Hello!
What does everyone think of Conservatives? Communists? Liberals? Facists?

They are all humans ... except maybe the Conservatives ... or maybe the Communists ... Although I don't know about the Liberals ... And definitely not the Facists ;)

Not all conservatives are bad but some are pure evil and delite in the torture of the people they represent.

Liberals are the 'light side' of the political force, while the conservative republicans are the dark sith which delve into evil itself and surround themselves in it, drown themselves in it and come to congress and the presidency with blinding rage that keeps them from seeing the hope and determination of the light side, the good side to lead america through a (hopefully) coming global age.

The republican party is disintegrating into something else. The democrats will soon reign supreme.

What makes me wonder is: how can the republican party exist? not that many people are so incredibly evil.

Why should it be so hard to understand Oh, Shrike! I must applaud you for your conviction in stating that all Conservatives are evil. I am just so certain that all members of the Republican party are

so incredibly evil

;) In fact I applaud you so much that in fact I am a Conservative myself. Why thank you Shrike.

;) It's Okay, Shrike-o, that you don't understand Conservatives, since Conservatives by nature are very hard to understand. Sorry, Bucko, but there isn't any gloss over on the dark side, and I don't think we really care.



;) Why should it be so hard to understand that all people have the same rights, and only the rights to given to us by the Constitution? We are not being cheated by the Constitution-it gave us the rights that formed a balance for a harmonious society.

;) Besides which, the government, by it's very constitutional requirements, should be much smaller than it is. That doesn't mean we get less. We don't simply trim off money to make a smaller government, we restructure the government so it needs less to run. When people have more money in their hands, it becomes less of an issue of who qualifies to recieve money, since the money you would be recieveing would have been in your hands all along.

;) We have more responsibilty for ourselves. We should not let a bunch of politicians (Blue or Red) determine what happens with, in some cases, more of our money than we're allowed to keep.

;) In any case (now I sound like a Libretarian) nobody can be as evil as you described. Which does not negate the neccessity for the Republican Party; it simply negates the fact that Republicans are evil. Look a little deeper and you'll see that Conservatives just have a different view. Instead of banishing differences to the realm of right or wrong. (and why are we alwyas in the right section), We should celebrate them.

;) Now wait, isn't that what liberals say??
;) THIS negates the neccessity for a Republican party, and A democratic party.

;) We all mean well... all of our differences are caught up in the spin zone.


AND THAT, is whay i watch Bill O'Reilly. Who just happens to look like my Algebra teacher's long lost twin....:eek:

I heard Bill O'Reilly interrupts people a lot.

I didn't mean that all conservatives are evil, I got a little ahead of myself, but the conservatives in congress, some but not all, are. They're racist bigots that only exist to fulfill the companies that have them in their back pockets needs.

. . . . Conservatives by nature are very hard to understand.Not particularly. Conservatism is motivated by greed.Why should it be so hard to understand that all people have the same rights, and only the rights to given to us by the Constitution? We are not being cheated by the Constitution-it gave us the rights that formed a balance for a harmonious society.Well ... it did take a healthy dose of liberalism to get rid of that Three-Fifths Rule. And to achieve woman suffrage. Conservatism was so kind to the civil rights movement ....

Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly cheer that summary of rights, but I only wish more conservatives felt that way. Typically, they go with greed. Fairness is measured by conservatives in relation to how happy the individual is with what he has. If the individual is unhappy, then something's unfair. If the individual is not the self, he's irrelevant. Conservatism is demonstrably simplistic. Those who watched Newt Gingrich recognize a brand of conservatism that is downright childish. Besides which, the government, by it's very constitutional requirements, should be much smaller than it is. That doesn't mean we get less. We don't simply trim off money to make a smaller government, we restructure the government so it needs less to run. When people have more money in their hands, it becomes less of an issue of who qualifies to recieve money, since the money you would be recieveing would have been in your hands all along.The whole American tax code is a mess, I'll heartily drink to that. But any time the conservatives tinker with taxes, the less money you have, the more of it you have to give. Don't get me wrong: we all understand the idea of trickle-down; it's just that the idea didn't manifest as planned. Sure, the economy created a ton of new millionaires; it created more working poor people than it did millionaires, though.We have more responsibilty for ourselves. We should not let a bunch of politicians (Blue or Red) determine what happens with, in some cases, more of our money than we're allowed to keep. You're also more obsessed with yourselves. The obvious solution, of course, is to elect new politicians with different ideas, not new politicians with a new name for the same ol' shite. It's like a lands commissioner primary we had up here. Of course, the institutional politicians won it out, but one of the fringe candidates proposed two simple measures that were both good for the land and good for the economy: 1) medical marijuana--the sweet leaf grows quite well in our corner of the world; 2) plant a certain hybrid tree on 500,000 acres of public land and corner the baseball-bat market in twenty years. Come on: it's money that doesn't involve ruining the land; even you conservatives oughta love that, right? These guys get no support though. Conservatives want a candidate who will win, even if the only benefit the conservative gets comes at his neighbor's expense.In any case (now I sound like a Libretarian) nobody can be as evil as you described. Which does not negate the neccessity for the Republican Party; it simply negates the fact that Republicans are evil. I agree that Republicans aren't inherently evil. But I do think you're all nuts. There is one guy from the GOP I do admire; a guy named Berkman, once the chair of the Oregon GOP. I disagreed with most planks of his platform, but I was mightily impressed when he dissolved the state's Republican party in order to prevent a religious overthrow of the party; he feared the damage at the national level would be too severe. It was a pretty cool move, if you ask me. Now wait, isn't that what liberals say??
THIS negates the neccessity for a Republican party, and A democratic party. I think you've pretty much nailed it. I think the difference between a democrat and a republican is merely a matter of standards: the democrat has set a "for-the-people" standard for itself; the republican has set a "for-the-person" standard.We all mean well... all of our differences are caught up in the spin zone.Check in with your Christian wing; some of those are downright spiteful. But I am sympathetic to what you're saying.

And Bill O'Reilly's a whore. I couldn't let that go without mention.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Would you say that he's a "Male Data Slut?" That was my last title.

WARNING WARNING WARNING!!
Every word i say here is an opinion/



;) Tiassa, I do think that making sure all persons recieve whatever from the government they get is better than treating the population as a giant social mass. Really, I would prefer seeing the standard as treating it as a very large group of individuals with individual rights than a group of people with collective rights.

;) Bill O'Reilly does interrupt a lot. However, unlike those like Wolf Blitzer on cursed CNN, he apoplogizes and gives a reason why he's interrupted to the person he's interrupted. For example: "Sorry, but this whole issue really gets me mad. I, as an individual, truly feel strongly about this".
;) Of course, he never sounds so stiff and robotic, but you get the point. The main difference between Bill O'Reily and other political pundits is that his show is a running arguement, that tells you beforehand that Bill O'Reilly will state his own opinion. On CNN, they twist the questions and cut off peoples' answers, mostly reidirecting the answers to fit what the reporter wants to report. CNN goes the safe route, never taking the risk of letting two people simply argue their own opinions.


In some cases, when CNN does put up duelling pundits, they're all Liberal!! On TalkBack Live, one day, the host was actually preaching to the audience his opinion on W. and how he disliked him. The 4 liberal pundits agreed, and this was reported as fact with no dissent. We can never have reporters reporting in full neutrality without a script in front of them approved by a commisision. Which of course, would not be journalism. At least FoxNews admits that...
;) Bill O'Reilly;)

I digress....

but also Tiassa, remember that calling Conservatives 'Driven by Greed" is your own opinion and not accpeted fact. you should at least admit that too...

I don't like wolf blitzer! He has a stupid name that never gets old to make fun of, and he never asks the right questions. Once I was channel surfing and I saw him interviewing Colin Powel (a good republican). Colin said nothing had to do whatsoever with anthrax. Then wolf blitzer goes: So you're saying the anthrax is connected? Of course this really pissed colin off.

Bill Press is my example of an exceptionally good liberal-democrat. He's on cnn all the time. Like I said I've never seen bill o'reilly.

Still can't understand how you could be conservative.

I;) You must not know a whole lot about Conservatism, and I don't blame you. If you think a good explanation of Conservatism is that it is motivated by greed, I don't know. You might just be a little premature in making your judgements.

;) I used to think the same way about Liberals a couple of years ago. Then I started to read stuff by Liberals. I thought I might get 'converted' and yes, for a period I was. but in the end, I ended up not losing my beliefs (which was what I feared) and had a greater understanding of all people, no matter what political beliefs.

;) The more you read stuff by republicans, the more you'll understand them and the more you'll be sure of your own beliefs because, without a doubt you'll disagree with what you read. If you simply accept something as evil and then ponder why so many tens of millions (or even hundrerds of millions) of people can be so evil, you are never understanding why you think they're evil. Once you start to understand, they won't seem evil anymore, just people with different political beliefs. I don't think Liberals are evil.

;) Conservatives may be a little bit more self assured, since Conservative beliefs don't change as quickly as Liberal ones do. Liberal beliefs tend to conform to the moment, then never follow through. Look at all the grandiose Liberal plans we had in the past that promised great changes that never happened. Of course, the same thing always happens with Conservatives as well, although mostly because of personal fault and not collective fault.

Noticing a trend here? It's called personal responsibilty, Shrike-o!

Liberals have the advantage of moving their ideas fast and making their ideas appealing. Conservatives have the advantage of having a solid group of supporters mainly in the Heartland that are almost incessantly patriotic and trust the party. This trust comes from knowing that the party's ideals won't change much. Liberal trust comes from knowing that whatever the party does is ;) compassionate and selfless; always doing the right thing.

;) I trust Conservatives for the reasons I said. I also believe they are compassionate, selfless, and doing the right thing. It may seem like I'm stepping over the line, admitting the weakness in my ideas, but in reality, most of the ground trodden by both partires is common ground, and every idea has a very easy to find common denominator. Like just multilpy the two ideas together, or most likely the LCD is already there.

The more you know, the more you realise politics are a bunch of crap that can't ever save the world, but just occupy our time trying to make us think they can. Your own beliefs are always more important than what a politician can tell you.:eek: :eek:

That's why they call them conservatives congratulations. Their ideals don't change while the world does. If they had their way we'd live in a country of slavery and schools with no computers, where blacks couldn't get educations and neither could women. THAT is conservatisim at it's roots.

By the way, I didn't say (or mean to say) that all conservatives were evil-the ones that follow conservatism I don't understand but the leaders are evil.

Liberal (ism) at it's roots could be more conservative than the conservative. Here's a comparison:
Liberal: Conservative:
All men are created equal-blacks are inferior, as are women
Uphold the Bill of Rights (ACLU)-Bend it to your own wants and needs (Jerry Falwell)
Always be open to new ideas, never be ignorant and opinionated-Uphold the ideals of two or three generations ago in a changing world, don't change, because that would be liberal.

