopinfo for some INFO on EXACTLY what the history of the Republican party is and what it STANDS FOR.

Matt

William, that kicked *** ! Best quantum mechanics poem I have ever read! Of course it's the only one I've ever read, but still I loved it. Give me a few more days, I gotta borrow a digital camera, then your cookie is on the way, in the form of a digital pic of BBQ and hush pupies, and.. what's that? The best down home southern drink in the world? Right, sweet tea. And hell, a beer to boot, I consume lots of fluids. But be careful, around SJ, saying Piedmont BBQ is the best will get ya shot, you gotta swear eastern carolina BBQ (the vinegar tasting stuff) is the best. I'll say it's good, but I prefer it from farther west.

As for the conservative realism thing, you're right, they walk closer together than liberalism, but I don't agree with enough of their beliefs to join their ranks. I am not christian in any sense (puts me at odds with many), and I am pro choice. Not that I would personally choose abortion, but the difference is pro lifers are fighting absolutely against abortion, taking away free will and choice, and prochoices are fighting for freedom to choose, not absolute abortion for all. Under prochoice, people could still decide to have a baby, but at least THEY have the choice.

And I was not making fun of who SJ was named for, he was a good guy, just making fun of the name being See More Johnson.... All my friends laugh at me for it...

"Quantum Physics, the dreams stuff is made of..."

Some visionaries (or idealist as many of you call them) believe that us as a people can surpass human nature on to something greater (advancement) within ourselves as a species. Conservative belief says we as human's should chose to settle for nothing more then becoming leaches of material desire. That is also why we are so disconnected as a people and why there is no such thing as "good" anymore without the word "profit" being attached. And because of this "profit," we are losing that o so important sense of family, sense of culture, and sense of duty we once had. With this mentality evolving, I see this nation just destroying itself in time, maybe like other great nations in history. I just hope that we can get together and become better then the "profits" we selfishly seek to gain. That means realistically looking within ourselves for the greater good and being able to inspire the masses to believe in it as well. I thought we learned that after Sept. 11th but I don't see that we did. At least not at the present time. But if or when we do, only then can we advance to a nation that the world can truly respect. And once that happens, then these ideals and beliefs can bring true world peace.

One more note: Jesus Christ and many other inspirational figures in human history were visionaries who believed in the greater good beyond personal reward. Their beliefs, and their lives in general will never be forgotten. But because of where we're headed, I doubt our nation can produce another person of such great importance. We have proven only smart enough to produce "puppets" for the purpose of greed and self interest; motivated to do their work only because of the mighty dollar.

I also hope that all of us, especially the right wing (so called religious side) go back and rethink our so called "realistic" view of this world. If we are all about "controlling our own fate and our own destiny," then there is no such thing as one "realistic" way. To believe in that is oppressive, and giving in to evil. If there is such a thing.

Ok, I'm done preaching

</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>Conservative belief says we as human's should chose to settle for nothing more then becoming leaches of material desire. That is also why we are so disconnected as a people and why there is no such thing as "good" anymore without the word "profit" being attached. And because of this "profit," we are losing that o so important sense of family, sense of culture, and sense of duty we once had.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You have NO idea what conservatives actually stand for, do you? Did you even READ that site I linked to down in one of my posts today? You know, actually, what you said in your post is the "idealist" stance is almost EXACTLY, WORD-FOR-WORD how right wingers/conservatives/Republicans view society. What you say conservatives believe in is EXACTLY how liberals/Democrats view society. You've got it as backwards as one can possible get.

Since you seem incapable of visiting the GOP site I linked, their stance (and mine) is that big government is NOT the answer to solving that loss of "sense of family, sense of culture, and sense of duty" (quote from your post). Instead, it is the job of community governments (state, local, city, etc.) to take care of its people, but in a limited extent. There are certain things that the community should do for itself, help out the other citizens. That is one of the PRIMARY beliefs in the conservative/Republican platform. It is not the job of the federal government to do EVERY LITTLE THING for the people. It should take care of the big things that the states can't do. States take care of what the counties can't do, and so on. And there are certain things that NO part of government at ANY level can or SHOULD do, these things are what the citizens should do of their own volition to help each other.

The primary example is the job of instilling that "sense of family, sense of culture, and sense of duty", conservatives feel that it is NOT the job of government to do that. It is the job of the family and community to make sure children grow up respecting those values. Liberals tend to believe that the answer is to take the community completely out of the equation and to make the government responsible for instilling values into children and society. Unfortunately, this is what has been happening over the last 50-60+ years. The lack of a "sense of family, sense of culture, and sense of duty" is the result of the liberals/Democrats and Republicans have fought tooth and nail to reverse this trend.

Go READ that site and then come back here and tell me what Republicans think. DO NOT sit there and read me liberal **** that's been force fed down your throat by the liberal media, colleges & universities. Only after you can PROVE to me that you read and UNDERSTAND what the GOP believes in, AS STATED BY THEM, will I even ATTEMPT to engage in a meaningful debate with you.

