On 6 Nov 2004 07:19:53 -0800, (Never Enough
Money) wrote:

Denial Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. Sounds like you're
in the anger phase, Prometheus. Think we're almost ready for a violent
revolution, do you? Don't you think you should wait till you actually
loose the rigth of Habeas Corpus?

Actually, no. I think a violent revolution is almost justified. I
don't believe that the average American is almost ready for one. Too
much bread and too many circuses.

More comments embedded.
Agreed. Republicans have turned into tyrants-in-training. How does
the desire to control the lives of others based on one group's concept
of "morality" fit into the definition of liberal?
Perhaps you could help me out with examples.

Abortion.

It has been a consistant stand of the Republican party that is has the
moral obligation to oppose the use of abortion in almost every case-
the argument is not based on science, but on a religious belief that a
fertilized egg is a human being with a soul. When they make this
argument, it is based on a moral code which is not shared by the
people they hope to prevent from engaging in this activity. Trying to
ban abortion is using their concept of morality to control the life of
another. While the idea of abortion is personally disgusting to me, I
do not and can not claim the right to tell another person what they
must or must not do with their progeny, especially when it is still
inside their body.

War (and the "exportation" of freedom)

While a dictatorship is absolutely abhorrent to the American mindset,
many countries throughout history have been ruled by warlords and/or
kings. Sometimes this rule is by consent of the people, and sometimes
it is not. In any case, it is not the province of an outside power to
invade an independant power because the morality of the outside
power's elected leader tells him that "all people want to be free."
We may believe that freedom is always better, and that may be true for
us- but that does not automatically mean that other cultures feel the
same. We have no right to overthrow governments unless they attack
ours (not Kuwait's- ours)

Posting the Ten Commandments on public property

While I hold no animosity towards any of the principles expressed by
the commandments, they are, stirictly speaking a Christian/Jewish
moral code. When such a monument is posted on the grounds of a public
building, it is maintained with the taxpayer's money. Taxation is
money taken from private citizens by the government, and should never
be used to grant a greater legitimacy to one religion than to another,
since adherants of many different faiths have all contriubted to the
upkeep of that building.

Gay marriage.

What difference can it possibly make to allow any two people to engage
in a mutually accepted social contract? My morality tells me that
there's nothing wrong with two individuals accepting one another's
lifelong companionship, regardless of their gender. When the legal
right to join in civil union is denied to two citizens, it is one
group's moral sense being used to control the lives of others. If
these unions are to be discouraged, it should be done by their
churches- not the state.

There are many more, but there are a few to chew on a bit.

Gee, Bush is the exact opposite. So I wonder once again whether you have
recently awakened from a coma? Hell, Bush doesn't believe that the
executive should be limited much at all by the courts. He has claimed
the right to imprison you or execute you without trial on his command
only.

Won't be long before he suspends the writ of Habeas Corpus in the
interest of "National Security." There's even a precedent for him to
use that Lincoln set in the Civil War.

Well, well, well. Let's just wait and see if your prediction becomes
reality. I'll bet you'll be eating crow again 4 years from now when it
does NOT happen. In fact, I'll bet we loose no individual freedoms --
freedoms will increase by the methods I mentioned in my first post.

No problem here with eating crow- I'll be happy to, provided I'm
wrong. Save this message, and get back to me in four years.

They favor a "republican" form of government (to which we
pledge allegiance to) to prevent the situtation where the majority
always wins - squashing the minority without remorse.

If this were true, his acceptance speech would not have used the word
"mandate." Nor would he have expressed the sentiment "If you're not
with us, you're with the terrorists" I voted for Kerry- does that
make me a sucide bomber?

Huh? Are you objecting to "They favor a 'republican' form of
government" or that republican forms of governemtns prevet the
majority from always winning?

I'm objecting to the idea that this administration does not intend to
squash the minority without remorse. Their rhetoric indicates that
they believe that they have a divine right to do whatever they wish
based on the results of an election with a one-point spread.

Your vote for Kerry does not make you a terrorist but it probably
pleased the terrorist. If you want to parse the words of speeches,
little Mr. Kerry has some words that are rediculous. Let's not go
there.