(Bows head) Thank you, thank you, you've been wonderful-no, no you're too kind.

hey, Shrike. Maybe the world changes less than we think it does...

We never should have had slavery, and we never will.

Conservatives are progressive, just look deeper.

Your avatar, Shrike ... is that the cover of Teckla or Phoenix?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I have no idea, but pheonix seems to ring a bell. Is there a comment I smell under those few non-emotional words? A good one...perhaps?

Congratulations, if conservatives were progressive then they would be liberals. Look it up in any dictionary. Basically it would say that conservatives don't want change while liberals do. They [conservatives in power]don't want slavery, but think blacks are inferior and don't believe they belong in the category of <i> Homo Sapien </i>. It's unbelievable. How can you follow them?

So you're saying that all Republican leaders are hopeless racists...that we all elcted these racists. That by not voting for Democrat legislation that supports racism, they are racists?

How ridiculous? How can you believe these liberal lies.
the only racist politicians we have are those supporting Affirmative Action. That is racism.

;) Conservatives agree there is a problem.
they disagree how large, and how to solve it.
Denying the rights of whites in an attempt to give blacks more rights than ever specified to anyone in history is ridiculous.

;) ya know what? i think I know why they do this. If all people have the same rights, no questions asked, they can't argue with us about racism. When there is no argument, there is no argument to twist to use for their own greed. If they can get people to argue about racism,

they can push out the fact that they are increasing rights for blacks, when not saying they had the same rights already, without all this AA crap.

So, the liberals want the power....the evil liberal, racist, greedy, leaders. the corrupt, unethical liars like Clinton who walk arounf in their own smug egotistical dream.

Oh, the wretched disguist I feel when listening to these people!

So you see, i have my own opinions, however angry I am. We all get angry at greedy leaders who subvert the world for their own purposes. My racist leaders never brainwashed me....

I don't mean to say that all republicans are, however the party's image is that of racism. When the senate was approving the president's selections for his cabinet <i> someone </i.>, I forget who but KNOW it was a republican, voted him down because he was black. The man was perfectly qualified for the job.

Yes, affirmitive action is wrong. It's a mirror image of racism.

Bill Clinton lied about his personal life, which was none of our business in the first place. The republicans amplified this because they saw a way that they could expel him from the presidency because they hated him SO MUCH. Tell me, congratulations, what did Bill Clinton do that had to do with the presidency and leading the country that was wrong? He was a great president, I even heard that if people had the option they'd vote for him to have a third term.
What did, say, Ronald Reagan do that was wrong? Well, for starters he called Russia an "Evil Empire" when the cold war had already peaked quite awhile ago while proposing ludicrous ideas like 'star wars,' which is still completely impossible (according to Discover Magazine). He cut taxes and sent the country into an economic depression in the late eighties while the economy soared and prospered over Bill Clinton. Back before this whole terrorism mess you'll recall that Bush II's tax cut did nothing to help the economy but depleted money that could've been used for education or social security.
Then you've got the greatest democrat of all time, FDR. He created the minimum wage and social security. Lincoln abolished slavery, but he was a liberal as was the republican party back in the mid and late eighteen hundreds, and the democrats were the bad guys.

Ha! Not quick to answer are ya congratulations!!

;) No, Shrike-o, I just stopped caring. My poor NJ school caught on fire, and I now have bigger worries. I now have to go to school from 1:15 to 5:30 because I am sharing the school with 5th and 6th graders. Great for sleeping late, but...

;) Great paraphrasing from your liberal-biased 4th grade social studies book. I know, Shrike. Budget Defecits always translate to
economic depression
I'll agree Ronny didn't handle the budget very well, but tax cuts throuhgout the Eighties were the main reason that the economy performed so well on the consumer level, and also the reason that our nation avoided a depression after the crash of '87. The crash itself was caused, if you recall, by a technological glitch, not the economic practices of the Reagan administration. It's a wonder the recession we most recently recall is the post-war recession after the PGW in 1991...there were no recessions under Reagan.

;) History tells us that Recessions usually come after the end of wars, since industry stops producing for the war. (The specifics I'm not so sure of) The Economy tends to boom during the war.

;) Since the last sizable post-war recession, which occured after WWI, we have experienced no serious post-war recessions. After WWII, the economy immeadiatley boomed. But then again, the was a different war.

;) After the end of the gulf war, we had a typical recession. Nothing major, just typical. It was the kind of recession one could expect to turn around in 1 or 2 years. It did, and as soon as it began to turn around, Clinton took office.

;) Since the economy was already prospering, Clinton took advantage of the oppurtuinity to raise taces so he could reverse the budget decline, the goal of which was admirable.

However, taking credit for the economic expansion was grossly out of line and landed William the impeached a serious power play. the bottom line can be expressed in a simple analogy:
Budget Defecits are to recession as Budget Surpluses are to booms.

Two examples:
In the 80's we experienced a period of economic growth second only to the 90's. It probably would have exceeded that of the 90's if not for the crash of '87.
However, the crash was an isolated incident, unrelated to R's policy. The fact that we recovered so quickly was a direct result of tax cuts, though.

This year, we posted a 137 billion dollar surplus- the second highest in the history of our nation. We are also in a recession, and have been for probably quite awhile.

The second example was a bit weak but the 80's proves a point. the upside of Reaganomics was that period of economic growth (after the post-Vietnam lag of the 70's) and the downside was budget defecits. Budget defecits are not a good thing, but certainly didn't affect the Big Eighties economy. So, I would say to reagan, your policy works more or less, but try to get rid of those damn defecits.

C;inton was impeached because he lied before a grand jury.
#1-that is a crime
#2- that qualifies him to be impeached.
#3- anyone who criticizes a justified course of action derived solely from the neccessity for the law to be carried out does not know very much about the law, especially regarding impeachments.
#4- when impeachment was devised, it was not intended only to be used if the President is doing a bad job. if we feel our president is doing a bad job, we do not re-elect him. Clinton did a good job, so we re-elected him. If not for FDR, we would keep re-electing him.
#5- However, he committed a crime. That is why he was impeached.
#6- it doesn't matter how good of a job he did- he committed a crime. Job performance does not factor into COMITTING A CRIME.
#7- the due process of the law cannot be changed by one group's opinion of Job Performance. Not all people agree that Clinton did a good job. I think he did, but a lot of people don't.

But they were asking about his personal life!
I'll get back to ya later I'm at school right now.

;) It doesn't matter what they asked about...it's the fact that he lied about it front of a grand jury that matters.

;) They could have asked about anything, and he could have lied about anything. What he lied about does not factor into the equation of him lying. It's unfortunate that he had to break the law by lying about such a stupid thing, but that's the way it is. Ordinary people get prosecuted and sent to JAIL when they lie in front of a grand jury. Sometimes they lie about even more stupid things...like stealing a pack of gum. That's the way the law works.

;) I have school in 2 hours so I have to go eat lunch.

Since Clinton's virtual eight year investigation (I believe the idea is first to get evidence of a crime then investigate - not the other way round), I suggest that when each President is elected, a special prosecutor also be elected to investigate the President constantly and without let up. Then put the President before a Grand Jury (maybe we could do this in stead of having a debate - think of it! Honest answers or face impeachment!) and keep asking awkward questions. Once you zero in on his weakness, you've got him.

I mean after all, the only crime it appears Clinton comitted was lying to a Grand Jury - a direct result of the prosecutor setting himself up in the first place (and asking questions about his private life where no crimes had been comitted!).

It's a farce! If you're President and trying to dodge awkward questions I challenge anyone to stand up to that kind of scrutiny. It simply isn't fair - and lets not get into how damaging it is if you're being breifed by lawyer and giving depositions while trying to run the country! Thankfully Clinton is a gifted, intelligent politician with a great deal of knowledge and attention to detail. God help us all if Bush is subjected to the same attention.

Which brings me to my next point. Let's set up a Grand Jury (since they're such good ideas) and ask Dubya the following questions, just to see what the answers are:

1. Have you ever been arrested for drunk driving?
2. Have you ever taken cocaine?
3. When was the last time you took cocaine?
4. Did you receive favours form the President in your business career?
5. Did you know the Bin Laden family funded your first business venture?
6. Were you aware of the government's intention to release land for sale prior to your purchase of the Texas Rangers?
7. Did you pay for a former girlfriend to have an abortion?
8. What's the capital of France?

No reason for those questions. Just random...

-What's the speed of light (in seconds)?

-When was the last time you masturbated (gasp!)

-How many sexy secretaries do you employ and/or fantasize about?



Food for thought.

TWO WORDS......


1. Paula
2. Jones

;) We didn't just ask Clinton questions about his personal life because we didn't like him. We asked him questions because he was being investigated on charges of sexual harassment. I would suspect that recent allegations of him having an affair (and then possibly also sexually harassing Monica) would relate to the Paula Jones case. If you want to criticize the impeachment hearings, criticize the court who questioned him. Question their judgement, not Conservatives'.

Get some information about Bush that we can take him to court for. then ask him all the questions you want. Maybe he'll forget the law and lie.

But Clinton, God. He's a lawyer. No matter what the question is, he should know not to lie. He knows the law. Even if he thuoght the question was immoral, he should at least know to answer it, for his own sake. If you want to criticize anyone, criticize the person who asked the question.

Thinking of questions to ask Bush get you nowhere as well. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind....


.......right?

oh come on Congratulations, if you were in front of a grand jury asking you if you fondled a woman other than your wife I think you'd tell a little white lie, or man other than your husband. Right now you may say no but when you're on the spotlight and he/she is staring right at you (with the evil eye) you might think twice.

;)So you say we should just excuse this crime and not prosecute him because "anyone would do it?" I'm sorry Shrike, but "anyone who does it" gets prosecuted. That's the law. Lying in front of a grand jury is a crime. It's not about his personal life- it's about the law.

;) No one ever impeached Clinton for having an affair. They impeached him for lying about it. If you don't think the law that states
A President who lies in front of a Grand Jury is subject to IMPEACHMENT
makes sense, I urge you and your constituents to change it.

But since it is a law, and it is subject to impeachment, by criticizing the impeachment you are criticizing the due process of the law. I'll admit, Clinton chose a stupid thing to get impeached for. He knew he could get impeached by lying in front of a grand jury. He's a lawyer and he knows that.

You're just mad that you're guy did something stupid. Then, of course, you can never admit he was stupid beacuse he was your guy. Sorry Shrike, Clinton got impeached for something he did. He lied when asked a question. And in certain arenas, that constitutes a crime. Remember this:
I do solmenly swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth so help me God.
Clinton said that. I'll leave it up to you to figure out why what he did was a crime. I know it was; solidly. Bill Clinton is a criminal. That isn't harsh because it's the truth. If you commit a crime, you're a criminal.