Matt

One thing I want to get out first is that my statement never said anything about whether we should have a small, or even a large government. I just put forth a place where we need to be at as people and the fact that we far from being there.

On a more political note:

Conservatives contradict themselves on a daily basis. What they say does not reflect what their actions are. On countless occasions, I've seen conservatives bend their ideals to suit their own interest but remain strong on those same ideals when it affects others.

Ex1: Conservatives are pro-life which is a view I won't argue with at this point (I'm pro-choice). I only argue the fact that its not consistent with many of the representatives of the conservative party's personal choices as countless conservatives believe in choice for their own families but not for everyone else's.

Key supporting fact: If you remember the republican primary when Bush was squaring off with Mccain and Allan Keyes, they were asked about how they felt about abortion in their own families. All of a sudden, they (accept Keyes) felt it was an option on the table (I can't believe they even admitted that in public).

Ex2: If our presidential election controversy in Florida was a state matter (considering republicans/conservatives are for state's rights), then why did they support a US Supreme Court decision to overturn the state decision to recount the ballots?
------------------------------------------------------------
Back to main topic: So what good is talking about helping out other people when they (conservatives) don't do anything but constantly fight tooth and nail for the rights of the haves to have more and the have nots have less? Their words begin to rub people the wrong way and it starts to sound like crap. At a certain point, you can't just talk, you have to show that your talk is not garbage simply for the sake of "sounding" humble. Its so nice to tell people that they should help people when you don't take any kind of initiative yourself. And that is where the federal government comes in and needs to take an initiative and set the example where the people fall short. Initiative can take on many forms and does not mean you have to hand out checks to the undeserving poor. It just means that you make smart decisions as to who "TRULY" needs help and then help them or create an initiative to help them.

So I ask, what do we do when its the responsibility of our government to make society a better place and its not a better place? It has to help somehow or it will start a chain reaction from crime, to recession, to a destruction of quality of life. At what point should the government start take steps?
------------------------------------------------------------
Personality assessment: Don't you notice which of the two sides hits below the belt more? Yes, conservatives are extremely aggressive and will do ANYTHING (including not play fair) to win while liberals generally tend to be a more quieter and humble group of people who focus on issues instead of personal attacks.

Supporting facts: Remember the "I did not inhale" phrase? You know why its such a popular household phrase? Because republicans dragged it out to try and destroy Bill Clinton. But what happened with GWB's drug history? Democrats let it go a week after it started. What happened with his DUI? They let it go once again. When we went to war in Afghanistan, we were united around a republican president. Why is that? Well, obviously its because democrats were humble and decided not to fight for the sake of unity. Remember the war in Yugoslavia in 98? Did the republicans unite around our president the same way? No! Every step of the way they hit below the belt to try and destroy Clinton, but now that Bush is in office, if we even question him, we're unpatriotic (Trent Lott's words).

All these factors and many many more tell me that republicans and conservatives (two sides of the same coin) are two faced, as it seems they have hidden oppressive motivations for their beliefs that are evil.

Info -

In my opinion - The biggest problem I see is the loss of absolutes in our society. There is no right and wrong anymore, just a HUGE "grey area" which most people are quick to jump in to.

When you start using "situational ethics" to support whatever course of action you take, that's the first step on the road to compromise and destruction.

However - That's what politics is all about. If you think it's about being uncompromising and true to your values, than it's time you got a reality check!

As for your comment, "liberals generally tend to be a more quieter and humble group of people who focus on issues instead of personal attacks."

Man - You must be kidding... Seriously - How can you possible believe that?

Comments like that make it hard to take you seriously, and dilute the effectiveness of your arguement.

JR

Who was it who said, "The definition of insanity is doing exactly the same thing, under exactly the same conditions, over and over - and expecting a different result?"

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Marty Givens:
<strong>Ctc-My point wasn't to get into any pissing contest about the Sec. Def, but when someone puts a charge out there (in this case he's going to totally change the military--with the implication that it will be worse) I'm just naturally curious as to where they get their information. Could be that you know something I don't and I'm always looking to be educated!</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45850-2001Mar22?language=printer

<<<When you start using "situational ethics" to support whatever course of action you take, that's the first step on the road to compromise and destruction.>>>

Elaborate please...

<<<Man - You must be kidding... Seriously - How can you possible believe that?>>>

Note all the points I made about that and then respond to that. But don't just say that and then bypass the key examples I mentioned.

