In article , deloid
wrote:

"BlueDude" wrote in message
...

Should a Liberal be ashamed?


This is why I am an Environmental Republican!

Actually I refer to myself as a Bull Moose Republican

Allen
www.bullmooserepublicans.com

James T. Kirby did say:

BlueDude wrote:
Should a Liberal be ashamed?

Certainly not. The hand wringing, fear mongering socialists who call
themselves liberal should be.

what the far right calls a liberal isn't even a liberal anymore.
Clinton was not a liberal, he was a centrist.

Clinton is a statist.

--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

p_j did say:

Funny thing, Bush voters overwhelmingly were ignorant of reality, at
least according to scientific polls.

Scientific polls? If they exist, they weren't applied to any of the
rhetoric in this last election.

--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

"p_j"
"George"
The people were telling the press what they wanted to hear.

I view the approaches of the two parties similar to my mom and dad.

When I jumped my bike up a curb at full tilt, I really enjoyed the comfort
of my mom who said "that mean old pavement jumped up and scraped you. They
ought to do something about that curb so it won't hurt people." Liberals
tell you they'll remove all obstacles just for you.

But I knew it was my dad who was right when he said "how many times is it
going to take before you realize that you can't run into curbs at full tilt
without tipping the bike? Pick up the wheel, you idiot." Conservatives
know that individual effort can overcome any obstacle.

You're confusing the conservative religion which is what the republican
party has become with reality. Your father may have been correct that
you are an idiot and your mother sounds like a pretty ****ed up person,
but there is nothing in liberalism that has ever suggested removing all
obstacles.



Why are liberals so arrogant and condescending? Which comes first,
the ideology or the attitude? Maybe it's two sides of the same coin.



If anything liberals of today and the past such as Jefferson and Smith
suggested that one obstacle, the requirement that parasites like the
hordes at the republican welfare trough should be required to wipe their
own asses.


You had too many insults piled on there to be coherant.

I think from your own description, you can't possibly be a liberal.

Hmmm, let's see.

Tolerant, intelligent, compassionate, open-minded, forward looking,
independent thinkers

vs.

Rigid, myopic, avaricious, knee-jerk reactionary, subservient, blindly
imitative, fear mongers.

What do you think?


Greg G.

--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

p_j did say:

If anything liberals of today and the past such as Jefferson and Smith
suggested that one obstacle, the requirement that parasites like the
hordes at the republican welfare trough should be required to wipe their
own asses.

Comparing Thomas Jefferson to either of the two major parties is
ridiculous. Thomas Jefferson was absolutely a liberal. He believed in self
government. That is the true liberal viewpoint. Dems and GOPs of
today are far removed from the ideals of our founding fathers.

--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

On 5 Nov 2004 07:53:00 -0800, (Never Enough
Money) wrote:

Hmmm. Liberals want more taxes. Taking money from an individual
reduces that individuals ability of act or express themseslves in a
manner of their own choosing.


A conservative wants to reduce spending and reduce taxes.

A liberal wants to increase spending and increase taxes.

A Republicans wants to increse spending and reduce taxes,
hoping that he will be long gone by the time the bill comes due.
And while he's at it, he'll collect what he can from the public
trough, like our friend Dave H with his "I promise not to work so
hard if you pay me" farm subsidy.

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

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 13:11:42 -0500, Allen Epps
wrote:

In article , deloid
wrote:

"BlueDude" wrote in message
...

Should a Liberal be ashamed?


This is why I am an Environmental Republican!

Actually I refer to myself as a Bull Moose Republican

Now that, I might be able to get behind.

Allen
www.bullmooserepublicans.com

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

BlueDude wrote:

Should a Liberal be ashamed?

Depends, most liberals I know are anything but liberal, some of the most
restrictive control measures have been introduced by them and their
comrades.....

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 05:50:13 +0000, BlueDude wrote:


Should a Liberal be ashamed?