:eek: And if you're the POTUS, that can get you impeached. If all presidents lied under oath, we'd impeach all of them. Of course, in that case it would no longer make sense. We'd just have to accept a lower standard of leader and try to get things done. But when we see a low class man like Clinton among sincere, respectable men as past and future Presidents, you just gotta wonder. he lied to a court.....that makes him a criminal. he lied to us, his American public. That makes him a liar, a cheat, and a genuine sleezebag. You see, Shrike, I don't hate Bill Clinton for illogical reasons. I don't even hate him. But I'm very angry at him, and very dissapointed in him as a leader. Personally, his lie was an insult to me and all Americans.

No citizen of this great country deserves the disgrace of being lied to by their own President. No person deserves the shame of knowing that their own President thought that little of their intelligence and integrity. Think about that Shrike, and maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from.

:p And Honestly, Shrike-o....What's worse-the evil eye, or Impeachment? He sure made a mistake in 'thinking twice.'
He should've thought twoce before lying. What you're saying is that you condone his approach that he'd rather secure his family life and his immoral secrets than be honest with the American people. If you think that didn't hurt us, think again. That last election, remember? Clinton divided us.

We didn't just ask Clinton questions about his personal life because we didn't like him. We asked him questions because he was being investigated on charges of sexual harassment.

Well actually...

Who found Paula Jones and paid her legal bills?

And Gennifer Flowers'?

And who set-up Monica Lewinsky?

That's right - the Republicans! Not politically motivated my ass - the Republicans couldn't win an election so they attempted to, in effect, sue the President out of office. (Vote-rigging is more effective)

How any American can any longer have an ounce of pride in their judiciary after Clinton's harrassment and the ridiculous judgement on the Florida vote-rigging scandal is beyond me.

It's very simple to say 'if you break the law, you should face the consequences'. Of course we all agree. The President should not be above the law due to his position.

But by the same token, he should not face undue persecution because of his position. I mean how many of us have special investigators dredging up every single little piece of paper in our history looking for something to get us on? Surely there's enough skeletons lurking in Bush's closet to warrant a four-year appointment of a Democrat Ken Starr? But it's not really the way to go is it?

And after all that money was spent on investigating Clinton what did they get? Perjury to cover up his sexual piccadilos. Are you seriously tellimng me that you think that was important enough to hound one of the most popular Presdients in history out of office? Especially when the whole thing came about as a result of a fruitless investigation initiated out of political bitterness. Yeah, Clinton was an idiot for lying about his rather sleazy penchent for sex wherever and whenever he could get it. As it turned out the American people didn't give a damn about that. But the idea of squeezing the President until something comes out is not a good one. And beleive me, Clinton's shady sex life should be of far less concern to you than Bush's dubious business dealings (not to mention extraordinary hypocrisy regarding substance abuse).

But if the grand jury asked everyone about our personal sex lives then WE'D ALL LIE, OR THINK TWICE BEFORE LYING. WE'D ALL GO TO JAIL FOR LYING UNDER OATH.


YES CAPTAIN CANADA! You should be promoted to Admiral or Major. We need another conservative to join the fray? Anyone have any ideas?

:( Listen, liberal sci-forumers!! Especially you, Shrike-o.

;) If you disagree with a law, you get it changed. OK? Go out and change the impeachment laws.
;) Form a grass-roots taskforce. If you do it quick, you might save the most popular presidents in history from nasty humiliation. Do it quick, Shrike! We might be able to save Bush! We don't want something stupid to kick out The 93% Man! Let's do this!

;) Look, Shrike and Captain Canada, I never said I thought that the impeachment laws made sense. I know nothing about why they were formed, or how. All I know now is that janet jackson is saying "You Aint Right!" and she loves to dance. I also know that backyards on waterfronts are an almost strictly American feature that portray our over-domesticating culture to the rest of the world. I know that we care too much about where the doors are, and the grid is very symbolic of the American dream to from order out of chaos. I also know that 144 million pennies of the total produced remain uncirculated each year. That's 2/3! So why do we have pennies? Honestly, ladies...

;) We did nothing wrong in following the law. That's never a bad thing. The law may be wrong. No law is perfect. Most laws are bad! We need less of them! But follow the law! Follow it all along and then change it. Don't decide to not follow it because you don't think it makes sense. And at least identify the inconsistency before the President breaks it and gets his ass in a very deep hole.

;) No, I'm not saying Clinton got impeached because you didn't change the law. That's just simply nonsensical....but understand the law while you have to follow it. I have no problem with anyone going around changing the laws. I could not care less about what qualifies a President to be impeached. That's just a little upsetting. I would not like to become an expert on something dealing with low life people committing crimes.

;) We live in a civil society. Bottom line. THAT MEANS that we make laws that promote civil order. If we made laws that were tailored to Clinton's personal inhibitions about his personal life, we might as well make laws that are tailored to murderers' inhibitions about letting their victims live.
We could be stupid and make laws that make it impossible for anyone to break them. If you don't understand what i said before, imagine that as the vein from which Clinton lied from. He broke the law, and that is soley his fault, and his fault alone. It is his mistkae, his unfortunarte mistake, his sorrow. Clinton lied and it is his fault. I'm sorry, Shrike, but that's the truth. If there is a law and you break it, no one can ever help you. People deal with their oopsies in the current situation they were made in.

Clinton was such a strong man. He was also in denial about this oopsie. This is the people against the law.

Simple empirical data tells us that Clinton lied. Clinton committed a crime. Clinton gets impeached because that constitutes perjury and obstruction of justice. Those two crimes are listed as those that trigger impeachment.

;) It's so sad, and I feel bad for him. Here he comes along, a real person like all of us. Here comes along a question that really shouldn't have been there, but it was. There is never anything we can do to change that. It's life, however sad and stupid. It's real, just like Clinton's big mistake.
People cried, I'm sure, because they looked up to Clinton. William Jefferson was such a good, respectable man and outstanding leader that a lot of people couldn't understand why a lie had to kick him out of office. I know, you respect him so much that you hold higher standards than that. I can never blame you for that! I really just "misunderestimated" you.

It's not like that isn't a question we all have.
I say that it makes no sense.

But when this happened, we had a choice that we had to make. we could follow the law or question it. I'd rather follow it. we must push everything through our American system headfirst and not backwards. It's the way life goes, it's the way America is, and sometimes it makes us sad and angry.
If it seems things are wrong, out of proportion, or horrible, we are OK. If it took such a long and pathetic investigation to get that out of him, you know, it's what happens. I blame the people investigating him more than him. But really, this isn't about blame. It's about following our laws to the letter while they're there. Then, you know, we can learn from everything. Since it never really made sense.
He made a mistake, we all do, sure.
But we have to face up to our mistakes, and when you're president, a simple apology just isn't enough. I'm sorry! Shrike and all the people who loved and respected Clinton. We all made mistakes, and if the last 8 years could be redone, they should be. I feel bad that the punishment for Clinton's little oopsie had to be so horrible and painful, or even get him kicked out of office.

But remember this, wait.
the law for impeachment doesn't say we have 'immeadiate gratification' in impeachment. Sure this isn't gratifying, but whatever the hell i meant...
We voted, and Clinton survived. Maybe somewhere up there (theoretically, at least) Someone took notice of Clinton's remorse. Maybe if he actually said "I'm sorry" and "I lied to you" the bill wouldn't have even made it through the House. So what are we all quipping about? Bill Clinton served his full 8 years, to the last hour of the last day of his term. I read part of his innagural address last night, and I must say he is one of the greatest speakers I have ever heard or read. A good speaker, maybe not like I agree with him, but an incredible speaker nonetheless. Reading his speech inspired me to become a better writer.

The last eight years were good,
yet also bad.
they were partisan and bitter.
So bitter it makes me sound corny now,
so but why do we all have to argue about it?
Clinton won! he was only half-impeached.
I Like Bush more, but you don't.
I know some people don't like him, OK? that's fine.
If Bush got impeached, i would feel bad, I'd be in denial.
But you know, I'd have to accept that law works itself out for a reason. Because it's right.
I have nothing against changing those laws.
(we can change them, right?)duh
No really-I have nothing.
I have nothing at all.Why did Clinton's oppsie get him kicked out?


Changing the mood a bit..
We should all know about the laws.
we all should all be educated so as we don't have to get crapped on like Clinton did. When we know what our conditions are, It's not so hard to be self empowered and just follow the system for our own good. Anyone who goes to jail for lying in front of a grand jury didn't need to go to jail. If they knew about what the consequences are, there's never an excuse for lying.
And maybe we have that law as a model for all of us. There's never a reason to lie, so don't. As I said earlier, we all learn from our mistakes.
Although we're all forgiven.
He never did anything horrible.

Congratulations:If you disagree with a law, you get it changed. Funny how conservatives always accuse liberals of "undermining America" when trying to change unjust laws. Take the Drug War, for instance; liberals are trying to change the law, and conservatives are doing everything possible to prevent that. Drugs are undermining America? How about ill-timed meth laws that go so far in their zeal that they would make it felonious to post online advice on how to keep a speed overdose alive while awaiting paramedics. Don't tell us about changing the law; speaking of changing laws, what was that GOP stunt a few years ago when the national party and the state party in Colorado told state GOP lawmakers to reject needle exchange or else lose party financial support in the next election?Form a grass-roots taskforce.Over a blowjob? That's as excessive and obsessive as spending $40 million investigating fellatio.I never said I thought that the impeachment laws made sense.They make reasonable sense; the application doesn't. I'm still not sure what the Andrew Johnson impeachment was about; nor am I sure what Clinton's impeachment was about, given that the Congress and the states were prosecuting things they shouldn't be. Given Nixon's abandonment of office and the resulting pardon from Ford for crimes never committed (?!), and given the idea that Reagan's sellout to "enemies" and negotiations with terrorists were apparently not felonious enough to discredit the executive office, we wonder if maybe it isn't the traditionally conservative perspective that's askew. Hmm ... blowjob: impeachment. Selling arms to a dictator in order to finance a drug deal in order to finance a covert war in Central America: not a big deal. You're right, it's the impeachment laws that don't make sense.We did nothing wrong in following the law. You're forgetting the release of Clinton's grand-jury testimony. It's a felonious violation of grand-jury procedural law. Every lawmaker who voted for the release of that material (and thus caused its release to the public) should go to prison.

