How can conservatives take themselves seriously?

[Rower_CPU]

Rush Limbaugh has gotten a lot of mileage out of his claim that volcanoes do more harm to the ozone layer than human-produced chemicals. He featured it in his best-selling book, The Way Things Ought to Be (paperback edition pp. 155-157): "Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history.... Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them, so how can we destroy ozone?"

Limbaugh calls concern about the ozone layer: "balderdash. Poppycock." The only people who worry about it are "environmental wackos," "dunderheaded alarmists and prophets of doom."

Syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell (New York Post, 1/14/94) used the volcano theory as Exhibit A to illustrate Limbaugh's "very well-informed and savvy understanding of the political issues of our time." "While far more pretentious people have been joining the chorus of hysteria over 'global warming,'" Sowell wrote, "Limbaugh pointed out in his [first] book that one of the high readings of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere came right after a volcanic eruption--and volcanoes can put more gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race."

The alert reader will notice that Sowell has mixed up global warming and the ozone layer, two different problems. Still, Sowell concluded of Limbaugh, "It is obvious that the man has done his homework--and done it well."

Ted Koppel must have thought so, too, when he invited Limbaugh to be on Nightline (2/4/92) as an environmental "expert," opposite then-Sen. Al Gore. "If you listen to what Senator Gore said," Limbaugh proclaimed, "it is man-made products which are causing the ozone depletion, yet Mount Pinatubo has put 570 times the amount of chlorine into the atmosphere in one eruption than all of man-made chlorofluorocarbons in one year."

On his radio show, his syndicated TV show, and in two best-selling books, Limbaugh has advanced the idea that volcanoes are the real ozone culprits. This theory, like so many of Limbaugh's claims, has only one problem: Limbaugh doesn't know what he's talking about.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html

With advocates like Rush, who needs enemies. :rolleyes:

[jelloshotsrule]

now i see where the rush limbaugh conservative fans get their labeling guns.... from the man himself.... "environmental wackos"

the shortsightedness is amazing.

sometimes i listen to his show. sometimes i do it when eating during a break from work (during the summer..). i always regret it because the result is always the same: wanting to vomit up my lunch..

[buffsldr]

Are you serious, or is this a joke? I am wary of people who try to put people, including themselves, into "bins" like "conservative" or "liberal". What is a conservative, Rower? What is a liberal? We are all just people who vote our conscious. We may disagree on the implementation of our ideas, but some conservatives are as different as a conservative and a liberal.

So how can conservatives take themselves seriously? As a group, "they" dont. As a collection of individuals, they probably believe in what they are doing.

Please dont mislabel a group based on the actions of one. That group may not be as homogenous as one might expect.

[jelloshotsrule]

good call buffsldr.... you hit the nail on the head..

no worries however, as i believe that is pretty much exactly what rower was trying to say... if you read up on the other political threads at the moment (takes time and a lot of patience), you'll see that a ridiculous article from the "other" side, ie, political right, was posted and the labeling has been going on incessantly. so i think rower was trying to point out the absurdity with his own thread on the matter...

if that's not what he was doing, then, i hate him. ha

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by buffsldr
Are you serious, or is this a joke? I am wary of people who try to put people, including themselves, into "bins" like "conservative" or "liberal". What is a conservative, Rower? What is a liberal? We are all just people who vote our conscious. We may disagree on the implementation of our ideas, but some conservatives are as different as a conservative and a liberal.

So how can conservatives take themselves seriously? As a group, "they" dont. As a collection of individuals, they probably believe in what they are doing.

Please dont mislabel a group based on the actions of one. That group may not be as homogenous as one might expect.

good points

rush gets a lot of press, but my GOP friends hold their views based on the elected leaders they like and not rush, who they see more as entertainment

rush limbaugh's views thinking that abortion is "funny" and christianity is flat out wrong would not come across well in washington if he were elected

and calling feminists and environmentalists by some unflattering names would not do very well in a congress that has to often work together

and certainly his criticisms of secretary of state colin powell for being "too liberal" would not work

because rush is not elected and not a politician, he can get away with believing and saying anything he wants...the more outrageous his claims or criticisms, the more money he makes

i sometimes listen to jim hightower, an entertainer on the left, but i don't really put it into the equation of my political thinking

same goes for al franken...funny stuff, though:D :D

[alex_ant]

"Balderdash! Poppycock!"

[cubist]

... for those in foreign countries, are nothing of the kind. They are actually socialists, who believe in a large, powerful central government. They dominate the so-called "Democratic" party. These persons have not experienced the effects of socialism taken to its ultimate extent, such as the Soviet Union, and thus think that a powerful central government would be "compassionate". Every day, their compassion results in people losing their homes and businesses to confiscatory taxation. They also do not appreciate that expansion of the central government results in loss of personal freedom. George Mason, the author of the Bill of Rights foresaw this, and attempted to prevent it with the Tenth Amendment, but successive administrations managed to eviscerate that amendment, and so we have the huge Federal Government, a standing denial of the founding principles of the nation.

"Conservatives" in the US, by contrast, are primarily representative of the big business interests in the country, major corporations. While they may give lip service to freedom, their main concern is that major corporations will be able to make more money with minimal hindrance. That is why you have the strange instances of "liberals" and "conservatives" working together to achieve goals which are clearly at odds with the interests of the people - for example, the DCMA.

I suppose the fact that these labels are all blatant lies is probably true in other countries as well.

[jefhatfield]

right now with 51 senators, and maybe 52 if they get louisina, they are a force to be dealt with

but there is a strong moderate wing in the GOP and a strong conservative wing so it will be interesting to see how that flushes out

the business pundits with their ivy league educations and wall street money vs. the working class religious conservatives/gun conservatives/southern conservatives

and i don't see a lot of people who belong to both wings so there will be a fight within the party to see who is top dog

the moderates certainly have the money while the conservatives have the vast numbers of people

[Ovi]

11

[rainman::|:|]

Oh come on people. None of the parties are right, which is why we have a multi-party system. All others aside, liberals and conservatives balance each other out pretty well. Each one keeps the other's ideals in check. To all those that bash each other's parties: if your people had free run of things, the country would collapse within a year. Seriously.

I'm a complete libertarian, but i know that if the libertarian goals were met, things would be pretty messed up. Almost no government, no social programs, gun-totin' vigilantes running around.. it'd suck. But by going to an extreme, I can do my part in influencing the government away from some of the more anti-libertarian ideals, if that makes any sense.

That said, rush limbaugh is a moron. he's just clever and says things that people can cheer for.
Tho he's the one that got my dad to buy me my first Mac :)

pnw

[Durandal7]

How can democrats take themselves seriously with people like Barbra Streisand?