No, just be aware of why you are where you are, and understandwhere you
are going:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110005858

-Doug

"David Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

I don't understand that position. If abortion is simply removing a
non-sentient
mass of cells (kind of like removing an appendix) then why is this simple
procedure "personally disgusting" to you? Also, why did you feel the need
to
add "especially when it is still inside their body" to the statement that
you
"can not claim the right to tell another person what they
must or must not do with their progeny" unless you are saying that we
shouldn't be able to keep people from destroying their "progeny" after
they are
born (for a few days, weeks or until they are 18 - what is the limit?)

On the other hand, if you did by chance believe that that mass of cells is
a
human being as individual as any other human being inside or outside of
another
person's body, I can understnd how abortion would be "personally
disgusting" to
you. However, if that is the case I can't understand your cavalier
attitude
towards it any more than if you were suggesting that we should be able to
kill
fully born humans (assuming you didn't actually mean to say that you do
believe
that above). Abortion comes down to one question and one question only.
Either
the fetus is (at some point) a human being or it is not. If it is not then
how
can there be any restriction on that medical procedure and why would it be
disgusting to you or anyone else who believed that way. If, on the other
hand,
the fetus is a human being then there cannot be ANY reason to allow ANY
abortion unless it is done in self defense because the fetus was killing
the
mother. If you believe that the fetus is a human being how on earth can
you
find any justification for allowing the destruction of millions every year
under your very nose. You would have to feel a little like a German in
1945 or
one of millions of Americans in the early 1800s who didn't think slavery
was
right, but they weren't going to anything to stop the southern slave
owners
from maintaining that "peculiar institution".

Dave Hall

I have to agree with you, Dave. I honestly don't understand the thinking of
most people who are pro-abortion. For example, Kerry's stated position was
that life begins at conception, but he supports the right to an abortion.
So, he believes that an innocent life is destroyed when an unborn child is
aborted. I don't know what he calls that, but I call the purposeful taking
of an innocent human life murder. There's at least a little more logic in
the "it's not a human being until...". But even then, I wonder...until
what? Is it not a human being until there are 10 cells? 1000? 1,000,000?
1,000,000,000? When does the "fetus" magically become a human being in
their eyes? At birth? An hour before it's just a mass of cells and
presto!, an hour later it's human? Where do they draw the line? At 6
weeks, there is a beating heart. Do any of these people have children?
Have they seen ultrasounds of children in the womb? I just don't understand
how they could see that tiny little human being in the womb and be able to
kill it. I guess if they just keep thinking of themselves long enough, they
can convince themselves that it's OK. I also wonder how women who have had
abortions live with themselves in the years afterwards. Don't they think
every year when their child's birthday would have come "what on Earth did I
do"? If they don't, I don't see how they could have a conscience.

Let's look at it this way. Consider for the moment that no one knows when
life begins. Let's weigh each side. For the sake of argument, let's say
that life begins at birth. The ramification of making abortion illegal is
that millions of women are forced to live with the consequence of consenting
to sex (excluding women who are raped). Now let's imagine that life begins
at conception. The ramification of making abortion legal is that millions
of innocent children are murdered every year. Now, I don't know where
living with the consequences of your actions falls against murder on your
moral scale, but I know where it does on mine.

todd

Prometheus did say:
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.

The solution to this argument is simple. Currently, abortion is legal
for a certain period of time during pregnancy.
Merely shift the legal period ahead about thirteen and a half years. Have
the child. At age thirteen, you pretty much know if this is going to be a
useful member of society. This is when the decision should be made.
Neighbors get a vote.

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)

I agree for the most part, but I think there are certainly times when it
is acceptable and right to come to the aid of another country. Not every
country can defend itself from aggressive neighbors. Where would the world
be if there wasn't an alliance during WWII?
I think a better policy is one of non-initiation of force. I'm a firm
believer in "live and let live", but also of the right to self defense.

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.

Agreed. But keep in mind that the US was founded by and for Christians.
Our ancestors have placed graven mementos of their religion in virtually
every public building built before 1970. I don't think we should be adding
more, or placing them in new buildings, but to remove those that exist,
to deny that heritage in order to try and revise our self image is
misguided in my opinion.

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.