Make whatever case you want for the release of that information: it doesn't change the fact that the release was illegal.I could not care less about what qualifies a President to be impeached. That's just a little upsetting.Such attitudes among conservatives are exactly why they prosecute fellatio but disregard executive sponsorship of terrorism and totalitarianism that is in violation of the law.If we made laws that were tailored to Clinton's personal inhibitions about his personal life, we might as well make laws that are tailored to murderers' inhibitions about letting their victims live.That's pretty stupid when we apply it to the Clinton situation. After all, isn't there something against using armed guards to restrain a witness in a case investigating a blowjob? If you want the legal niceties according to the fine print, be a little more subtle about it; stationing visibly armed guards between the witness and the door while denying the witness counsel is no proper way to conduct such an investigation.If there is a law and you break it, no one can ever help you. What law did he break? Evading a question that nobody else in the country should have to answer? He shouldn't have had to answer it anyway, and I fully expect him to deny it. That he's the president may include a greater scrutiny, but come on: lying under oath about abetting terrorists is no big deal, but lying about a blowjob is? There's that conservative logic we've all come to know and wonder about.Clinton gets impeached because that constitutes perjury and obstruction of justice. Um ... okay. Can you tell me why the question should have been answered? Is it because he's the President and therefore not entitled to equal protection under the law? Civil interest may be important, but the Supreme Law of the Land safeguards that equality under the law. So noting that equality, it's fair to point out that in a rape case, it is irrelevant to the incident how the rape survivor acted in other intimate relations; it doesn't matter whether or not she ever had sexual relations with this or that person. Why is it an issue in Clinton's case? We had a cop that shot a motorist here recently under contested circumstances; what was not allowed at inquest was his prior record, including a similar incident of violence in the recent past, and psych evaluations demonstrating his propensity toward instability. What was at issue was the incident itself. And when the incident itself is whether or not Paula Jones had sex with Bill Clinton, I don't see how it's relevant that Monica Lewinsky gave him a blowjob. I feel that Clinton was subjected to an unequal standard of law that is not permitted in the constitution, and we know that just because something is history does not make it morally right.Here comes along a question that really shouldn't have been there, but it was. There is never anything we can do to change that. It's life, however sad and stupid. It's real, just like Clinton's big mistake. And it pretty much constitutes an aberration from procedure, exploited by conservatism to exact a personalized vendetta against Clinton.

When it comes to consenting fellatio, you're going to have to explain to me why equal protection doesn't apply to Clinton. That he's president is no excuse for the suspension of his liberties and protections under the law.But when this happened, we had a choice that we had to make. we could follow the law or question it. I'd rather follow it. I wish we would have, too. Two simple mistakes by the opposition: releasing the grand jury testimony, and working to suspend equal protection under the law. You also have to remember that the courts deviated from procedure when ruling that Jones could sue Clinton. Of course, when we realize the state of the federal benches--depleted due to conservative stalling tactics--we might indeed wonder at the suit itself. Hell, the judge involved noted that if it didn't interfere with his executive duties, the suit should be allowed. Well, we stripped away his protection under the law, and it suddenly affected his executive duties. I tend to think this was the purpose of the Fellatio Inquisition.So what are we all quipping about? The future; we now have a precedent that someone must forfeit their guaranteed protections under the law in order to serve their country. Funny that civil service should elevate the protections of a potential murderer (cop shooting motorist) and depreciate the protections of a man who got a hummer. Something about priorities?Anyone who goes to jail for lying in front of a grand jury didn't need to go to jail. If they knew about what the consequences are, there's never an excuse for lying.Why didn't we ask Clinton if he was into watersports? It's about as relevant to the Jones case as Lewinsky. Why didn't we ask whether or not he's ever had a carnal thought about someone who turned out to be underage? Then we could have impeached him as a child molester.He never did anything horrible.I agree with you; I even tend to characterize the Fellatio Inquisition as horrible, mean-spirited, and a careful yet not successful attempt to exploit the law for personal vendettas.

I think the partisan bitterness you've mentioned is the reason we had to go through that Inquisition in the first place. The problem is that I put the weight for the low standards onto conservatism; it's not your personal fault that your umbrella includes the OCA, Newt Gingrich, and a host of other people ill-suited to represent America. But whether it was Clinton's zipper or riding up front in the airplane, members of the conservative faction ruined the notion of conservative dignity.

It's time to get out of the office ...

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

maybe politicians should wear a chastity belt. Then we wouldn't have to deal with this bipartisan bickering in the first place!

;) Good point, Tiassa. I hadn't known that there was some infringement of the law in how those documents were released. Or was that what you said? I don't know, really, but if someone breaks the law, in any case, I feel no sympathy towards them. So, If conservatives broke the law in the same instance, I feel badly for them and my association with them.

;) However, I have the irking feeling that due to some loophole or coincidince the question was justified. So, no matter how morally irreporachable it would be to ask the question, I am unclear as to whether or not they did something illegal. I guess if the law provided for the question, too bad if it was a stupid question. I guess Clinton would break the law lying about watersports.

;) What I meant about changing the law was to make a point that if you have a law, you have to follow it; if you don't have it anymore, who cares. While they're here, follow them. If they go away, don't follow them. Laws are good for some things but are really fundamentally bad.
If only we could have an anarchy where the only thing people wanted to do was the right thing.:D

we're only HUMAN!

By the way I meant to say partisan. I'd edit that but I just don't quite feel like it now.

I just discovered this forum - or rather was lead to this forum - today. I have to say this is a very nice change over the wrong-wing, Rand-oid dominated forums I have been in before. To actually see a majority of people arguing from a standpoint of good and moral strength rather than just their wallets. IOt is ncie to see people that will tell the truth about conservatives without sugar-coating it. Bravo!

;) Listen to Conservatives, they tell the truth. They have very little sugar. They are like like some sort of honest, respectable folk band.

:mad: Don't listen to Liberals. They lie, in great quantities. They have a whole crapload of sugar, which is why you people got sucked in. Oh, so sad. Liberals are like Mariah Carey.

Then, of course, Mariah goes and campaigns for them. The crowds are dazzled by her 7 octave range, her dazzlingly sexy looks, her incredible voice. :D Oh MARIAH!

But then you take her to a place where musically tasteful people go to listen, like Bjork fans, and Celine Dion fans:o, she gets booed off the stage!

You know what they say about Conservatives, that they're liberals who've been mugged? You know what gets stolen?

The Sugar Coating!:D

Oh Dear! I got so caught up in good ol' MARIAH CAREY that I forgot to welcome you to sciforums!
The north winds are a blowin' in my head, I do swear it! Aren't Conservatives just so ego-centric? And they know it, too...right?

So welcome to this wondrous place of magic, and dreams of sugar faeries! Iot is ncie to have you as a member of our wondrous family! Catch the trend, get a crazy avatar like Banshee and I have. They areso in!

Oh well, brother Northwind. Have fun here, and may your every wish be granted by the sciforums fairy!

Just be careful what you wish for ;)

;) I wonder if Northwind is really Ripleofdeath in disguise. haven't seen him in awhile...:eek:

I wish one of you would give me saturdays 6 lottery numbers thank you :)

Northwind is legit. There is a recent mass exit from another BB because the trolls took over.

So a question for the conservatives:
So where is the missing Bush brother Neil? He has sort of disappeared and become a non-person. Perhaps the Siverado S&L scandal and the taxpayer bailout of over $1 billion is a bit embarassing to his brother George?

If you disagree with a law, you get it changed. OK?

Sounds good in theory. If majority are whites and they do not want greens to participate in the government, how does a green get it changed? If certain fundamental groups had their way, no movies, no drinking, no gambling, no gays and so on....

hey all
:)
im still around :)
just.... a bit out of range with the cyber world for a while :(

hhhhmmmmm
conservatives.....
interesting concept as a label for character!!!
too damn scarry in my books!!!
imagine how scared and bleak we all would be with a wealth of conservatives to tell us "NO" "stop"
"dont"
is the word conservative just another word meaning

-fascist capitalist dictatory system of privalige to elite minded LOW dexterity self absorbed slave traders?

or is that in-polite to mention how a "rich" person makes most of thier profits from the ill health and poverty of thier workers/labour force. .... ?

the name is created to use like a mask to confuse people into thinking they are friendly caring un-selfish people so they can point to where the peasents will revolt,
whilst chanting the war cry of "free trade" (translation of "free trade" = buy what we tell you to at the price we tell you and we will give you a shiney new seat for your moraly corrupted merchants)

if this thread is going anywhere.............
then that is more progress than a conservative would like!!!

---to assume the "junkster position" being that of liberal freedom
is to be fooled into polluting your backyard for elitist profit.

reverse psychology is our base of reality!!!



groove on all :)

It's always nice to see you around here ripleofdeath. Welcome back to net-range, I guess?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

When sharing an opinion or offering a description on this thread about "Conservatives," most everyone posting, with a few exceptions, have referenced extreme conservative or liberal behavior or idealism. (The Clinton discussion veered here and there. Some good points were made.) Still, is that what these labels are doomed to mean? ...The socialistic bleeding-heart Liberal, and the heartless, profit-hoarding Conservative?

