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

Info- I think you have the wrong idea about our military. It's not that we're good, it's just that everybody else sucks. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

good point

Another wrong point about the military. Remember that military members take an oath to the Constitution, not the government but the governing document!

If the government ordered the military to perform an action that is blatantly illegal (attacking civilians) then it is the responsibility of the officers to refuse. Remember that the federal military is severely restricted in using arms in the United States (posse comitatus) while the guard units belong to the states themselves and not under federal control unless the federal government requests assistance from the states.

So if the federal government becomes totally repressive to the point that there is civil unrest, then the possibility of military action (federal or state) against the civilians is muted while the possibility of the military (federal or state) assisting the civilians is increased.

The Constitution is the key! Too bad our schools don't teach our children about the most important document in their lives as an American!

Excellent points Jym. Info, honestly, not trying to bash on you, but you really don't seem to understand the basic principles of the nation, the constitution, the military, and the relationships between all of them. Actually, that would put you in the vast, vast majority of Americans.

The government is the people, it comes from the people, and the people have ultimate power over it. Just a thought on perspective, Jefferson said that the people should overthrow the government every so often. He never qualified how. If people do not like the decisions made by the current politicians in government, when their four years is up, they vote. Think of it this way, if a democratic president leaves office and is replaced by a republican president, or a republican majority in senate and congress are switched to a democrat majority, or vice versa, hasn't the group in power changed? Hasn't the government which the people disliked been changed? The people have the power to overthrow the government every time the voting booths are set up. No one said it had to be a violent overthrow. Overthrowing a regime takes power, and thankfully, voting is the ultimate power in this country.

And if the government truly needed physical overthrowing, and the people called for it, I think the military would side with the people. The only way the government would need to be violently ejected, would be if it started ignoring the constitution. Military members are usually the most educated on the constitution, know they swear to it, not to any politician, and hold it as a sacred document. I think as soon as a politician suspended the constitution, he'd lose any control over the military he had.

It's not some politician suspending the Constitution that I'm worried about... It's the the slow, silent, insidious suspension of it one small law/court decision at a time... It's the trading of freedom for safety, it's the loss of individual rights. I forget who said it, but it goes something like this: "Do any of you think Congress would pass the Constitution and Bill of Rights today? Hell, it wouldn't even get out of sub-committee..." That's more of what I'm worried about.

Discord,

Your view, to me, seems a little naive, unfortunately so. Yes "the people" do change the government during election, and yes the balance of power does change. BUT, "the people" can only vote for who's on the ticket. And whi IS on the ticket? The good old boys from each side of the coin (repub & demo) who have basically the same agenda's that their predecessers (sp) had. I realize that occasionally someone from an outside party will run for office, but they're not elected because the rebup and demo parties are so entrenched into america's psyche. I honestly don't think the people have power over the government except in the fact that special interest groups give or withhold money to the politicians of their choice. Let's face it, politicians for the most part aren't in the business of politics for the good of the country, with a few notable exceptions. They're in it for money and power (Moscow Willie). And, I think, understanding that will help us, the little people, manipulate the government to our benefit and ultimately the good of the country. As to your statement on if the military would rise up against an unconstitutional politician, I can only say, I hope so.

CX

Coney,

I'll second that

excellent post funkyfly.

Discord, I noticed something about you. Although we are clearly on opposite ends on many issues, you at times like to just disagree for the benefit of disagreeing which is not good for debate because we never come to common ground on anything making this debate pointless. I started with an issue on how overthrowing the government (physically) is not realistic concept. It can only bring sporadic chaos for years and will solve nothing except hurt innocent people. I also continued on with how the second amendment can truly be beneficial for us in common sense ways.

You then criticized me, and yet, I heard no counter argument to my points at all.

Your right, the government is the people, which is why if we ever tried to overthrow it, we'd really be overthrowing ourselves. Are we that ignorant a people that we have to arm ourselves for possible confrontation with each other? We talk about how advanced we are as a nation but you know what, we aren't all that advanced.

Our "Government of the people by the people" is still run by big business influence. When they put out commercials saying that drugs fund terror and conveniently forget to leave out oil, which is a larger contributor to terror, that is a clear sign of what our country has evolved into. When a president says to us that the best way for us to fight terror is to go shopping, that's another clear sign of what this country has evolved into. Aren't there more affective ways to stop terror? I can think of plenty of things we can do. Too bad they're not good for business.

Oh wait I know, lets collect a lot of guns so one day we can overthrow this crazy government! lol, come back to reality my friend. The only way to fight oppression in this country is to unite and educate our people. Then having those people push for, vote, and support politicians that help our cause. It might be a slow process but little by little, it will eventually happen.

Info,

Interesting idea, educate our people. I can agree with this wholeheartedly. The problem occurs when you discuss what is education. For me, learning English, Mathmatics, Science, and History is education. We, as a nation, have compromised these fundemental courses to social engineering and experimenting with our children.

On your point about overthrowing the government, I disagree. We would not be overthrowing ourselves, we would be returning control of the government from politicians back to the people. You can yell big oil all you want but it still doesn't change the fact that all politicians have some major backing. Whether it is big oil, labor unions, special interests (NAACP, NRA, etc.), they all back the candidate that will help their cause.

I would suggest you look past the simple concept of "we need to shop because this supports big business" and find other useful results from this suggestion. Many people have a tendency to hide when disasters happen, staying inside by themselves with little or no interaction in the community. By suggesting that people shop, you motivate them. Reinforcing the thought that things haven't changed so completely and their world is not lost forever. You get people back to what they consider their normal life, whether that is buying food, seeing a movie, going to the park, etc.