It's really a pointless debate to even bring the media into politics. For the most part actors/radio hosts/"journalists" tend to be extremist idiots.

[SPG]

Originally posted by cubist
... for those in foreign countries, are nothing of the kind. They are actually socialists, who believe in a large, powerful central government. They dominate the so-called "Democratic" party. These persons have not experienced the effects of socialism taken to its ultimate extent, such as the Soviet Union, and thus think that a powerful central government would be "compassionate". Every day, their compassion results in people losing their homes and businesses to confiscatory taxation. They also do not appreciate that expansion of the central government results in loss of personal freedom. George Mason, the author of the Bill of Rights foresaw this, and attempted to prevent it with the Tenth Amendment, but successive administrations managed to eviscerate that amendment, and so we have the huge Federal Government, a standing denial of the founding principles of the nation.

"Conservatives" in the US, by contrast, are primarily representative of the big business interests in the country, major corporations. While they may give lip service to freedom, their main concern is that major corporations will be able to make more money with minimal hindrance. That is why you have the strange instances of "liberals" and "conservatives" working together to achieve goals which are clearly at odds with the interests of the people - for example, the DCMA.

I suppose the fact that these labels are all blatant lies is probably true in other countries as well.

The Soviet Union was not Socialism taken to the extreme, it was an autocratic government bent on it's own self preservation by whatever means necessary. Has anyone here spent any time in the Soviet Union while it was still around? I actually have but thankfully it was toward the end, 1988 when people could get a way with saying a little more, as long as you looked over your shoulder first.
The Soviets denied their people freedom of any kind, opressed any who dissented (many of my family were sent to Siberian concentration camps to die), and ran a government of fear and greed.
Our current regime is heading the same way in that they feel that our civil rights are second to their profits and their agenda. Describe how this country would be if it was only the conservatives who held power for the last two hundred years, to simplify it we'll assume that there would be no dissent from the left, or even no left, just the right free to fully implement their agenda.

You may proceed, I will return after brunch thankyou.

[G4scott]

Liberals are mostly fools who can't grow up, and who think it is the government's job to do everything for them.

I'm going to regret saying this :D

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by G4scott
Liberals are mostly fools who can't grow up, and who think it is the government's job to do everything for them.

I'm going to regret saying this :D

I'm going to regret agreeing with you.

To add to previous statement by cubist I have to say that there is less and less a difference between conservatives and liberals. While liberals are pushing for social reforms that will bring about socialism. Conservatives are pushing for reforms for big business that in the end benefit the government and in there own will bring about socialism. I think at this moment unless people vote there mind rather then there party line, we are all screwed.

[diorio]

Originally posted by Durandal7
How can democrats take themselves seriously with people like Barbra Streisand?

It's really a pointless debate to even bring the media into politics. For the most part actors/radio hosts/"journalists" tend to be extremist idiots.

Good point, you can't judge a political party on one person. I don't know why Rower tries to do so, it's quite obvious that some conservatives are different than others and some liberals are different than others. They just don't all go in the same hat.

[jelloshotsrule]

i will say again, i am pretty sure rower's point was that stereotyping/generalizing/labeling people with some sort of broad stroke doesn't work. but anyhoo

[diorio]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
i will say again, i am pretty sure rower's point was that stereotyping/generalizing/labeling people with some sort of broad stroke doesn't work. but anyhoo

Look at the title of the thread. That's all the evidence I need.

[job]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
i will say again, i am pretty sure rower's point was that stereotyping/generalizing/labeling people with some sort of broad stroke doesn't work. but anyhoo

Well, most of the political debate going on here lately has been stereotyping/generalizing/labeling people... :p

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by diorio


Look at the title of the thread. That's all the evidence I need.

read some of the other political threads that are going on then. you'll see that it's just a reaction to the labeling that has been going on all over the place. some on both sides. but mostly from one particular gent....

good to see you judging a book by its cover as it were though...


hitman: yeah, that's exactly the point... as seen in other threads...

[Ovi]

11

[Rower_CPU]

Thanks for the backup, jello.

My intention with this thread is to show how ridiculous the other political threads are at this point. I'm not saying all conservatives are like Rush. I'm showing how idiotic it is to try to portray a group of people based on a generalization.

If you want to debate politics, fine. Create a thread on a particular topic and we'll discuss it fully. But starting threads like "When will liberals see the light?" or "Conservatives: Vampires or just Zombies?" does nothing to start any sort of debate.

They are meant to be inflammatory and set up this whole "us against them" mentality for the sole purpose of ganging up on people who feel/think differently (sound familiar?).

Ovi, I hope you've gotten my point in all of the threads where we've had discussions. You come across as someone very young and immature who is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater just to get a reaction. People have tried to engage you in discussion, but you fail to give any kind of debate a chance.

It's good that younger people are taking an interest in politics, but some of us here, and I know I'm not alone, wish that they would take some time to develop their ideas before shooting off their mouths.

[Groovsonic]

If I didn't know any better, I would think this whole thread is flamebait.

I am a right winger myself, but I wouln't persume to say that an entire group of people (such as liberal democrats) are stupid, or shouldn't be taken seriously. It seems that the point of this entire thread was to say that about conservitive republicans.

One thing I have always wondered......Why are most all celebrities liberals???

Are they smarter than everyone else????

Are they more well informed???

Name one sucessful actor or singer that is openly republican.

Betcha can't (and arnold doesn't count. Name the last sucessful thing he was in.)

Hmm....

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Groovsonic
If I didn't know any better, I would think this whole thread is flamebait.

I am a right winger myself, but I wouln't persume to say that an entire group of people (such as liberal democrats) are stupid, or shouldn't be taken seriously. It seems that the point of this entire thread was to say that about conservitive republicans.

One thing I have always wondered......Why are most all celebrities liberals???

Are they smarter than everyone else????

Are they more well informed???

Name one sucessful actor or singer that is openly republican.

Betcha can't (and arnold doesn't count. Name the last sucessful thing he was in.)

Hmm....


If you had spent anytime on here you would realize that any thread about politics or religion (this includes scientific theories) are all flame bait.

[SPG]

Democrats are not socialists. There is a huge difference. Anyway I'm not even a Democrat so why do I care? Anyway I'd like to see an argument against providing minimum protections to the worker.
Should we repeal Social Security?
Should we dismantle OSHA?
Should we eliminate the minimum wage?
Get rid of unemployment insurance?
Outlaw the unions?
Repeal child labor laws?
How about product safety laws?
Why not get rid of the FDIC?

All of the above get in the way of corporations making more profit, or do they?

[Taft]

Originally posted by Groovsonic


Name one sucessful actor or singer that is openly republican.

Betcha can't (and arnold doesn't count. Name the last sucessful thing he was in.)

Hmm....