My Ex was: <<<Remember the "I did not inhale" phrase? You know why its such a popular household phrase? Because republicans dragged it out to try and destroy Bill Clinton. But what happened with GWB's drug history? Democrats let it go a week after it started. What happened with his DUI? They let it go once again. When we went to war in Afghanistan, we were united around a republican president. Why is that? Well, obviously its because democrats were humble and decided not to fight for the sake of unity. Remember the war in Yugoslavia in 98? Did the republicans unite around our president the same way? No! Every step of the way they hit below the belt to try and destroy Clinton, but now that Bush is in office, if we even question him, we're unpatriotic -Trent Lott's words.>>>

Clinton needed no one to destroy him, he was doing fine himself. He was and is a criminal. Maybe the reason things kept being brought up about him was because he kept doing bad things. Yeah, W had some flaws and transgressions in the past, but he stopped them, and doesn't do them anymore. Clinton kept on being a lowlife criminal, right up to trying to steal the White House furniture when leaving office.

As to why everyone rallies around W now and no one tried to attack him with anything, one, there was nothing to attack him for. Daschle desperately tried to come up with something he was doing wrong, and looked like an idiot, because the PEOPLE thought he was doing everything right. Two, the reason democrats have to rally around him, is because the PEOPLE they represent feel he is doing right (79% approval rating), and bottom line, they have to do what the voters say. Clinton never had all the people approving of him, and during the 98 Yugoslav fighting, he was still a criminal, and still screwing things up. Calling someone on current transgressions is not hitting below the belt, it's what you're supposed to do, especially if the transgressor is in the highest office.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Conservatives contradict themselves on a daily basis. What they say does not reflect what their actions are. On countless occasions, I've seen conservatives bend their ideals to suit their own interest but remain strong on those same ideals when it affects others</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why do I see more liberal democrats in the news for illegal actions, or doing something wrong, or reversing themselves when one of their stances were proved wrong. Not saying conservative republicans don't do it also, but you appear to be brainwashed into being blind to all the bad things liberals do. And they are usually all the bad things conservatives do.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Conservative belief says we as human's should chose to settle for nothing more then becoming leaches of material desire. That is also why we are so disconnected as a people and why there is no such thing as "good" anymore without the word "profit" being attached. And because of this "profit," we are losing that o so important sense of family, sense of culture, and sense of duty we once had. With this mentality evolving, I see this nation just destroying itself in time, maybe like other great nations in history. I just hope that we can get together and become better then the "profits" we selfishly seek to gain. That means realistically looking within ourselves for the greater good and being able to inspire the masses to believe in it as well. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If this is true, please explain why for generations, people in the military, and police forces, arguably the most selfless of professions, people who willingly sign up to risk their lives for people they don't know, people who might just spit on them and denounce them (those folks are usually liberal leaning), why are these most selfless of people almost overwhelmingly conservative? According to your belief of what conservatism is and teaches, every conservative should be out there playing the world's biggest game of F**k Your Buddy just to get ahead. And yet they're not. They are out risking their lives, making money honestly, contributing money, and generally helping the country anyway they can. It ain't human nature to go into a cave and face getting shot for other people, or to fly over SAM infested airspace for other people, or to bust in on a crack house not know if you or your partner is going to get shot by some junkie or drug dealer (SCUM OF THE EARTH AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED) so someone's kid won't get addicted. That ain't human nature, and yet the vast majority of folks doing that ARE CONSERVATIVE, NOT LIBERAL.

All the liberals are out being quietly humble, trying to change the world to fit their views, while the rest of us view the world how it is, and try to make it a little more livable. Some people have only evolved enough to make try for themselves, some try for their families, and some of us are evolved enough to try for everyone, even those we don't know, and those who don't like us. Some of us are liberal, but most of us aren't.

Last point, the primary reason the people in power are in power is because the PEOPLE voted for them, not because of campaign spending or any right wing conspiracy. The reason nobody bad mouths W is because the PEOPLE don't want them to. If conservatives are the majority in all the branches, that's because the majority of people who cared enough to vote wanted conservatives. Sooner or later you're gonna have to face the fact that if folks with views you agree with don't have the power in government, it is because most of the folks in the country don't agree with your views. Not that everyone knows you're right, but the evil powers keep them down. Just like that senator (or congressman, can't remember) who switched from republican party to democrat. It wasn't the republicans in DC who tried to get him kicked out, it was the voters in his state who sued for him leave office, because he wasn't representing what they, the PEOPLE, had voted for.

</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>Last point, the primary reason the people in power are in power is because the PEOPLE voted for them, not because of campaign spending or any right wing conspiracy.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the electoral vote.

I'm not by any means an expert in human behavior, but I'd be willing to bet that when people put themselves in harm's way it is, in fact, a natural part of human behavior. Some may find it extraordinary or hard to fathom, but that doesn't make it any less natural. And I'd also be willing to bet (albeit with absolutely no data to back it up) that the reason people in law enforcement and the military is because they are, by nature, conservative people who understand themselves and their place in the world with a little more precision and clarity than people who don't. It isn't a political decision as much as it is a personal one.

Lastly, Jeffords left the Republican party and joined the Democratic party because he disagreed with the Republican Party on too many issues (http://www.senate.gov/~jeffords/524statement.html).