Granted, some threads tend to unravel into vent-fests, and we all get a kick out of that now and then. But do we only see the two political groups in black and white? What does this really say (if anything) about America's view of its two major political parties?

~~~

thx,

Counterbalance

hey all
tiassa :D ... u groove!!! :)
kmguru... too true!!!
Counterbalance.... well it seems to me that each hardline member trys to create a doctrine which alienates the oposition to create an abiss of in-pass.
this helps give each votes, by making the issues Black and White.
BUTT... :D

the real "kicker" is ...
we all know that technology is reducing the amount of availible jobs!
population is increasing because of
"the rite to aprocreate indiscriminantly"
!!! HATS OFF TO CHINA FOR THE ONE CHILD FAMILY IDEA!!!
UNFORTUNATELY IT WAS A LAW INSTEAD OF A SOCIAL IDEAL :(
Infantacide as a result.
huge quantities of baby girls treated as used toilet paper.
AFGHANISTAN has a similar fate in the family unit.
are these created to produce cheap organs for underground genetic experiments???
we can only gues.
when have you heard a politician say... WE KNOW THERE WILL

NOT BE ENOUGH JOBS FOR EVERY ONE SO IT WILL BE A COMPETION AND THE WINNERS GET THE JOBS AND LUXURY HOUSES AND THE LOSERS GET STANDARD HOUSES AND ARE CHALENGED TO STUDY AND INVENT.

GREED ... need i say more?
all people have psychological disorders!
not all can afford to pay people to over look them! :D

but moderation in response to questioning values along with the ability to recieve and evaluate constructive criticism is somewhat sparse in this current world :(

CAN SOMEONE BE GIVEN A SOCIAL CONSEANCE?
IF THOSE WHO HAD MONEY HAD NONE
AND THOSE WHO HAD NONE HAD MUCH

who would be first to offer a hand in friendship?
the materialistic person?
or the egotistical person
or
THE PERSON.

its all actualy realy simple!!!
but most dont want to believe it.
all we need to do is foster comunity spirit and global friendship and global aid.
but that reduces the ability to be a Hero... or a Lord.

ok enough ranting for now...

fascist
capitalist
mixed economy
socialism<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< my choice!!!
communism
fascism

:D


groove on all :)

Sorry to re-open old threads, but your allegiance to Conservatism at the age of 14 is almost frightening. Don't misunderstand my aim, as there is no insult intended here. I have read many of your posts, and you appear an intelligent individual and provide reasons for your views. Statistically speaking, the majority of males become more conservative as they grow older. With your starting point, I can only wonder about your mindset at age 40.

One example of the conservatives you support, and I'll bow out again.Originally posted by Congratulations
If you disagree with a law, you get it changed.And if you can't win... cheat.

One vote. That's the margin by which lobbyists for corporate globaloneyists literally squeezed out a victory in the House of Representatives over We the People.

The vote was on handing "fast track" authority to the president, letting him arrange even more trade scams like NAFTA behind closed doors, then railroad them through congress. It's a total abdication of congress' responsibility to provide a check on executive power and assure that workers, farmers, the environment, and our people's sovereignty are not trampled by corporate greed.

Squadrons of corporate lobbyists stormed the Capitol. Bush himself spent three days rounding up votes for his corporate buddies. America's high-tech giants played the money card, telling members that this vote would count twice when deciding, which members would receive campaign cash from them. Then, house speaker Dennis Hastert wrapped it all up in Old Glory, declaring that a vote against it would "undercut the president" in the war against terrorism.

Yet, even with these bullying tactics, they still came up one vote short. The clock ticked to zero, time for voting expired, and fast track was defeated 215 to 214. But the corporate credo is: If you can't win... cheat. So Speaker Hastert simply refused to gavel the vote closed, while his Republican henchmen surrounded Rep. Jim DeMint of South Carolina and browbeat him until he finally agreed to switch his "no" vote to "yes." Then Hastert quickly pounded his gavel, handing the lobbyists their rigged, one-vote "victory."

This is one of the most shameful votes in house history. If you care how your own congress critter performed, check out this Web site: www.tradewatch.org


---------
Sources:

"House agrees--by 1 vote--to expand Bush's trade power" Los Angeles Times 12/7/2001

"House Supports Trading Powers Sought by Bush" New York Times 12/7/2001

Hey, hold on a second!
I don't want to bring up Clinton's impeachment (again:o ) but wasn't it Bill Clinton who tried to make a deal with the INS to illegaly let in 300 something thousand Mexicans that, admittedly, would be used for gaining votes in the 1996 election? They put it under the header:

"This year, 330,000 American citizens will be denied the right to vote if you do not act now."

In memos, they stated their true motives as clearly more vile than that bunch of fluffed-over spin. It was clear they wanted these aliens for votes. Clinton himself, in memos, throws around ideas to "reduce the level of controversy" and to "make it seem less like a Democrat voter-mill and more like compassionate program."
He also says that if measures are not taken, he'll pull out the 'heavy artillery' and take 'drastic measures. Sure, that bill in this house was not passed with due morality, but Clinton's 'voter
mill' charade seems less like tactic and more like assault. It's not like I agree with

Now, I don't know if this is old news, since I certainnly wasn't following politics when I was 8. However, I found it clear, objective proof that although Republicans may have used 'bullying tactics' in passing a bill, they didn't try to stage a coverup and certainly didn't try to manipulate us for political gain.

It's not like I condone Republican habdashery because I more or less agree with their doctrine!


;) That said,:D I really do not like it when people like you, (nad other obvious liberals) become 'scared' of me because I'm a Conservative. Most of what Liberals believe in is so self-undermmined I could never possibly agree with it. For example, Liberals, Multiculturalists, etc. are always talking about 'diversity', 'understanding' and 'compassion' yet they fail to see the truth that you cannot simply typecast people as racist, or 'frightening' beacuse of one word. That means you cannot stereotype me as something because I say 'Conservative'. I might say that I am a devout follower of Rush Limbaugh, but does that mean I think of gays as 'deviants'? No, because I myself am gay. Do you think I agree that somehow Christianity takes precedent over other religions because we are a 'Christian nation'? NO, because I myslef am an atheist.

;) Then, do you think I want the pledge of alleginace banned beacsue it has God in it? Do you think I want religious displays banned? Do you think I think a teacher should be fired for teaching some students Bible stuff in her own home? No! I more or less agree with Conservatism, and i more or less agree with other ideas. However, I am a devout follwer of Rush Limbaugh because I admire him. Not because I like his 'racist, sexist, homophobic beliefs' but becasue I admire him. I think he is a man that, when you look deep into his writing, you can find a deep well of innocence and care that assures you that his belifs are not misguided.

;) It took a lot of soul-searching to come up with my beliefs on life, and I think that by being a 'non-comformist' a 'rebel' or a 'reformer', you are subjecting yourself to even greater conformity. To truly understand who you are, you have to be neither a member of culture or counterculture. You have to be a paradox. And, quite frankly, that makes you weird; borderline insane in others' eyes. I don't listen to Frank Sinatra or other 'safe' singers like that because I'm some sort of admirer of good ol' boys or good decent preachers. I happen to think those people, while happy and nice, are a bit lost out on things. I listen to Bjork, Sigur-ros, Radiohead, Incubus, System of a Down, and the banshee herself, Celine Dion. I pin space blankets to my ceiling and tape blank pieces of construction paper on my wall. I pick up little girls' hair scrunchies from the floor and wear them as rings, after picking off the hair. On Friday night, I went out and laid down in the snow for an hour and looked at the moon. I also went and sat in some mud in the forest. Now I have the flu, because I didn't wear a jacket.

Then, when the day is over, I go inside and work on my homework and write long, boring essays for Language Arts, get all A's (B's in gym) and still happen to be the teacher's pet. While I make a point of everyone knowing I'm gay, I don't act gay, so people actually think I'm lying when I say I'm gay; like I want to get attention or something. Now imagine that. And also imagine the fact of a gay conservative who came out in 7th grade just because he didn't want to get crap in high school. So now, in my conservative town, the kids still follow their parents, but they think my being gay is cool. There's probably two kids who are all disturbed by me, but hey, I weigh 220 pounds and I'm hairy from head to toe (and no, I'm not fat).


So---for christ's sake I apologize for rambling, I'm a loser, and I hope to see you on the clown parade next week.


Goodbye, Dolly.

And...please visit the 'Poetry Arena' thread in the Art/culture forum...tell me what you think.

Originally posted by Congratulations
I don't want to bring up Clinton's impeachment...You can if you want... I doubt we would be too far part on our views. I have often said he was no better than the rest.Originally posted by Congratulations
...they didn't try to stage a coverup...In that instance, perhaps. It will be interesting to see how the Enron story develops for both parties.and certainly didn't try to manipulate us for political gain.Make no mistake - politicians manipulate you and I every day. It's the manipulations we do not catch that bother me.I really do not like it when people like you... stereotype me as something because I say 'Conservative'.Point taken and apology sincerely offered.by being a 'non-comformist' a 'rebel' or a 'reformer', you are subjecting...You wouldn't be trying to stereotype me, would you? ;)

Peace

I never said you were a rebel, Goofyfish. I was referring to those Alanis Morrisette types who get all high on themselves because they think they've escaped egotism. I'd consider myself a 'rebel' or a 'noncomformist' in the true sense of the definition. Sometimes I just think that what we percieve as noncomformist is just a culture that has everything to do in cooomforming to noncomformity.

So, same peace to you:D

well everyone now I am back to THIS discussion, and am ready to battle again with the only CONSERVATIVE artist I have ever known.

Admitedly, the republicans as of the past few weeks are reaally, reaaally screwed. Enron is swirling around the drain and dragging the bits of food and toothpaste that are the republicans with it. Why are the meetings with cheney and the 'big' energy suppliers secret? Simple: they have something to hide.

I don't know what the numbers are but a LOT of people have lost almost every penny for retirement while the Enronites and the conservative republicans (albeit some retarded democrats as well) walk away with HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

by the way, Ken Lay is a dickhead. There's no way in hell you could spend $300 dollars in the space of a few weeks. It would be HARD to spend so much money. We must ask ourselves now: is this it for the republican party? Are people tired of getting screwed by the same slimy pigs over and over again? Have they finally figured out who really is better?

Originally posted by Pollux V
There's no way in hell you could spend $300 dollars in the space of a few weeks.What?!? I could spend $300 before you could reply to this comment! :D


...is this it for the republican party? Are people tired of getting screwed by the same slimy pigs over and over again? Have they finally figured out who really is better?There is essentially zero differences between these two parties any longer. While I have no love for either, let us not forget that it is all suspicion at this point. And in the long term, the American public will be outgraged... then get bored... then forget.

Peace.

--- Edit: Quote was attributed to wrong user ---

pardon my french and sorry for opening discussion after I forgot about this forum but wtf???
Listen to Conservatives, they tell the truth. They have very little sugar. They are like like some sort of honest, respectable folk band.

Honest? Honest?? I can't name ANY honest politician that is part of either the democratic or republican party.

Then, of course, Mariah goes and campaigns for them. The crowds are dazzled by her 7 octave range, her dazzlingly sexy looks, her incredible voice. Oh MARIAH!

(lol-not meant to get you riled congrats but actually very funny)
When has Mariah campaigned for democracts, much less any political group? I've never, ever seen any singer actually perform for a politician in a commercial or on a debate or at a convention, whenever those events occur everyone's just pointing fingers at each other and saying how much better they are than anyone else.

But then you take her to a place where musically tasteful people go to listen, like Bjork fans, and Celine Dion fans, she gets booed off the stage!

YOU like celine dion? I can empathize with bjork but CELINE DION? Next time try picking a REAL singer like...er...um, well I can't think of one now.



well you wouldn't be able to spend $300 million in a few weeks IF YOU WERE A RESPONSIBLE CONSERVATIVE. That much money could probably buy a third of Russia. Then Ken could flee to his new country and claim diplomatic immunitity!

Well lets hope they're outraged in the weeks preceding the first tuesday of november.