Ummmm....

Charlten Heston. Or how about Ted Nugent. I'm sure there are a ton more.

But most celebs have no open political ambition. Are Britney Spears, N'Sync or any rappers out there openly campaigning for people or spouting like Heston or Streisand? Hell no. There's always just a few loudmouth celebs out there trying to further causes.

Taft

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Taft


Ummmm....

Charlten Heston. Or how about Ted Nugent. I'm sure there are a ton more.

But most celebs have no open political ambition. Are Britney Spears, N'Sync or any rappers out there openly campaigning for people or spouting like Heston or Streisand? Hell no. There's always just a few loudmouth celebs out there trying to further causes.

Taft

sammy hagar is a conservative but socially liberal as is ted nugent

bruce willis won't label himself but says he agrees with some conservative ideals but is against any form of censorship in the entertainment and arts field

he decrys conservatives who think his movies are too violent and considers them hypocrites...but willis is not anything like alec baldwin who doesn't like censorship either, but is every proudly on the left of center politics

as a general rule, it makes more sense for actors to be liberal and not side too heavily with a party that may want to take away some of the freedoms of their lucrative industry

same goes for lawyers who enjoy high margins that past GOP representatives greatly wanted to reduce (newt gingrich for one while he made a "good" amount for an advance for a book ;) )

and on the other hand, it's really rare to see a very liberal mba whose main source of income comes from free trade and capitalism gone amuck

i went to a buisness school which was very conservative yet at the same time, was not interested in conservative social issues one way or another...it was old school GOP thinking about watching the bottom line and keeping expenses lower than gross revenue

i spent a lot of those years very quiet with my liberal stances:p

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


sammy hagar is a conservative but socially liberal as is ted nugent

bruce willis won't label himself but says he agrees with some conservative ideals but is against any form of censorship in the entertainment and arts field

he decrys conservatives who think his movies are too violent and considers them hypocrites...but willis is not anything like alec baldwin who doesn't like censorship either, but is every proudly on the left of center politics

as a general rule, it makes more sense for actors to be liberal and not side too heavily with a party that may want to take away some of the freedoms of their lucrative industry

same goes for lawyers who enjoy high margins that past GOP representatives greatly wanted to reduce (newt gingrich for one while he made a "good" amount for an advance for a book ;) )

and on the other hand, it's really rare to see a very liberal mba whose main source of income comes from free trade and capitalism gone amuck

i went to a buisness school which was very conservative yet at the same time, was not interested in conservative social issues one way or another...it was old school GOP thinking about watching the bottom line and keeping expenses lower than gross revenue

i spent a lot of those years very quiet with my liberal stances:p

Since when were conservative republicans the ones wanting less violence in the media? This has always been a liberal democrat thing to protect the children. The children of parents that don't watch there kids and use the tv as a babysitter.

[alset]

I would like to recommend one of the funniest, yet most alarmingly accurate books I have read in recent years. It is "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot; and Other Observations," by Al Franken.

As a former fan of Rush and a Republican-run government, and can confidently back this book as a great read.

PS - For those living in parts of the country that aren't too conservative to show it, please see the groundbreaking film "Bowling for Colbine," by Michael Moore. This documentary will have you up-in-arms about all the nut-jobs with guns in America (what a bad pun!)

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com

BTW - Were I live, people are protesting the war on a regular basis, old and young alike. How about where everyone else lives?

Dan

[Taft]

Originally posted by MacBandit


Since when were conservative republicans the ones wanting less violence in the media? This has always been a liberal democrat thing to protect the children. The children of parents that don't watch there kids and use the tv as a babysitter.

Heck no. Lately, some liberal politicians have pushed this as an issue (ie. Gore and Lieberman), but the issue is very much associated with the religious right. They are always screaming about too much violence , sex or general "perversion" (like homosexuality or co-ed bathrooms...that scandelous Alley McBeal!!).

But as with any issue, any American politician will latch onto a gimmicky issue if it will earn them more votes. Dems or Reps...

"Screw healing the root of the problem, lets go for the quick fix. Voters go nuts for that sort of thing. Down with TV violence!!!!!"

Taft

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by alset
I would like to recommend one of the funniest, yet most alarmingly accurate books I have read in recent years. It is "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot; and Other Observations," by Al Franken.

As a former fan of Rush and a Republican-run government, and can confidently back this book as a great read.

PS - For those living in parts of the country that aren't too conservative to show it, please see the groundbreaking film "Bowling for Colbine," by Michael Moore. This documentary will have you up-in-arms about all the nut-jobs with guns in America (what a bad pun!)

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com

BTW - Were I live, people are protesting the war on a regular basis, old and young alike. How about where everyone else lives?

Dan

that book is a great read and very funny...just like rush is funny

but they are entertainment, not politics

franken on a tv interview, mentioned strongly that neither he nor rush were politicos, but funny and smart people who were there to entertain

but america being the country it is, rush or al franken could actually win a governor's race or a senate seat with no actual political experience

but it will be a long time, maybe never, when a popular entertainer and shock jock of the left or right, will take the white house

reagan was an actor but he was elected governor of the state of california

he didn't go from hollywood lot to white house as some people think he did

in california, people knew he was a well liked governor and twice ran for the presidency unsuccessfully before getting the nomination in 1980

[Taft]

Originally posted by alset

BTW - Were I live, people are protesting the war on a regular basis, old and young alike. How about where everyone else lives?

Dan

There was a rally in downtown Chicago last week. And I was just in Austin and there were signs up for a rally on the U of Texas campus. And there was a rally in Italy that just made headlines.

I like to see that people are against the coming war, but I question some of the protesters motives. Many seem so erratic that I could never see myself associating myself with them. That's why I haven't participated in the rallies I've seen.

Taft

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Taft


Heck no. Lately, some liberal politicians have pushed this as an issue (ie. Gore and Lieberman), but the issue is very much associated with the religious right. They are always screaming about too much violence , sex or general "perversion" (like homosexuality or co-ed bathrooms...that scandelous Alley McBeal!!).

But as with any issue, any American politician will latch onto a gimmicky issue if it will earn them more votes. Dems or Reps...

"Screw healing the root of the problem, lets go for the quick fix. Voters go nuts for that sort of thing. Down with TV violence!!!!!"

