Third Party & Independents: Archives

Does not surprise me Bush does not want Independents in Gitmo. America is becoming like Israel everyday.

Why is this under the “Third party” column ?

James,

Maybe it’s because the Democrats don’t hold a monopoly on unhappiness with the Bush administration — that it’s not just bleeding-heart liberals who are upset with him.

I know that it’s hard to fit that into Bush’s “us against them” version of the world, but there you have it.

James
Read through the archives and you will see that, with the exception of a very few, this is really just part of the blue column.
There is a yellow column and a red column, better just get used to it and enjoy it as it is.

Yellow Column being the Liberals who are right about Iraq and Red Column being Conservatives who have yellow stickers on their SUVs and stay at home.

btw. If you Republicans ever bothered to look around, you will see that every Third Party out there hates Bush.

Libertarians, Greens, Naderites, etc. I dare kctim to identify any Third Party who supports BushCo.

Its hard to support Torture and the rise of Big Brother…

“Read through the archives and you will see that, with the exception of a very few, this is really just part of the blue column.
There is a yellow column and a red column, better just get used to it and enjoy it as it is.”

Why? Because we don’t agree with Bush? I’m sorry, but the world isn’t that black and white.

In my experience, most of the recent posts in the Third Party/Independent column have been blasting the Republicans for acting like Democrats.

This just illustrates the biggest problem with the two-party system — each party attacks the other instead of promoting their own values. Eventually, “attacking the Republicans” becomes the biggest Democratic value, and vice versa, so anyone attacking the Republicans must therefore be a Democrat.

Maybe if more people would do the research necessary to vote FOR someone instead of AGAINST someone else, we wouldn’t have this problem.

We spend most of our time attacking Republicans because they are the ones in power. Yes, we agree with the Democrats that Bush is the problem, but we don’t necessarily agree that Hillary is the solution.

Would it help differentiate us if we added a Ted Kennedy joke to every post? We can start doing that if you’d like. :-)

I have always had a keen interest in David’s articles in that he is quite good at providing access to his reference material. To be honest, very often I just dive in to my posts often not wondering or caring where or what the backup material is for the original article.

This morning I chose to click on all of David’s source material and glance at it. For the benefit of those who do not or have not done that in this case, here is a summary of his reference material :

Arabic News.com
BBC News
The Independent-On Line Edition
Yahoo News
ABC News
NY Post
NY Times
Washington Post
USA Today
Associated Press-Staff Writers
Christian Science Monitor

This is a very impressive list of source material. David’s dialogue, hard work and attention to detail of course is what creates the piece and presents it for our interpretation, enjoyment and discussion.

Well written David.

Rob,

Good suggestion on the Ted Kennedy jokes. Unfortunately none of us would live long enough to hear them all. If we through the rest of the family in we would have to pass jokes along to our grandchildren to continue the tradition.

Rob Cottrell and steve smith, thank you very much your comments above.

James, it is under the 3rd Party column because I have supported Ralph Nader and the Green Party in the last two elections.

kctim, your comments lacked a bit of discerning reasoning. Democrats critique Republicans and yet they still are referred to as Democrats. When Clinton was in office, Republicans critiqued him and they were still called Republicans. So, why is it when 3rd party writers like Misha Tsytelin (Libertarian) or I (Naderite) critique this administration, you choose to refer to us as some sort of Democrats in disguise. Poppycock !

Complaining will not negate the fact that there are 10’s of millions of Americans who are Indpendents and third party members who don’t believe this administration is living up to the position he was elected to.

Bill Clinton harmed the Presidency and failed his party in a number of ways. McCauliffe/Dean as beligerant attack dogs alienating many a great many independents have done as much to prevent Democrats from winning as Republicans have. But, they aren’t running government, and government and politics are what we write about here.

So, how about demonstrating to us out here that at least one of the issues discussed in the original article is worth defending from or critiquing from your point of view, since, you other point made above just doesn’t hold up at all.

Rob
It has nothing to do about agreeing with Bush, hell, I don’t agree with him on ALOT of things. I just refuse to blame him for everything that goes wrong while totally ignoring any good.

“I’m sorry, but the world isn’t that black and white.”

Today’s political world IS that black and white and the gray area in between shifts depending on which party is in control.

“Yes, we agree with the Democrats that Bush is the problem”

And you came to this conclusion before he was even elected, just as the Dems did and the Reps did with clinton (blah).

The real problem isn’t which party is in control, but that the people believe it is the problem.

As always, David thinks his posts through and writes very interesting topics, but he hardly a moderate.
Look at news and see whats out there: consumer confidence is up, energy bill passed, Gitmo is getting better (doesn’t excuse what has gone on but it is a sign things are being looked at there) the aclu suspended one of its members and bill and hillary (blah) are talking with Billy Graham.
ALL of those are important political news on the radar screen but because they don’t bash Bush, the administration, republicans or religion, they are ignored.

There is a yellow column and a red column and in a few years there will be a blue column and an orange column.
It matters not what is really going on, only who is in control.

kctim,

I do understand your point. Ideally, one column would support the administration and the other two would provide distinct alternatives. Unfortunately, the alternatives don’t tend to be very distinct.

“And you came to this conclusion before he was even elected….”

Not really. I came to that conclusion before he was elected as PRESIDENT, but that’s because I had seen what he did as GOVERNOR. (And, for the record, I had seen what Gore had done as VP, too, which is why I didn’t vote for either of them.)

“There is a yellow column and a red column and in a few years there will be a blue column and an orange column.”

Come on… can’t we at least hold out a LITTLE hope that the two columns will be green and purple? :-)

David
“why is it when 3rd party writers like Misha Tsytelin (Libertarian) or I (Naderite) critique this administration, you choose to refer to us as some sort of Democrats in disguise.”

I would never say Misha is a Dem in disguise, from the posts I have seen from him, he chooses to see both sides of an issue.
You do not critique this administration, you bash it.
Refusing to see any good at all while concentrating only on the negatives is being partisan, plain and simple.

What was wrong with the arabic news story? He talks about human rights and standing with these people and you automatically assume he is joking. If he says nothing, then you assume he doesn’t care.

10 Coms? You make it sound like the founders would be rolling over in their graves about this decision. It was basically a compromise for now and the road to destroying religion can continue.

You stuck with the truth on Iraq. I wish those on the right would read more of these stories and see just how dire things really are.

Rumsfeld? Scrambling and trying to cover his ass.

Cheney and Rice- Would you rather they come out and say that thousands more troops will die and things will never work out? You served in the military. What kind of moral builder would that be?

The internet as we know it is almost gone.

We both know how I feel about social programs.

And can you honestly say that the gender gap tilt doesn’t make you happy because you think Dems rule better?

Rob
“And you came to this conclusion before he was even elected….”

After reading that, I feel I was out of line. There is no way I would know how you reached your conclusion, I apologize. Not making excuses, but too many people I talk to are guilty of this.

It would be very “little hope” if you ask me. I think the divide is too great to overcome and that we will have our own insurgent problems within the next 20 years or so.

This middle column has never been for moderates; just writers who don’t fall in either party’s camp. Based upon that I have always understood David’s post here. The symbolism of the middle column can throw you though…

On the 10 Commandments the court was really in a fix. My thinking is that they should have never taken the case as to rule in any way would create law.

But looking at the extremes they probably did the best that they could. Rule one way and someone puts up a flashing neon sign that says Jesus Saves. Rule the other way and they have to tear their own chambers down…..

You all miss the point on the 10 commandments ruling. The constitution does not state that there is a separation of Church and state.

It states this: Congress cannot establish a religion. Meaning the federal Government cannot only give jobs to Jews (that’s Hollywood) or set any other stipulation such as only Christians can vote. //This comes from England having the church of England as the required religion, not because jefferson didn’t believe in GOD//

Also, the constitution further states that it cannot stop anyone from practicing their religion. And, it doesn’t say only in their home. So, they can’t stop the practice of religion A-N-Y-W-H-E-R-E! EVEN ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY!

The constitution also states that any power that congress does don’t control will be controlled by the states. Which means if Kentucky wants the 10 commandments in their courtrooms (and I don’t mean just some judge in Kentucky, I mean the Kentucky State legislature) then the Federal government cannot say boo, without going against the constitution.

We have the right to think and be who we are without reprisal. Which means if the government allows anyone to camp out on a piece of government property, then they must allow the boy scouts to do so too. They (congress) are not allowed to even question if the boy scouts believe in a GOD or not. If they let anyone use the land then they must let everyone use the land.

And so on and so on.

James,

My take on the Establishment Clause is that people can practice any religion they want, but the government should not practice ANY religion — even atheism.

I think the SC made a sound, if somewhat confusing, distinction regarding the 10 Commandments — displaying them as a piece of our legal history is fine; displaying them as a religious symbol is outside the bounds of our government.

“The constitution also states that any power that congress does don’t control will be controlled by the states.”

You are referring to the 10th Amendment, which, along with the 14th Amendment, forbids the States from stepping on the people’s rights that are protected within the Constitution.

Finally, on regarding your Boy Scouts comment: As far as I know, the Boy Scouts have never been denied use of public land because of their belief in God. They have been denied use of public land because they exclude people for reasons other than belief in God (i.e. homosexuals).

Excellent article with fascinating links. Very well done, David.

I won’t bore you all with my thoughts on everything here. Instead, I’ll just make a few comments:

“Bush calls freedom from torture ‘inalienable human right’.”

He said smirkingly.
Bloody priceless, isn’t it? He simply never fails to say the most ultimately ironic and shameless thing possible!

“Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK. The Supreme Court was split on this issue, and if our founding fathers were sitting on the court, they too, no doubt, would have been split.”

And yet, I suspect the most Enlightened of those men probably wouldn’t have been.

“You can tell Iraq’s democracy was birthed by the United States by this story of the week: Iraq reports corruption epidemic. A democracy in our own image, we should be so proud of our bouncing new baby democracy.”

Butt ugly and sickly, that baby, eh? Unfortunately it looks like we’ll be changing it’s diapers for… What did Rummy say recently? Oh yeah: “five, six, eight, ten, twelve years.”
Ughhh, what a pile of crap.

“Rumsfeld Rejects Outside Panel on Gitmo.”

More irony and shamelessness. These guys are all cut from the same cloth.

“doesn’t make sense,” Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday.”“

Likewise I’m sure, Rummy.

“House Approves Cuts to Labor Programs. Funding for job training, rural health care, low-income schools and help for people lacking health insurance would face big cuts under a bill passed Friday by the House.”

All thanks to Bush’s asinine Medicare prescription drug program.

I believe that history will one day show that the Bush administration was one of the worst America has ever had, due to: pre-emptive war based on lies, allowing torture and breaking with international law, crony capitalism/being in bed with corporate interests, fiscal irresponsibility/bankruptcy, trampling of civil liberties, and anti-environmental policies.
As for President Bush, he’ll surely rank right up there (or should I say, down there?) and quite possibly surpass presidents Hoover and Harding. And for his dishonesty and the breaking of America’s trust, Nixon.

“This middle column has never been for moderates; just writers who don’t fall in either party’s camp”

Now that makes more sense George, thanks.
My error was in not reading the column name I guess: “Third Party & Independents,” it says nothing about moderates but for some reason I always thought of it that way.

In being tired of all the “Bush did this” or “Bush is great” ramblings, I forgot the one thing I always harp on here, being openminded.

Misha, David, Rhinehold, VEM and others who post to the middle column, I offer my apologies.

kctim, thanks. Few, if any of us writers in this column have ever claimed to be non-partisan or moderate. I respect very much anyone capable and willing to admit when a misunderstanding has taken place. That takes personal integrity and you have shown it, sir.

Adrienne,

This is an excerpt from your earlier post.

“All thanks to Bush’s asinine Medicare prescription drug program”

Can you please give me an overview of this program and why it is asinine.

For those who may be interested, Lisa’s Thread over at the Red Side was closed due to abusive behavior by them. Apparently, sniping at Democrats is better than the reality of being in Iraq for the rest of eternity.

Aldous said….

“For those who may be interested, Lisa’s Thread over at the Red Side was closed due to abusive behavior by them. Apparently, sniping at Democrats is better than the reality of being in Iraq for the rest of eternity.”

What he should have said was :

Lisa’s thread over at thr Red Side was closed due to abusive behaivior BY THE PEOPLE POSTING AT THE TIME.

The balance of his notice should not be shown at all since he has no first hand knowledge as to what the intent of the poster’s was during the discussion.

Re: Bush’s asinine Medicare prescription drug program:
Steve Smith:
“Can you please give me an overview of this program and why it is asinine.”

I certainly can, and will.
First of all, the prescription drug bill that President Bush rammed through Congress was backed from the very beginning by the pharmaceutical industry — this IMO, is always a bad sign for We the People. And from the beginning it seemed a terrible law that could only get worse — which of course, it did.
During the time that this bill was pending in Congress, Bush said it would cost $400 billion over 10 years — and indeed, he threatened to fire the Medicare actuary who realized that this figure was much too low. After a while, Bush revised its estimated cost to $534 billion over 10 years (this was largely due to excessive payouts to private insurers and to HMOs).
Now, it has been estimated that the bill will cost $395 billion over FIVE years, and at the very least, $724 billion over ten. Furthermore, as we might well have expected from the beginning, it is a shameless giveaway to the drug industry (who will pocket $139 billion in profits as a result) and our government gets no bulk-purchasing discounts. Meanwhile, drug companies are jacking up their prices enough to offset any discount to seniors.

And that sir, is why I consider it to be completely asinine.

David
Thank you.

Adrienne,

You gave me a terrific disertaion on why the program was no good strating from the fact that it was backed by the drug companies, it was rammed through congress, it’s cost has been revised several times and, it’s a shameless giveaway is for an OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM and why it is asinine.

I want to know what does the program provide. I don’t think I could have been any clearer, yet you seized an opportunity to bash Bush and the drug companies.

If you know what the program provides, please outline it for me.

Adrienne,

Seemed to have a typing glitch……
My first statement should have read

it’s cost has been revised several times and, it’s a shameless giveaway when what I asked is for an OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM and why it is asinine.

Steve:
“I want to know what does the program provide.”

A bad deal for seniors, much too high a cost for the American taxpayer, and a windfall for Big Pharma.

“I don’t think I could have been any clearer, yet you seized an opportunity to bash Bush and the drug companies.”

I gave an overview of how the prescription drug bill evolved — I had (I suppose wrongly) assumed this is what you were asking me for. You also asked why I considered it asinine, and I told you exactly why.
Now, if YOU would like to give me an overview of why you think it’s a good law, and show me how it provides a monetary savings for American seniors, please do so.

“If you know what the program provides, please outline it for me.”

Sorry, but I consider this to be a rather specious question.
This is a political blog, not a forum on health care. In my reply to you I thought this discussion should be limited to how much it is costing the country, and if it is actually going to help our seniors as promised. From all I can gather from my reading on the subject, this bill is a very bad deal for both.
Perhaps if there are seniors who on medicare here, they may wish to discuss the real benefits they believe they’ve received from this bill, but since I’m not a senior, and not on the program, I’m simply not qualified to speak knowledgeably on every aspect of medicare. Are you?

Adrienne,

You have said that the program is asinine based on it’s cost, the way it was rammed through congress and, how the drug companies will profit.

In my mind you have proven nothing and certainly have not answered my question. How is anyone supposed to know if something cost too much, provides excessive profit to drug companies, etc.
if they don’t know what they are getting in return.

You made a flat out condemning statement about an asinine program that costs too much without telling anyone what they are getting in return. The difference between the cost and the benefit is what makes something good or, as you put it, asinine.

If you can’t tell us basically what the prescription drug plan gives to seniors we are hardly in a position to determine if it is good for us or asinine.

Obviously by not describing the program, your condemnation cannot be disputed or discussed which, I was under the impression is an objective of this forum.

Adrienne, you did an excellent job of outlining why Bush’s implementation of reform for the Medicare Rx program is asanine and detrimental to the nation.

The program is helping seniors with Rx costs, that is on the plus side. But, as you outline, it does so at much higher costs to taxpayers than was necessary and even the Democrats had a counterproposal that would have provided the same benefits or better and cost less for taxpayers.

Which leads me to believe that in the same way Bush is seeking to bankrupt the Soc. Sec. system, his design on Medicare was to make it an unaffordable social program paving the way for its elimination sometime down the road. There is method to his madness, the madness being acting in total contradiction to conservative fiscal policy and beliefs.