Just a thought, but it is often the case that those who invoke the words, "evil" or "infidel" more often embody the traits that might make a person com to that conclusion (Bush, I am looking in your direction:p )
Honest? Honest?? I can't name ANY honest politician that is part of either the democratic or republican party.
That reminds me of a quote from Mark Twain: "Imagine that you are an idiot. Now imagine that you are a member of congress. Oops, I just repeated myself."

Politicians are too frequently the son or daughter of somebody. How much better would our politicians be if they didn't ascend through lines of relatives. To establish this fact we need to travel back 200 years. With the exception of the Adams, this trend wasn't as established and guess what they were generally more intelligent people. Now compare this to our current president. With riches and family name: president. Without these things, probably: fast food technician. I know that I may be overstating his abilities to a degree, but you get the point.

;) Ok, Madame Pollux. Let's Clear some things up. I did not say I thought Celine Dion was a good musician- yes, I wrote it- but it was really just a poorly portrayed piece of sarcasm. I don't mean it. True, I have every CD she's ever made, but I sure as hell haven't bought one for awhile. She was a 'guilty pleasure' of mine that wore off long ago. Yep, you bet I'm buying the new album, 'A New Day Has Come' yet I don't consider it musically worthwhile. I'll buy it because, well, I have to.

;) What Enron does is up to them. Sure, their lil' scandal messes up the whole corporate scene, yet I would like you to name a clear and defiiante link between Bush and Enron in any real terms of scandal. If you want to criticize 'Republicans' for investigating without any proof, I'd like you to take a look at your hypocrisy. All this buzz about 'scandal' is based on the anticipation of 'scandal', not any 'scandal' itslef. It's dirty, but not scandalous. Am I 'condoning' Enron? What? Did I say that? No, of course not. I merely did not argue on the point of Enron's actual scandality. I argued on the point of President Bush's (et les Republicannes...) scandal, which I believe is nonexistent. Want me to trash Enron? Open an Enron thread. Yet I feel the 'trash' part has nothing to do in an arguement about Conservatives.

;) Whom do you blame, Teg? Not about Enron, about political habdashery. Do Democrats not vote in pay raises to themselves, not exempt themselves form the very laws they create? I find I want to look at the performance of legislators, not the circumstannces that brought them to power. I gravitate to the Republican party because the people who speak for it truly inspire me and I associate with them. OH? They don't belong to 'grassroots' special reform groups? I'm sorry. there was a point I was so angry at Al Gore's campaign manager simply for her stupidity. I wrote 4 pages of poetry about her. She upset me very much. Maybe it just so happens that the rich folks make more sense to me, and maybe it is that that has nothing to do with their backround? Others bring it up.

Whom do you blame, Teg?
I blame the system. It would be automatically better were it a democracy. As long as the few make decisions that will impact the many, it is inherintly bad. I just want them to make good their claim of democracy.
I gravitate to the Republican party because the people who speak for it truly inspire me and I associate with them.
They are just the greater of the two evils. I guess if you care little about your rights and want only to keep your pay check by earning 35cents more a month, it is the party for you. If you want every child to carry a gun for protectian and the burning of every last remnant of actual forest environment, that is the party for you. If you value the life of the individual over that of the whole and want for a world of massive military build up, it is the party for you.

So apparently you like their words and happen to be a gun-toting, ant-earth, and anti-human race individual. Sounds like a fun, albeit short life.

Little Teg, let's get our facts straight. Anyone who thinks like you, however enlightened and clean, is the greater of the 6 billion evils here we live aside. Go to the Poetry Arena and tell me I hate the human race, our planet. Go to many of my other posts and find the same thing. tell me I hate the Earth. Tell me I value money over planet.

Surely I think differently than you, but must we be so self- conceited? I don't consider myself any farther down the compassion meter than you, nor do I believe that right is the direction you go when you turn sour. I am just as contented with the world as you; just as caring for the world and our future.

If in your mind, there was a difference between when you cared and when you didn't, and it just so happened that you were a Republican when you didn't care, does that mean that I don't care? Or is caring no longer a universal attribute-do have to be liberal to care? I was a liberal when I didn't care, I'll tell you that much. I care a lot now.

So keep your habdashery to the grave of the Phil Donahue show. I do think O'Reilly is conceited and arrogant, but I think Limbaugh cares. However, the person I listen to me most is me, which is why I am feeling tired of 'defending' myself from you. Fact is, I could care less what a liberal thinks about a Conservative's business, unless of course he or she tries to understand the Conservative. I've tried to understand Liberals, God help me. I can't do it, but I keep trying.

I care a lot now.
That is not a readily apparent. However it is of note that you may care about some things for which I did not entirely establish: money, guns and the bible. Compassionate Conservatism: feeling good about raping the planet.
...but I think Limbaugh cares.
The man is an ass. He fabricates a greater purpose to empty actions, through use of misleading articulation and psuedo-intellictualality.
I've tried to understand Liberals, God help me. I can't do it, but I keep trying.
Who are you talking to? Just because I despise Republicans does not mean I watched Phil Donahue. Especially since this show has been off the air for some period of time now. I realize that destroying the planet for profit was popular during that period of time, but most of us have grown beyond that decade.

I was suggesting a change in the system. You seem to have avoided that topic entirely. I know you tend to think of or government as atwo party affair, but after factoring in the outside influences there is really only one. The few are easily influenced, allowing for control through monetary allocation. Now imagine a democracy: no rulers, no buracracy, only an autonomous collective. That is the true meaning of democracy: rule by the people. We currently are forced to live with a republic. Or would you rather a handful of minds dictate your actions?

well my fellow doon-ers and conswervatives awhile ago I came up with a new form of government and I'll describe it momentarily. Congrats come to the light-be a liberal, try, you must try, these conservatives are toxins-TOXINS!! You're an artist-a poet, yet you're a conservative! Talk aboot an oxymoron!

Delocracy. Government by lotto. Every couple o' years automated robots (look I know by saying 'robots' I sound like a quote unquote wacky person but its the only way that random people could be picked) pick anyone in the population to lead a senate for deciding issues, they are educated BY the robots for a few months in the art of politiciSM. Then, once they have all assembled, each with three people from each state or province (to keep populated areas from having all the power) select a leader and nine judges. After the voting is done another lotto is held to replace the judges and the leader, and from then on the system is basically the same as what the united states is currently at.

:o Come to the light! Be a liberal!

Is that how easy it is, to justbe? I must think, now shouldn't I. If I am some sort of inconsistency because being a poet contradicts being a conservative (and you know, I'd rather say I lean towards being Libretarian) then I musn't say much else. Of course-self expression always contradicts the self. I'd say a poet thinks on deeper levels than a politician, a scientist, or even thinker. It doesn't mean I can be so overly succint when not in poetry.

Do I want to own a gun? Do I applaud factories for warding off those 'nasty' environmentalists? Must I say that I am a racist, a sexist, a bigot, a homophobe of all things? If I said any of those things, I'd be lying. I wouldn't just be lying, I'd be contradicting myself.

Now the difference between what I criticized you for saying is this- those things comprise not my beliefs as a Conservative. Surely, many Conservatives think like that, but not me. Many liberals have much more dangerous beliefs. Look, deeper, Pollux. Look a lot deeper...:rolleyes:


My 'mantra' in life would have to go like this:

"Want all you want, push yourself ahead of yourself each time you step, yet don't forget that you are essentially the same person you always were, and thereofre inherantly bound to your roots in comparison to others. In other words, we are born into the same dawn, the same plane, and we can't forget that deep down, deep back, we are all the same newborn infant. Don't forget the people under you.

Sound 'Conservative' to you? No, I'm sure not. It's not because I don't know whoI am, it's that you don't know what a Conservative is. You're so caught up in the purported 'righteousness' of your own liberalism that you just can't see me. Unblind the subtle ego-blinders (I don't blame you, they come with the package.) and think. Maybe then you'll think aboutme before you speak so aptly. I am not a toxin, nor do I associate with toxins. I don't know, maybe you're just a toxin for saying it.

Originally posted by Congratulations
...but I think Limbaugh cares.I can understand why he appeals to you. Rush can make people laugh. He is superb at skewering politicians' vanities, for instance. And no one is better at pulling out the loose threads of the Liberal coat, which he can then retie in clever knots of common logic, bathed in acid humor. He identifies some of what is wrong with the country after forty years of (so-called) Liberal policies, and he can make sense.

The problem is that Limbaugh projects his opinions in such one-sided, pin-the-blame contexts that the truth of matters is inevitably trivialized. Limbaugh is superb at reducing environmentalism to some "animal rights nut" who won't kill a rat even to save her child from going through painful rabies shots. Listeners can identify with Rush's outrage as his unbroken monologue guides us through. But then, hey, how about that spotted owl, he says, and feigns eating a spotted owl, as if that somehow eliminates the need for biodiversity conservation. Rush tells us that there are more trees today than a century ago; more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Deforestation is not a problem. According to him, well, ahem, "there is no damage to the ozone layer, ha ha."

According to the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, estimates of the pre-Columbus population of what later became the United States range from 5 million to 15 million. Native populations in the late 19th century fell to 250,000, due in part to genocidal policies. Today the U.S.'s Native American population is about 2 million.

Substantially reduced levels of ozone have been measured over most of the globe, including North America, Europe, and elsewhere. In fact, scientists have observed a thinning of the ozone layer at all latitudes outside the tropics. By 1991, the depletion over North America averaged nearly 5 percent. Since 1991, ozone depletion has further intensified. (World Meteorological Organization, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, 1991, pp. 2, 16. World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994, Executive Summary, pp. 2, 11.)

Fewer than two thousand pairs of the Northern spotted owl are thought to survive in California forests. Even more importantly, at a meeting of experts called by the U.S. government at Fort Collins, Colorado, virtually every biologist who presented data concluded that the total numbers of the owl are still in decline. Moreover, the population loss rate appears to be accelerating. On the whole, Limbaugh dealt with this issue more honestly in his first book, The Way Things Ought to Be, when he asserted, "If the owl can't adapt to the superiority of humans, screw it. ( Gutierrez, R.J. "Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of Spotted Owls during the Past Century." Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 15, 1994, pp. 293-300. Burnham, K.P., et al. "Estimation of Vital Rates of the Northern Spotted Owl." Summary of the Fort Collins Spotted Owl Demographic Workshop, January 12, 1994)

I think if he cared, he would be more accurate in his statements. I understand that he is expressing his opinion, but too many people listen to his show and accept what he says as fact. "I am equal time," he is prone to answer, when questioned on the lack of balance in his shows. However, I have yet to tune in to find Rush asking scientists about ozone layer depletion or interviewing Native scholars on the variety of Native cultural viewpoints. Why present a balanced view when ridicule can suffice?

Peace.

Congrats, what you just said outlines everything TO being a conservative, that is, being conservative and not listening to liberals. Maybe you're (Elvis voice) a liberraal in disguise. There's no denying it. If you aren't a part of those parameters you described you're not a conservative. Plain and simple.

Describe for me why you think you're a conservative. What is conservative about your political views? It IS NOT LOGICAL for you to say that you aren't a liberal when you just highlighted the ingriedients and toxins that go into making great republican-conservative representatives AND some (but not all) misguided people. WHAT IS CONSERVATIVE ABOUT YOU?