Taft

very true

remember the rock speaking at the republican convention and having GOP walkouts and protestors against him as a bad role model leave the floor of the convention?

the rock had to defend himself from some angry GOP leaders and supporters who thought he didn't fit the narrow image of a family based GOP

it takes all types to make both parties run and get votes and if the rock wants to be in the WWF, make bang 'em up movies, show off his sexy body, and stump for the GOP, so be it

america is a free country and thank god all republicans are not wall street button down suits and veiled church ladies:p

[jelloshotsrule]

there are protests here a lot. i live right by union square in nyc. a good spot for gathering for medium sized protests.... the weather was good yesterday so there was at least one.

and there are people to be seen very commonly wearing "not in our name" and other such protest group pariphinalia.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
there are protests here a lot. i live right by union square in nyc. a good spot for gathering for medium sized protests.... the weather was good yesterday so there was at least one.

and there are people to be seen very commonly wearing "not in our name" and other such protest group pariphinalia.

the bay area media (in california) has really covered some of these rallies and many say these are the biggest anti-war rallies seen since vietnam

and we have not even fired a shot yet

when and if the war does come down, the protestors will grow in number and if we don't have us and international support, and we go into this thing blindly without an exit plan, then i will give and/or join the protesters

this time, unlike past us wars, we have the internet and as a protest tool, it is unprecedented in its power to reach people and persuade

sometimes angry or loud rallies don't really say much but getting emails from friends, family, and co-workers says a lot more...especially if one does not expect it

i have a friend, the only ultra conservative i know, who has got a cause in environmentalism and has been involved in pushing environmentalist agendas and he has even corresponded with democratic governor gray davis

while not too enamored with liberalism in general, the environment is his number two issue

smaller government, even if it means losing his 12 year government job, is his main political cause

even though i am not into a government as small as he wishes for, i admire his fortitude and willingness to have his government job cut if it helps america spend less money on govenment

very few people will vote against their wallet

i am an entrepreneur and i vote democratic and i certainly vote against my wallet most of the time since i realize, after 40 years, i cannot take it all with me:p

[MacBandit]

There are protests here on a daily basis down at city hall here in Eugene, OR. The protests aren't all about the war though. Recently primarily they have been but I would say that there is at least one protest a week here year round.

[Groovsonic]

Sorry to leap back a tic, but...

Nobody mentioned a currently sucessful singer or actor that is openly republican. Ted nugetn hasnt had a hit in over ten years (with damn yankees), and as a solo artist, not since the late 70's. Charlton heston??? Not been in much since the 70's. But I bet you can think of a pantload of openly democrat actors and singers.

Hmm.....

My challenge still stands. Name one CURRENTLY sucessful repulican actor or singer.

[Backtothemac]

Well, the problem in this country is not people with ideals about their political agenda, it is those who have no idea about anything that are the problem. "Moderates", or shall I say those who don't have enough intelligence to make up their minds about anything, have dumbed down the average political race to an episode of Jerry Springer.

It isn't about what people really believe any longer, but it is about playing the middle. Yes, parties are right. The democrats are right that people need help sometimes and government should help. Repbulicans are right in that we need a strong defense of our country. The middle ground voter that has become the bullseye of every election has become the real problem in this cournty.

Damn people educate yourselves, and take a stand for something. Don't wait for a poll to inform you what your peers are thinking, and become one of the flock!

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, the problem in this country is not people with ideals about their political agenda, it is those who have no idea about anything that are the problem. "Moderates", or shall I say those who don't have enough intelligence to make up their minds about anything, have dumbed down the average political race to an episode of Jerry Springer.

It isn't about what people really believe any longer, but it is about playing the middle. Yes, parties are right. The democrats are right that people need help sometimes and government should help. Repbulicans are right in that we need a strong defense of our country. The middle ground voter that has become the bullseye of every election has become the real problem in this cournty.

Damn people educate yourselves, and take a stand for something. Don't wait for a poll to inform you what your peers are thinking, and become one of the flock!

i hear you

when i was young, i strived to be a different liberal with john lennon as my hero...i wanted to be unlike the rest of society

now, more than 20 years later, i wear khakis, have short hair, drive a volvo, go to the mall, etc and don't look any different than anybody else who belongs to the other political parties...it seems like the moderate way rules the day as it has since i can remember

and i don't really know of any extremeists on the left or right at my age that are regular members of society...they are usually vagrants or psychos and look so pathetic trying to make a leftist or rightist statement

[Taft]

Originally posted by Groovsonic
Sorry to leap back a tic, but...

Nobody mentioned a currently sucessful singer or actor that is openly republican. Ted nugetn hasnt had a hit in over ten years (with damn yankees), and as a solo artist, not since the late 70's. Charlton heston??? Not been in much since the 70's. But I bet you can think of a pantload of openly democrat actors and singers.

Hmm.....

My challenge still stands. Name one CURRENTLY sucessful repulican actor or singer.

OK, here is a list of famous actors that are republicans, conservative or anti-Liberal. Not all are currently active, but most have been very famous. I've put the most recently active (ie, currently famous and acting) at the top.

Arnold Schwarzenegger
Clint Eastwood (leans Libertarian)
Howard Stern (Libertarian)
Kurt Russell (Libertarian)
Tom Selleck
Charlton Heston
Fred Thompson (recently offerred a role on a TV series...Law and Order or something).

and Reagan!!! Remember him? Probably one of the best examples.

And who do we have on the Democratic side?? Warren Beaty? Striesand? The Baldwins? Yeah, they are all currently huge stars. Many others like Spielberg or Tom Hank contribute to Dems, but they aren't really that outspoken.

Look, we all know Hollywood is primarily Liberal Democrats. Big surprise--they fall more in line with Liberal politics. But there are a lot of Republican actors and celebrities out there.

Its all really a matter of who talks louder. On the republican side, its Rush and Ann Coulter. On the dems side its nutjob actors. Big whoop. We should all be cutting through the crap and voting for the candidates who reflect our personal views, not listening to these sorts of people.

Taft

[diorio]

I thought arnold swartzenegger was democrat. Oh well.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
it takes all types to make both parties run and get votes and if the rock wants to be in the WWF, make bang 'em up movies, show off his sexy body, and stump for the GOP, so be it


Is there something you're trying to tell us?

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, the problem in this country is not people with ideals about their political agenda, it is those who have no idea about anything that are the problem. "Moderates", or shall I say those who don't have enough intelligence to make up their minds about anything, have dumbed down the average political race to an episode of Jerry Springer.

It isn't about what people really believe any longer, but it is about playing the middle. Yes, parties are right. The democrats are right that people need help sometimes and government should help. Repbulicans are right in that we need a strong defense of our country. The middle ground voter that has become the bullseye of every election has become the real problem in this cournty.

Damn people educate yourselves, and take a stand for something. Don't wait for a poll to inform you what your peers are thinking, and become one of the flock!

Hear! Hear! Without a doubt there is nothing more frustrating than an uninformed person with an opinion anyway. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone spouting out some viewpoint (either democrat or republican) that just doesn't make any sense. If you want to argue about taxes, learn about taxes. If you want to argue about gun violence, learn the statistics. If you want to argue about the war on drugs, get stoned. No, actually, look at the statistics, talk to a health care professional, and talk to some prison guards.

One of the other big problems we are having with elections is the lack of tv coverage for local elections. This past mid-term election had us all bombarded with tv ads for candidates, but very little coverage of their actual activities, records and speaches. Rather, we got lots of political ads and coverage of Iraq, the economy, Daschle, Bush, and other national stuff.

How do you make a really informed decision when voting for your state house representative (not national, state) when you don't get any coverage of state or local politics? It didn't used to be like this.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by mcrain


Is there something you're trying to tell us?

yeah, counselor!

that i am too sexy for my shirt:p

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by mcrain


Hear! Hear! Without a doubt there is nothing more frustrating than an uninformed person with an opinion anyway. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone spouting out some viewpoint (either democrat or republican) that just doesn't make any sense. If you want to argue about taxes, learn about taxes. If you want to argue about gun violence, learn the statistics. If you want to argue about the war on drugs, get stoned. No, actually, look at the statistics, talk to a health care professional, and talk to some prison guards.

One of the other big problems we are having with elections is the lack of tv coverage for local elections. This past mid-term election had us all bombarded with tv ads for candidates, but very little coverage of their actual activities, records and speaches. Rather, we got lots of political ads and coverage of Iraq, the economy, Daschle, Bush, and other national stuff.

How do you make a really informed decision when voting for your state house representative (not national, state) when you don't get any coverage of state or local politics? It didn't used to be like this.

since i am not a lawyer, judge, or politician...my views definitely come from the outside

i look to books, the internet, and the media and i am sure i have some skew there

i have employment experience in the cia and dod, and have worked in tax offices while i was an mba student so i have glimpses into some areas others may have only read about

but so far, with what i have experienced in areas discussed here, that's it and i still vote mainly democrat

[wdlove]

There needs to be a healthy/strong opposition. Conservatives want to preserve the Constitution. From observation the Democrats preference would be total control of our government. MA is a good example, they hold every major elected office & were beside themselves that they lost the governors race. Lost the ability to raise taxes at will!

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by wdlove
There needs to be a healthy/strong opposition. Conservatives want to preserve the Constitution. From observation the Democrats preference would be total control of our government. MA is a good example, they hold every major elected office & were beside themselves that they lost the governors race. Lost the ability to raise taxes at will!

Once again, an insightful analysis of the two party system. :rolleyes:

[wdlove]

Yes we need check & balances. At least here in MA the Democrats think their should be no opposition.

[wdlove]

I was proud of Sen. Lott today the way he handled himself at the closing of this session of Congress. Said he rememberd what the pressure is like to be in the majority, and get the blame for eveything!

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


but so far, with what i have experienced in areas discussed here, that's it and i still vote mainly democrat

Hopefully Bush will do the right thing with his new found Congressional Power, and will make you proud enough that you will vote republican ;)

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by wdlove
Yes we need check & balances. At least here in MA the Democrats think their should be no opposition.
I agree that checks & balances are a very important part of any government. It's good to hear you're opposed to the Department of Homeland Security.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by alex_ant

I agree that checks & balances are a very important part of any government. It's good to hear you're opposed to the Department of Homeland Security.

Anyone with half a brain has to be against the Department of Homeland Security. No insult intended. It's just a totally rediculous waste and another undermining of our freedoms.

[diorio]

Originally posted by MacBandit


Anyone with half a brain has to be against the Department of Homeland Security. No insult intended. It's just a totally rediculous waste and another undermining of our freedoms.

Yes, why would we want a department to protect us from terrorism and invade our privacy? Shouldn't we be allowed to do anything we want without anyone checking us out? I think it showed on September 11, 2001 how much freedom we had, in the ease the terrorists were able to commit their terrorist acts. I think at this point, our government has a right and obligation to take measures to protect its civilians. It may mean less privacy, but I'd rather give up some privacy than end up dead in a act of terrorism.

[mcrain]

Two things. First, someone earlier said that Republicans want to preserve the Constitution, while Democrats don't. I think that is an overly broad statement, and I have to disagree with you. I don't think either side wants to do anything to undermine the Constitution. Rather, there are different interpretations to that reasonable men and women can come up with. For example, the right to bear arms can be interpreted in more than one way, as can the 10th amendment's state rights issue. What typically happens is that if you really feel strongly about something like gun control, but feel far less strongly about search and siezure or first amendment rights, you are likely to believe that Republicans' efforts to protect the right to bear arms demonstrates their protection of the constitution, while Democrats are trying to erode the Constitution. On the other hand, you may belive that the right "communicate" by burning a flag is a fundamental right, and that Republicans' efforts to make that illegal is them trying to erode the Constitution. It's a matter of perception and viewpoint. In a nutshell, the two parties consist of generally reasonable people who disagree on some interpretations of the Constitution, but that DOES NOT mean that one side or the other protects the Constitution, while the other side does not.

Originally posted by diorio
Yes, why would we want a department to protect us from terrorism and invade our privacy? Shouldn't we be allowed to do anything we want without anyone checking us out? I think it showed on September 11, 2001 how much freedom we had, in the ease the terrorists were able to commit their terrorist acts. I think at this point, our government has a right and obligation to take measures to protect its civilians. It may mean less privacy, but I'd rather give up some privacy than end up dead in a act of terrorism.

Second point, dealing with the above quote: Has anyone established that 9/11 would have been any different had the Dept. of Homeland Security been active with its more broad powers of wiretapping, etc...? I know we had warnings, and I know there were people being watched, but was the failure the fact that we didn't have this new law, or was the failure the fact that the people in the chain of command did not authorize additional already legal surveilance? I honestly don't know, and raise the question because if the Dept. of Homeland Security (D of HS) doesn't add anything but a new layer of beurocracy, then how does it help? If all it does is allow law enforcement broader powers to legally invade the privacy of people not necessarily suspected of "terrorism," then it really should be examined closely (just to make sure that people like you and me aren't subjected to big brother type oversight). On the other hand, if the D of HS really streamlines information sharing and has appropriate limits on the new surveilance powers, then how can anyone be against it?

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by diorio


Yes, why would we want a department to protect us from terrorism and invade our privacy? Shouldn't we be allowed to do anything we want without anyone checking us out? I think it showed on September 11, 2001 how much freedom we had, in the ease the terrorists were able to commit their terrorist acts. I think at this point, our government has a right and obligation to take measures to protect its civilians. It may mean less privacy, but I'd rather give up some privacy than end up dead in a act of terrorism.

We already have departments of security capable of handling homeland security.

Also I am not willing to sacrifice any of my freedoms for this, 9/11 or not. Once you give them up you will not get them back.

Check this out Big Brother is coming.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70992,00.html

[vniow]

Originally posted by diorio

It may mean less privacy, but I'd rather give up some privacy than end up dead in a act of terrorism.
I wouldn't.
Originally posted by Ben Franklin

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[diorio]

First of all, I am for the Department of Homeland security only if it adds additional security measures. If it just moves around some existing features and is using a new name to describe it, then there is no point.

Second, Macbandit and Edvinow, I understand how you don't want a communist society butting into your life at every turn, but I don't see how you wouldn't want enough security measures even to protect yourself from an event like 9-11. If the U.S. had no security as it seems you would favor, the country would be destroyed much more quickly than either of you realize.

[vniow]

Originally posted by diorio
Second, Macbandit and Edvinow, I understand how you don't want a communist society butting into your life at every turn, but I don't see how you wouldn't want enough security measures even to protect yourself from an event like 9-11. If the U.S. had no security as it seems you would favor, the country would be destroyed much more quickly than either of you realize.


Since when did Communists get into this?

9-11 happened only partially from security. The rest of it came from people we really pissed off for reasons that most Americans still don't realize.
You're nuts to think that better security is going to protect you. It's just like DRM. It's there to supposedly protect the artists and the record labels, but all it really does is pisses people off and limits personal freedom (and isn't freedom what this country's all about?) and just like DRM, someone will ALWAYS repeat, ALWAYS find a way around it.

I'd rather die then see this country get destroyed from the inside like how you would propose.

Let's again see what Ben Franklin has to say about this:

Originally posted by Ben Franklin
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


I think I'll put that in my sig.

[diorio]

Originally posted by edvniow



Since when did Communists get into this?

9-11 happened only partially from security. The rest of it came from people we really pissed off for reasons that most Americans still don't realize.
You're nuts to think that better security is going to protect you. It's just like DRM. It's there to supposedly protect the artists and the record labels, but all it really does is pisses people off and limits personal freedom (and isn't freedom what this country's all about?) and just like DRM, someone will ALWAYS repeat, ALWAYS find a way around it.
I'd rather die then see this country get destroyed from the inside like how you would propose.
Let's again see what Ben Franklin has to say about this:
I think I'll put that in my sig.

I said communist society based on the rigid lifestyle and security a communist government provides.

The rest came from people we pissed off for reasons that most Americans still don't realize. Hmm, like we're not Islam, so **** us? We're Americans who are like the dirty Israeli's so **** us? Are these the reasons? If not, please enlighten us o enlightened one.

I guess the stupid copyright laws shouldn't be there because they piss the people off who are trying to steal it online. I guess that if i walk into a store and try to steal a CD, I shouldn't be stopped because this is America and freedom is what this country is all about.

Ben Franklin didn't live in the days of nuclear weapons and insane terrorists, he isn't really relevent to the topic.

[vniow]

Originally posted by diorio


I said communist society based on the rigid lifestyle and security a communist government provides.


So which would you rather live in? A communist society with very little personal freedom or a less rigid society where you would actually have to take some risks?


Originally posted by diorio

The rest came from people we pissed off for reasons that most Americans still don't realize. Hmm, like we're not Islam, so **** us? We're Americans who are like the dirty Israeli's so **** us? Are these the reasons? If not, please enlighten us o enlightened one.


Those are only part of the reasons. I'm not too informed about this, you'd have to ask someone that knows more about the history.


Originally posted by diorio
I guess the stupid copyright laws shouldn't be there because they piss the people off who are trying to steal it online. I guess that if i walk into a store and try to steal a CD, I shouldn't be stopped because this is America and freedom is what this country is all about.


How about the people who rip songs from CDs they legally own onto their iPod? Make a backup copy that can be played on something besides the computer it was burned on? With the current state of DRM? Forget it.
It may prevent people from putting MP3s on Kazaa, but only those who aren't computer savvy enough to bypass it.
It's the same way with security.
You can have all the protection measures the government and science and whatever can give you, it's not going to be enough.


Originally posted by diorio
Ben Franklin didn't live in the days of nuclear weapons and insane terrorists, he isn't really relevent to the topic.


Really? I had no idea!
You know what I just found out? None of the people who wrote the Constitution did either!
Guess they're not really relevant to this topic as well.

[vniow]

Originally posted by diorio
Those who would live in total freedom with no government intervention might as well move to an island near the pacific rim, build a starbucks, and hope that the government doesn't find it.




A ha ha. Very funny.

I don't think anybody here wants no govenrment intervention, but I'm not about to give up my basic rights for it.

I'll be back in a few hours. Gotta go searching for a job again.


Oh and just out of curiosity, are you old enough to vote?
It seems that a lot of people here make some very bold statements about politics, but aren't actually old enough to get actively involved.
Reading books and voicing your opinion is a lot different than actually getting out there and voiceing your opinion with real-world experience.

[diorio]

Originally posted by edvniow



So which would you rather live in? A communist society with very little personal freedom or a less rigid society where you would actually have to take some risks?





Those are only part of the reasons. I'm not too informed about this, you'd have to ask someone that knows more about the history.





How about the people who rip songs from CDs they legally own onto their iPod? Make a backup copy that can be played on something besides the computer it was burned on? With the current state of DRM? Forget it.
It may prevent people from putting MP3s on Kazaa, but only those who aren't computer savvy enough to bypass it.
It's the same way with security.
You can have all the protection measures the government and science and whatever can give you, it's not going to be enough.





Really? I had no idea!
You know what I just found out? None of the people who wrote the Constitution did either!
Guess they're not really relevant to this topic as well.


I'm not going to argue with you any more because you seem to twist my words and mold them into a perception of what you think I'm saying so [bleep] you go.

[vniow]

Originally posted by diorio



I'm not going to argue with you any more because you seem to twist my words and mold them into a perception of what you think I'm saying so [[[bleep]]] you go.


Wow, I really expected more of you.
Chickening out and posting a picture that says : 'Go f*ck yourself' is very mature.
Guess you're not grown-up enough to vote responsibly yet.
Apparently Rower was right.

[diorio]

Dude, I'm sorry, I didn't refresh before posting. I thought you were just being difficult. I'm almost old enough to vote and again let me apologize. **** me instead of you. I had too much damn caffeine today

[Durandal7]

As far as I'm concerned the Homeland Security Dept. is going to be bad situation either way. On one hand it is designed to allow various branches of defense to report to one group, a good thing. On the other hand t will create another layer of bueraucracy and we all know how politicians of both parties love to invade our privacy.

edvniow and diorio, cool it.

[wdlove]

I'm happy that the Homeland Security Department passed. The Senate passed it 90 - 9, only 8 Democrats voted no. The new department will stop some of the current duplication & create sharing of information. Currently only Florida is prepared in the event of a biological attack, that is sad. National coordination will enable all states to prepare.

[vniow]

Originally posted by diorio
Dude, I'm sorry, I didn't refresh before posting. I thought you were just being difficult. I'm almost old enough to vote and again let me apologize. **** me instead of you. I had too much damn caffeine today



Hey it's cool.http://www.ranchoweb.com/thumbs/36754.21.that5C27scool.gif
Tweaking and taunting are my speciality. No offense meant or taken.
To be honest, I am old enough to vote (barely) but I haven't yet since I want to make an informed one and I don't know enough about politics in general to make a good desicion that I won't regret.

[MacBandit]

There is no amount of security that will prevent us from another terrorist attack short of closing our borders and putting every citizen in isolation cells.

The simple fact is we gave up a huge amount of our rights when the groups of bills dealing with terrorism was passed soon after 9/11. They will soon have registries of everyones movements and your every purchase. They have no business knowing where I go or what I purchase not even to stop terrorism.

How are they going to track someone who doesn't exist (in the US) and spends someone elses money (most likely cash)?

The reason we were attacked was not because of our not being one with there religion if that were the case they would have attacked us years ago. We were attacked in response to our actions in the middle east peace talks. We got involved in something we had no business getting involved in. In doing so we made ourselves targets to those who don't wan peace. Thus 9/11.

1st rule of being an American. No amount of threat is worth giving up your rights. If you give them up even if you think it's temporary you will never see them again. There are other ways to do deal with this the first of is to deal with our problems first and let other countries work out there own problems. By staying out of other peoples disputes you are no longer a target therefore protection from those people is less necessary.

If California split into North and Sound and broke into fighting would you want France coming here and moderating a peace agreement. Most likely some group of Californians would bomb Paris. This is how the world works and the sooner we wake up and quit trying to police the world the better off we will be.

I'm not saying that this would fix everything and it would not give us the added protection that you people feel is necessary but it would be a big improvement.

I will not live my life under the thumb of the government and under the constant shadow of security personnel with automatic weapons. If I wanted this I would move to Egypt or some other 3rd world or communist country.

[diorio]

Originally posted by edvniow




Hey it's cool.http://www.ranchoweb.com/thumbs/36754.21.that5C27scool.gif
Tweaking and taunting are my speciality. No offense meant or taken.
To be honest, I am old enough to vote (barely) but I haven't yet since I want to make an informed one and I don't know enough about politics in general to make a good desicion that I won't regret.

Okay, we're good then, I'll try not to be stupid and post things like that again. Hopefully during the next election which I will be able to vote in, I'll make the best decisions possible.

[lordsinforge]

Ben Franklin was quoted as saying "Anyone who would give up some personal freedom for temprary security deserves neather freedom or security."

The origonal idea for the homeland security department was a place to bring the intelligence and security services together to exchange information. In the past year the idea has been ammended to be the current piece of crap.

IMHO we just need something to bring the CIA, FBI, SS, Justice Department, Military and other such organisations together and slap them upside the head until they get over their interagency desputes and start working together for the protection on the US population.

LS

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by lordsinforge
Ben Franklin was quoted as saying "Anyone who would give up some personal freedom for temprary security deserves neather freedom or security."

The origonal idea for the homeland security department was a place to bring the intelligence and security services together to exchange information. In the past year the idea has been ammended to be the current piece of crap.

IMHO we just need something to bring the CIA, FBI, SS, Justice Department, Military and other such organisations together and slap them upside the head until they get over their interagency desputes and start working together for the protection on the US population.

LS

Exactly. The real scary thing is not the Homeland Security Department but the power invested in them withthe Homeland Security Act. This act basically gives them the power to investigate and inprison you indefinitely without a warrant or a trial if they suspect you of terrorist acts. Also due to that Act nearly anything can be considered a terrorist act. Anything that is a general attact on society in general can be a terrorits act. This can be anything from breaking a window at a shopping mall to writing anti-war graphiti on city hall.

Thank you Congress.:mad:

[diorio]

Yes, that was the arguement before, whether Ben Franklin's quote was relevent. I believe it is to a point.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by lordsinforge
Ben Franklin was quoted as saying "Anyone who would give up some personal freedom for temprary security deserves neather freedom or security."



And FDR said "No freedom is absolute."

Who cares what they said. if some government employee snoops on you and everyone else and finds one terrorist and saves one life, then so be it. It was worth it, and I applaud our government for taking the steps neccessary to keeping our people safe!

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by MacBandit
Anything that is a general attact on society in general can be a terrorits act. This can be anything from breaking a window at a shopping mall to writing anti-war graphiti on city hall.



OMG! This is not a slippery slope! it isn't going to become GMa said Bush sucks so she is a terrorist. For the love of God have a little faith! This is going to be used to capture, and process for intel, and then place in prision real, terrorists.

Damn:mad:

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


And FDR said "No freedom is absolute."

Who cares what they said. if some government employee snoops on you and everyone else and finds one terrorist and saves one life, then so be it. It was worth it, and I applaud our government for taking the steps neccessary to keeping our people safe!


You don't understand this is turning into another commie hunt. They could pick any of you for no reason at any time and that is how our rights are being violated. They have no right to know what you are doing because all they will see is a very small window of time which will give them no real idea of who you are. If they see anything even remotely suspiscious off you go.

For instance if you suddenly withdraw all you savings and fly to Hawaii. Off you go.

Read this and don't believe for a second that Government knows how to use there power with control.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70992,00.html

[MacBandit]

If you live scared and give up all your rights the terrorists have won. They don't feel it's right that you have these freedoms and it somehow makes you evil. If you voluntarily give them up they have done what they set out to do.

I will not live in fear and I will not give up my freedoms. I will continue to live as an American Proud and Free.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


OMG! This is not a slippery slope! it isn't going to become GMa said Bush sucks so she is a terrorist. For the love of God have a little faith! This is going to be used to capture, and process for intel, and then place in prision real, terrorists.

Damn:mad:

The problem is not what they will do it is what they can do. The government has proven over and over again if the law gives them the flexibility they will and use every bit of latitude it gives them. Yes it could and will probably be used for good but if the case arises do not think for a minute that it won't be used unjustly.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by MacBandit
You don't understand this is turning into another commie hunt. They could pick any of you for no reason at any time and that is how our rights are being violated. They have no right to know what you are doing because all they will see is a very small window of time which will give them no real idea of who you are. If they see anything even remotely suspiscious off you go.


Sure they have the right to know if you are participating in actions of war against this country. The terrorists present a Clear And Present danger to the welfare of the United States of America. Go read what the Consitution says about that.

[wdlove]

Protecting America & the Constitution is the basis of Conservative philosphy.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by wdlove
Protecting America & the Constitution is the basis of Conservative philosphy.

As opposed to the Liberal philosophy of Destroying America and the Constitution???

Please. Both parties have the country's best interests in mind, but very different concepts of how best to accomplish that feat.

[diorio]

Originally posted by MacBandit
If you live scared and give up all your rights the terrorists have won. They don't feel it's right that you have these freedoms and it somehow makes you evil. If you voluntarily give them up they have done what they set out to do.

I will not live in fear and I will not give up my freedoms. I will continue to live as an American Proud and Free.

You sound as if you wish to live in a pacifist society where there is no government. Don't you want even a little security? It's okay to want to live proud and free, but there is a line between proud and free and proud and stupid.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by diorio


You sound as if you wish to live in a pacifist society where there is no government. Don't you want even a little security? It's okay to want to live proud and free, but there is a line between proud and free and proud and stupid.

We have security we have a military and isn't the FBI and CIA supposed to deal with problems such as terrorists?

I am not against military and the such but when we already have forces put together that should be able to deal with the problem I feel that this new department is total waste. I do agree that there needs to be a division to aid the communication of all the defensive forces i.e. Navy, Army, Airforce, FBI, CIA, NSA.

I'm not wiling to give up any more rights for them just so they can know what color underwear I am wearing at all times. I don't care if it means there is the possibility of another 9/11.

If having an FBI agent live with every family in the US would prevent all terrorism would you want it? I feel there is very little difference in what they want. We have a right to privacy.

[MisterBlack]

I bet that reducing the earth's human population to about 10% of what it is now would solve your argument!

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by MisterBlack
I bet that reducing the earth's human population to about 10% of what it is now would solve your argument!

Do you mean by reducing the population density you reduce the amount of disagreement and potential fighting.

I would have to agree.

[diorio]

Originally posted by MacBandit


We have security we have a military and isn't the FBI and CIA supposed to deal with problems such as terrorists?

I am not against military and the such but when we already have forces put together that should be able to deal with the problem I feel that this new department is total waste. I do agree that there needs to be a division to aid the communication of all the defensive forces i.e. Navy, Army, Airforce, FBI, CIA, NSA.

I'm not wiling to give up any more rights for them just so they can know what color underwear I am wearing at all times. I don't care if it means there is the possibility of another 9/11.

If having an FBI agent live with every family in the US would prevent all terrorism would you want it? I feel there is very little difference in what they want. We have a right to privacy.

There is a fine line to where the government needs to stay. They need to protect Americans while not interfering with their lives to much. Unfortunately it is nearly impossible to have a completely safe life without having any government intrusion. I don't want the government to know the color of my underwear either, and I don't really want that much government intervention. I just think that after the events of 9/11 the government was sort of obligated to try something out. Whether it works or not will be determined...

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by diorio


There is a fine line to where the government needs to stay. They need to protect Americans while not interfering with their lives to much. Unfortunately it is nearly impossible to have a completely safe life without having any government intrusion. I don't want the government to know the color of my underwear either, and I don't really want that much government intervention. I just think that after the events of 9/11 the government was sort of obligated to try something out. Whether it works or not will be determined...

I agree that they need to take a different tactic. The day and age where wars are fought with large armies is long over. We need to learn to fight and defend ourselves against groups that will use any device to scar us.

Don't think for an instance that we can let the government try out a new approach that involves taking privacy and freedom away from us and think they will ever turn it back over to us. It doesn't work that way.

[wdlove]

The Liberal philophsy is to take away our freedom and money. Liberal's are in the government business!

[chmorley]

Originally posted by wdlove
The Liberal philophsy is to take away our freedom and money. Liberal's are in the government business! Yeah! And they're bad and stupid and stuff!

Sure, they know how to spell and when to use apostrophes, but who cares! They're stoopid.

My party is good! Their party is bad!

I am smart! They are not. Why do those liberals hate that Rush makes stuff up? That doesn't mean he's wrong. He knows he's right, so he doesn't need facts!

Yeah!

[chmorley]

I really think that our future is dependent on our finding common ground. One of the reasons I have never declared a party affiliation is that I see all too frequently an ingroup vs. outgroup mentality. I believe that we all want the economy to improve, the government to intrude as little as possible, and to be safe. As soon as people start talking about how people on the other side don't want any one of those things, I know that they are not open to reason.

One of the reasons I have avoided the political threads here (with the exception of one I started), is that they end up being a forum for name-calling. There is little or no debate based in fact and sticking to one topic. I am not convinced on-line forums are the right medium. It is easy to be deliberately insulting without having to worry about the normal social consequences for being a jerk. It is also very easy to be misinterpreted or have ones words deliberately misconstrued. For the most part, though, it becomes a forum for "my party is good and yours is bad." In a global context, not much separates the two. Acknowledging this seems to make some uncomfortable--perhaps because so much power rides on elections and getting elected, they may worry that conceding that "the other party" has merits undermines their own. Whatever the motivation, I doubt it's the most effective way to resolve problems. As a result, we still don't have effective resolutions on important issues (e.g., health care). Each party is so wed to its solution that we stay stuck without one.

Anyway, have fun.

Chris
____
"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit."
--Harry S Truman

[Gus]

I consider myself conservative, but I agree 100% with Ben Franklin on this one. The biggest problem with the HSA is that there is no termination limit on their powers.
1)This is a new Federal Agency that lies outside the system of checks and balances.
2)The act that was passed has no time frame in which Congress must go back to look and see if this agency is still needed. Therefore, if 15 years from now we have rid the world of terrorism, there could still be a Dept. of HS that can snoop on anybody, anytime, with no accountability.
3)The government has no right to intrude upon my privacy or search me as an American Citizen, and I think that this is where we can breathe a small sigh of relief (at least legal citizens can)-this bill is designed to keep tabs on non-citizens entering the country-legally or not. I still don't like it.
4)If, and it's a BIG IF, an American Citizen is searches and arrested without due process and takes this to the Supreme Court, it will (or should be) moot. This Act directly violates my right from illegal search and seizure, and arrest without due process.

All this beoing said, I do believe that we need to lock down the security on our borders, even if it means posting troops along the borders.

Gus

[wdlove]

Yes, we do need to close the borders for economic & security reasons. I don't see any time in the future that HSA will not be needed, terrorism sad to day is here to stay. American citizens have just got their 1st taste, 9/11.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Gus


All this beoing said, I do believe that we need to lock down the security on our borders, even if it means posting troops along the borders.

Gus

You made some really good points bu this last one. I have to say we should have done this 30+ years ago. Our border security is a joke to be laughed at.

[wdlove]

We have Teddy Kennedy to thank, according to the Boston Globe he's the architect of our immigration policy for the past 30 years. Thank you Senator Kennedy!