The real problem for liberals is the pendulum is swinging toward the conservative side once again. Liberals have had over 40 years to show that they could make things better and the experiment is over. Now people want something different. They don't want to hear the same tired mantra without results. In other words, they want action not intentions!

Just have to answer this one: "We talk about how advanced we are as a nation but you know what, we aren't all that advanced."

Hmm, how old is this country? Which country leads the world? Which country is the one that most immigrants want to come to? Which country gives people the best chance to succeed, regardless of their income/education level? Which country leads the world in medical and technical advances? Which country gives the most money to the poor not only in that country but to every other country in the world?

CANADA! I think not. You can bad mouth this country all you want Info but if you take all the good and all the bad that this country offers-it's still better than every other country in the world. Canada included--Canada's really just a little less leftist than France. And the French are just a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys. And in the Netherlands you get killed if you're not a leftist!

"....Cheese eating surrender monkeys."

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

Flame,
My point about shopping is not that shopping itself would not help. Although shopping can help, our leaders need to expect more from us. After we go shopping, what else is there? Or is shopping the only thing us poor little civilians can do? Why can't our president speak passionately about all the other ways to help fight terror? Why not spark a huge initiative for us to buy cars instead of SUVs? Or did we forget that oil is the biggest contributor to terrorism. And did you know that the amount of extra energy an SUV depletes a year verses a car is equal to leaving your fridge open for 6 years? So what I'm saying is that if security is important as I think it is, shouldn't we be making real worth while sacrifices? Is shopping a sacrifice? I think not! For me, asking me to shop is an insult to my patriotism.

Marty,
1st, people from Cuba, Haiti, Mexico, Dominican Republic, etc are the majority that try to migrate here. Why do I single those groups out? Look at their geographical area and see which is the closest place they can migrate to. The US is the first and only viable option. With that said, how many Brits do you see fleeing to the US today? How many Europeans in general? How many Canadians? My point is to look at the fully developed country's out there and then compare.

2nd, aside from all that, economics is the only reason this country is desired by people of poor nations. If that is the single only thing that makes a country great, what does that tell you about its people? Shallow maybe? Greedy and always looking for profit from any action? Extremely limited sense of culture? Money = greatness??? I think they all apply.

Solution: Once big business money is separated from Government, then I will be more optimistic about this becoming a better nation.

Info, sorry for taking so long to reply, and for this being short, but I'm in a class.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> I started with an issue on how overthrowing the government (physically) is not realistic concept. It can only bring sporadic chaos for years and will solve nothing except hurt innocent people. I also continued on with how the second amendment can truly be beneficial for us in common sense ways. You then criticized me, and yet, I heard no counter argument to my points at all. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you read my posts? You stated how we couldn't physically overthrow the government because the government controls the military (best in the world), and it's unrealistic to believe civilians could overthrow it, short of drawn out terror tactics. One of my post's primary points was that the military wouldn't side with corrupt politicians at all, and would be on the overthrowing side, making it a quick, technically feasible coup. This was a concrete counterargument to your post. I don't see the problem. I cannot be responsible if you either don't understand my point, or have let your bias blind you. I answered your post with my argument, seemed complete to me. And I offer new views, instead of claiming no argument was made by the opposing side and falling back on the same old rhetoric from 200 posts ago. I do not argue just to argue, I voice my views, and at least I have conceded when you were right.

Coney, good points. Funky, you're right about the parties, but it's still possible for someone outside of the two biggies to break in. Not likely, but possible.

MARTY! Excellent Grounds Keeper Willie quote!

(Okay, maybe it wasn't so short, but I type fast. Probably be off the posts for a while, I'm off to Phase II in a couple days! Have fun, and bash the Frenchie Frogs for me some more.)

Discord,
What will it take for the military, as one body, to defy the president of the United States? It would have to be something pretty darn big that would never happen. In our realistic world, one side would hate certain policies, the other side would love it. That is about as extreme as it will get. All this overthrowing crap is just that, crap.

The framers of the constitution lived in an error where a nation was at its birth. Where common citizens fighting for freedom was a very likely scenario. Today, our country's bedrock is completed (our constitution). No one is going to take us over from the inside or the outside for that matter. There are just too many checks and balances in place to prevent that from ever happening. The people will not accept criminal acts from our leaders and the international community will not accept it from our leaders. So modern civil war is an idea I wish we'd just forget about right now. A united people in protest is much more powerful then a few with guns willing to fight and become terrorist.

And with that being said, please do not hide behind the 2nd amendment with that rederic. The amendment specifies "a well regulated militia" as its starting point, not common people's right to become renegades. Just the mer thought sounds extremely immature.

On a more friendly note, good luck with phase II <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

era NOT error
rhetoric NOT rederic

And second of all, the Administration's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment changed today. Check out http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st...o/scotus_guns_4

Matt

This is a post without reading the thread, but this is a reply to who would be a threat to the United States. Allow me to preface that I know very little about the hierarchy of the military, but if the government were to become bankrupt and default on it's loans then the stage would be set for a military coup. If the US dollar were become worthless for some reason (read: the debt that the US government issued was no longer good) then the incentive to respect the government would be lost and all people that had the ability to control their world would be "free" If one were to believe this, then that would be an acceptable reason to join the military: self preservation.
JT

Info,

I'll take the SUV/Van/Truck over a car any day. They provide the seating space for my family and more safety in an accident. The energy (oil produced electric) used for all the traffic lights in NYC is a waste too. Maybe we should ban cars in all major cities and only allow public transport. Of course, any public transport also uses energy.