Want all you want, push yourself ahead of yourself each time you step, yet don't forget that you are essentially the same person you always were, and thereofre inherantly bound to your roots in comparison to others. In other words, we are born into the same dawn, the same plane, and we can't forget that deep down, deep back, we are all the same newborn infant. Don't forget the people under you.
That sounds like a kind way of saying close-minded. A person, under the conditions you described, cannot grow. The last line seems to be in contradiction with the rest and any conservative views. They say clearly that wealth must be acheived through monetary conquest and that personal wealth is more important than the collective. In one breath you say that, but in the other you say that the little person matters. I guess they matter to a degree. That degree falls short of caring or any monetary help. Their agenda is the tax cut, military, and religious interference. Their party line is "let's have guns to deter criminals and rogue nations." The problem: the more and better our weapons become, the more and better their weapons become. It is a war that we are eventually fighting against ourselves. And what about taxes? If you can live with raping all social reform and already inacted measures of aid, I guess that becomes justification for giving the grunt 50 cents more a week and Mr. CEO a factor of millions times that. It seems of no relevance to these people that we have a first amendment obligation to stay out of religion, for better or worse. Perhaps it is easy for a person to identify with pirates and thugs without the ethical prerequisite of a conscience.

A question list:

1. To be a true conservative, must you: be a self-proclaimed sexist, bigot, homophobe, racist pig that is self-proclaimed selfish and only caring about their own money.

2. To be a Conservative, must it just be so clear that you don't care? I do care, Pollux, and in Conservative ways. Now, wait before you scream oxymoron! You have created a bedrock stereotype that pervades throughout your views on most things. If you are so set in your own idea that Conservatives are fundamentally uncaring and thereofre you are... I see either an ego problem or a self-esteem deficiency.

Must you need such self-approval for your own beliefs? It just sickens me, all these people who are just so sure I have all of these 'mental problems' (since when was greed a mental problem? It seems like all of these cold liberal convictions are created simply in order to assure the liberal of their total supremacy over all other forms of thinking). And that includes radical environmentalists, feminists, gay-rights advocates, and the like. I look at the problems they're problems they're trying to fix and I say:

"Sure, that sounds admirable. I could care less about being self-righteous in front of someone with their own beliefs."

;) I don't disagree with them! I don't disagree with anyone, really, because the act of disagreement, in my opinion, is reserved with those who don't agree with themselves enough.

My Conservative beliefs are comprised of these core beliefs:
(Hold on, Pollux the Fifth. What you are about to hear may tickle your ears as stubborn, dirty lies that will make you want to throw up. Why? Because it's the truth.)

1. People go less on governnement handouts then they do on their own free will. Giving money to the poor for the sake of doing it keeps the poor in poverty. Oh? You say that you can only show the act of compassion by welfare checks, money, and more money? Well, there's a difference between acts and action. Bush's tax cut eliminated all income taxes for people in the lowest tax bracket. By glorifying the poor as their own 'group', you are perpetuating their poverty!

They have to get assitance, because we have the money to give it to them, but we can't eliminate poverty by giving them a false leg to lean on. When you have some free stream of money you can depend on (sadly, you really can't depend on it at all), and you obviously don't know much about making money, you're not going to just 'get out' of poverty with a kick-up check. You'll simply not do other things becasue you don't need to. Therefore, the poor people who you did business with no longer get your business.

A check is limited. Capitalism is boundless. Hard and unfair, yet boundless. That's why it works: because people can get inspired by what they see in themselves. If you tell me that can't lead to good things, you're wrong.

2. Most Liberal programs never achieve anything at all, and they don't ever plan to. If a self constructed array of policies can somehow 'save' our planet from clear and present death, I'd like to see it. No policy can ever do much- it's the appearence of doing things that gets the excitement going. Underneath, they hurt the people they intend to help. If Clinton had had the freedom to devise his own budget free of congressional restraint, and then simply 'implement it' on his own accord, the defecit would have spiraled to almost 800 billion by 1997. That's in the actual report!

I'm going to stop here. I could go on, but the feeling of disdain I smell from the other side discourages me. I write what I feel in my heart, and I know what it means, yet I know how you take it as it appears, how your exclusive bias, prejudice, and 'stancism' could never possibly allow it equal footing with your 'mighty' yet sadly inconsiderate views on life. This makes me very angry, when I know I must be some sort of genious to get through to you. I did it with Banshee once; he knew what I meant to say, and was talikng purely what I believed. I cut through his stancism.
But you people, however nice and friendly most fo the time, have a unique and disguisting prejudice you must examine. What I thought I had to do to get you to simply understand who I am and what I believe has become a game for you. You watch the Conservative run around, trying to cover his arse against your...your...I guess mindless spoutings. You talk, but you don't think how to actually have an exchange of knowledge with someone unlike you. It's a giant ego-festival, in sense. Or it's an insecurity-carnival. Please-I repeat PLEASE! get rid of this mindset, because (and this is for you, Teg.) It'll give you a fast, gratifying, yet albeit SHORT life. Why? Because your own vision of yourself is so undercut by your own need to ridicule others.

It's just so sick I have to say this. Liberalism and Conservatism are so close, both not exactly 'pure' (ahem..) yet we both throw in such concrete differences between ourselves. talk about 'dividing' and 'segreagting'! I'm willing to talk to you-I don't want to ridicule you! But am I a liberal in disguise? Honestly? I'd like to think it's a sign that I'm too Conservative yet make too much sense for you-it makes you insecure. In your mind, Liberal=good and Conservative=bad. If I seem a little good, I must not be Conservative. So what is it? Am I me, or am I me? Am I good, or am I Conservative? Well sorry, but they happen to go together for me. If that makes me not only bad butmisguided and egotistical, just say it. State your case. However, I don't feel the need to try to sidestep your emotional deficiencies. I guess when it comes to me, I can disagree with you. I can disagree because I think you should take your ideas off the pedestal and onto the worktable. You Liberals have got a lot of work to do beofre I can feel comfortable having some sort fo 'exchange' with you. Quite honestly, you make me feel second-rate, unimportant, and in all aspects a bit of a circus attraction. one you can poke and prod and watch it cry. Well congratulations, 'compassionate' liberals: I've just cried words.

:( I'm sorry. That was a stupid, victicratic, and filthyb thing to post. I can't I let I get posted. To ne totally honest with you, I believe waht I said about you having to examine yourselves: I think that would make us all get along better. But what I said about you being viscious attackers, "hunters", egotists, biased fools---that was wrong of me. It's just a result of being poorly outnumbered and being in a disjointed position where you identify with people greatly yet differ in the place where you people identify you identity in. Incomprehesible enough for you? Sorry. Here's a poem:


dramaticized chair to my yonder, from seat top mine
the hand swools
its carressor
in a jealous rage I was smitten
gone in an hour
gone in a day
gone from my lips (red, moist)
puckering, morsels of gateway.

From the square of light
pouring, just coming in like, just all over
over me, my head, my socks,
it's warm in a brightness bucket,
yet lukewarm over here.

1. To be a true conservative, must you: be a self-proclaimed sexist, bigot, homophobe, racist pig that is self-proclaimed selfish and only caring about their own money
Yes, that is a very, very precise way to put it. This is more extreme conservatism (if that's a word).


. Bush's tax cut eliminated all income taxes for people in the lowest tax bracket
As I recall he also gave a good majority of the cut his slimy, oily unbelievably rich friends from texas (and the greater US). I didn't know rich people had it so harsh .

Most Liberal programs never achieve anything at all, and they don't ever plan to
Social Security and the minimum wage, don't forget, were liberal ideas (from FDR). Back when republicans were liberal when the party was formed they freed the slaves, and now democracts fight for civil rights while (current) republicans turn a blind eye. ALL REPUBLICANS DO IS GIVE RICH PEOPLE TAX CUTS. Need I also remind you that like many politicians these filthy pigs also have Bush in his ass pocket. The only difference between democrats and republicans is the fact that republicans accept a hellofa lot more money than democrats do.

1. People go less on governnement handouts then they do on their own free will. Giving money to the poor for the sake of doing it keeps the poor in poverty. Oh? You say that you can only show the act of compassion by welfare checks, money, and more money? Well, there's a difference between acts and action. Bush's tax cut eliminated all income taxes for people in the lowest tax bracket. By glorifying the poor as their own 'group', you are perpetuating their poverty!

They have to get assitance, because we have the money to give it to them, but we can't eliminate poverty by giving them a false leg to lean on. When you have some free stream of money you can depend on (sadly, you really can't depend on it at all), and you obviously don't know much about making money, you're not going to just 'get out' of poverty with a kick-up check. You'll simply not do other things becasue you don't need to. Therefore, the poor people who you did business with no longer get your business.

A check is limited. Capitalism is boundless. Hard and unfair, yet boundless. That's why it works: because people can get inspired by what they see in themselves. If you tell me that can't lead to good things, you're wrong.
I agree with banishing wellfare. It offers rewards for having children, one of the greatest perpuators of poverty. The real need is to give education opportunities. We currently have this in the form of grants and scholarships. In his latest address, however, Bush declared that these would be cut in favor of military spending and the survival of the tax cut. That does not sound very compassionate to me. Take from the poor and give to the rich, well that's a rational explanation of capitalism.
Most Liberal programs never achieve anything at all, and they don't ever plan to.
Really, to which programs do you refer? Lying will not help your situation. Social security: guess what it's a neccessary program as most retired people are unable to support themselves. Remember a little event known as the Great Depression? That is where the dawning of social reform occurred. Again I am stumped as to which liberal programs you are referring.
If Clinton had had the freedom to devise his own budget free of congressional restraint, and then simply 'implement it' on his own accord, the defecit would have spiraled to almost 800 billion by 1997. That's in the actual report!
It was his idea to eliminate the deficit. Reagen, Bush the older, and Ford attributed to this problem. The Republican senate created the debt. Taxes may not be popular, but they are the only way to keep the government in business. Some idiots think that we can spend without any concern for the future, they buy billion dollar weapons and throw money at tycoons. That does not strike me as compassionate.
Remember also that Reagen embodied the conservative ideals. He missed opportunities to unify in disarmament with Russia. He coined the term "Star Wars" with the intention of deceiving the world through intimidation.
I write what I feel in my heart, and I know what it means, yet I know how you take it as it appears, how your exclusive bias, prejudice, and 'stancism' could never possibly allow it equal footing with your 'mighty' yet sadly inconsiderate views on life.
I am particularly biased by my ubringing. Sure, being exposed to the hypocracy of human beings will neccessarily make me a skeptic. I was taught to doubt. Because of this ability I do not take the words I hear as truth, seperate from the words origin. You can label me an altruist, say that I only go forward with my actions to ensure my superiority. The truth is that I do not feel guilty about stating that I am a better person in comparison to the filth that passes for honorable persons. I am honest with myself and therefore can only demand that of others. Those who are not honest with any party, I label inferior. It is a function of my being. I am biased against dishonest people.
Why? Because your own vision of yourself is so undercut by your own need to ridicule others.