They shouldn't be discouraged at all. Two (or more for that matter) people
living their lives as they see fit, without harming others, is not
anyone else's concern. But to your point, since both candidates, and the
majority of voters in both parties agree that gay marriage is offensive
and demeans the sanctity of the marriage institution, you're not making a
valid point by trying to blame this on just the Republicans.

"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


AMEN

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.

Taking from the government. Now there's an odd turn of phrase. If
anything, you'd be taking back.

"Lu Powell" wrote in message ...
According to those definitions, there are no liberals in the Democrat
party...

Naw, that can't be true. I mean, last election ol' George told us
that all of those Democrats are just a bunch of Liberals. And I know
that I can sure trust ol' George to say it like it is.

Rolling Thunder wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 05:50:13 GMT, (BlueDude)
wrote:

Should a Liberal be ashamed?

Only when they have a conscious.

Thunder

Yep. Hard to be ashamed when you are unconscious.

In article ,
Prometheus wrote:

Actually I refer to myself as a Bull Moose Republican

Now that, I might be able to get behind.

Gave up the sheep, huh?






(Aw jeez, sorry, just couldn't hep myself.)

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

(Never Enough Money) wrote in message . com...
Denial Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. Sounds like you're
in the anger phase, Prometheus.

Tens of millions of us are in the anger phase. It's likely to
continue for a while. Here's an article that summarizes how many of
us on the losing side feel today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/op...0c5949e2e19866

You know, I remember voting for Reagan. Reagan respected the
opposition. He created consensus and bipartisanship with his warmth,
humor, and his positive leadership. He inspired people with a shared
message of common purpose.

But today, the Republican party wins by intentionally cultivating
division - by encouraging disdain of Easterners, liberals, and
intellectuals, dislike of foreigners, fear of gays, and callousness
toward those in need. Generally they have little respect for the
opposition, and they seek to smear and destroy their opponents in a
particularly personal way.

Sadly, this president and this party bears little resemblance to the
party of Reagan.

"Nate Perkins"

But today, the Republican party wins by intentionally cultivating
division - by encouraging disdain of Easterners, liberals, and
intellectuals,


That's got more spin than a class 4 hurricane. It's a fact that the
NE is heavily liberal and vote accordingly. They are out of step
with the rest of the country so pointing it out isn't the division,
the division was already there.



dislike of foreigners, fear of gays, and callousness
toward those in need.



Why the derogatory comments? You are doing the demonizing
and division, not the Republican leadership.


Generally they have little respect for the
opposition, and they seek to smear and destroy their opponents in a
particularly personal way.


LOL !


Sadly, this president and this party bears little resemblance to the
party of Reagan.


Sure it does. Reagan got exactly the same kind of smarmy personal
attacks from liberals, comedians and the media but history proved the
detractors wrong and him right.

In article , (Nate Perkins) wrote:

But today, the Republican party wins by intentionally cultivating
division - by encouraging disdain of Easterners, liberals, and
intellectuals,

How silly. Easterners, liberals, and intellectuals are doing a perfectly good
job on their own of cultivating disdain for themselves among the voters, and
have no need of assistance from the Republican party or anyone else.

dislike of foreigners, fear of gays, and callousness
toward those in need. Generally they have little respect for the
opposition, and they seek to smear and destroy their opponents in a
particularly personal way.

Excuse me? It was the _Dems_ who repeatedly called the President incompetent,
a liar, a dope, etc. There was indeed a vicious, personal smear campaign going
on, but it was directed *at* the Republicans, not *by* them.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Prometheus wrote in message
[snip]

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.
You might want re-think. I suppose you ought to buy a gun. Good thing
for you we still can own a gun.

[skip]
Abortion.
We differ n this one. I'm proud we want to not murder babies. Let's
look at the extremes. One day before birth would be murder, plain and
simple. One day after conception is probably not (but it's not plain
and simple). Where between those two extremes abortion becomes murder
is the debate. A debate worth having.

As far as rights of the majority telling others that abortionis wrong
-- isn't that like the majority making murder or cannabilism or bank
robbery is wrong.