I would expect better research from a writter (writer?)/journalist. If the amendment specified "a well regulated militia" as a starting point then that would be in the beginning of the sentence. Remember that the framers of the Constitution were versed in the English language not the American version. Their primary concern was to define individual rights and limit the government (both state and federal) encroachment over the individual.

Some people will accept criminal acts from our leaders. Look at all the supporters of Clinton. They all make the excuse that his relationship with Lewinsky was consentual between two adults. Yet he had no problem with his administration prosecuting, sending to jail, and ruining the career of a VA administrator that did the same thing with an intern and neither of them were married like Clinton. Your checks and balances are not that many and constantly being abused especially by liberals. Good example is the issue of judges. The Senate (Daschle and Leahy) refuse to bring up the Bush nominees for a vote. Their reason is the judges are "too conservative". So much for checks and balances. How about the university education system that is over 90% liberal in the areas of politics, philosophy, social sciences, etc. Is this discrimination? Doesn't this one sided presentation warp the balance?

Flame,
The 2nd Amendment does start with "a well regulated militia!" LoL. The context of it revolves around the right to create a militia for the security of a free state. Read it and get back to me.

As far as politicians and criminal acts... you brought up the Clinton case which is a perfect example of what I mean. Some approve while some disapprove. In the end, there will always be 2 sides to any domestic conflict. So again, talk about overthrowing a government can only lead to sporadic terrorism. Its an old wild wild west concept that is not needed anymore in today's modern America. Intelligence is a bigger weapon than any gun.

As far as the Bush nominee for judges, disapproving people because they are too conservative is the same as disapproving them because they are extremist. Do you want an extremist to be a judge? To me, the checks and balances worked fine in that radicals are in check from entering out government.

So since 90% of university educators are liberal, and the subjects of politics, philosophy, and social science are 90% liberal, does that give you a hit of where our nation is headed? I thought I made this point earlier and it was disregarded as liberal rhetoric. Liberalism is starting to look more like the advancement of political thought while conservatism reminds me of people trying to go backwards and conserve times that were already proven to be bad.

ebbertt,
Thank you for volunteering to be my spell checker <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Info,

from your most recent post I take it you are saying that liberals are good and conservatives are bad, correct me if I'm wrong."Liberalism is starting to look more like the advancement of political thought while conservatism reminds me of people trying to go backwards and conserve times that were already proven to be bad". What bad times are you talking about? Are you refering to a president that can't keep his pants on while at work, a president that sold secrets to the chinese for campaign money, a president that has lied under oath on more than one occasion? Yeah this looks to me like the advancement of political thought to me. I don't consider myself liberal or conservative, I have my own views on separate issues and don't hold to the "party line" on every controversial issue that comes up as some people on this post seem to be doing regardless of the facts. To me liberalism promotes the concept of "It's not my fault", it was my upbringing, it's not wrong as long as your not hurting anybody (That's my favorite one). What it comes down to is personal responsibility. The conservative view on the other hand seems to lean more towards the concept of absolutes. Meaning there is a right way and a wrong way, period, regardless of your upbringing or if it hurts someone or not. Info you keep talking about getting rid of "big business" in the government and all will be well, well you're wrong. The system we have is perfect, BUT the people in the system aren't. So I don't care what kind of government you want to set up you will have problems, because of the PEOPLE not the system. And the best way to curtail bad behavior is to hold EVERYONE responsible for their actions at a set standard. The liberal view wants to make allowances for breaking the law if you say what they want to hear or if you make a tear jerking case of how your mother didn't breast feed you. That arguement alone is BS, plenty of people have grown up in abusive environments and they made the CHOICE to not become rapist, murderers etc. As long as the PEOPLE in the system are making allowances for moral and legal lapses this country will gradually have a moral decline which in turn leads to a hedonistic view (It's all right as long as if feels good) and that in turn will lead to the eventuall downfall of this country. This country was founded and is based on the personal sacrifices of it's citizens to promote the common good. Sacrifice and hedonism don't mix.

No Info,

It is not the path that everyone is taking (liberalism). It is blatant discrimination against conservative thought. In your words, it is ok for liberals to discriminate because they have good intentions. This country has always allowed free speech and disagreement, now we have Senators that refuse to allow a vote of the entire Senate (the people's representatives) on whether these judges should be accepted or not.

I worry about you, having to run whenever a conservative is nearby because he/she may be a terrorist. You could learn much from conservatives in the same manner that you expect conservatives to learn from the liberal side.

Funky--When you write that much at one time-you have to break it up a little-or it's really hard to read. (At least I think so-anyone else agree).

Info-People aren't allowed to leave Cuba, a nice communist idea. As to Europeans flocking here-they immigrate here in much greater numbers than Americans emmigrate there! If you gave people the choice of living anywhere in the world, where do you think the vast majority would want to live? Here, because here we have opportunity for everyone who is willing to work for it.

If the Europeans are so much more advanced then why is that they started the only World Wars? Why is Europe the birthplace of the worst mass murderers in the history of the world? Why do they have ethnic cleansing going on to this day? Why did WE have to go over and sort out the Balkans mess for them??So sophisticated are they! Why did they just murder a politician who wasn't even elected to anything a week after throwing urine laced pies in his face? Very nice!

Discord-Nice catch on the Simpson's reference!

Quick joke--Why did the French plant trees along the Champs-Elysee?

So the Germans could march in the shade!

Info, I've said this before and I'll say it again, conservatism is not "going backwards". In most every other country in the world, what we call conservatives are called liberals. Why? Because they believe in a free market economy and a small government, a very "liberal" point of view for the rest of the world.

I, for one, don't know of a single person that would not LOVE to have a smaller government.

Conservatives = deal with your own god damn problems and only bring the BIG stuff to the federal government (i.e. matters of national security).