Somehow I doubt that anything I do pleases terrorists. I'd go so far
as to say that they could care less.

There is a classic chestnut of talk radio. Still waiting for some
sheeple like you to provide an example of this mythic democracy where
there were no represenatives. Hell, I'd settle for some philosopher who
even mentions such a system. Of course none exist.

Even here there are magistrates, but I think it adds to your overall
arguement.

Wow. Your political science is running amok. What made you think I was
not wanting representatives? BTW, Plato was a smart guy but we've
(Democrats and Repbulicans) have come much farther than that.
Marx was a smart guy but we've also risen above his ideas.

That was the previous poster. As for Plato, we have not "come much
farther than that." Philosophy is the pursuit of truth, and truth is
outside the constraints of time and social expediency. If I tell you
that water is wet, water will still be wet a billion years from now
(or it will have ceased to have been water) An argument built on a
solid foundation with proper primary axioms and carefully maintained
logical steps is relevent in all times, and all places. I have never
seen a single syllogism produced by any contemporary politician that
can even hold a candle to Plato's dialogues. What I do see is an
awful lot of polling and sound-byte assertions without a solid
foundation.

When you get to Marx, he was a smart guy- he just had far too much
faith in the ability of the populace to regulate their appetites. The
system of governement he proposed was fundimentally flawed because of
an unwarranted assumption in his primary axioms.

[snip]
There are more
minorities in the Bush administration than any other administration in
American history.

So what? Reward should be based on merit, not some stilted ploy to
point at the "little guy" he gave a hand up to.

What makes you think merit was not involved?

The ACLU and political correctness. That isn't to say that they're
not qualified- it just makes the issue of how many of each color are
in office far too muddied to use as a salient argument.

How is that? With the "Patriot" Act?
With the methods mentioned in my original post.

Sure they can. I have an education in the liberal arts, and I work in
manfacturing- I produce at least 150% more than anyone else in my
department every day *because* I understand philosophy. Sure, it's
that old, "outdated" rational philosophy, but I just can't bring
myself to jump onto the Kantian bandwagon.

Sounds like hubris to me. I doubt your productivity is related to your
philosophy or understanding of it.

"Capitalism demands the best of every man- his rationality- and
rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work
he likes, to specialize in it, and to go as far on the road of
achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him. His sucess
depends on the objective value of his work and the rationality of
those who recognize that value."
-Ayn Rand

This is certainly more incentive for me to work than is the desire to
simply avoid punishment and collect my paycheck. All productivity is
directly related to philosophy, at all times. If a man holds the
philosophy that he should simply go along to get along, his productive
potential is signifigantly greater than a man whose philosophy is to
always challenge himself to achieve greater goals.

As far as hubris goes- I guess you missed my usenet handle, and that
which it implies.

Guess you didn't make it to college huh? (Here is a clue: edit this
whole thing out because your being an idiot.)

I have a doctorate in mathematics.

Bully for you.

I say "get a job" like the rest of us
had to.

How many forms of welfare do you receive?
None.

What is it you do with a doctorate in Mathematics? If you are a
professor, you are almost certainly receiving many types of welfare,
albeit through the filter of your institution.

Never took so much as a day's wage from the gov't in my entire life.
The only things I use from them are those things which I must use for
lack of other options (police, roads, military etc.) And somehow I
managed not to vote for Bush.

Good that you have not taken from the government.

It is. Now if they would stop taking from me, we'd be getting
somewhere.

Get off it. You responded.

Good advice. I will get off of it and I will not respond to your or
anybody elses vitriolic and on;lt faintly accurate postings.

Vitriol, sure. Faintly accurate? Perhaps, but I do not see where you
have made that case.

You're probably thinking you told me off. Don't be so smug. Don't be
so angry. My man lost when Johnson won, when Carter won, when Clinton
won. I've been on the loosing side many times. If Bush fullfills your
predictions, then your man will win next time to correct it. So grow
up and move on.

Not the way our system, err... works?, next time, they'll both be
odious, no doubt.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam