Democrats & Liberals Archives

That's The Signpost Up Ahead - Your Next Stop...The Neocon Zone

Fear and hope walk side by side. They are partners in the existence of the past and of the future. Fear shackles us to the hands of time, each tick of the clock bringing us closer to the past. Somewhere between light and shadow, between science and superstition. You’ve just crossed over into the Neocon Zone.

The events of September 11, 2001, put us under the umbrella of fear and the Neocons have worked hard to keep us in it's shadows. Once we tire of being a prisoner to this fear, we will emerge into the light of hope.

In the Neocon Zone; down is up, left is right, right is wrong; love thy neighbor becomes love thy self. A world where conservatism means social program expansion, increasing national debt and expanding government control. It is a place where democracy is dictated and dissent is un-American. A place where all are created equal, as long as you’re not homosexual. A land of freedom of religion, as long as it's Christianity. Where freedom of the press is a male prostitute bought and paid for by the President’s men. A place where national security is outsourced to terrorist sponsors, and borders are run by multinational corporations. When you hear a Republican say that they are tough on national security, can that be trusted? Or is it just another enigma wrapped in an illusion?

Karl Rove is once again encouraging Republicans to run on a platform of fear in 2006. He has called for a referendum on which party can best protect the country. This is a challenge that every Democrat should welcome, because you see, the government that will best be able to protect us, is an honest one. One that makes sure we have all our ducks in a row. One that uses military force only as a last resort, when absolutely necessary, and plans for what happens after victory is declared. One that doesn't invite the enemy to "bring it on", and is caught off guard when they do.

In this post 9/11 zone, conventional wisdom fades away into the background. Wisdom tells us to plan for the worst and hope for the best, but in the Neocon Zone, they planned for the best and are heading for the worst. Wisdom tells us in both times of war and peace, you need to unite your allies and divide your enemies, instead the Neocons have divided our allies and united our enemies. At some point, being tough is not enough. Toughness without ideas of truth is a paradox; one that will only work in your favor for so long.

National security relies on more than just the toughness of war and the tapping of phone lines. It can only be achieved through strengthening America as a whole. America must become united, not just from within, but with our allies around the world. We must reach out to those in Iraq and the Middle East who strive for peace and work together against the terrorists, instead of uniting them with the same. We must officially declare an end to the war in Iraq and reach out to our world allies to engage them in a rebuilding and goodwill mission there. We must reposition and regroup to initiate a real plan to win the war on terror. In order for America to be strong we must cut the fat and streamline the whole system. We need to cut duplicate and wasteful programs that weigh down national security priorities.

As the Neocon umbrella of fear becomes tattered and worn, beams of light are allowed to infiltrate. The light of hope and of the future belong to those who seek it; life, liberty, and happiness will never be found in the shadows of fear.

Posted by JayJay Snow at February 21, 2006 3:27 AM
Comments
Comment #128093

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war … but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. ”

-Quote from a Republican ForeFather

Posted by: Aldous at February 21, 2006 2:50 AM
Comment #128103

JayJay,

I’ve been looking for the right words. Still haven’t found ‘em but for now, totally freakin’ fantabulastic will have to do.

I swear I’ve been thinking Twilight Zone for weeks when it comes to this administration. I’ve read your post over three times and I can’t find one single point where we disagree.

Of course now you must stay tuned for the neocon bashing. I’ll bet that’s really interfering with your sleep.

This is truly a 100% “print” quality op-ed piece.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 21, 2006 3:56 AM
Comment #128106

In the neocon zone, terrorists fly jetliners into skyscrapers because they are jealous of our freedoms and the solution is, of course, diminish our freedoms.

Posted by: Thom at February 21, 2006 4:23 AM
Comment #128111

Thom,

That’s only part of the solution. You left out searching babies and grey haired old men and women at the airport.

You also left out the fact that allowing gays to marry would cause our entire system of “checks and balances” to fail. After all, you can’t have just “checks and checks”, or “balances and balances”.

It’s also important to build strong friendships where they didn’t exist before. I always found borrowing more than I could repay accomplished that. (see: China)

It’s also good to always send your best dog out at the head of the pack even if she doesn’t know the game or the field. (see: Karen Hughes)

And, last but not least, always keep your enemy in your back pocket. Er, ah, is that always stay in your enemies back pocket. Oh heck ya’ know what I mean just stay close to each others ass in case ya’ need it.

I never did find out what happened to that darn goat.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 21, 2006 5:12 AM
Comment #128115

JayJay:

Loved your post. Disagree with much of it, but still loved the reference and especially the picture. Nice work.

Dont know what you are referring to when you say that national security is outsourced to terrorist sponsors—-can you clarify that?

One thing I know is that history moves on a continuum. Tomorrow’s events are predicated upon yesterday and today’s events. I believe the United States needed strong action after 9-11 and we got it from this President. I don’t know whether we would have from an Al Gore Presidency, but I doubt it. It certainly would have been a less forceful action—perhaps more to your liking and less to mine.

The past is there and will influence the future, probably in ways we don’t even understand. America has stood up for herself, has pissed off a number of countries, has found new and different allies, has changed the landscape of the Middle East (we’ll know in 10-30 years how it works out), has surfaced out of the ashes of 9-11 with a new and renewed strength.

There is much disagreement about the courses of action that have been taken. America’s democratic style allows all this to be taken into account every 4 years with elections, and the course of America changes with each new President. But we continue to forge ahead strongly into our future as a nation stronger than most, with divisions that create both the potential for strength and weakness, and with a future that will have hardships but is bright nonetheless.

When we look back over history, we have had division and hardship before, we have looked brutal dictators in the face and not wavered in our committment, we have taken unpopular positions and made countless mistakes. This has made us who we are—not perfect, yet striving always to be better, not blameless, but willing to take responsibility for our course, and not weak, but able to accept our role in the world with strength.

Like a family that argues the most amongst itself, we are a nation powerful and strong, with many good years ahead of us.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 21, 2006 5:56 AM
Comment #128118

Jay Jay the Snowman,

Amen! But I think it’s more “Bizarro” like in the Superman epics. It’s the Anti-president that talks like a governor with braindamage. With lie after lie after lie that they say is truth until it’s shown to be a lie, as we unsuspecting citizens unravel that this man “Dubya” is actually from Bizarro-World where everything is backwards.

These sure have been some weird depressing years and there could possibly be more unless we find a candidate that can kick the bajeezus out of the GOP’s 2008 nominee—which might be Jeb who is also I suspect is from another side of Bizarro-World.

Our economy can’t take much more of this wrecklessness.

You also forgot to mention that Cheney has said that these “deficits don’t matter”. More Bizarro language, inflationary spending has no merit!!! And on Bizarro they actually encourage it!

Posted by: Translator at February 21, 2006 6:23 AM
Comment #128120

Joe Bagodunuts,

Good years ahead of us? With no means to pay down the deficits??? Our dollar continues to dwindle under those conditions—do we rename it the Peso? the rich are not paying anything they are the main source that keeps our country afloat through paying off the deficit through The federal reserve for the use of the notes.

So what that means Joe is that the ones who are NOW footing the bill of the entire country has become the middle class. Why should we pay everything and not the upper 4-6% of the wealthy in America? Why do you think it’s right to drop everything on our backs entirely? Our cost of living has increased sharply and will be up over 18% by 2008 at the rate GW is going. Why should my dollars support the rich Joe? It appears they don’t need my help hence the word “rich”!

Posted by: Translator at February 21, 2006 6:41 AM
Comment #128132

Translator:

I want to respond to you, but I don’t intend to get into a long discussion over this. We see things differently. What you call “reality”, I call pessimism. What I call “reality”, you call something different.

I am not blind to the economic difficulties that are always with us. I recognize that our debt load is larger than I’m comfortable with, but I also recognize that as our economy grows (and it is), so too does our ability to handle the debt. Bill Gates owes far more money than I do, but also has the ability to pay it off.

That said, I’d love to see government work more efficiently and spend money more wisely, which would eliminate a portion of the debt. As a country, we live beyond our means which is never good.

We see taxation differently as well. There are many studies that show the top 10% of income earners pay the largest share of taxes. Others suggest that the top earners don’t pay enough. I don’t desire to segue into that discussion though.

We have a choice: We can be optimistic or pessimistic about our future as a country and as a people. Looking back through history, we can see tragic events (WWI, WWII, the Depression) and we can see hardship (poverty, homelessness, sickness) but our country has always persevered and succeeded. I have faith we shall continue to do so. I’d hope that you could share that faith.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 21, 2006 7:48 AM
Comment #128137

The Repubs didn’t invent deficit spending,the Dems did and they make sure they rack up their share with their own pork spending just like the Repubs do.Income tax is a Dem invention also as is SS and welfare and Fed funding of Public Schools.All of this cost tax payers wasted money that is filtered thru the Feds.It would be more cost effective if these items were handled by the States on a more local level.Big Government was invented by the Dems and will shrink as time goes by and Repubs are reelected to office.The Dems say Bush is grabbing more power for himself,but, in reality that is just words,the real TRUTH is He is taking the Presidents power given by the Constitution back from the Dems in Congress and they hate him for it.The Dems have taken power not theirs from the People and the office of the President,all the while saying the President is stealing theirs.Repubs and Dems are guilty of wrong in many ways,but,the Dems have had the control for decades and have really messed up bad,all the while claiming they have OUR interests in mind when they have their OWN in mind,claiming they are protecting our liberties when in fact they are the ones who have been taking them.Our President is NOT the lier the Dems say he is and the Repubs are not as corrupt as the Dems say they are.Both parties have been taking ‘special interest money for decades and should not be because that leaves the rest of America out.The supporters of the Dems want higher paying jobs and that results in higer prices for all which causes them to want higher wages which raises prices and so on and so on.The is not a Repub conspiricy,but a Dem conspiricy because it results in more taxes to spend to buy votes which results in less money for all which calls for higher wages which raises prices and so on and so on.This line of reasoning is stupid and NOT a Repub idea but a Dem one and a dumb one at that.That is why I’m not a dumb Dem anymore and not a Repubs either!I should think that history would prove we were being dragged in the wrong direction by the Dems as I’m sure history will show we are changing directions for the better.No one will ever get it all right but so far our economy is moving upward and we are safer but there is still a lot of work to do.Vote Repub for now and give them an equal 60 years.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 21, 2006 8:15 AM
Comment #128139

Wow. I do agree with the post, lock stock and barrel.

But here’s my one question to the rest of the DEMs:

What now? It’s 9 months or so to the big election, and I want to know the plan to make the most of it. I agree that what we currently have (and those in charge) is/are in desparate need of replacement, and I know we can offer up very strong solutions. What are we offering? How do we package those offerings so that middle American can grasp what we are all about?

The current Administration has proven time and time again that they can hang themselves - even with a short amount of rope. They don’t need our help with this. I say we let them stretch their necks while we get busy with PROVING that we have something much better to offer.

Posted by: tony at February 21, 2006 8:41 AM
Comment #128140

Jay Jay

Exactly what dialoge is your piece intended to portray?

Are we supposed to think of this cartoon as inflamatory and have a protest march or what?

I get it…it’s a parody of the Danish thing…..ya,that’s it.

How to those two guys on that beer commercial say it?…”BRILLIANT!”

Posted by: sicilianeagle at February 21, 2006 8:44 AM
Comment #128142

JJ injoyed the post.

Wondering if I can get some help out there. I heard a report last night on my local fox news station. They reported that the Bush admistration confiscated perscription drugs from Canada to force medicare patient to in sign up for medicare part D perscription plan. Doe’s anyone know where I can find more info.

Posted by: js at February 21, 2006 8:49 AM
Comment #128145

Great post, Great reference but I still think 1984 best describes the revisionist history in regards to justifications for war as well as the continuous nature of their framing of this war.

Posted by: vague at February 21, 2006 8:56 AM
Comment #128148
What you call “reality”, I call pessimism. Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 21, 2006 07:48 AM
I used to think that quotes like that were evidence of insanity. But, I just read about a study which indicates that many humans are unable to digest facts which conflict with their notions of reality. In other words, when some people, let’s call them “conservatives”, encounter facts that belie what I’ll call their “neo-truths,” they can simply ignore them.

It now makes sense, that it how otherwise rational beings can continue to support dead philosophies. I know, I know, the “conservatices” will parry this into “you must mean the dems/libs/blah blah blah”. But I think those who can see the real truth, without stubbornly holding on to what they want to be the truth (let’s call them “liberals”) will know what I mean.

JJ, Translator:

I think of Bu$hCo more like the Outer Limits. But I love the Bizzaro & Twilight Zone references even more. Or maybe The Bizzaro (no)Limits Zone?

Posted by: Dave at February 21, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #128153

Dave:

Though its been a while since I’ve been surprised by anything you write, I’d ask for a clarification. What part of optimism for our country would you consider a “dead philosophy”?

That you’d even suggest that my posts convey a “dead philosophy” indicates the frame of mind that you have. As I said to Translator, our country has always persevered and succeeded. I have faith we shall continue to do so. I’d hope that you could share that faith.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 21, 2006 9:47 AM
Comment #128163

I don’t know about anyone else, but I am afraid, instead of us Americans trying to stop this administration, we are sitting back to wait for 2008. It might be all over by then. Giving our ports away to an Arab Country, not securing our borders, sending all our jobs out of the country totally destroying the middle class, what does that leave for us? In Ohio, where I am from I can’t see the economy growing. We are losing jobs at Delphi, steel companies, auto industry, the school system is in shambles because of no child left behnd. I see it that the unemloyment rate is low because most people have long since used up their benefits and are no longer counted. They are now at minimum wage jobs just trying to survive. The new bankruptcy law screwed us there also. I don’t see any logic at all behind this administration. I am a Proud American whose father served in WWII, husband in Viet Nam and nephew in Iraq. We don’t even take care of our veterans, we cut their funding while making more of them disabled physically and emotionally. Where are we going to be by 2008 if things continue on this course? Is there not one statesman left in this whole country, or is it all about greed and incompetence?

Posted by: mfj at February 21, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #128168

joe -

I think the basic history that causes me to worry is that anytime an empire’s military has further reach than it’s social benefit, that empire crumbles. We’ve been trying to expand just like Britain, Rome, Egypt… and just like them, we’ve started substituting military might for direct social benefit. We’re no longer encouraging democracy by it’s virtue (selling it by example) - we’re forcing it on people with our military. At some point we crossed over from the ‘shinning light of freedom’ to more of a message in a bottle - namely Tomahawk missiles.

We’re becoming the evil empire simply because we won’t take the time to show why our way of life is a good thing. Seriously, the only example of democracy people in the Middle East and Africa can point to is the horrors of our wars. (Yea – I know we’ve done lots of good humanitarian things over there… But if you take out a family in a missile attack it kind of voids out our help in fighting the spread of aids.)

It’s not that we don’t have anything of value to offer - quite the contrary - but we’ve completely failed in the diplomacy of good example and gone the quick route of using only our muscle. If you were in ‘their’ shoes, how would you perceive the US?

Posted by: tony at February 21, 2006 10:13 AM
Comment #128176

The NeoCon zone is a throwback to the philosophy of Plato where philosopher-kings by virtue of their belief in their superior education and socratic dialectic, should rule over those in both the military and the civilian population of inferior intellect.

Not that Bush is any kind of philosopher intellect. He is the palatable figure-head, the puppet of the philosopher-kings pulling the strings, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, who unabashedly assert their suprerior understanding and intellect at every occasion through the discrediting of all opposite opinion.

Platonic theory underwrites the premises for fascism, authoritarian regimes, and politburos. And now it underwrites the one party elitist government of the once United States. If the people don’t take back this government for themselves this November, they may never get their democracy back without another civil war.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 21, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #128177

Kudos, Jay Jay! Love the artwork.

You wrote:
“Karl Rove is once again encouraging Republicans to run on a platform of fear in 2006.”

Do you suppose this means we can all expect another orange alert just before the election? :^/

Tony, great reply to Jbod.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 21, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #128179
I believe the United States needed strong action after 9-11 and we got it from this President. I don’t know whether we would have from an Al Gore Presidency, but I doubt it. It certainly would have been a less forceful action—perhaps more to your liking and less to mine.

Democrats do bash Bush based on specific actions or non actions, almost without exception. Republicans consistently make the case that a Gore presidency wouldn’t have had the sense or guts to go into Afghanistan - (even though it was a no-brainer); and jetliners would still be falling out of the skies on us. This fantasy based accusation is to blame for much of the divide in this country.

Posted by: Schwamp at February 21, 2006 10:50 AM
Comment #128181

Funny how the libs make reference to the “neoconzone”; yet, this administration is (actually) more left then most wanted. Big gov’t spending, perscription drug benefits, all that money to Africa; that’s not the “neocons” way of politics and you know it. Yet, feel free to think that it is; it’s extremely entertaining…

Posted by: rahdigly at February 21, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #128182

jbod,

I never said that “optimism” was a “failed philosophy”. tony and David Remer gave a good description of what I was referring to. I will admit that in place of “dead philosophy” perhaps I should have said “outdated” or “should-be-dead” philosophies.

The problem I had with your post is you equate “having a positive outlook” to meaning “we will have a positive result”

our country has always persevered and succeeded. I have faith we shall continue to do so.

Saying “I believe we will win” is not the same as winning. Winning requires hard work and a real appreciation of the facts as they are not as you want them to be. Wishing upon a star gets you squat, NASA scientists got us to the moon. What football team counts on the hail mary pass to win?

Posted by: Dave at February 21, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #128184

I believe it’s time to thank all who contribute to this blog. Finally, I understand why most sane people don’t waste their time reading this junk. While most Americans are busy with their work and home life, the fringes of political disparity are feverish in attempting to infect others with their nonsense. Both the far left and far right want to embroil others in dialogue over pet issues or belief. Truth, civility, patriotism, and discussion seeking knowledge is woefully missing from nearly all of these postings.
The vast majority of Americans just ignore the posturing and self-serving fringes of both parties and remain well-rooted in our common heritage of faith, loyalty, common sense and love of country. They quietly weight the “evidence”, separate the genuine thinking candidate from the pandering fool and make their voices heard using the ballot box.
Does anyone posting on this site really believe they are influencing anyone? The screaming and lieing just accelerates and the level of interest among those who are looking for truth and knowledge wanes. So sad! Jim

Posted by: Jim Martin at February 21, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #128187

Dave:

Dont worry, your pessimism shines through clearly. And to use your logic, just because you believe we might fail, doesn’t mean we will fail.

I look objectively at the challenges ahead of our country, and I recall the challenges behind us that we have conquered. I believe we can do it again. You take a more pessimistic viewpoint. That’s your choice. I choose to consider our country’s greatness, not its weakness.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 21, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #128189

The neo-cons are not just relying of security fears. A piece in USA TODAY( that liberal biased paper) tells of 16 states moving to outlaw gay adoptions. This is clearly a get out the vote issue for the extreme right. They are useing their old friend,hate,to try and win elections. How low can they get. First make abortion difficult and then make it harder for unwanted children to find parents. May they burn in Hell.
Also disturbing is a NYT piece about reclassifying documents already released. Re-write history,anyone?

Posted by: BillS at February 21, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #128191

optimism is one thing….sticking your head in the sand to hide from reality is quite another.

$250,000,000,000…..that’s the annual cost to service our federal debt.

“The economy is growing….the economy is growing”, you say. I say we are financing this growth…charging it on our credit card. The thing is….we won’t pay it our kids and grandkids will.

I thought it was every parents dream that their child be better prepared and better off than they are. That was then….you know….pre-?

Posted by: Tom L at February 21, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #128195

Good post, señor Snowman.

And Tony — your ponderings about how the Dems will stand for something in order to turn the incomepetence of BushCo around — is incredibly salient. IMO, the Dems need to get back to what has made this country great from the beginning — the hard-working middle class. I know this might sound a tad simplistic without giving specific examples, but I think it’s true. Today’s middle class has to earn an upper class salary just to maintain their middle class status, yet nobody seems to care. This president keeps giving away perk after perk to big business ($6 billion in tax credit to the oil industry when some in that industry are posting as much as $10 billion profits per quarter is bullshit), but hasn’t done squat for “the people.” If we are a nation of, for and by the people, then focus on the people. That’s what the Dems need to do, because god knows the Repubs aren’t doing it. (See below for an interesting quote):

“The economy’s doing fine, except if you figure in working families,” said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank focused on labor issues. “We’re posting great numbers in aggregate demand, yet the lousiest on record for wage growth.”

Posted by: 0% APR at February 21, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #128196

jbod,

I don’t worry, I plan based on facts. Nice Rovian speech, by the way. So, let me repeat {my edits}:

I just read about a study which indicates that many humans are unable to digest facts which conflict with their notions of reality. In other words, when some people encounter facts that belie “truths,” they can simply ignore them.

Doesn’t it ever bother you that your only defense is to rely on isolated datum instead of the entire picture? Maybe someday there will be a pill you can take for it.

Posted by: Dave at February 21, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #128198

Jim Martin……you might try breaking free of whoever is forcing you to come in here……

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 21, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #128199

“Does anyone posting on this site really believe they are influencing anyone? The screaming and lieing just accelerates and the level of interest among those who are looking for truth and knowledge wanes. So sad!”

Why would you think that posting here would ever be aimed at ‘influencing’ people. It’s an exercise in discussion - sort of just working out arguments and exploring what others think about what’s going on. If this influences anyone, it influences me.

Whether it’s an extreme view - or just a strongly held belief, why would you percieve someone expressing it a bad thing? What did you expect? Simply a reflection of your own thoughts?

Posted by: tony at February 21, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #128202

Dave:

You may feel free to attempt to impugn those of us who think differently than you do. You can cast your aspersions as you wish; calling me “Rovian” or suggesting I need medication is simply one turn of the screw away from name calling, which is of course has no place in a civil and intelligent discussion.

I don’t harbor your pessimistic viewpoint, and apparently that bothers you enough that you have to resort to a soft version of namecalling. So be it. I won’t respond in kind. I’ll continue to be optimistic, recognizing that which made our country great and continues to make our country strong.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 21, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #128203

One thing that sadly lacking here and easy to fix are calls to concrete actions. By that I means we often wind up theorizing and debateing but leaveing out paths to action. In an attempt to remedy this I would like to point out to California readers a move by the appointed secretary of state to certify Diebold voteing machines for use here. Representives from Diebold even had the nerve not to attend assembly hearings by the Elections Committee. They just did not show up. There is a procedure for the Comm. to order them to testify. Please email your reps to invoke this and demand answers if you live in Ca.
Any other actions to take out there,local or federal?

Posted by: BillS at February 21, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #128207

RDAVIDC,

I think you might want to recheck your history books on when the income tax was instituted. The 16th amendment to the US Constitution (the one that established the hated income tax) was formally proposed on July 12, 1909 and formally ratified on March 7, 1913. I believe that it was originally proposed during a REPUBLICAN administration (William Howard Taft, to be precise).

BTW, I believe that most of the signers of the Constitution were leary of a strong presidency, which is why they gave most major governmental powers to Congress (e.g. power of the purse, power to declare war, ratify treaties, draft laws, etc.). If they had wanted a strong presidency, then why did they devest the president of most powers then common to heads of state?

Posted by: J. R. Milks at February 21, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #128210

jbod:

Giving a rah-rah speech indicating you believe a recount of past performance successes is indicative of future performance is not an intelligent discussion; it is a statement of your belief system. And it is exactly what I’m refering to in my oft repeated post.

many humans are unable to digest facts which conflict with their notions of reality. In other words, when some people encounter facts that belie “truths”, they can simply ignore them.

You insist on maintaining a narrow world view that supports that belief structure. You do so by ignoring data shown to you, refusing to enter debate on the merits of the data, then calling the presenter a pessimist and anti-patriot.

That’s how Karl Rove instructed his pundidtry to defuse Bush’es detractors; “We’re winning in Iraq but haven’t won because of traitorous Sheehan”. All I hear from you is catch phrases, like cut and pastes from Bush speechs or O’Reilly.

Posted by: Dave at February 21, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #128220

jj: I like your post. It says a lot in a few short paragraphs that reflects my own opinions. Joe and I disagree on several things, after following many of his writings here; however, I also have confidence this country will survive, even JWB.
I also agree with David Remer regarding our national debt that we are turning over to future generations. I believe that debt will fall on more than just the next two generations.
I also have a new revelation! GWB is on a crusade! A crusade to spread his idea of democracy to the entire world. However, he apparently wants to spread this democracy by way of military might instead of diplomacy and unity.
Remember what happened to the last crusaders? I believe they went home with their tails between their legs. Of course, they were crusading in the name of religion. But then, when everyone is “democtratized”, George will probably try to put a bible in every home in the middle east, so I guess, in the end, both crusades will have been for the same purpose.
In the meantime, we, in our safe little democratic country will have lost our own freedoms to satisfy the crown and scepter of GWB.
Let us begin preparing our ballots now!
jackp

Posted by: jack p at February 21, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #128225

Dave:

Last time for me to respond to you—I find that continually focusing my message so that you can follow along is tiring.

There is nothing “rah-rah” about being optimistic. There are plenty of facts to bolster my rationale. The economy has improved over the past several years, unemployment rates are down, the stock market is up, housing starts are up. There are potential trouble signs as well (there always are, you know). The debt and excessive spending by government are two factors. But the current economy and culture of the United States is no reason for the level of pessimism you show in your posts. Its kind of like driving a car—-there’s always the potential for an accident, but if you have a safe vehicle and a good driving record, its not incorrect to be optimistic that you won’t. Your assumption seems to be that an accident is always imminent simply because of the possibility.

I know you’ll disagree with the facts I’ve listed, or certainly put your slant on them. That’s okay by me. When you suggest that I’m not willing to look at facts, that’s where your inability to accept information other than your own comes in to play. That in turn leads to cyclical and close minded thinking, where you see any disagreement with your thought process as immediately wrong….simply because it disagrees with you.

Lastly, and I found this excerpt of your post extremely amusing and indicative of your conversational abilities:

You do so by ignoring data shown to you, refusing to enter debate on the merits of the data, then calling the presenter a pessimist and anti-patriot.

First, I’ve discussed the data—we just see the outcome of the data differently. I have called you a pessimist, primarily because I’ve not seen you say anything positive. But please, please tell me where I have said anything….anything at all…regarding your (or anyone else’s) patriotism. That you included that shows a grasping attempt to play the victim.

I’d suggest that the proper move for you is to A)retract that comment, or B) show your examples of where I’ve done what you said or C) ignore it hopes that readers will forget about it. Your choice.

Thanks for the discussion. I’ll certainly read whatever you might wish to post, but I’ll refrain from continuing the conversation with you.



Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 21, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #128226

Dave:
“And it is exactly what I’m refering to in my oft repeated post. … many humans are unable to digest facts which conflict with their notions of reality. In other words, when some people encounter facts that belie “truths”, they can simply ignore them.”

The theory you are referring to is cognative dissonance and it applies to persons who do not have fluid paradigms which can incorporate new data and change the way that they structure their view of the world. As I see it, fluid paradigms are in short supply leaving many posters on this blog unable to incorporate new facts. Witness the interminable disputes about why low unemployment, good stock market performance, low inflation and record home ownership don’t indicate that the economy is strong.


Posted by: goodkingned at February 21, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #128234

goodkingned

It’s simple GKN. Real income has been declining for the past 6 years. I’ve posted these numbers in other threads, but the RWEC prefers to ignore them. This phenomenon of declining income, in most sane people’s minds, equals a poor economy. For example, high unemployment at jobs that do not pay enough to cover your expenses is not healthy. It is a disaster, and one that is coming to a head. Stick your head in the sand and feel good about those numbers you alluded to if you will, but know that the current trend cannot continue.

Posted by: mental wimp at February 21, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #128238

mental wimp:

It’s a good thing that a record number of Americans have their own home; they can duck inside to avoid the falling sky.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 21, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #128241

jbod,

If you look at our nation’s history over its entire lifetime, optimism is absolutely the right point of view. But our nation and our culture has not moved forward in a smooth continuum.

We have moved in fits and starts with steps forward (Lincoln’s defense of the union, idustrialization, WWII, civil rights era) as well as steps backward (slavery, the near genocide of native tribes, separate but equal, depression).

But for me jbod, history doesn’t just happen. It is made. To me, we are going backward. I understand your optimism, I applaud it, and I will feel more optimistic when our leadership’s actions are consistent with my view of the future.

The fact is, I listen to people joke about being monitored by the government because they criticized the president and I am appalled. These aren’t liberals, either. These are red staters, conservative by default, generally apathetic about politics, but still go and vote for Bush.

These people are joking about there most basic liberties and don’t understand the price that was paid for their freedoms.

I do understand the price, jbod. Despite the progress of history, it took action to reverse separate but equal, not time. It took action to desegregate schools, not time.

History is being made - only in hindsight will it appear to have happened smoothly. And when you are at the point that actions are defining the future, I guarantee you, it looks anything but smooth. It is often chaotic, loud, contentious, bitter and hard fought. It looks alot like this blog - only worse.

And history is often made by pessimists - despite protestations to the contrary by the self-help genre. So don’t dismiss us - we are making a difference too.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 21, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #128243

“Wondering if I can get some help out there. I heard a report last night on my local fox news station. They reported that the Bush admistration confiscated perscription drugs from Canada to force medicare patient to in sign up for medicare part D perscription plan. Doe’s anyone know where I can find more info.

Posted by: js at February 21, 2006 08:49 AM”

js,
I have found several articles indicating that US Customs seizures of Canadian Meds is up sharply since the begiining of ‘06.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/2/prweb347373.htm

Quote: “Since the Medicare Part D drug program for seniors was launched in January, the U.S. Customs has begun increasing its seizures of Canadian prescription drugs enroute to chronically ill American patients. A Canadian pharmacist worries who will be responsible if patients that don’t receive their medications, go off their drug regimens and suffer or even die.”

KansasDem


Posted by: KansasDem at February 21, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #128244

and jbod,

my concerns about the economy are the same ones I expressed on the GOP blog - first the weakest job creation of any president of the modern era. In absolute terms, not just percentages, Bush has created less jobs than anyone from Eisenhower forward.

Also, more than five million additional people living in poverty since Bush took office - second in the modern era only to Bush Sr.

Not just facts, jbod, but ongoing trends. What is remarkable to me about conservative confidence is that, in the background, the fed is working to slow down the economy. That bump up in job growth will slow down as interest rates continue to climb. Barring some backdoor growth that I haven’t seen, the week job growth will stop soon.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 21, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #128246

uses military force only as a last resort or in time of immanent danger

The military industrial political lobbyist complex will defeat any policy that would reduce military budgets.

We can strengthen our country by investing in ourselves, instead of investing in mideast oil to burn.

a get out the vote issue for the extreme right

They are not only getting out the vote, they are getting in the vote, in church that is, where people will be filling out ballots at their orders, like in Greensboro, NC.

Remember what happened to the last crusaders? I believe they went home with their tails between their legs

And then the funding they collected from the crusading was confiscated, and they were imprisoned, tortured and burned alive. This part will probably not happen to our war profiteers.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 21, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #128248
“The economy is growing….the economy is growing”, you say. I say we are financing this growth…charging it on our credit card. The thing is….we won’t pay it our kids and grandkids will.
I thought it was every parents dream that their child be better prepared and better off than they are. That was then….you know….pre-?

They said the same thing about the Economy Growing during the Reagan Era… that was just after he deregulated the federal banking system and collapsed the savings and loans and put us $3 Trillion dollars in debt that our grandkids will be paying back til 2024.

Its the same story with the Repubs… repeat something long enough and idiots will believe it to be true.

Posted by: Pat at February 21, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #128249

jack; ned;

It’s nice to believe in stable systems. Unfortunately, every such system can be perturbed. And, unfortunately, I believe we are close to the boundaries of our stability.

National Debt owned by other nations (now over $2T of $8T), record consumer debt with negative savings rates, increasingly unequal distribution of wealth, unfair taxation of the middle classes, decreasing median income, encroachment of theocratic principles into domestic policy with divisive and belief driven politics, international terrorism & islamofascism, questionable fairness in our elections, etc… all contribute to this concern.

How long can we hold together? I don’t know. I do agree that it’s not too late. But, the quicker we change our course, the less it will take to recover.

As for jbod,
To be clear, I am not a victim nor did I ‘play’ at one. You seem to think I’m “bothered” by what you post. Using Ned’s term, I believe you suffer from “cognitive dissonance” But to the list:
- In this thread you compare “pessimism” with a destructive philosophy. By extension, that is calling me unAmerican. “join us, join us…” Since when am I not an American?
- You hide Rove-speak in your patriotic sentences (although I’m not sure your cognizant of it). You constantly divert into nonsensical meanderings seemingly intended to prove a point, whether that was a point being discussed or not.
- Debates with you typically end with you saying something like “we disagree what that means” once data is provided that invalidates your perspective.

Posted by: Dave at February 21, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #128255

CPAdams:

I appreciate your point of view. Its an honest and intelligent one. I don’t mind that you see the negatives that you do—-that in itself isnt the same as Dave’s pessimism. I’ve seen nothing optimistic, or even middleground, from him—just negatives.

I agree that history doesn’t move forward in an even line, and that we are in a tenuous times. I’ve felt that America needed to act strongly after 9-11 and I’ve supported Bush’s actions by and large. History will be the judge of how these times have been, and I foresee history showing America’s actions to have been correct. We have our missteps—-as you pointed out, history is not a smooth line.

You use the civil liberty issue as a sign of us going backwards. I expect that back in WWII, people might have felt similarly with some of the curtailing of civil liberties that went on then. But looking back through the lens of history, we see that certain things were necessary, while others overstepped the line of decency. But in the end, America stood stronger, and did not slide down the slippery slope to a fascist type of government.

You have good logic about you. You’ve used facts logically to construct a hypothesis about where we are headed. I do the same thing and come to different conclusions. We are likely both incorrect to a degree, despite looking at factual information.

I find that you still retain an optimism though, where I see none in Dave’s writing. When he attempts to conjure up logic, such as pessimism equating non-patriotism, its clear that the pessimistic view has taken hold. In your case, you see some negative things, but you see them clearly, not simply in a blood red hatred of the administration that clouds out anything but that hatred.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 21, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #128262

J. R. Milks, RDAVIDC

Actually Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, to pay for the Civil War, instituted the income tax and the IRS. Even though the tax was discontinued and revived a few times after that, the income tax system and IRS we have today can be traced to Lincoln.


JBOD,

After reading the comments here, back and forth about pessimism and optimism, I think for me it boils down to liberals tend take the view that I pointed to in my post, plan for the worst and hope for the best. When you plan for the best then you are going to be caught off guard by the worst.

I also discount this rhetoric about the sky is falling. Liberals are called progressives for a reason. It’s not that we see everything as being wrong it is that we see how everything can be better and we have become frustrated by the lack of progress. The Iraq war is a prime example. We have met all the goals that were laid out by this administration, yet we are not moving forward in Iraq. We have stagnated with no end in sight.

The real war on terror is not moving forward, it has taken a back seat. So much so that they had to rename it the “Long War”. How depressing is that?

Maybe it is that liberals don’t have enough patience, but we want things always progressing forward. Al Gore probably would have run the war on terror differently, but it is ridiculous to say he wouldn’t have done everything in his power to protect the country. I think one strength we would have gotten from Gore would have been his desire for progress. Maybe thing would be moving along a lot faster and he would be able to see where things were not progressing and be willing to make adjustments, something Bush seems unwilling to do.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 21, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #128264

jbod,

Something that you mentioned in your last post, that I’ve heard before, that I just listened to for the first time - do you consider the times we live today comparable to any of our world wars?

I do not.

Given that, I see the all the Bush security actions a threat to a our liberties and an attempt to utilize in police state tactics. I see our current battles with terrorists as long term (as long as radical ideologies exist on the planet) and feel that accepting deprivations of liberty as the greatest long term threat to our great nation.

Again, some context, jbod. I am a NYer living in TX. I lived through 9/11. I know threats to safety. I think the threat to liberty is greater.

Having said all that, if I considered today comparable to 1941, I would have a completely different set of criteria for what are acceptable intrusions into my privacy, probably more like yours.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 21, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #128265

I think one strength we would have gotten from Gore would have been his desire for progress.

And more respect for the people who served and are serving in the military, as well as the family members of those who died in the service of our country.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 21, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #128272

Here I go making a turn away from the current subject…but……Bush has now stated that IF the attempt to finalize the port management change, HE WILL VETO IT !!!
Could someone please tell me what is so f—ing important about this to “us” that this deal go through??? Who the hell is sleeping with him now?? What’s the price going to be for this hare-brained scheme of his??? What is it going to take for all to see that this man will have us back in the dark ages before we can get rid of him??

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 21, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #128273

CPAdams:

My intent was to recall that during WWII, certain civil liberties were revoked (for instance, Japanese-Americans put into camps). Those who that have then thought we were on the slippery slope would be happy looking back over history to see that we did not slide down that slope. As egregious as that action was, it did not lead down the slope, but rather was a temporary thing.

I can accept the seriousness with which you see infringements on liberty. I don’t see it with the same viewpoint, though I understand your concerns. I don’t see the beginnings of a police state. That I don’t see something like the wiretaps as setting us careening down that slippery slope doesn’t make me wrong. It probably should be considered a step onto that slope, but that alone doesn’t mean we are starting to slide. I’ve said before that if the wiretapping prevents a terrorist attack, then I willingly would sacrifice that particular degree of privacy.

We all give up certain liberties. When we wear a seat belt in a car to comply with the law, we give up the freedom of not wearing the seat belt. But there too I find that if the seat belt saves lives, I don’t mind that intrusion on my personal actions. (No, I’m not comparing seatbelt laws with wiretapping laws).

I hope I’ve been able to elaborate my thought process and demonstrate an understanding of yours.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 21, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #128274

ooops….that was supposed to say, “if attempts are made to STOP the port management change”………….
Sorry

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 21, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #128276

Well written JJ. Sorry it was so wrong.

I’ll only address one point you missed on. One of Bush’s big successes has been to expose the corruption prevalent in the UN and our former, and hopefully future allies. The USA had no chance of getting our allies to do the right thing in Iraq after 10 years of outrageous behavior by Saddam. This due to the fact Germany, Russia and France had been bought by Saddam.

Exposing this was a huge foreign policy shift and a huge success for the civilized world. They know they’re under scrutiny now. W has one big feather in his cap for that. Now, with a level playing field, maybe we can get those alliences that weren’t possible under the status quo.

Posted by: G. Bro at February 21, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #128278

“Funny how the libs make reference to the “neoconzone”; yet, this administration is (actually) more left then most wanted. Big gov’t spending, perscription drug benefits, all that money to Africa; that’s not the “neocons” way of politics and you know it.”

Rahdigly - no, it is the “neocon” way of politics. At least in my mind, there’s a HUGE difference between a Republican and a neocon.

For those who keep arguing about how great our economy is and how low our unemployment rate is, just remember one thing. Unemployment rates only track the people currently on unemployment, not the ones who used up their unemployment and are currently out of everything. So if unemployment rates go down, it doesn’t necessarily mean there are more jobs out there, it just means more people used up their benefits.

Posted by: Lisa C. at February 21, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #128282
Dont know what you are referring to when you say that national security is outsourced to terrorist sponsors—-can you clarify that?

JBOD,

Sure, the President is pushing hard for a port sale deal to go through to a company owned by the UAE, a country that has funded and harbored 9/11 terrorists. Even though the deal was only reviewed for something like 20 days, the President says “trust me”. He says that the ports will still employ Americans, but that isn’t the real issue. The issue is that the UAE (remember they funded terrorist groups) will have intimate knowledge of our ports, including 2 which are used to ship military equipment. They will have vast access to manifests and the workings of our ports.

Now, maybe there is nothing to worry about. Maybe the UAE has turned over a new leaf and no longer supports terrorists, but I think it really stupid to turn the operation of our ports over to a foreign power. The operation of our ports and borders should be a matter of national security and be strictly a domestic job. The other thing that is troubling is that Congress, both Libs and Cons are objecting to this deal in the strongest terms, and President has charged back that this deal MUST go through and he will veto any bill that seeks to block it. Why must this deal go through? What will happen if it doesn’t?

And all you Cons who just went outside to make sure the sky wasn’t falling, keep in mind this is a bipartisan effort to block this deal.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 21, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #128284

Sandra Davidson:
“Here I go making a turn away from the current subject…but……Bush has now stated that IF the attempt to finalize stop the port management change, HE WILL VETO IT !!!
Could someone please tell me what is so f—ing important about this to “us” that this deal go through??? “

Sandra, this might possibly have something to do with it:

WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan’s cruise ship terminal and Newark’s container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush’s cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World’s European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.

Quoted from this article:
W aides’ biz ties to Arab firm

Posted by: Adrienne at February 21, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #128285

Thanks Adrienne…..so now , the U.S. is sitting here with its proverbial t_t in a wringer. All hell is breaking loose on this, and …and…..Muslims from all over the world are making statements now as to them just waiting and watching to see what happens…! Do I perceive a veiled threat in there???
Thanks Dubya…is another fine mess you’ve got us into…..

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 21, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #128286

Uh, GKN, did you notice that the population is growing, so, uh, maybe the numerator without the denominator is misleading? Do you just swallow the fluid the right-wing echo chamber pumps down your throat, or do you spit once in a while?

Posted by: mental wimp at February 21, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #128287
At least in my mind, there’s a HUGE difference between a Republican and a neocon.

Lisa C.

Actually, right now there really is no differnce between a Republican and a Neocon. There is a difference, however, between a Neocon and a Conservative. While both reside under the Republican banner, it is the Neocon that controls the party right now. Just like the Democratic party is made up of factions of Liberals and New Democrats.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 21, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #128301

Well,

as for the port thing, a spokesperson for the firm was on NPR last night spinning the ports purchase. key points:

-the emirates (of UAE) claim to have rooted out the terrorists (two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE)
-UAE is the most pro-Western state in the Middle East and the most modern politically, a true federal republic
-UAE’s 3 million+ population is only about one-third Arab, most of the remainder are expats from the West
-the purchase is part of a diversification plan to have wealth producing assets once the oil runs out
-it’s an investment only, passive at that; UAE lacks the population to interfere with the ports, which will continue to function as is.

Anyway, that’s the story. Not sure I have an opinion yet. It doesn’t feel right, but more in the way it didn’t feel right when a Japanese investment group bought Rockefeller Center. It doesn’t feel like imminent danger.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 21, 2006 6:03 PM
Comment #128302

JayJay:

The only purpose for my comment is to praise your post. Everyone beware the Neocon Zone.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at February 21, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #128323

We the people…

Bush goes to war without a declaration of war from Congress, ignoring all UN resolutions to the contrary. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power…To declare War.” Of the president it says, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” It specifically says “when called”, he shall then direct the ensuing military action, but only Congress is given the power to declare war.

In 2001, Bush creates his “faith-based initiative”, to award taxpayer funding to religious organizations.

May 2003: By Executive Order 13303, any “judicial process” launched against any American corporation dealing in Iraqi petroleum products “shall be deemed null and void.” You think I’m kidding? http://www.earthrights.org/news/eo13303.shtml

Feb 2004: Bush proposes an amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage.

Oct 2001: The Patriot Act:
Six weeks after 9-11, Congress and Bush pass the Patriot Act, a supposedly temporary measure,
allowing our government the power to access your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow, and the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches, all without probable cause. When this law was about to expire, it was extended at Bush’s request. As of February 10, 2006, four Republican senators have come up with a deal to renew the Patriot Act, agreeing to strike certain provisions. Since the Constitution prohibits any searches without probable cause, what ‘provisions’ can possibly make this constitutional?

To quote CBS News today: “The president claims an inherent power to imprison American citizens whom he has determined to be this country’s enemies without obtaining a warrant, letting them hear the charges against them, or following other safeguards against wrongful punishment guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. … And he ordered a secret program of electronic surveillance of Americans without court warrants.” Now he wants Congress to make his Surveillance Program into law.

Jan 2006: Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity. In other words, if my post is determined to have been written with ‘intent to annoy’, I can spend up to 2 years in prison for it. I hope Bush isn’t reading this.

Let’s call this what it is: ‘The War on Democracy’.

Posted by: squeaky at February 21, 2006 7:24 PM
Comment #128395

I was on unemployment for a while with extensions a couple years ago. During that time I went to work getting licensed and planning a new business.
All of my coworkers found new and better jobs, a couple went to college and then got better paying jobs. This happened in a depressed area. Since then I had to become an evil corporation to protect against excessive taxes stopping progress. (new job creation) The point is that we all simply got off our asses and went to work. A home depot opened nearby and the minimum wage yard workers in the local yards moved into warm reliable jobs with bennies. Same thing happened with the ten year minimum wage hardware guys. Some also went to the new Wall Mart. What an improvement for our community!!

Posted by: Kruser at February 21, 2006 11:47 PM
Comment #128411

CPAdams:

Thanks for your post about the coverage of the port deal. I too have been searching for information about the particulars of this arrangement. There is a link with info about the company and the executive officers on the Republican site.

“Not sure I have an opinion yet. It doesn’t feel right, but more in the way it didn’t feel right when a Japanese investment group bought Rockefeller Center. It doesn’t feel like imminent danger.” Posted by: CPAdams at February 21, 2006 06:03 PM

I’m beginning to think that this issue is driven by the scale of the task at hand, the management of multiple, major ports. I suspect that there aren’t that many existing companies with the necessary resources or experience so the venders for this service will likely be limited to a few large bureaucratic firms that are intricately linked with the industry infrastructure. That sounds like Haliburton doesn’t it.

I think that economy of scale factors will determine the face of whoever ends up filling the port management contract.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 22, 2006 1:03 AM
Comment #128433

Joe Bagodonuts,

You still didn’t answer my querry: If the rich (that being the upper 5% or so) are not paying taxes, Joe, whom does the rest of the burden fall on to pay off this deficit?

And secondly why do I have to shell out my money to support them? I believe we should all pay our share and to thrust that bill on me to pay off their debt is wrong. Do you agree or do you think the middle should have to take full cost of this deficit—see deficits are paid down by people like you and me Joe not the government if they did that it would be a fiat debt that we’d have to pay down too.

I know most republicans think government pays down deficits or some other nonsense but they don’t, we do, you do, American taxpayers do. So should we be paying their share?

Without paying it down our dollar dwindles in value and inflationary spending becomes the order of the day. Meaning more dollars for any item purchased. Right now our CLI (cost of living index) is up by 12% or more in most areas—by the time george W. Bush leaves it will be up to near 20-23% that means less money you have for other things beyond just the staples of living costs (housing, food,gas/heating oil, vehicle etcetera).

Now couple that with having to pay off the upper most 5%’s debts for them and it spells pessimism whether you choose to aviod that as a notion. That is the nature of the concern not chicken-little sky is falling but—“Hey! I’m getting bilked over here to support someone else who HAS the money to pay their own way”.

Posted by: Translator at February 22, 2006 3:56 AM
Comment #128435

I have a question?

Why, would anyone want a ‘law’ that outlaws people who are gay from getting married? If it’s because the bible said so, sorry… that’s not a good enough answer, because my retort is GET YOUR RELIGION OUT OF MY GOVERNMENT. So… please please please answer away.

I also never understood how looking at the facts and applying them objectively is pessimism? I thought that was common sense (defintion: common sense n. Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment).. I could be wrong, ;) but I doubt it.

-Einghf

Posted by: Einghf at February 22, 2006 4:38 AM
Comment #128447

You don’t marry your lamp or a dog. Marriage has been the obvious agreement between a man and a woman in most every culture, christian or otherwise. Making laws to keep the obvious intact is like having to pass a law requiring you put gas in your car instead of water. Has nothing to do with hate or religion.

Posted by: kruser at February 22, 2006 7:18 AM
Comment #128453

jay

Steve martin had a joke. How to get a million dollars tax free: First get a million dollars and then say you forgot to pay the taxes. libs foriegn policy; First stop the war and then get allies against terror. This all the while there are soldiers bearing the heat while condi and company are working hard to bring peace and stability. maybe the best stratigy is to get on board the best you can or at least show a little unity. The issues and logistics are much more complex than a fun fictional sci fi article. 1984 never happened although it was an entertaining book.

Posted by: kruser at February 22, 2006 8:09 AM
Comment #128454

Jay Jay:

Operation of the ports is already outsourced at this point. I’ve said before that I want this sale to be fully checked out. It has been investigated, but I don’t know to what degree, since its been kept from public view. I’d hope for more transparency on this issue.

But its important to recognize what the issues really are. There are a number of articles that give a good description of the transaction, and don’t necessarily take sides on it. I’ll link a couple for you. We should have oversight on this, and should not simply take the admin’s word that they have fully vetted the issue. But we also should NOT assume that it has not been vetted, or that it is problematic just on the face of it.

A last question: How is this issue not one of profiling? The ports are currently outsourced but to a British company—no one has claimed objections over this. But now based on the nationality of the company only, there are problems. Isn’t this the same as seeing a Briton and a Middle Eastern man boarding a plane and deciding to object to the Middle Eastern man?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0602210260feb21,0,4733282.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-ed.port21feb21,0,3610258.story?coll=bal-opinion-headlines

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 22, 2006 8:11 AM
Comment #128460

Translator:

Here’s the rub: I don’t agree that the middle class pays all the taxes for the rich, as you do. There are many places for you to check out who pays taxes—from what I read, the largest portion of tax revenue comes from the highest 5-10% of income earners. If that’s the case, and I suggest you research that, then your questions are moot because they are based on a false premise.

My idea on taxes is a modified flat tax, so that everyone pays pretty much the same tax rate. Its been said that at a 17% taxation rate, a flat tax would be revenue neutral. I’d skew it just a bit so that the first bit of income would be taxed a bit lower, and the last bit of income would be taxed a bit higher, so its not a true flat tax. The “bit of income” can be determined later (I’d suggest something like the first 20K, and then anything over 500K, but I’m pretty openminded on the actual numbers).

With a flat tax, everyone would pay a similar percentage of taxes, but….the more a person earns, the more actual dollars they would pay. That’s pretty fair, wouldn’t you say? That way you’d be paying the same tax RATE as me, but we’d be paying different amounts based on our relative income. By getting rid of all the deductions and chicanery, it would mean everyone paid, and no one could get away with clever accounting to not pay.

Lastly, I also don’t agree with your view of the future economic situation of America. With your viewpoint, I can understand your pessimism. But I don’t think its based in reality, but rather in an assumption that those things will happen.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 22, 2006 8:20 AM
Comment #128462

JayJay:

The attached link sums up my feelings on the port situation pretty neatly, and does so better than I’ve done. I agree with Bevan on the ports issue 100%. If interested, here’s the link:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_22_06_Bevan.html

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 22, 2006 8:26 AM
Comment #128470

(a)
I really love the “those unfortunate rich people pay more than their share” and “we need a fair system by making a flat tax” mantras.

I’d like to hear anyone from that ilk describe what the basis of income would be and initiate a discussion from there. Be sure to differentiate between corporate and personal.

(b)
What I like most about the ports deal is: Bush hasn’t vetoed any bill in his 5 years and he saves a veto threat for this. Why, what is so important?

Posted by: Dave at February 22, 2006 9:26 AM
Comment #128507

JayJay,

Very, very well said. Thank you!

Posted by: SunDevil at February 22, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #128527
A last question: How is this issue not one of profiling? The ports are currently outsourced but to a British company—no one has claimed objections over this. But now based on the nationality of the company only, there are problems. Isn’t this the same as seeing a Briton and a Middle Eastern man boarding a plane and deciding to object to the Middle Eastern man?

JBOD,

You obviously didn’t read my comments very carefully. I did not say that we should be engaging in racial profiling. What I said was that national security should be handled domestically. I was unaware, until this deal was announced, that any of our ports were being outsourced, to Britain, the UAE, or anyone else. I think most people just assume that we run our own ports and borders. I definitely do object to a British company running our ports. Democrats have introduced legislation to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations, not just the UAE.

BTW, the concern with the UAE is not nationality only, as you claim. It is that this company is state owned by a government that has sponsored terrorism in the past, including the 9/11 attacks. We need to be responsible for our own national security, putting that into the hands of a foreign power is just too risky and uncomfortable for most.

We should have oversight on this, and should not simply take the admin’s word that they have fully vetted the issue. But we also should NOT assume that it has not been vetted, or that it is problematic just on the face of it.

I agree and I believe I also covered this in my last comment as well. What is worrisome is that Congress, governors and mayors from all sides of the political spectrum are objecting so strongly to this deal. That led me to believe that there is no oversight here, it is just another decision of the unitary executive branch, “trust me”. It is also very troubling that the President has said in very strong terms that this deal MUST go through, and threatened a veto of any bill to block the deal. That raises some serious concerns for me. Thanks for the link, I really don’t think that what I am saying is that much different than what Bevan is saying.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 22, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #128547
You don’t marry your lamp or a dog. Marriage has been the obvious agreement between a man and a woman in most every culture, christian or otherwise. Making laws to keep the obvious intact is like having to pass a law requiring you put gas in your car instead of water. Has nothing to do with hate or religion. Posted by: kruser at February 22, 2006 07:18 AM

Kruser,

Do you know why you can’t marry your lamp or your dog? Because they cannot consent to such an agreement nor can they enter into a legally binding contract. Laws made in contridiction to the U.S. Constitution are not laws at all. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to ANY person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(Emphasis mine)

The campaign to relegate gays and lesbians to a lower status than Heterosexuals is an act of hate. 16 states are trying to get proposals on the 2006 and 2008 ballots that would outlaw adoption to same-sex couples. That is hate, pure to the core of it. Last year over 100,000 orphans in this country could not be permanently placed in homes and will be relegated back to the foster home jump. What could possibly be more unstable for children then being bounced from foster home to foster home?


  • There is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents.

  • Home environments with lesbian and gay parents are as likely to successfully support a childs development as those with heterosexual parents.

  • Good parenting is not influenced by sexual orientation. Rather, it is influenced most profoundly by a parents ability to create a loving and nurturing home — an ability that does not depend on whether a parent is gay or straight.

  • There is no evidence to suggest that the children of lesbian and gay parents are less intelligent, suffer from more problems, are less popular, or have lower self-esteem than children of heterosexual parents.

  • The children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as happy, healthy and well adjusted as the children of heterosexual parents.

The people trying to get these proposals on the ballots are hatemongers, plain and simple.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 22, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #128555

kruser;

Slavery was legal in the US until 1865.
In some states it was illegal for a man and woman of different races to marry until 1965 (when SCOTUS overturned the laws, damned activist judges eh?).
I know several mommy-mommy couples and they are models of good parenting. The gay hater arguments are extracted religious paragraphs used to bin people into us-them.

Posted by: Dave at February 22, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #128564

They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. — Benjamin Franklin

Posted by: SunDevil at February 22, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #128582

JayJay:

Just trying to play devil’s advocate here. You say that you can’t marry a lamp or a dog because they cannot give consent nor enter into a legally binding contract?

How would that relate to someone wanting to marry a sibling or a parent (assuming the person was of age, of course)? Are these allowable as forms of marriage? Just curious.

Also curious about whether you think there should be ANY restrictions on marriage at all. If so, what restrictions would you favor? Thanks.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 22, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #128597
A world where conservatism means social program expansion

I think you mean decreasing. The conversatives seem to want to cut all the social programs - or eliminate them - so they can increase moneys to support their world domination cause.

Other than that GREAT POST, JayJay

Posted by: Linda H. at February 22, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #128612

The basic issue never addressed in the discussion of tax policy and economics is this Who is the economy for?

Democrats believe that the economy should benefit the largest number of people possible. The other guys believe that we are living on a plantation, and those that own the most should benefit the most from the economy. They view those less prosperous than themselves as undeserving and lazy, and regard public expenditures from which they do not benefit, as a theft of their resources.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 22, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #128615

Linda H,

Thanks. The Conservatives have actually expanded, overall, social programs with the Medicare part D drug bill. They may try to cut funding to some targeted social programs, but overall the programs have gotten bigger.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 22, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #128633

JBOD,

Marriage should be applied equally under the law to relationships that are legal, and have the legal consent of both parties. The only two groups that meet that criteria are hetero and homosexual relationships.

I believe that marriage should be equally available to all, not just heteros. But it must be applied equally. Polygamy would not be allowed, as it would create special rights for a group, not just equal rights.

Both parties would have to consent to the relationship and be able to enter into a legally binding contract. That leaves out the possibility of pedophilia marriage, not only is it illegal, but a minor cannot enter into a contract. People marrying animals would be excluded for the same reasons, plus an animal cannot consent to such a relationship.

The marriage should not cause physical harm to offspring. Siblings and close relatives can still reproduce. Such reproduction is known to cause physical harm by way of birth defects. Such a marriage could also cause mental harm to one or both parties involved, esp. if it is sexual in nature.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 22, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #128658

Jay Jay Snowman, you gave too much consideration to a post in response to someone that simply intended to hijack the discussion. All that needed to be said was that the devils advocate might be a devil, and that marrying a parent might make him a m*therf*cker.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 22, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #128687

Jay Jay:

Thanks for the response. I’ve found that most people do, in fact, have some restrictions on marriage, as you do. Often people don’t think of them as restrictions, perhaps because they don’t want to think of themselves as restrictive people.

I’d disagree with your comments about polygamy, though. There is actually a case where the defendant claims that the number of people consenting to be involved in a marriage should not be restricted. The attorney used the same arguments that have been used to promote gay marriage rights. He said that since marriage is a legal contract, and multiple people can enter into a single legal contract, polygamy should be the choice of those involved and no one else.

I’m not for it, and it sounds as though you aren’t either, but it does seem like its just one step further down the road, as indicated by the lawsuit.

Thanks for the comments—didn’t mean to take the thread way off topic.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 22, 2006 7:41 PM
Comment #128696

JBOD,

You didn’t take the thread way off topic, it was brought up in my original post and brought up again in the comment section by Einghf, it was very much on topic.

Even though marriage is a legal contract, I look at the issue more from an equality standpoint than I do from a legal one. Our Constitution calls for equality under the law. Same-sex marriage is simply expanding a right already afforded to heterosexuals to a minority group. Polygamy on the other hand is truly redefining marriage and basically creating a whole new right, rather than an equalization of an already existing right. I really don’t see a connection between allowing same-sex marriage and polygamy. But, of course, people will always disagree and I am not a judge, so I can’t say that a legal argument can not be made for it.

Thank you for engaging me on this topic. Anyone who stops by here on a regular basis knows that I feel very strongly about this topic and I am always willing to discuss it with anyone who is interested in having a mature discussion about it (whether it is on topic or not).

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 22, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #128701

JBOD,

BTW, I don’t know, but I have to wonder if some of these oddball cases coming up all of a sudden haven’t been prompted by the extreme right wing to scare people into the “slippery slope” mentality. Conspiracy theory? Maybe, but it really wouldn’t surprise me.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 22, 2006 8:26 PM
Comment #128835

JayJay:

Same-sex marriage is simply expanding a right already afforded to heterosexuals to a minority group. Polygamy on the other hand is truly redefining marriage and basically creating a whole new right, rather than an equalization of an already existing right.

I don’t see it this way. The argument I’ve seen in favor of ‘gay marriage’ is that any consenting adults should be able to marry. Throughout history, marriage has been defined (rightly or wrongly) as the coupling of a man and a woman. The definition has typically precluded siblings, most relatives (I have to say “most” because of Kentucky and West Virginia :), members of the same sex, and multiple spouses.

There have always been restrictions to marriage—the restrictions have just been what society has recognized. Now parts of society want to change some of those restrictions. Other parts of society want to change other restrictions.

You said sibling can’t marry since it could harm their offspring genetically. How would you rule in a situation where the woman or man were sterile, making procreation impossible?

I recognize that I’m stretching the envelope, but I’ve seen the envelope stretched already, and I don’t see it stopping. The gay marriage push has opened the door for the polygamy argument—its already been discussed, though not by many. I expect that once the lines are blurred, they will blur even further. Time will tell.

I’d like partners to have legal rights, such as visitation in hospitals, funeral arrangements etc. I’m not in favor of people living together out of wedlock, yet I’m accepting of civil unions. I don’t agree fully, but it seems a good compromise, since I cannot expect everyone to live by my personal standards. Seems to me that civil unions provide the legality of equality, without the apparent approval shown by marriage.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 23, 2006 8:05 AM
Comment #128875

It appears to me that JJ has it nailed. It’s about equality and only equality. Historic arguments of “It’s always been that way” (it hasn’t) and religious arguments (e.g. the Mormons allowed polygamy and only changed under gov’t pressure) have no validity in a constitutional republic.

Being against gay marriage is pure and simple prejudice against two consenting adults who fall outside a specific belief. No one has a right to deny them. Allowing them marriage is simply fair and decent. No one is or will be forcing a church to perform the marriage. Their marriage doesn’t impact any other in any way, shape, or form. Other circumstances need to be argued on those merits.

Posted by: Dave at February 23, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #128957

In the Neo-Con Zone the Theocrats create laws that defy logic.

Case in point: South Dakota has just approved the nation’s most far-reaching ban on abortion.

The South Dakota bill (soon to be law) is meant to serve one purpose: the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Anyone that’s read my previous post’s regarding abortion know that I feel abortion as a means of birth control is abhorent, but that’s not the point of this post.

South Dakota’s legislature and senate decided to push forward an equally abhorent bill with the sole purpose of overturning of Roe v. Wade.

So, I don’t like abortion on demand, South Dakota seems to agree, what’s the problem? The problem is these lawmakers are actually “lawbreakers”.

This bill (soon to be law) contains an inadequate exception to protect a woman’s life and no other exceptions - not for rape, not for incest, not even to protect the woman’s health.

Just imagine:

(1) You’re an 18 year old (or younger) girl that was inpregnated by her stepfather or whoever - nope no abortion for you, not only were you violated, but now your body belongs to him for nine months. Have a good life honey!

(2) You’re a 30 year old woman working to support two children she’s raising with little or no support from their deadbeat alcoholic father and the same deadbeat father breaks his restraining order and rapes her. Nope, no abortion for her. Sorry honey, you’re just a receptacle! Daddy just left you with another reminder!

(3) You’re 25 years old and confined to a home because you’re “retarded” or “brain damaged” and someone “took advantage”. Oops, sorry babe you’re just a receptacle/delivery device!

(4) Your doctor tells you that your health may be threatened if you continue your pregancy, but sorry we’ll just have to wait and see if it actually threatens your life. If you die we can’t help it it. The f***ing government say’s so.

This is a true trip into the Neo-Con Zone!

I would hope that if one single woman suffers harm (or dies) due to a delay in medical care while this stupid law is being appealed that it results in a lawsuit against every member of the South Dakota house and senate that voted for it.

I do realize that would set a new precedent. Most, if not all, state laws protect “lawmakers” from the results of legislation. I say it’s time to make our lawmakers responsible for their actions.

KansasDem
I hope someone will start a new thread to discuss this, or just bump the Neo-Con Zone back to the top.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 23, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #129049

what is the difference between two men or women living together normally and a homo or lesbian relationship? Are you asking for rights and favors only because they engage in sex together? will that have to be proved to get a license?

Posted by: kruser at February 24, 2006 12:33 AM
Comment #129069

This South Dakota law is indeed an outrage. I differ completely from the Republican stance on abortion rights and I hope to see firm standards established protecting abortion rights. The concept of privacy as the Constitutional justification for the RVWade decision is shakey.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 24, 2006 2:03 AM
Comment #129073

BTW I don’t see the pro-life and neo-con contingents of the Republican party as having much overlap. Except for US Aid to Israel, which they support for different reasons, they are not involved in the same issues.

Neo-cons are pragmatic. The pro-life platform is not very functional, doing little to address the problem of unwanted pregnancy. The pro-life concerns are addressed through traditional conservatism. While there are many neo-cons in the White House, there are many more who are not, most notably President Bush.

By labeling everything that you don’t like about the Bush administration as neo-conservative, you remove the meaning from the term.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 24, 2006 2:23 AM
Comment #129075

GKN,

Maybe my definition of “Neo-Con” is wrong. IMO a Neo-Con is anyone with an extremist agenda that they attach to the Republican party.

It’s sad that we must now define ourselves with labels anyway. There are extremes on both sides. I’m damn moderate on social issues and probably a bit too far right on defense to suit most of the Democratic Party.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 24, 2006 2:43 AM
Comment #129078

kruser, your reference about wallmart saving your depressed area,no1. i hope that was a JOKE. no 2. if you were not joking, what area do you live, the moon? when wallmart came in, or should i say raped and pillaged and bribed its ugly face in our city, they promised good wages and 40 hours a week and there slogan only made in america remember those little flags? and full benefits.well that was ten years ago! today there workers average 29 hours a week, part time no benefits. only the managers and higher ups make decent money and benefits. no more made in america slogans, and they shut down over 45 family owned businesses in my city.

Posted by: rodney brown at February 24, 2006 3:43 AM
Comment #129194

JayJay,
At the rate our deficit is growing, Social Programs will have to be eliminated. There will be not choice in the matter. The question is - which ones will go first?

Posted by: Linda H. at February 24, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #129208
While there are many neo-cons in the White House, there are many more who are not, most notably President Bush.

GKN,

I disagree completely. President Bush is the poster child of what a neocon is. He is a fiscal liberal who favors big government and restrictions on peoples private lives. He believes that laws and morality should be based on his idea of religion. He certainly is not a traditional conservative by any means.

Linda H.,

The reason that social programs have been able to grow out of control is because they are very popular with voters. Most politicians will not touch them because it is political suicide. I do agree that something has to be done to control the federal budget, but I think the budget needs to be looked at as a whole, not just a certain segment. One thing that should be addressed is pork barrel spending. All pork barrel projects should be required to be on their own bill to stand or fall on their own merits. Another rule that should be instituted is that any part of a spending bill may be removed by a majority vote, while keeping the rest of the bill intact. There should also be requirements that all bills are available for review in their final form at least 120 hours (5 days) before a vote, except in declared emergencies. This would allow time for members of Congress to actually read the bill that they are voting on. It would also allow time for the bill to be made public, before the vote, to gauge public reaction.

Sometimes an outside eye is needed to find ways of cutting the budget. The budget needs to be reviewed by an unbiased independent accounting agency to find waste and ways to streamline the budget with a full report to Congress with recommendations for change. Again the report should be made public to gauge reaction, then action taken. I suspect the federal budget could be trimmed significantly by just making it more efficient and eliminating waste. I also think that there should be adjustments in the pay for members of Congress. Their pay should be tied to performance. There should be a base salary + bonus incentives for balancing the budget with a full accounting of taxpayer dollar expenditures.

Some programs that the Feds run need to be turned over to the states. The Feds have used the SCOTUS to usurp power from the states through the interstate commerce clause. One example is the war on drugs. While it is fine for the Feds to regulate drug trafficking between state lines, drug regulation within the state should belong to the state. States that have legalized medical marijuana should have those laws stand over any federal interstate commerce laws set by the Feds.

Finally, if after all steps are taken to eliminate waste and social programs still need to be cut, IMO social security should be the first. Welfare should be reformed to enable people to enter the job market, rather than just collect a check. Instead of welfare in its current form, perhaps a better solution would be to reform our education system into one that is world class, and use some welfare funds to fund higher education. Maybe a good requirement would be that if you can work, you either have to work for the state during that time or you have to be enrolled and receive passing grades in a higher education program of study. While such a program may increase welfare costs initially, it would cut welfare rolls in the long run, eventually phasing it out in favor of providing higher education to all that want it

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 24, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #129209
By labeling everything that you don’t like about the Bush administration as neo-conservative, you remove the meaning from the term.

GKN,

I agree, and the conservatives need to head the same advice as anything they disagree with gets labeled “liberal”. Any disagreement they have with the court gets labeled “activist judges”.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 24, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #129250

kruser

To marry a lamp or a dog is a social moral issue. In socity as a whole most -not all- most people would find that weird, but… if socitiy openly accepted it then it would not be an issue. Nor would same sex marriage. Morals are based on socities view of it at the time, same sex marriage used to be legal… but from here it goes into a religious issue, which has no merit in a political debate.

I also do not equate a living human being to a lamp.

It’s sad that you do though.

-Einghf

Posted by: Einghf at February 24, 2006 6:19 PM
Post a comment