[snip]

War (and the "exportation" of freedom)

Not so simple. You think the Republicans go to war wheever they get a
chance? No. You seem to have forgotten that Saddam ignore the UN
resolutions for twelve years and that there was 9/11 which made us
more willing to defend ourselves. The limp dick diplomacy of the
democrats would never work. Had Lord Chamberlain not been dominate in
Britain, Hitler would have not destroyed most of Europe and killed
millions.

Sometimes it is appropriate to attack another country even if they
have not attacked yours. It's analgous to me catching my neighbor
beating his wife. I will go in an attck him to save her even if it's
in his own house.

[snip]

Posting the Ten Commandments on public property

I agree with you on this one. However, there's some history to
consider. Also the Democrats want to eliminate this too fast. That's
why they lost votes. To change this, society must be lead, not forced
-- oh I forgot, youi want a violent revlution. Reminds me of all the
lives that were lost because some Ynakees thought slavery had to end
TODAY. Theirimpatience caused a war, a needless war since most
scholars think slavery would have ended anyway in 15 years.

You also miss the point that the liberal have their own morality they
are trying to force upon the rest of us: no guns, abortion, gay
marriage.

[snip]

Gay marriage.

Hmmm. Every speech I hear on CNN or other news channels says "We think
it's ok for civil unions but it should not be the same as marriage
because the word marriage means man and woman." That seems like a
great compromise for now. Republicans, at least the many I know
personally and the ones I hear on TV, have nothing against gays. I
suspect there are some uneducated people that dislike gays from both
parties.



[snip]

I notice no difference between this administrations rhetoric on what
they want to do than the Clinton admn, the Reagan, the Carter, the
Johnson, the Nixon, .... This administration says what they mean and
means what they say. Perhaps that is a difference.

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.
You misunderstood me or I was not clear or both. I meant we've come a
long way in how to implement democracies. True, Plato did state a lot
of truths which are still true. I suspect he made some mistakes, too.
Regarding your asseertion of "an awful lot of polling and sound-byte
assertions without a solid foundation" -- the liberal are particulary
guilty of this.

[snip]


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.
For 15 years I developed image processing algorithms for pattern
recognition systems from Space. I also worked on high precision
control systems. For the last 10 years I've worked on wireless
telephony. There's a lot of mathemeatics in all of those areas.
[snip]

It is. Now if they would stop taking from me, we'd be getting
somewhere.
A second thing we agree on.


[snip]
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
I'm not convinced Hannibal was good. Although the Roman empire had
problems, did the barbarians make things beeter in the long run? In
fact, your friend Plato's culture might have been best had it survived
and not been overwhelmed by the Romans.

In article ,
ojunk (Sbtypesetter) wrote:

A wise man's heart is at his right hand;
but a fool's heart at his left.
Ecclesiates 10:2

Best reason I know not to be a
leftist, communist, socialist,
democrat, et al.

Wow, being a Christian and a Democrat, I find that a real stretch. But
then we all know that Christ (The word Christian came from) never hung
out with the lower class people of his time period. He told his
followers that they should force their ideas on others and to use
physical force to do so. He also advocated big business and the love of
money. He said only those with money get into Heaven and sit at the side
of our Father.

In my mind, if Jesus came back tomorrow he would be condemned by many of
the folks who now profess to know him so well and do things in his name.
I wonder if he will be as gracious to Jerry Fallwell and his ilk, as he
will be to the poorer less-vocal lower profile followers of his
teachings and who comfort and assist others with the best of their
ability, physically and monetarily. But, that is only MHO. I have some
liberal leanings, so I must be wrong. I know this because the Bible
Thumpers told me so.

God speaks:
Conservatives - Good Liberals - Bad

EPS

"p_j" wrote in message
...
Todd Fatheree wrote:

I have to agree with you, Dave. I honestly don't understand the
thinking of
most people who are pro-abortion.

What i don't understand is the anti-life attitude of the
anti-abortionists who do not value the life of sperm and eggs. These
unborn children deserve the protection of the government.