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ctclaus:
<strong>Lastly, Jeffords left the Republican party and joined the Democratic party because he disagreed with the Republican Party on too many issues (http://www.senate.gov/~jeffords/524statement.html).</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jeffords left the Republican party and is now and Independent, NOT a Democrat. And I also fail to see why you brought this up. Are you trying to say that people aren't allowed to switch parties? Or are you somehow trying to prove that Republicans are bad?

If you are trying to say the later, then I could use a similar argument to say that Democrats are bad. Ronald Regan, arguably one of, if not THE best, Presidents of the 20th Century, was a Democrat earlier in his life. However, he switched and became a perfect example of what a conservative Republican is.

So I have no idea what you are trying to say by bringing that point into play.

Info -
Go read the damn site!! You are basing all of your views on conservatives and Republicans on what liberals tell you they are. Go read what they say they are. As a journalist, you of all people should know the difference between a primary and secondary source. Right now, you are relying completely on a biased secondary source.

Matt

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ebbertt:
<strong>[QUOTE]I also fail to see why you brought this up. So I have no idea what you are trying to say by bringing that point into play.
Matt</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Man, you are in a foul mood. Did someone pee in your cornflakes this morning?

I brought it up in response to what was </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>Just like that senator (or congressman, can't remember) who switched from republican party to democrat. It wasn't the republicans in DC who tried to get him kicked out, it was the voters in his state who sued for him leave office, because he wasn't representing what they, the PEOPLE, had voted for.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

CtClaus-- good post.

Info...PLEASE stop making sweeping generizations about the nature of liberals and conservatives that are nothing more than a clearly biased opinion that has little grounding in truth. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but these generalizations do much to weaken valid points you bring up elswhere.

With regard to being idelaistic vs. being realistic: I agree with you-- some of the greatest strides taken by men were done in the face of serious (sometimes vehement) skepticism and opposition. However, because an idea encounters opposition does not necessarily make it progressive step in the right direction. Unfortunately, this truism has been lost by SOME of the liberals in the country (notice how I used the qualifier "some"). It is almost as if envelopes are pushed and mores are broken simply for the sake of it, as opposed to the bonafide welfare of the general public. What I think JR was referring to with "situational ethics" was the sense of relativism that accompanies many liberal positions (ie: penal system, welfare, drug use, education, etc).

I would classify myself conservative, but am in no way a rank and file Republican (I disagree with drilling in the Artic Refuge, am pro-choice, and believe that society has SOME responsibility for the welfare of it's poor). But the major problem is that many liberals are TOO idealistic without tempering their hopes with healthy skepticism. The clearest example of this that I can think of pertains to inernational relations...certainly applicable to the crisis in the middle east. Many liberals are against violence and seek peaceful alternatives for conflict resolution. OK. The only problem is the fact that, UNDENIABLY, there are people with whom you simply cannot rationally bargain with. WWII is the hallmark example of this-- didn't matter what you gave to Hitler; his word meant nothing and his vision was unequivocably evil. A more recent example: Iraq. Hussein is undeniably a threat to middle east and european stability, and more importantly, safety. European liberals want peaceful negotiations with Iraq. It doesn't work, plain and simple. He cannot be trusted, and does not have the welfare of his people, or the world for that matter, as a priority. War sucks, but there is a reason something so reviled by men throughout history hasn't dissapeared yet. Sometimes there aren't other viable alternatives.

This is not to say that we go to war with every state that we deem dangerous or that we disagree with; we are able to negotiate with China, and to some extent a dialogue is possible with N. Korea. That may change, it may not. I hope it doesn't.

The point of this digression is to illustrate the fact that there is a place for idealism and a place for convservative skepticism in dealing with problems-- across the board. The most liberal point of view may not always be practical. The most conservative point of view may be too narrow minded. The important thing is to be able to look at things critically. This cannot be done by aligning too strongly with any single ideology or party.

BTW-As far as liberals all being quiet, polite people who refrain from hitting below the belt, try watching "Hannity and Colms" once and a while. Sometimes I feel like beating Colms to death with a whiffle ball bat because of his obnoxious, snide demeanor.

If I steal a candy bar from my local grocery store, should I be marked as a cold-hearted criminal even though I did indeed commit a crime? Why is this important? Because it shows that there is a certain significance level to crime: Such as, was it a violent crime, who did it hurt (instead of who&#8217;s ego it hurt), etc.

I have one question for you Discord. What other crime has Clinton committed? I might be unaware of something since you mention that he is a continuous criminal.

<<<If this is true, please explain why for generations, people in the military, and police forces, arguably the most selfless of professions, people who willingly sign up to risk their lives for people they don't know, people who might just spit on them and denounce them -those folks are usually liberal leaning-, why are these most selfless of people almost overwhelmingly conservative?>>>

ctc, let me add to your response that many of those same cops do it for the gun, the badge, and the status of being a peace officer, and looking cool in a uniform. Some do it simply for the benefits. But nevertheless, helping out your fellow man, that is always secondary to the personal reward for many, if not most people who choose this line or work. I worked for the NYPD for several years back and saw the types of personalities our protector&#8217;s hold (including myself until I caught it and fixed it). Most are not honorable and most don&#8217;t paint a pretty picture on contributing to the greater good, despite what they may have said during their screening. They, including old friends of mine just enjoyed the fact of using a badge to get out of trouble, get out of parking violations, and just have a permit to be extremely nosy in other people's affairs for no reason at all but for picking on people (power). I'm sure its happened on many occasions with security forces at air bases. Fact is, these jobs attract many alpha males looking mostly for recognition and respect. And for the few that do it for the true nature of helping to better the world, if we can take a poll, I'd like to see how many are conservative and liberal.

See, its the persona make ups that I'm trying to get through here... Personal motivation. I'm not trying to paint a nice picture for liberals and a bad one for conservatives, I only point out intent from hidden motives. Because the fact is, I don't agree with a lot of liberal BS. Howeverm, their motivation is just a bit more pleasent to the point that I can humbly agree to disagree. On the conservative side, I see too much greed and injustice to look at it the same way. Bush is a puppet figure and a good example of what I'm talking about.

Discord,
Last point I want to make: You also tend to paint a picture of liberals as the minority when it is the other way around, despite the atmosphere in the service.

ebbertt,
I rather hear what you have to say about the arguments at hand. Marty always talks about me not answering questions or countering his arguments. So I took the time for the benefit of being thorough and answered them. I don't have nearly as many points as Marty so it shouldn't be that hard to do.

ctc - sorry about that, didn't see Discord's post. Makes sense now. Didn't mean to jump down your throat like that, but I had just woken up basically.

Info - I'm not going to respond to your argument and points, more than I already have (did a pretty good job of that last night I think) until you can show me that you have read and understand what the Republicans believe in and strive for, not what liberals say they do. I'm not asking you to agree, just get your facts straight first. In fact, I think that is what Marty, Discord, and myself are trying to get you to do. Once we reach that point, then I will respond to your points.

Matt

</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:
[QB]Ex2: If our presidential election controversy in Florida was a state matter (considering republicans/conservatives are for state's rights), then why did they support a US Supreme Court decision to overturn the state decision to recount the ballots?[QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Our Presidential election is a NATIONAL matter, when the states could not resolve it, and BOTH candidates were trying to get their own way (I won't deny that), the Supreme Court was the only way to resolve it. In something that is of national importance, no single state supreme court should have the authority to make a decision that significant. It was a matter that concerned the entire nation. That is why it was justified to appeal to the Supreme Court.

And of course, we all know now, that if the ballots had been recounted as Gore wanted them to be, he still would've lost. So it is a moot point.

Matt

Oh my Info, you really shouldn&#8217;t have decided to write and tell all of us Conservatives what it is we think and believe. This is just your fallacy argument redone. Once again the fallacy is all yours! And once again I&#8217;m more than happy to educate you to the truth, point by point:

INFO-&#8220;Conservative belief says we as human's should chose to settle for nothing more then becoming leaches of material desire.&#8221;
------I would love to see your source for that first statement. Do you have one? Or is this just how you FEEL conservatives are? Do not mistake a Republican for a Conservative as the two are not mutually inclusive. As a matter of fact there are few true Conservatives in Congress. No, President Bush is not a Conservative. Conservative belief is rooted in the idea of personal liberty and personal responsibility. It has nothing to do with a profit motive. My beliefs about money, taxes, and profit stem from my beliefs of liberty. How is this different from liberal philosophy? Well, I believe that you do not have the moral right to ask me to subsidize your health care or your retirement. Those things fall under personal responsibility-if you have failed to save for those things then you should have to deal with the consequences

INFO-&#8220; And because of this "profit," we are losing that o so important sense of family, sense of culture, and sense of duty we once had.&#8221;
-----I would say the sense of duty has not eroded so much as it has been replaced by the new &#8220;liberal&#8221; sense of entitlement.

INFO-&#8220; But if or when we do, only then can we advance to a nation that the world can truly respect.&#8221;
-----We are a nation that the world truly respects. The fact that you don&#8217;t is fairly sad but understandable given your frame of reference.

INFO-&#8220; Jesus Christ and many other inspirational figures in human history were visionaries who believed in the greater good beyond personal reward.&#8221;
-----Glad to see you think that Jesus was an inspirational figure. Much of what he taught was very consistent with conservative beliefs. Such as not relying on any other man to meet your needs lest you become his slave. A cornerstone of conservatism.

INFO-&#8220; We have proven only smart enough to produce "puppets" for the purpose of greed and self interest; motivated to do their work only because of the mighty dollar.&#8221;
-----Let me answer this with a question-Is the world a better place because of America or would the world be better is we did not exist?
I suppose all the Americans who have won Nobel prizes, led the advancement of medicine, agriculture, electronics&#8230;all these people are evil if their motive was personal even though their actions led to a greater good for humanity.

INFO-&#8230;(so called religious side) go back and rethink our so called "realistic" view of this world. If we are all about "controlling our own fate and our own destiny,"&#8230;
-----Those of us who are religious believe that God controls our fate and destiny.

INFO- &#8220;Ex1: Conservatives are pro-life which is a view I won't argue with at this point (I'm pro-choice). I only argue the fact that its not consistent with many of the representatives of the conservative party's personal choices as countless conservatives believe in choice for their own families but not for everyone else's. Key supporting fact: If you remember the republican primary when Bush was squaring off with Mccain and Allan Keyes, they were asked about how they felt about abortion in their own families. All of a sudden, they (accept Keyes) felt it was an option on the table (I can't believe they even admitted that in public).&#8221;
-----Alan Keyes happened to be the only true conservative in the bunch! McCain is a closet democrat and GW is much more of a moderate republican than a conservative one. You fail to mention the flip-flop one Albert Gore Jr. made on abortion himself. Obviously this is not a conservative only issue.

INFO-&#8220; Ex2: If our presidential election controversy in Florida was a state matter (considering republicans/conservatives are for state's rights), then why did they support a US Supreme Court decision to overturn the state decision to recount the ballots?&#8221;
-----A pretty good question, INFO. When the US Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore on Dec. 12, it did not divide along partisan lines. On the constitutional question, the court ruled 7 to 2 that Florida's recount violated the "equal protection" clause - that is, ballots were treated differently in different counties. "I can conceive of no legitimate state interest served by these differing treatments of the expressions of voters' fundamental rights. The differences appear wholly arbitrary." That's David Souter, joined by Stephen Breyer. These two justices, one appointed by a Republican, the other by a Democrat, agreed that the manual recount violated equal protection. Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, two moderates, and Antonin Scalia, a conservative, along with William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, also agreed that Florida's "standardless manual recounts" did not meet "the requirements of equal protection and due process." Once again this was not a conservative or liberal issue. Nice try though!

INFO-&#8220;&#8230; rights of the haves to have more and the have nots have less?&#8221;
----A Conservative believes that every one as a right to have more, they simply need to work to achieve more. It is not the job of government to make the world more fair-the world will always be unfair.

INFO-&#8220; It just means that you make smart decisions as to who "TRULY" needs help and then help them or create an initiative to help them.&#8221;
-----There are thousands of private charities that people give to of their own accord. The government does not need to take money from one group and give it to another.

INFO- &#8220;Yes, conservatives are extremely aggressive and will do ANYTHING (including not play fair) to win while liberals generally tend to be a more quieter and humble group of people who focus on issues instead of personal attacks.&#8221;
----Ever heard of filegate or travelgate? Or how about all the people that the Clinton administration had the IRS investigate. Or how about the &#8220;Bimbo&#8221; patrol of Clinton&#8217;s that set about to discredit any woman who made allegations about his improprieties. Point being that both sides do this and the left is just as adept as the right. As to the DWI-Al Gore&#8217;s people brought that out in the first place-did it have anything to do with GW&#8217;s qualifications, no, it was a personal attack. The &#8220;not inhale&#8221; just goes to Clinton&#8217;s inability to tell the truth.

INFO-&#8220; But what happened with GWB's drug history? Democrats let it go a week after it started.&#8221;
----That&#8217;s why the NY Times did an exhaustive search for anyone who could attest to this supposed cocaine usage? They couldn&#8217;t find any.

INFO-&#8220;All these factors and many many more tell me that republicans and conservatives (two sides of the same coin) are two faced, as it seems they have hidden oppressive motivations for their beliefs that are evil.&#8221;
-----If you believe this then you are an idiot.

INFO-&#8220; Remember the war in Yugoslavia in 98?&#8221; --------Are you equating this &#8220;war&#8221; to our current situation? This was us bombing a sovereign nation. I don&#8217;t think you have to be conservative to have some problems with that particular &#8220;war&#8221;.

INFO-&#8220; Every step of the way they hit below the belt to try and destroy Clinton, but now that Bush is in office, if we even question him, we're unpatriotic -Trent Lott's words.&#8221;
-----Clinton was his own worst enemy. And I&#8217;d like to see where you got this Trent Lott quote.

Ctc-&#8220;Lastly, Jeffords left the Republican party and joined the Democratic party because he disagreed with the Republican Party on too many issues.&#8221;
When Senate Majority Leader-to-be Tom Daschle asked Jim Jeffords what he wanted in return for switching political sides, the junior senator from the Green Mountain State asked to be chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. He switched for power reasons.
Also, the popular vote in the last election was a statistical tie.

Discord-An interesting factoid on the abortion side (no I'm not going to debate this topic with anyone)did you know that in Florida, the ACLU (backed by NOW and Planned Parenthood) sued to stop the production of a license plate that said "Choose Life" along the bottom. Those who wanted this license plate would have had to pay extra to get it. Pro-choicers limiting our choices?? I just found that very funny!