I merely point out the truth about your party. Argue with me on the merits, not on your interpretation of my motives. Point out a lie that has been stated by me, otherwise any ricule is warranted. Who doesn't have a vision of themself? You may judgeme to lack a fit of my ideals, but that does not neccessarily make your interpretation unbiased. Hear this now: I am a Democrat only because you have to check a box to vote. That does not mean that I agree with either party. As I said before I often vote for the lesser of the two evils. I toyed with the idea of joining other parties. The Green party: Ralph Nader has the right intentions, but I found his statements about Mexican persons to reveal a level of bigotry. The Commmunist party: I read the manifesto their party and found it to be far superior to other party bases. I chose against it because I would be condemned by everyone around me. I value my life and found that the hatred of others would not allow me to continue this with ease. After seeing the core ideas and actions of the Republican party, my decision was finalized. The sight of Newt Gingrich condemning Clinton for his affiar only to resign for an adulterous relationship of his own. That level of hypocracy exists all the way down the line. Bush claimed compassion and forgiveness, all the while condemning other groups for thier possession of weapons of mass destruction. We who invented the weapon of mass destruction should be the last to declare war on those may have them, but have not used them yet. We used them twice. I call that hypocracy. Bush was clear when he said "dead or alive."

Delocracy is the answer.

In 1990, the top tax rate was rasied from 28% to 31%. This was supposed to increase tax recepits by taxing the rich more, yet in 1991, just a year after the ill-fated 1990 Budget Deal, the amount of tax revenue received from those making over $200,000 a year dropped by nearly 6 billion dollars. the amount of taxes received from the non-rich increased by 3 billion, a net increase of 1%. Their taxes stayed the same. In 1991, the economy grew at 3.3%, and it was the first year since 1980 when total tax revenue decreased.

THIS, after the largest tax increase in the history of our country.

:( In the 1980's the percentage of total defecit spending at first increased with the increase in tax revenue, but throughout the later part of the 80's (after 1986) the defecit, even if it was larger, composed a smaller part of total spending. Why, you ask? Because total tax revenue went up something like 15 or 12 percent in th 80's. Each year the defecit got larger, TAX REVENUES WENT UP YET SPENDING WENT UP AT A STEEPER RATE. Those are statistics, which are simply unable to avoid.

And as to Delocracy, I say go for it, Pollux. Seeing as it has something to do with lotteries, maybe there's a chance a lot of stupid people could be fooled into spending a lot ofmoney for no result. Actually, Last time I checked, that was the premise behind Liberalism. Lots of money, yet no result.

Nononon, see everyone is automatically entered once and they don't have to purchase anything.

Actually, Last time I checked, that was the premise behind Liberalism. Lots of money, yet no result.

What do you mean by this? The Republicans are the ones that spend 'lots and lots of money' on things like the military. I'm glad that Bush's lil proposal was (or will be, I'm not sure) shot down in the senate, and I believe it involved heavy, unnecessary military spending.

Nononon, see everyone is automatically entered once and they don't have to purchase anything.

Actually, Last time I checked, that was the premise behind Liberalism. Lots of money, yet no result.

What do you mean by this? The Republicans are the ones that spend 'lots and lots of money' on things like the military. I'm glad that Bush's lil proposal was (or will be, I'm not sure) shot down in the senate, and I believe it involved heavy, unnecessary military spending that raided social security money for YOU and ME, as well as giving rich people tax cuts. The ends just don't meet.

Actually, Last time I checked, that was the premise behind Liberalism. Lots of money, yet no result.
Even if what you said has any meaning, you failed to prove this statement.

Each year the defecit got larger, TAX REVENUES WENT UP YET SPENDING WENT UP AT A STEEPER RATE.
If this is so, I can easily explain: when we increase taxes we do so as a way of compensation for expected spending. The problem: often the rich are able to skirt tax law with charity and loop holes. It is all dependent on the ethics of businesses that politics are controlled by. That does not change my position, however. I still don't see that an added 35 cents a week is a sufficient reward for destroying the planet and lowering the quality of life. You just haven't convinced me.

Last time I checked, the Republican party line was "down with environmental standards". They may be conservatives, but they are not conservationists.

So, do you think we rasied taxes in the 80's? Did Reagan raise taxes? Hmmm...I'm thinking. Why don't you answer, Teg. Because of course, in the liberal mindset, not only is there a federal cure for everything, there is an answer for everything. The response to 'Raise in Tax Revenue" is "Higher Taxes". That's what we mean by 'knee-jerk' liberals.

Why? Because during the increase in tax revenue that I mentioned, not a single tax was raised. In fact, tax revenue rose at a rapid pace in the years following Reagan's tax cuts, and rose at a much slower pace after the tax increase of 1990. And keep in mind that the economy was in recession when Reagan's tax cuts went into effect, and recovered several quarters later (Let's also keep in mind that due to tax cuts in the 1980's, the stock market crash didn't amount to so much as a reccession.). Soon after the 1990 Budget Deal, we went into a reccession.

;) Scratching your head, Teg? Maybe the reason you are so wrong on economic policy is because you spend too much time reading Communist Manifestos and trying to think of ways to 'save the the world from capitalism.' Please get your facts straight in the future.

I am neither Republican nor Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, so I hope this post can be observed objectively.

Is Reagan to blame for every problem of his era? Did he cause the homeless crisis? No, it reflected a complex of policy mistakes, both liberal and conservative. Did his tax cuts widen the income gap? No, the gap grew so much in the 1980s because of market forces, such as globalization and high technology, and social changes, notably the rise in out-of-wedlock births (almost 90% of such children live in poverty). You can't pin that increase on Reagan.

But Reagan supporters also credit him for achievements that weren't his at all. Reagan did not prove that when you reduce taxes, you spur the economy. Mainstream economists can show you in detail why Reagan's 1981 tax cuts had little or no effect on the recovery of 1983 to 1989. They explain that it was merely the normal recovery you get after a severe recession - a matter of productive capacity being put back to use after sitting idle. If it had been caused by a true supply-side surge of productivity, we would have seen productivity rates increase in the 1980s. They didn't.

The statement that Reagan's tax cut actually increased tax revenues doesn't t hold up. A close look shows that what boosted Federal tax revenues during the 80's was not individual income taxes but payroll taxes - whose 4.3% average revenue growth resulted from a tax hike, the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. Besides, corporate tax revenues plummeted after Reagan's tax cut, and surged only after the 1986 tax-reform law raised corporate taxes again. I cannot explain that with supply-side theory.

Remember what supply-siders predicted in 1993, when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy by 40%. Newt Gingrich told us the tax increase was sure to bring on a severe recession. The Wall Street Journal told us the budget deficit would go through the ceiling. Forbes told us to take our money out of the stock market, because it was headed for a deadly crash. The predictions couldn't have been more wrong, of course - but if supply-side economics were true, all these disasters are exactly what should have happened.

Peace.

Actually, Last time I checked, that was the premise behind Liberalism. Lots of money, yet no result.You mean like when the deficit value under Reagan was equal to the allocation for SDI? Or like Dubya's disregard toward our debt obligations, including the revenue giveaway that leaves us in the red? And this on top of creative accounting?

Or is this more like the Republican revolution of 1994, the death of the "tax-and-spend liberal" myth? Like when the GOP tacked 15 stealth bombers onto the budget that the Pentagon hadn't asked for and was it Newt Gingrich or Bill Clinton who thought it was a good idea to pay for the extra hardware by cutting back the White House gardening staff and terminating PBS? (Notwithstanding that those cuts together equaled less than 1/5 the cost of a single bomber.)Please get your facts straight in the future.Great suggestion, Congratulations. I suggest that you give it some consideration of your own.

In the meantime, you might remember that the reason those tax cuts increased spending and therefore revenues is that we were focusing our efforts on having the biggest military wang. We did that under the spectre of nuclear war, a standoff perpetuated to spur economies by fear and hatred. The nation played along, and emerged from the 1980s seriously, seriously damaged. As long as we had the Bear to fear, there was no limit to what the war-hawks would sell the people.

Reaganomics may have created a bunch of millionaires, but it created more poor people.

When doom lies thirty-seven minutes away, and you're coked to the point of no conscience, it's easy to pull off the scams that built the Reagan economy.

What? It was based on spending. Endless spending. We almost did it; we almost built a self-perpetuating economic dynamo but that for some reason is unacceptable. Two things about the current recession:

1) At what point do people pay off the debts of the feeding frenzy?
2) What was the purpose of screaming Recession, aside from political?

Only the most foolish Reaganite could have failed to notice that the academics were screaming that there was no recession, that the only actual voice of recession was the executive office and the press that covered it. Into January, 2001, academics were pouring out paper after paper trying to show that there was no recession. And then the Time cover hit and all the academics gave up. With Time's "How to Survive the Recession" issue, the psychological wound was opened and people believed it. The economy was battered unnecessarily.

Everybody knew that the prior economic bubble was artificially stimulated by Y2k, which produced an amazing amount of labor and therefore capital. But the company I worked for had blown it out their asses almost three years earlier in a botched takeover, and when they talked about job cuts, they told the investors and the public that it was about the declining economy. No. Absolutely not. We knew this was coming for a while, and choose to blame it on the economy instead of on the executives who made about three specific decisions that just slapped the bottom line to nothing. But now a city and a nation thinks another insurance company is having troubles because of the "recession". It's a lie, this recession, and only conservatives understand the value of perpetuating it. The value is economic consolidation; when you come out the other side, people have jockeyed for influence in the new market. The "company" has more power; workforces are leaner, more "disciplined" (read company-oriented) and customer service is a luxury.

Remember that the people screaming recession might lose some money, but they won't lose their homes.

It's the people who have to work their asses off day in and day out to keep up with the demands of a vicious economic artifice that will lose their homes.

1,500 people (over 10% of the work-force) get pink-slips at my company, and the departing CEO gets $5 million and stock on his way out the door after sinking the company. The COO quits after not getting the CEO--and rightfully he shouldn't have the job; he was the cheerleader who said rah-rah-rah! while the ship took on water, as such--and walks away with a large package. It was calculated that with the parachutes taken by dismissed VP's and the CEO and the COO would have paid for 1,000 of those jobs.

This is the way of the economy you're extolling, Congratulations, in all its glory. Oscar Wilde, in defense of socialism, wrote that the paradigm would rebuild society in such a manner as to make poverty impossible; this, we all know, is as utopiate as from each/to each, or that silly capitalism.org foray into philosophical greed. But why must the way of things require poverty and suffering? It's enough that it happens, but when the economy depends on it ...?

When the economy fosters poverty and suffering, we must ask the question: Is economy a device to aid the human endeavor, or to humans exist for the greater cause of economy? Is it live or is it Mammonex? ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Great Point, Fish. Economics is just too complicated to explain with one set of rules, either supply-side or not, because nothing can ever be right all of the time. I suppose the argument to make for the 80's is that Reagan did not ruin anything, yet did not bring about any massive positive change. I like the part about recovery from a recession; must we also credit Clinton for the 90's?

;) I would say it sounds possible that since both the 80's and the 90's occurred after reccessions, so the margin of impact by any economic policy is pretty low. Might we be able to say the 80's was such a prosperous decade because of natural economic cycles helped by Reagan, and the 90's was merely a result of natural cycles supported by Clinton? If so, is it unreasonable to assume that whatever was right about both policies (and of course, they share a lot in common) worked in their respective decades? I like that premise- no two ideas can be identically concrete.

What a great idea! Let's give all our money to the rich and they can pee on the poor people. Reagan was to blame for the increase in poverty. Economics are simple, contrary to popular belief. I sat through all the b.s. about the most important resource being the human resource and infinite resources. The truth is t