If that's your best shot, you might consider shutting it instead of looking
like a moron.

todd

In article ,
says...
I honestly don't understand the thinking of
most people who are pro-abortion. For example, Kerry's stated position was
that life begins at conception, but he supports the right to an abortion.
So, he believes that an innocent life is destroyed when an unborn child is
aborted.

He also believes he doesn't have the right to use the force of law to
make others live by his beliefs.

People who do force their religion on others are called fanatics, or
maybe Ayatollah.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
I honestly don't understand the thinking of
most people who are pro-abortion. For example, Kerry's stated position
was
that life begins at conception, but he supports the right to an
abortion.
So, he believes that an innocent life is destroyed when an unborn child
is
aborted.

He also believes he doesn't have the right to use the force of law to
make others live by his beliefs.

People who do force their religion on others are called fanatics, or
maybe Ayatollah.

Then he apparently doesn't have the courage of his convictions, assuming he
has any core beliefs in the first place that go beyond getting elected.
We're not talking about tax policy or which state gets a new highway here.
He claims to believe that innocent children are being slaughtered, but
chooses to do nothing to stop it, hiding behind the religous freedom of
others to commit murder. If you believed a child was being murdered, would
you allow it to happen as long as the murderer thought it was OK? I doubt
it. That's why Kerry's stance is inconsistent. He wants to be on both
sides of the issue at the same time.

todd

He also believes he doesn't have the right to use the force of law to
make others live by his beliefs.

So if I believe that forcing people of other races into slavery is "a bad
thing", I certainly shouldn't try to "use the force of law to make others live"
by this belief. If I believe that people of the Jewish religion shouldn't be
gassed by the government, I certainly shouldn't try to "use the force of law to
make others live" by this belief. Certainly if I believe that killing women
for showing their faces in public is wrong, I shouldn't try to "use the force
of law to make others live" by this belief. Just which beliefs do you think
CAN be given the force of law?

People who do force their religion on others are called fanatics, or
maybe Ayatollah.

I hate to burst your little anti-religion bubble, but opposition to abortion is
not a religion or a religious belief. Just because many religious people share
that belief doesn't mean you can't reach that conclusion logically and without
any leaps of faith. In fact, there is no logic to a legal structure that says
you can't kill a baby 1 second after it has been fully delivered, but it is
just fine 5 minutes earlier. I do not know of any logical argument that can
find the point prior to birth that the mass of cells becomes a human being. So
if it appears logical to you that the mere occurance of delivery annoints the
child as a human being then you are the religious one relying on a leap of
faith for your position. Otherwise, let me know, via logic, when that moment
arrives that the non-sentient mass of cells becomes a human being.

Dave Hall

Todd Fatheree wrote:

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
I honestly don't understand the thinking of
most people who are pro-abortion. For example, Kerry's stated position
was
that life begins at conception, but he supports the right to an
abortion.
So, he believes that an innocent life is destroyed when an unborn child
is
aborted.

He also believes he doesn't have the right to use the force of law to
make others live by his beliefs.

People who do force their religion on others are called fanatics, or
maybe Ayatollah.

Then he apparently doesn't have the courage of his convictions, assuming
he has any core beliefs in the first place that go beyond getting elected.
We're not talking about tax policy or which state gets a new highway here.
He claims to believe that innocent children are being slaughtered, but
chooses to do nothing to stop it, hiding behind the religous freedom of
others to commit murder. If you believed a child was being murdered,
would
you allow it to happen as long as the murderer thought it was OK? I doubt
it. That's why Kerry's stance is inconsistent. He wants to be on both
sides of the issue at the same time.

Uh, Kerry lost, it's over, who gives a damn what Kerry's "stance" is on
anything? Think he's going to run again? Geez, get a life--you're as bad
as the Southerners who are still fighting the Civil War.

todd

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

David Hall wrote:

He also believes he doesn't have the right to use the force of law to
make others live by his beliefs.

So if I believe that forcing people of other races into slavery is "a bad
thing", I certainly shouldn't try to "use the force of law to make others
live"
by this belief. If I believe that people of the Jewish religion shouldn't
be gassed by the government, I certainly shouldn't try to "use the force
of law to
make others live" by this belief. Certainly if I believe that killing
women for showing their faces in public is wrong, I shouldn't try to "use
the force
of law to make others live" by this belief. Just which beliefs do you
think CAN be given the force of law?