Marty, same thing has happened before. An abortion radically increases the chances of a woman getting breast cancer, the chances increase the greatest if she is already predisposed to get cancer based on family history. Anyway, Planned Parenthood REFUSES to advise women of this little factoid. I'll try to find the study.

Matt

Edit -> Just found a resource, http://www.abortionfacts.com/breast_cancer_connection/breast_cancer_connection.asp you can find all the links there.

Ctc-I read that article you posted but I don't see where you got the idea that the military was going to become unrecognizable with the changes he is purporting.

INFO-The other major problem I have with your posts (besides the fact that you rarely answer my questions) is that you never back up anything you say. Plus, your categorizing Conservatives as evil because they don't agree with you is just insane. I believe that most liberals truly believe that they have the best interests of the country at heart-I simply believe that they are misguided-not evil.

Man, take a couple hours off and look at all the stuff I have to answer.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">CtClaus... Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the electoral vote. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">True, and it's happened before too, but we have an electoral system, for a reason few people understand. It is more fair than a popular vote. It evens out the population differences for different states and regions. If we had popular voting, all elections would be determined by the east and west coasts, and none of the voters in the middle would matter. Though it seems paradoxical, electoral voting is the fairest way of doing it.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">CtClaus... I'm not by any means an expert in human behavior, but I'd be willing to bet that when people put themselves in harm's way it is, in fact, a natural part of human behavior </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is animal nature for survival, and self preservation, and for higher life forms, like humans and apes, hell, even crocodiles, it's natural to do what you have to to protect family and kin, to ensure the continuation of YOUR lines and YOUR genes. But when you put your life on the line for people you don't know, you are going against nature by ending your gene line to preserve another gene line. I fervently hope we will evolve as a species to where all humans will be willing to risk their lives for any other human, survival of the species not the gene line, but honestly, how many regular, civilian people would die to save someone not in their immediate family?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Info... Last point I want to make: You also tend to paint a picture of liberals as the minority when it is the other way around, despite the atmosphere in the service </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Okay, I read a study, it was two years ago, granted, but the vast majority of the military was conservative and voted republican. I AM IN THE MILITARY, I've been to bases all over the country. Four out of five people I meet are leaned towards conservative. NO ONE I have met, after five years of wearing a uniform, is as far gone and deluded as you appear to be. I live in the atmosphere of the service, you live in NYC. What the hell do you know about what people in the military believe, and where do you get your information? Look at this forum, the majority of people on here are military, and enough are conservative that you already said you don't want to be the lone liberal. Making things up gives you very little credibility.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Info... Most are not honorable and most don&#8217;t paint a pretty picture on contributing to the greater good, despite what they may have said during their screening </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, who are you to make statements about what most people in law enforcement work for? Great, you worked for one department, how does that make you an expert on all police? Did you read studies? Have you traveled to more than one police department? Your group of friends have bad motivations for being cops, maybe that says more about you and your friends than it does police. I have friends who are cops to, and yes, they enjoy the perks of the badge, but they earn them by risking their lives everyday. I am not saying you are wrong that there are people who abuse the badge, and who just enjoy the power. I am saying you're wrong to assume that is why ALMOST ALL of them do it. You have no way of knowing the internal motivation of anyone besides yourself, so please shut it about the motivation of all these thousands of people you don't know. The ones with poor motivations are the ones who don't risk their necks, and even if they do have poor motivations, the greater good would be a lot less great and good with out police forces around.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Info... See, its the persona make ups that I'm trying to get through here... Personal motivation. I'm not trying to paint a nice picture for liberals and a bad one for conservatives, I only point out intent from hidden motives </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, you haven't met 1/100th of one percent of the people you talk about. You have no clue what any of their personal motivations are. Your motivation may be as perfect and well meaning as you say they are, but you have no right and no ability to assign positives or negatives to any other peoples' motivations. You CAN'T, you DON'T KNOW. You have no logical, honest way to tell us what the motivations of other liberals are, you are just posting your little pipe dreams. No one else posts anything about motivations and beliefs unless they are strictly speaking of themselves. No one else is making these huge sweeping comments about whole groups of people they don't even know. Even my comment on military folks being conservative, is based on how they vote and the views they publicly express, not their deep, internal motivations.

Please refrain from telling us WHY people you've never met do things, and just tell us WHAT they do. Proven actions will be more credible than unfounded, fantasy remarks about peoples divine motivation, or greedy, money hungry motivations.

Clinton, I got this from a couple different news sources less than a month ago, after leaving office, stated himself that there was more than enough documented evidence in the Whitewater case (embezzlement, fraud, white collar stuff), and the Monica Lewinsky case (perjury, lying under oath, things like that) for him to have been impeached, convicted, and sent to jail. HE ADMITTED IT. He played the politics game to get out of it. He is still being investigated for selling pardons. When leaving office, he tried to take White House furniture he knew wasn't his to take (simply stealing), and then tried to make the government (i.e. taxpayers) pay for an office almost twice the cost of any other post-presidential office (borderline embezzlement). Almost all of his wrongful actions and crimes where white collar, which you, Info, had previously stated as being worse than drug dealers, and more dangerous and evil, and oh yeah, the foundation for the drug industry.