Liberals = you got a problem? think your neighbor is earning too much money and that you need a federally mandated raise to make up for it? no problem, that's what the federal government is for.

And there is an increasing trend to conservatism today. The media is starting to be less liberal, the public is as well (polls reveal that Bush would win in CA if there were to be a vote today). Sorry my friend, but liberals are a dying bread in the publics eyes, and its all for the best in my opinion.

Little Europe vs. America article excerpt here:

Economically, America may have deep inequities, but wages for the poor have been rising over the past several years, something that can't be said for the many European countries where large chunks of the working class remain chronically unemployed. Even in social policy, the stereotype of America as dynamic but heartless and Europe as inefficient but compassionate doesn't hold up.

Consider immigration. The United States takes in about twice as many immigrants as do all the European nations combined. That's largely because, after a brief scare with Pat Buchanan and Pete Wilson in the mid-1990s, nativism has collapsed as a political force in America. But in Europe, the continent with the "softer" values, it is sharply on the rise. In fact, hostility to immigrants increasingly defines the European right. In Italy, recently elected Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi pledged in his campaign to essentially seal Italy's borders, even calling on the Italian police to shoot at boats of illegal immigrants trying to reach Italian shores. In Britain, Tory candidate William Hague repeatedly blasted "bogus aslyum-seekers" and warned that if Labour won reelection, Britain would become a "foreign land." Jorg Haider's Freedom Party, part of Austria's conservative governing coalition, warns of "Uberfremdung"--"over-foreignerization." By contrast, George W. Bush has all but banished immigrant-bashing from the Republican Party. Last week, he even angered the military by promising to halt bombing in Vieques--a blatant pander to Puerto Rican voters. Can anyone imagine a conservative politician in Germany taking a similar stand to win the votes of Turks, or a French conservative pandering to Moroccans? The truth is that on immigration, supposedly brutal America is much less brutal than Europe. And far from America representing a trade off between economic efficiency and moral decency, on immigration America bests Europe on both. As David Hale, chief economist at Zurich Financial Services, told the New York Times last December, one of the major reasons for America's superior economic performance in recent years is "its demographic characteristics and high tolerance for immigration."

Is this greater humanity connected to America's history as a country of immigrants? Of course.

http://www.thenewrepublic.com/punditry/beinart061801.html

Info,

I stand corrected, in that the article starts with militia. It then continues with the reason for a militia, a method to ensure the rights of the individual and finishes with the abmonition against infringing upon these rights to the state and individual.

Article II
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.

I think this call all be summed up (Info's America is wrong, Europe know the way) by the classic cliche "the grass is always greener on the other side". Well Info, why not go find out just HOW green it is there and be sure to come back and let us all know how wrong we were. Unfortunately, that wouldn't happen since we are right.

ebbert,

Been there, done that! Many countries both working and traveling; Europe, Mid-East, Far-East, Central America, South America and even the FSU and Russia. He won't like the grass once he is there because less freedom of speech, more legal encroachment on his personal life, less concern for feelings, dislike of foreigners unless they are performing a useful function, etc.

I still can't get over the fact that because I have many conservative views that Info would equate me with a terrorist (with no factual data) yet he continues to defend liberal law breakers (proven in the courts and factual data) because they have good intentions.

Hey, how about the spouse abuser in the US Congress? I'll give you 3 guesses as to the identity of the abuser but don't look to the media to report/exploit this news!

Flame, no idea on who it is specifically. But I do have to say, the whole Traficant fiasco is laughable. What a ****ing moron. Get's convicted on multiple counts and STILL has the balls to say he's going to stick around in Congress and he WILL get re-elected. Meanwhile, people in both parties plead with him to leave. Is that your idea of a liberal Info? Since you still seem to not see the point of the Clinton deal. Even if you say he has the right to commit adultery as the President (which I do not agree with) he still PERJURED himself and asked others (directly or indirectly) to do the same.

Matt

funkyfly,
Clinton is not the lone leader of the liberal movement. Look beyond some of the not so perfect people in the world and try to focus on the ideals themselves.

I myself am not a republican or a democrat. Those are the party lines. I am however majority liberal in that I am pro-choice, anti-deathpenalty, pro-separation of church and state, pro-affirmative action, etc. I'm also against the trickle down theory, and against big business empowering government.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> it's not wrong as long as your not hurting anybody (That's my favorite one). </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you do not hurt anyone, then right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder. To assume you know beyond a shadow of a doubt as to what is right and wrong is to know for a fact that there is a God, what his purpose is, and what we are supposed to do. We will never know that and that is why faith is the only word used to describe religious belief. Morality is a personal issue that should not be judged.

Lastly, your concept of liberalism is extremely narrow. Being a liberal means so many things and hits on so many issues. To assume that views on personal responsibility are the only thing that separates liberals from conservatives makes you extremely ignorant.

Flame,
There are 2 opinions. One is liberal, the other is conservative. Both don't agree with each other. Who is discriminating? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

Who knows, maybe when it comes down to it, some common sense conservatives have good intentions. However, good intentions don't make the opinion any more right. Conservatives like to analyze things by eliminating important factors from the equation. Then when liberals bring up those factors (disparities), conservatives like to say that it doesn't matter. Well guess what, if the shoe was on the other foot, you think conservatives would turn into liberals? I think they would.

ebbertt,
Your confusing liberalism and conservatism as its not about whether we should have large or small government. That's a democrat/replublican fight. Liberals are pro-choice. That has nothing to do with government being larger. We're anti-deathpenalty. That has nothing to so with government being larger. The list goes on. In the end, conservative ideals come from the religious side trying to tell us what morality is and how we need to live. Its that arrogance that I hate.