People who do force their religion on others are called fanatics, or
maybe Ayatollah.

I hate to burst your little anti-religion bubble, but opposition to
abortion is not a religion or a religious belief. Just because many
religious people share that belief doesn't mean you can't reach that
conclusion logically and without any leaps of faith. In fact, there is no
logic to a legal structure that says you can't kill a baby 1 second after
it has been fully delivered, but it is just fine 5 minutes earlier. I do
not know of any logical argument that can find the point prior to birth
that the mass of cells becomes a human being. So if it appears logical to
you that the mere occurance of delivery annoints the child as a human
being then you are the religious one relying on a leap of faith for your
position. Otherwise, let me know, via logic, when that moment arrives that
the non-sentient mass of cells becomes a human being.

You see, this is not something that is amenable to logic, so it is perforce
religious on both sides of the aisle even if not tied to a specific
denomination. Regardless, I think you will find very few atheists opposed
to abortion.

Personally, some anti-abortion whacko murdered a friend of mine--as far as
I'm concerned the whole lot of you deserve to rot in Hell. I don't notice
pro-choice types going around shooting people who disagree with them.

Dave Hall

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"p_j"
Fletis Humplebacker ! wrote:


That's got more spin than a class 4 hurricane.

Good job not making an argument and relying on smarminess.



So you can't argue with it?


It's a fact that the
NE is heavily liberal and vote accordingly.


Look at a county by county map. There are some big swaths of blue
through the middle of the country.



So? I didn't say they were exclusive to the NE.


I hardly think that Kerry lost for being something he's not and Bush won
for being something he's not.



So why complain?



The country was founded by liberals on liberal principles.



According to who? Michael Moore?


Personally I
don't care if the Taliban/republican anti-capitalists get 99 percent
poll approval.


It's the election poll that counts.



They are out of step
with the rest of the country so pointing it out isn't the division,
the division was already there.


Many of the polls show the division to be between what Bush denigrates
as the "reality based community" and the talk radio crowd who maintain
belief in Bush as an emmissary of God as well as notions like Saddam had
a nuclear weapons program, worked hand in hand with Al Qaeda in the 9/11
attacks and similar nonsense such as Bush is a fiscal conservative or
supports the rule of law.


Alot of assertions there. Can you support any of them?



dislike of foreigners, fear of gays, and callousness
toward those in need.


Why the derogatory comments? You are doing the demonizing
and division, not the Republican leadership.


No, he's telling the truth about you.


Your head's too far up your butt to know.



Generally they have little respect for the
opposition, and they seek to smear and destroy their opponents in a
particularly personal way.


LOL !

Exactly.


Exactly indeed. See previous comment.


Sadly, this president and this party bears little resemblance to the
party of Reagan.


Sure it does. Reagan got exactly the same kind of smarmy personal
attacks from liberals, comedians and the media but history proved the
detractors wrong and him right.


You mean that he was senile and corrupt?


Yes, that's the kind of juvenile insult I was referring to.



Ironic that the republican party's key campaign strategy is dishonest
personal attacks.


Such as? That Kerry's a liberal?


The squated down and defecated on a hero who defended
his country for doing exactly that.


Bush said he respected it, but the problem with Kerry is his actions
afterwards which prompted the swift boat vets into action. It may
have made a difference.


I can't think of a single
Bush/RNC/other Taliban group advertisement or talking point jihad that
came close to reality. Many of them were blatantly false.


But how can you know from your vantage point????


Do you know anything about Rove and his life?


Not really, I'm not the one into character assassination. Thanks for
the insight into a liberal mind.

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message ...
"p_j" wrote in message
...
Todd Fatheree wrote:

I have to agree with you, Dave. I honestly don't understand the
thinking of
most people who are pro-abortion.

What i don't understand is the anti-life attitude of the
anti-abortionists who do not value the life of sperm and eggs. These
unborn children deserve the protection of the government.

If that's your best shot, you might consider shutting it instead of looking
like a moron.

todd



Too late.

"p_j"
Fletis Humplebacker ! wrote:

Why are liberals so arrogant and condescending? Which comes first,
the ideology or the attitude? Maybe it's two sides of the same coin.

Conservatives. Isn't that what you mean?


Try reading it again.


If anything liberals of today and the past such as Jefferson and Smith
suggested that one obstacle, the requirement that parasites like the
hordes at the republican welfare trough should be required to wipe their
own asses.


You had too many insults piled on there to be coherant.

Yeah, Jefferson and Smith weren't "coherant" either.


I can understand them but I doubt they'd have anything to do with
your comments here.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Personally, some anti-abortion whacko murdered a friend of mine--as far as
I'm concerned the whole lot of you deserve to rot in Hell. I don't notice
pro-choice types going around shooting people who disagree with them.

If you don't count the 12 million babies that were murdered last year. And
don't lump me in with the wackos killing other people. I'm against both
abortion and the death penalty. And if you believe in Hell, you can be sure
it will be containing abortionists in great numbers. They better just hope
there is no supreme being, because I can't think of much worse than
destroying a totally innocent life.

todd

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Todd Fatheree wrote:
Then he apparently doesn't have the courage of his convictions, assuming
he has any core beliefs in the first place that go beyond getting
elected.
We're not talking about tax policy or which state gets a new highway
here.
He claims to believe that innocent children are being slaughtered, but
chooses to do nothing to stop it, hiding behind the religous freedom of
others to commit murder. If you believed a child was being murdered,
would
you allow it to happen as long as the murderer thought it was OK? I
doubt
it. That's why Kerry's stance is inconsistent. He wants to be on both
sides of the issue at the same time.

Uh, Kerry lost, it's over, who gives a damn what Kerry's "stance" is on
anything? Think he's going to run again? Geez, get a life--you're as bad
as the Southerners who are still fighting the Civil War.

I used his stance as a recent example. His position is not unique, which is
why it's up for discussion. I'm not worried about him or any other Democrat
getting into the White House for a long time.

todd

J. Clarke did say:

Geez, get a life--you're as bad
as the Southerners who are still fighting the Civil War.

I've lived in the Southern US most of my life and have never met one of
these folks. Do you know any? Or are you just watching too much television?

--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

Todd Fatheree wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Personally, some anti-abortion whacko murdered a friend of mine--as far
as
I'm concerned the whole lot of you deserve to rot in Hell. I don't
notice pro-choice types going around shooting people who disagree with
them.

If you don't count the 12 million babies that were murdered last year.

If you consider them to be "babies". Personally I find that sort of
transparent appeal to emotion to be especially reprehensible.

And
don't lump me in with the wackos killing other people. I'm against both
abortion and the death penalty. And if you believe in Hell, you can be
sure
it will be containing abortionists in great numbers.

Or not as the case may be. You assume you know the mind of a deity. And
you're a fellow traveller if you condone the sort of actions these whackos
take.

They better just
hope there is no supreme being, because I can't think of much worse than
destroying a totally innocent life.

Well, now, suppose the deity disagrees with you on this?


todd

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

WoodMangler wrote:

J. Clarke did say:

Geez, get a life--you're as bad
as the Southerners who are still fighting the Civil War.

I've lived in the Southern US most of my life and have never met one of
these folks. Do you know any? Or are you just watching too much
television?

I was borne there, you just lived there--I suspect I've been more heavily
immersed in the culture than you have.

Maybe you've been moving in the wrong circles. At the high end you have the
Sons of Confederate Veterans (this is the Ferrari driving set--I don't
recall the dues but I thought my folks were nuts to pay that much), in the
middle a surprising number of college professors (one of my cousins is
such) and other intellectuals, and then at the low end you have the Klan,
which the other two groups kind of wish would go away as it's become an
embarrasment.

Or maybe the folks you've encountered just don't discuss such matters around
folks who they know they will offend--courtesy is a Southern tradition you
know.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:10:11 -0500, WoodMangler
wrote:


Agreed. But keep in mind that the US was founded by and for Christians.