There is evidence backing up my post. But you'll tell me it's okay, because you have never met him, but you know his motivations are good.

And I agree, there are levels of crime, yes, if you steal a candy bar, you should have penalty less than a rapist, but if you are elected to the highest office in our country, you are in a different position, and criminal actions should be viewed as more heinous. How can you be the supreme executive (executive was meant to be the enforcer of laws) officer in a country, when you can't follow it's laws?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Info... Last point I want to make: You also tend to paint a picture of liberals as the minority when it is the other way around, despite the atmosphere in the service </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Okay, apologies, I reread this and realized I misunderstood it. You were saying they are a majority in the civilian world, despite military personnel views, not a majority in the military. All I can say is I'm not sure about that, I'd have see some hard stats, I always saw it as pretty balanced, with people like me who agree with parts of both in the middle.

But my point was to argue your "Conservative belief says we as human's should chose to settle for nothing more then becoming leaches of material desire. That is also why we are so disconnected as a people and why there is no such thing as "good" anymore without the word "profit" being attached. And because of this "profit," we are losing that o so important sense of family, sense of culture, and sense of duty we once had" statement.

If conservative motivations are all about personal advancement, and no good without profit, and liberals are all about bettering things and helping people, why are so many people in the SERVICE, (doing jobs they'd get payed more to do in the civilian sector), risking their lives for crappy pay, conservatives, and why do so many liberals refuse to join any type of SERVICE? If your view is true, conservative motivation: profit, personal gain; liberal motivation: SERVE and help others, protect those who can't protect themselves; how do you explain the predominance of conservatives in the SERVICES, making lower than average wages? Why do more conservatives SERVE the people with their very lives, and the well being of their families to boot, than liberals? How does your vaunted hidden motivation explain that?

Marty,
#1 Your words: <<<Conservative belief is rooted in the idea of personal "liberty" and personal responsibility. It has nothing to do with a profit motive.>>>

#2 <<<My beliefs about "money, taxes, and profit" stem from my beliefs of "liberty".>>>

You just basically tied both of them together for me, thank you.

Discord,
The electoral voting system creates the same problem as a popular voting system and just adds new ones. I live in NY, a state where George Bush never set foot in during the campaign. Same for most of the other major democratic states. Now the same goes for Gore as well. He never went to Texas, and never went to Republican dominated areas in the central US. So this electoral system separates the two sides equally as the popular vote system, however, the electoral system just modifies that geographically. One candidate stays more toward the coastal area's (Gore), while the other (Bush) stays more central. Remember the color grid of states each candidate won after the election?

Now, the added problem with the electoral system is that it cancels out votes as soon as the majority in each state wins. It makes the voting process seem even more worthless then what many see it to be already. I don't understand why conservatives like Marty, like this system so much if they stand for freedom and liberty. Seems like the popular vote is the most basic of the free systems of election. Everyone votes, may the majority win! Simple, every vote counts, end of story.

I don't see a hidden and corrupt motivation for this but I do see stupidity in that it was clearly not well thought out. Same as the electors system. The government wants to hold the power in case the people were to be corrupt (yea right), but isn't there a flip side? What about the government becoming corrupt??? As a conservative, wouldn't you by what you say your ideals are, want to hold the power to vote just like you want to have your power to keep and bare arms? Shouldn't the people hold the real power over the government at all cost? Or am I sensing a contradiction here?

Info -
The only way you will truly understand the voting system is if you become a constitutional lawyer. You need to read not only the Constitution, but also all the Federalist papers (written by the men who framed the Constitution). Only then will you truly appreciate the beauty of our political system and why we vote the way we do.

Matt

PS - You seem to be taking a little bit of info from every source and using that to form ROCK SOLID opinions across the board instead of investigating in depth the entire spectrum of information out there and being flexible. Despite what you say, you ARE the most hard headed person in this debate.

INFO-Yes, the two are tied together. I said there is no profit motive involved. Is that really difficult for you to comprehend?

As to the popular vote. Majority rules = tyranny.
California, Ohio, Texas, New York, New Jersey,
Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Michigan can boast a combined population of 137 million. That's slightly more than half our 272 million national population. It's therefore conceivable that just nine states could determine the presidency in a popular vote. The Electoral College gives states with small populations a measure of protection against domination by states with large populations. That's because the nine high-population states have a total of 243 electoral college votes, but 270 are needed to win the presidency.

Americans should read the wise words of James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 10. There's no clearer statement that the Framers fashioned a
republic and not a pure democracy. Our Constitution set limits on not only the power of the three branches of the federal government, it also set limits on the arbitrary will of the people that might be expressed through a majority vote.

Madison said, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an
interested and overbearing majority." And he's right.