[/QUOTE] And there is an increasing trend to conservatism today. The media is starting to be less liberal, the public is as well (polls reveal that Bush would win in CA if there were to be a vote today). Sorry my friend, but liberals are a dying bread in the publics eyes, and its all for the best in my opinion. [/QUOTE]

Keep thinking that, lol

Marty,
[/QUOTE] Economically, America may have deep inequities, but wages for the poor have been rising over the past several years, something that can't be said for the many European countries where large chunks of the working class remain chronically unemployed. Even in social policy, the stereotype of America as dynamic but heartless and Europe as inefficient but compassionate doesn't hold up. [/QUOTE]

Your right. Now let me ask you. Who has fought for the poor to have more instead of less? Last I remember, the republicans fight tooth and nail to eliminate minimum wage, to eliminate welfare, and to eliminate most benefits that go to the poor. So when we talk about all the benefits the poor have today, lets just take a step back and remember who fought for all those benefits and who is still fighting for them today.

If republicans had their way, you wouldn't be able to post what you just posted.

Flame,
Thanks for admitting your error. Now you have to keep going on this really cool trend, lol. j/k

ebbert and flame,
I'm not saying that this country is the worst. I am only saying that if we acknowledge the flaws, we can actually make it better. If we do not, then although it will be better then the rest, it won't be great. And who knows, think like this long enough and they might end up surpassing us.

Lastly, ebbertt,
Show me proof that Clinton asked others to lie for him. I'd love to see that. Or is it just speculation? Its funny how you need all this proof for your guy (Bushy), but when you say something about the other guy (Clinton), proof is not needed for proof of guilt.

INFO-So good to have you back!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

"Your right. Now let me ask you. Who has fought for the poor to have more instead of less? Last I remember, the republicans fight tooth and nail to eliminate minimum wage"

That's not true at all, as a matter of fact the last minimum wage increase passed when the repubs controlled the senate and the house. So how could that be? The minimum wage SHOULD be eliminated since it has been PROVEN that it takes jobs away from the very people it supposedly protects. As was shown to you, by me, quite a while back.

"... to eliminate welfare, and to eliminate most benefits that go to the poor."

Again, not true. Welfare reform, yes, welfare elimination, no. Welfare reform has been a huge success and Bill Clinton is quite proud that he signed it-once again it was put forward by repubs. Many dems went along and wisely so.

"... So when we talk about all the benefits the poor have today, lets just take a step back and remember who fought for all those benefits and who is still fighting for them today."

Yes lets--it's the Republicans and the Democrats who fight for the poor. They simply approach it differently. One wants to help create jobs the other wants to help create dependence on the government.

"...If republicans had their way, you wouldn't be able to post what you just posted"

Another one for the list of idiotic INFO quotes. Note that calling your quotes idiotic does not equate to calling you an idiot. I don't know you so I can only commment on what you write.

As to the college professors and their leftist tendencies-they do try to fill young minds with socialist mush but the world is a far better teacher and all students will eventually learn that what they were taught simply doesn't work in the real world.

As someone once said "That idea is so ridiculous only an intellectual could have thought of it."

Wait I found another one!

INFO-"We will never know that and that is why faith is the only word used to describe religious belief. Morality is a personal issue that should not be judged."

The term faith is over used in religious discussion. As a matter of fact there is no word "faith" in Hebrew. The word is correctly translated to "trust". But that's not the dumb part of the quote-it's the "morality should not be judged" that's really idiotic! I wish I could think of a better word but it's the one that best fits.

I can't believe that you, INFO, go through your life without judging the morality of anyone. Do your friends lie to you and steal your money? No? If they did I would hope you would JUDGE them to be unworthy of your friendship. Even though it's their own personal morality that allows them to engage in such behavior.

Can someone help me out?
I am trying to understand one thing common to many liberals. INFO isn't the only one who believes this, and this issue often crosses the party lines. How can someone be "...pro-choice, anti-deathpenalty..." (like INFO said)? I don't understand how in one breath someone can think preserve life at all cost (anti-deathpenalty), but it is acceptable to take it in another case (pro-choice).
I know these are two major topics of debate, and I think each one can be debated independently, but how can you justify thinking both ways (pro-choice, anti-deathpenalty)? Don't they conflict?

Brock-That's an easy one. To pro-choicers it's a fetus, a glob of cells, therefore it has no right to life. Killing it is akin to stepping on a cockroach-actually killing the cockroach is worse. The guy or gal on death row is a sentient being whose death will serve no purpose since they will never get out of jail anyway.

Maybe I'll start taking up the role of liberal and argue with the rest of you guys!

Oh, now I see.
No, maybe I don't.
Does this include when the glob of cells is viable?
Still conflicts, at least in my mind.

Marty, hope you didn't miss me too much <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

ok ok, enough friendly talk.. makes me cringe <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="images/icons/mad.gif" /> j/k <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

<<<That's not true at all, as a matter of fact the last minimum wage increase passed when the repubs controlled the senate and the house. So how could that be? The minimum wage SHOULD be eliminated since it has been PROVEN that it takes jobs away from the very people it supposedly protects. As was shown to you, by me, quite a while back.>>>

#1, political pressure forced republicans to concede on supporting the minimum wage. Ever watch CSPAN? I remember the daily arguments on the floor. So please, don't give credit to republicans on this issue. They hate the idea of a minimum wage.

#2, even with the increased minimum wage in place in the mid 90s, the economy boomed and unemployment was at an all time low. How do you explain that? Its all big business propaganda. They want you to believe that jobs will be lost so that they won't be forced to pay out decent wages to decent people. And while the people on top are making 6 digit salaries, they rather pay the average low class worker 2 to 3 bucks an hour. What a shame. Oh I forget, this is all to help the economy right? LOL

<<<As to the college professors and their leftist tendencies-they do try to fill young minds with socialist mush but the world is a far better teacher and all students will eventually learn that what they were taught simply doesn't work in the real world.>>>

I guess college professors don't live in the real world huh?

Good attempt Marty.

Brock,
If you think about it, they conflict no matter which way you put it.The common concern on the other side as well is, how can one side support life (pro-life) and then be comfortable with taking life (pro-deathpenalty)?

The way I see it, there's only one thing that puts pro-choice/anti deathpenalty together. And that is control. If the government has control of a woman's body, that is a very dangerous power that is not only wrong, but can lead to control of other personal areas that they have no right to control. Same with the death penalty. To give government control of life is another dangerous power in that it can easily be abused or used improperly and yet, serves no purpose since life in prison serves the same justice, if not more.

Many, including myself, believe that life in prison is a greater punishment than death. Only reason to think otherwise is when assuming that there is an afterlife inwhich the soul will be judged. Which is also why the judge says "may God have mercy on your soul." This is religious rhetoric and needs to be removed from government because if it is the case that there is no hell, then we are just doing these criminals a favor.

The oddest conflict to me is that if conservatives/republicans are for smaller government, then why do they want to gain more power only in certain areas (abortion, death penalty), but less power in others (economics).

PS. You think we'll ever get to 1000 posts? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Forced pregnancy only serves to help the rich in that it helps build a low cost workforce by creating unstable families. Because lets face it, abortion affects the lower classes more than it does the upper classes. Have a baby early and it becomes that much harder for you to succeed. It also creates a chain reaction in that your children will likely suffer the same feats. So while I don't support abortion for myself, its just nice to know that a woman can take all these economic factors into account when making the choice. Choice, ah what a nice word!

The death penalty also serves wealthy interest as well. Just take a look at the faces on death row and see if that represents America. The rich get off (OJ) and the poor fry. Who's interest does that serve? Who's interest does the justice system in general serve?

Now on the economic level, the rich (same pro-lifers and pro-deathpenalty people) love small government because they want to make as much money as possible while at the same time screwing over as many people along the way as possible. Which is a big reason why affirmative action and the minimum wage is so important. Another reason why republicans fight it so much.

They take that wealth and buy politicians who fight to support the same policies that help them again and again. It seems like an endless cycle.

Now, can anyone make a connection here between all these issues and see where the hidden motivations lie?

</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>Forced pregnancy only serves to help the rich in that it helps build a low cost workforce by creating unstable families. Because lets face it, abortion affects the lower classes more than it does the upper classes. Have a baby early and it becomes that much harder for you to succeed. It also creates a chain reaction in that your children will likely suffer the same feats. So while I don't support abortion for myself, its just nice to know that a woman can take all these economic factors into account when making the choice. Choice, ah what a nice word!

The death penalty also serves wealthy interest as well. Just take a look at the faces on death row and see if that represents America. The rich get off (OJ) and the poor fry. Who's interest does that serve? Who's interest does the justice system in general serve?

Now on the economic level, the rich (same pro-lifers and pro-deathpenalty people) love small government because they want to make as much money as possible while at the same time screwing over as many people along the way as possible. Which is a big reason why affirmative action and the minimum wage is so important. Another reason why republicans fight it so much.

They take that wealth and buy politicians who fight to support the same policies that help them again and again. It seems like an endless cycle.

Now, can anyone make a connection here between all these issues and see where the hidden motivations lie?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Marty, I think we now have a new winner for the most idiotic post on this thread. Its a long quote, but its all there, all idiocy.

Matt

Hey Info,

I can make a connection; it is all BS. IOW it is all in your imagination.

<<So while I don't support abortion for myself, it&#8217;s just nice to know that a woman can take all these economic factors into account when making the choice. Choice, ah what a nice word!>>

She made her choice when she had sex with a guy. If you want equal treatment then the choice of an abortion should be with both the man and the woman. If they both want an abortion then they get it, if they both want the child then they have a child, if one of them wants the child then it is carried to term. This is equal treatment and choice, if the man is held accountable for 18+ years of paying support for his decision to have sex then the woman should also be held accountable for carrying for her decision. Choice and responsibility for your choice [both good and bad]!

<<Who&#8217;s interest does the justice system in general serve?>>

It should serve the greater good of the people. It in fact discriminates against men [liberal feminazi agenda]. Far more then any other group. Put some good conservative judges in that believe in the Constitution and the rule of law then you will see less of the OJ's getting off. Liberal judges try to legislate from the bench instead of ruling according to the law. The same laws that had been enacted by a Congress controlled by liberals for over 40 years.

<<Now on the economic level, the rich [same pro-lifers and pro-deathpenalty people] love small government because they want to make as much money as possible while at the same time screwing over as many people along the way as possible. Which is a big reason why affirmative action and the minimum wage is so important. Another reason why republicans fight it so much.>>

They love small government because that is the foundation of our country. Personal responsibility and minimal government provide the ability for any person to succeed in our country. Affirmative action is fancy phrasing for "discrimination". This is as bad as giving amnesty to illegal aliens. The government uses my tax dollars to pay for food, shelter, medical, etc for people that have broken our laws and are in our country ILLEGALLY! While people that have entered the country LEGALLY are not eligible for any of these benefits.

We can all see the result of a liberal education by observing Info's posts. Conspiracy theories, lack of documentation, dismissing of proof, lies, selective discrimination, lack of personal responsibility, and unwavering loyalty to the idea that socialism would be great if it were only given a chance. Oh yes, the awesome use of "ad hominen [sp]" by Info!

Thankfully the pendulum is swinging away from liberalism. I only wish we could stop the swinging from going to the extremes on both sides.

Personally, I think Marty did a better job of defending INFO's point of view. At least in his statement there is a belief that maybe life is not taken. In defense of your point of view you say, "how can one side support life (pro-life) and then be comfortable with taking life (pro-deathpenalty)?" So are you just anti-them (the other side), or do you have a reason for believing the way you believe.

INFO, You talk at length about right to life (and equality), especially when the poor are involved, but you are against defending the right to life for the poorest of these (their children).
And choice, isn't it great that we live in a nation that a woman can choose to have many children and not make enough money to feed one of them. Choice argument is seriously flawed. Should it be acceptable that I choose to kill, steal, rape....after all, it is my choice.
(As a side note, when I am talking about abortion, I am talking about it being used as a means (choice) for contraception-the status quo, not in rare cases of problems, rape, etc.)

Shouldn't the government have a responsibility to uphold some fundamental values? Like your right to life? Shouldn't we, as a nation, do whatever it takes to protect this? Whether this means dropping a half million dollar bomb on one potential terrorist, losing ground troops in the process of preserving life at home and abroad, or preserving life in the womb when possible?

I think that you can be totally consistent on the pro-death penalty/anti-abortion side.
I believe that the fetus is actually a child (after all women who carry them to term rarely say "Ooh, my fetus is kicking!) and so they, being the very essence of innocence, deserve a chance to live.
The criminal on death row has taken a life without just cause. Although his death will not bring back the individual(s) he killed it will, without a doubt, assure everyone that he will never kill again.

INFO says " They want you to believe that jobs will be lost so that they won't be forced to pay out decent wages to decent people. "
----Well as the mw creeps up incrementally what you will have is better trained and more educated people taking these jobs (which should be entry level) away from the poor uneducated folks that you want to employ. If I have to pay someone $10 an hour as a minimum wage who would I rather have, some high school drop out or the kid who just graduated from college who's looking to get his foot in the door?

INFO says "I guess college professors don't live in the real world huh?"
----INFO-You finally got something RIGHT!! College campi are not part of the real world. They are isolated havens of thoughts and ideas (mostly bad ones) that are rarely applicable in the real world.

"Forced pregnancy only serves to help the rich in that it helps build a low cost workforce by creating unstable families."
----I have to agree that INFO is now going down the dark road of conspiracy theorists. And this is the beginning of the MOST IDIOTIC post on here!

"The death penalty also serves wealthy interest as well."
-----Yes, as I drive around in my new M3 I'm quietly laughing at the guys on death row, who I have somehow used to make myself wealthy! Even though the crimes they committed happened in other parts of the country and to people I never even knew. The silly dupes!

As to who voted for the minimum wage I think it's safe to say that without a MAJORITY of republicans voting for it, it would have failed. Only the true conservatives voted against it-and good for them for having the guts to do so! At least they have a grasp of economics and how they work.

<<Forced pregnancy only serves to help the rich in that it helps build a low cost workforce by creating unstable families.>>

No Info. If business wants a low-cost work force then they move production to a country that is easier on the budget. Also it is the liberal ideas that have created unstable families with their no-fault, lack of personal responsibility.

Choices and consequences!

Brock,
Why is it that pro-lifers fight so hard for the rights of the unborn, and then when they are finally born, those same pro-lifers neglect them and throw the conservative ideology on them of "now do it yourself!". Despite how much you probably hate Hillary Clinton, doesn't it take a village to raise a child? If the village they are surrounded around is crippled (usually is if abortion was considered), don't they deserve help? I don't see the people who celebrate life fighting for those children's rights to have a good life.

With all those foster homes all over the nation, it's only liberals that see it, and its only liberals that fight for them (I see it regularly). Minimum wage, affirmative action, everyone's right to healthcare, tuition assistance, welfare, food stamps, all that is part of the liberal agenda designed to help the same kids you fought to make sure lived. Designed to give them that stepping stone they need so they can grow to be average citizens. Yes, some abuse the system. Don't use those few to paint the picture of how that system doesn't work.

So yea, some of the issues do violate certain freedoms, I'm the first to admit that. But that is why I'm against this country being only about freedom. Freedom is only one component to having a great nation. But freedom alone would bring on a "super capitalism," and that needs to be in check so we all have an equal chance. That is where fairness comes in. Sure, affirmative action goes against freedom, but it serves equal opportunity. Sure, forcing people to pay a livable wage goes against freedom, but it serves fairness. A mix of freedom, fairness, and equal opportunity for all makes a country great.

But big business paints what America is and they will never agree with me. Fairness and equal opportunity endangers the ones on top. So they look for ways to get over on the poor/middle classes.

I'm sure that not every conservative feels this way which is why they need to open their eyes and see how corrupt people on top can be (I know a few). Their motivations are hidden behind arguments that have nothing to do with their true intentions. If you think these hidden signals do not exist, take a closer unbiased look at our nation's policies and our people.

Our founding fathers couldn't give a rat's *** about "fairness". All men are CREATED equal. You're born, your parents are responsible for you until you mature, its up to them. After that, it is YOUR responsibility and your's alone to either make something of yourself or become homeless. This country is not about being "fair" it is about giving every the same BASIC equality and letting THEM take responsibility for their actions above and beyond the basics.

Matt

Ack! (Doing my best Bill the Cat impersonation) quoting Hilliary Clinton--a new low point!!

No, INFO, it does not take a village. It takes a FAMILY to raise a child.