It was founded by Christians of various stripes, and Jews, and
Muslims, and people with a range of religions I know nothing
about (slaves who weren't Muslims). And a lot of them
(especially the slaves) did a very significant portion of the work
to make the US possible. I don't know whether it was "for
Chrisitians," but it is true that Christians enslaved and
discriminated against a significant percentage of the denizens
and ultimately citizens of this country. I don't see how such
behavior confers any special rights and privileges on them,
at least not in the 21st century in the US, unless you have a
Taliban-style philosophy of a religious state.

In article ,
says...
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...

He also believes he doesn't have the right to use the force of law to
make others live by his beliefs.


Then he apparently doesn't have the courage of his convictions, assuming he
has any core beliefs in the first place that go beyond getting elected.
We're not talking about tax policy or which state gets a new highway here.
He claims to believe that innocent children are being slaughtered, but
chooses to do nothing to stop it, hiding behind the religous freedom of
others to commit murder.

You just assumed the pertinent point. Kerry, and apparently you,
believe that a fetus is a human child. If we all agreed to that, there
would be no abortion debate. Kerry realizes that others don't believe
that a fetus is a child. You don't seem to realize that. Maybe that's
what you want to force others to believe.

I do oppose any abortion after the fetus is capable of living on its own
without extraordinary efforts and equipment. In effect, that means
after about 6 or 7 months of gestation.

Up to that point, refusing to allow a woman to abort is making her a
slave to your beliefs. Come to think of it, that's probably the
motivation of many. Kinder,kirche,kuchen - now who was it said that?

As another poster has mentioned, this argument is not amenable to
reason, as it's based on opinion on both sides. How about we drop it?

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 06:39:46 -0800, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:


But today, the Republican party wins by intentionally cultivating
division - by encouraging disdain of Easterners, liberals, and
intellectuals,

That's got more spin than a class 4 hurricane. It's a fact that the
NE is heavily liberal and vote accordingly. They are out of step
with the rest of the country so pointing it out isn't the division,
the division was already there.


That makes a second hurricane. Almost 56M people voted for
Kerry. The people on the other side of the division line add up
to more than NEders.


Something that should concern all of us is that Kerry could have
won the election while being down more than 3M votes, and that
is in spite of our federal system that gives more weight to voters
in Bush states such as Wyoming. If that had happened, a lot of
people would have been justifiably angry. Some thought should
be given to that to see whether we should try to avoid such a
situation in the future.

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 10:57:20 -0600, (p_j) wrote:


My father is receiving Social Security. Personally, I think in his case
and many of his generation they are welfare payments. One Christmas in a
discussion on the topic, me, him and my uncle made crude calculations.

Based on estimates of his contribution he had received about 50 times
what he payed in. Hell since then, not only does he receive his monthly
allotment of SS bucks, but he's had a variety of medical procedures,
each of which usually costs more than he paid into the system in his
entire lifetime.


The Social Security System is and always has been a welfare
program wrapped up in a mantle of an "insurance" system by
Roosevelt to make it more palatable to both payers and
recipients. And all pretense of it being a separate pot of money
disappeared when Nixon began to mingle SSS receipts &
expenses in with the Fed budget to hide the extent of his
deficits (and I believe that every president since has followed
suit).

In article , GregP wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:10:11 -0500, WoodMangler
wrote:

Agreed. But keep in mind that the US was founded by and for Christians.

It was founded by Christians of various stripes, and Jews, and
Muslims,

Just curious -- which of the Founding Fathers were Jews? Which were Muslims?

and people with a range of religions I know nothing
about (slaves who weren't Muslims). And a lot of them
(especially the slaves) did a very significant portion of the work
to make the US possible. I don't know whether it was "for
Chrisitians," but it is true that Christians enslaved and
discriminated against a significant percentage of the denizens
and ultimately citizens of this country.

It is also true that Christians forced an *end* to slavery in this country and
elsewhere. Where slavery still exists, it is only in areas not dominated by
Christians.

It is further true that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s was Christian
to the core.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.