Hillary Clinton: spouse abuser of the Senate!

Remember those scratches on Bill's face just after the Monica incident became public? First they said it was an accident, then they claim that the cat did it. Of course the scratches were too large for a cat claw.

Come on Info, at least use a quote from someone that has some credibility. Your own police and firefighters recognize and can't stand that hypocrite! (sp)

More classic Liberal behavior cataloged by moi:

Robert Byrd (remember him INFO the Democratic Senator who is a former member of the KKK) attacked Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill for having made a success of himself.

Really warming to his class-envy tirade, the King Tut of the Senate further informed O'Neill: "I haven't walked in any corporate boardrooms. I haven't had to turn any millions of dollars into trust accounts. I wish I had those millions of dollars." Instead, Byrd had to scrape by with billions of dollars forcibly extracted from the taxpayers to build grotesque banana republic tributes to himself.

At least the money O'Neill "turn[ed] into trust accounts" came from his own pocket. Coincidentally, the money Byrd turned into eponymous monuments also came from O'Neill's pocket. A humble display of gratitude might have been more appropriate.

An astonished O'Neill responded to the harangue: "I started my life in a house without water or electricity. So I don't cede to you the high moral ground of not knowing what life is like in a ditch."

When did a lack of money and accomplishment become a mark of virtue? Some rich people may be swine, but so are some poor people. A lot of rich people work harder, are more creative, and are a lot nicer than the poor. Paul O'Neill was never in the Klan. Paul O'Neill never filched taxpayers' hard-earned money to build a vast complex of shrines to himself.

Some items funded by taxpayers &#8211; but still somehow named after "Robert C. Byrd" &#8211; are: The Robert C. Byrd Highway; the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam; the Robert C. Byrd Institute; the Robert C. Byrd Life Long Learning Center; the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program; the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope; the Robert C. Byrd Institute for Advanced Flexible Manufacturing; the Robert C. Byrd Federal Courthouse; the Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center; the Robert C. Byrd Academic and Technology Center; the Robert C. Byrd United Technical Center; the Robert C. Byrd Federal Building; the Robert C. Byrd Drive; the Robert C. Byrd Hilltop Office Complex; the Robert C. Byrd Library; the Robert C. Byrd Learning Resource Center; the Robert C. Byrd Rural Health Center.

Every society must have concentrations of wealth in order to build and create. Even the Soviet Union of beloved memory had concentrations of wealth &#8211; but it was in the government, rather than in corporations. It's called capital. Capital is needed to launch society's most important projects &#8211; factories, inventions, bridges, skyscrapers and telescopes named after Bob Byrd.

O'Neill's concentration of money came to him through the voluntary decisions of investors and consumers. Byrd's far larger concentration of money came to him by force. Send in half your paycheck to the government or go to jail.

The specious core of the liberal mantra on tax cuts &#8211; "tax cuts for the rich" &#8211; is that unless taxes are cut across the board, it never happens. As loaded Hollywood liberals are always reminding us, they don't "need" a tax cut. The rich we shall always have with us, kind of like the poor. At least conservatives defend the right of middle-class people to keep their money, too.

The only rich people deserving of malice are rich liberals who express bemusement at the non-rich's desire for a tax cut. They want the middle class to pay more in taxes and they use the lumpen poor as a battering ram against these hated, acquisitive, coupon-clipping climbers.

Despite his maudlin self-flattery, Robert Byrd and the rest of his party don't resent the rich on behalf of the poor. They resent the rich on behalf of the government. There may still be a toilet in West Virginia that is not yet named for Bob Byrd.

By Ann Coulter

It's that "vast right wing conspiracy" and Info just wants to save us because we can't save ourselves.

Why can't we see that his intentions are good?
Why can't we see that socialism can work if we only give it a chance?
Why can't we ignore history and the failures of socialism?
Why can't we ignore history and the success of representative democracy?
Why can't we understand that personal responsibility is selfish?
Why can't we understand that discrimination is ok?
Why can't we understand that the Constitution is only a piece of paper and shouldn't apply to all?

Simple: I took the following oath to heart.

I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD."

ebbertt,
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> This country is not about being "fair" it is about giving every the same BASIC equality and letting THEM take responsibility for their actions above and beyond the basics. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You honestly think we have equal opportunity? Why don't you just take my word for it, WE DON'T!

White collar people are 99% white. Its sad that the higher up you go in any line of work, the whiter it gets. Oh wait, I forget, they just work harder right?

Minority people are the largest serving in prison (especially for non violent drug offenses) and the largest group on death row. Oh wait, I forgot, minorities just commit more crimes right?

Marijuana and alcohol are both mood altering drugs. Marijuana does not kill people when used similarly to alcohol, plus it comes from a natural plant. Alcohol is made by a process and kills 1000s and 1000s of people yearly and it can make you violent when consumed in large quantities. Yet, one is legal and the other is not? Anyone ever ask why? Could it be that one is a rich man's drug while the other is not?
------------------------------------------------------------
Marty,
It takes a family? So I guess your kids don't leave the house daily? They don't interact, learn, become influenced by others? They don't talk to teachers, counselors, cops, peers, coaches? You must have some weird kids.

</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:
We do not have equal opportunity. To say otherwise is to not open your eyes and see.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes we do, its in the Constitution, the basic rights of everyone are there. Its up to them to make the best of it.

</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:
White collar people are 99% white. Oh wait, I forget, they just work harder right?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes they do. You work hard, you are rewarded.

</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:
Minority people are the largest serving in prison (especially for non violent drug offenses) and the largest group on death row. Oh wait, I forgot, minorities just commit more crimes right?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, they do. You break the law, you go to jail.

Matt