Democrats report no abuse at Gitmo

Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Ben Nelson of Nebraska just came back from a visit to Guantanamo. If you read the Washington Times you saw the heading above DEMOCRATS REPORT NO ABUSE AT GITMO. If you read the Washington Post, you had to look much more carefully, but you could find it in the second last paragraphs,
Wyden, a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and Nelson, of the Armed Services Committee, said they were impressed with Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, commander of the joint task force at Guantanamo Bay. They came away from their visit convinced that prisoners are being treated fairly, the senators said.
“There was not torture, not deprivation,” Nelson said, adding that he based on his comments on his own observations and on conversations with troops from Nebraska.
The NYT carried only an AP story.

In other words, the Post and NYT pretty much buried the story that Democratic Senators found no abuse. I wonder what would have been the coverage if they had said something else.

Adrienne and David,

What is this a conspiracy not to reveal what the prescription drug program offers to seniors in return for what it costs and the way it was initiated.

Maybe I can be a bit clearer :

For example : Does everyone on Medicare get a prescription drug card to use at the time of purchase which entitiles them to a percentage discount?

How much is that discount,is there a deductible to be met, if the cost of this is higher to taxpayers I would be interested to know roughly how much additional taxes are necessary to fund the program.

Then I would like to see a comparison of the additional taxpayer cost in relation to what the drug cost would be for seniors at a) the discounted rate and b) at regular pricing.

Maybe something neat like what would be the difference to seniors in using the prescription drug program offered by the US compared to getting the drugs in Canada or elsewhere.

How about showing the rising costs of funding the program as more people become eligible for Medicare. Is it possible that the more people on Medicare the easier it becomes to amortize the cost of the program.

I guess it’s just easier to say it’s no good, it costs too much in taxpayer dollars and congratulate each other for a great explanation.

How great it is to be able to say things and not have to prove them.

steve smith, you have a pc, right? Google Medicare prescription plan, and you can have all the information you want on the plan.

It does not matter what people get in terms of this discussion. The cost to taxpayers for whatever benefits are received are substantially higher because Republicans installed a provision into the law which prevents the government from competitive bidding for the Rx’s beneficiaries receive.

It was a bad bill for this reason. It also has a donut hole in the coverage giving benefits, removing benefits, and then giving them back again once one x amount of dollars have been spent out of pocket. So, a retired person on a low fixed income gets their meds, then the coverage donut hits, and they can’t afford their meds anymore, so they get sicker, or die. I guess you could call that a savings to taxpayers, well all except for the beneficiary who gets sicker or dies.

We are not your librarians. Want facts on coverage, go to the Medicare site and read up on it. I have.

David,

This sort of ties in with Stephen’s timeline.

With our government attempting to re-up the Patriot Act, and the far right buying into it hook line and sinker, American life has changed forever.

We are more divided now than at any time in American history. Bin Ladin wanted to change America. It would appear that we are doing it for him.

When you give up Liberty for security, sometimes you lose both.

“We are more divided now than at any time in American history.”

Civil War anyone? I can think about many more if I put five minutes of effort into it.

I don’t feel anyone should have a problem with public displays of the Christian religion on government property because that’s our history.

President George Washington, September 17th, 1796
-It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible

Benjamin Franklin Address at the Constitutional Convention Thursday June 28, 1787
-I have lived, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

President John Adams
-The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.

President Thomas Jefferson
-The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.

I’m not trying to say that the government as a ruling body should try to enforce a specific set of religious principles. I am saying that we, as the public, need to understand that our country was born in Christianity. Attempting to erase this fact by banning religious monuments on government property still doesn’t change the fact that Christianity and tolerance for ALL religions is our history.

Also, when you strip away all of the emotional BS, the moral principles of Christianity (Love your neighbor, do not steal, etc. etc.) are very good guidelines that I guarantee make you a better person if followed. So can we please stop getting upset that the Ten Commandments are held by Moses above the Supreme Court, our nation’s highest level of law?

I wish someone would have warned me before I clicked on the link that led to the arabic site,because I have heard the government is watching all the websites we go on and if we go on any Islamic or Arabic sites we might be suspected as terrorists.

I do agree that from watching the “meet the press” episode yesterday with Rumsfield that he was definetly trying to cover his ass.I don’t believe I have ever seen him like that.

As far as the constitution stating the seperatiion of church and state,what it says in the first amendment is that the federal government cannot consider religion of any kind while making any law making decisions.

As far as the states go though,some of the southern states have the confederate flag infused into their state flag,so it shouldn’t be surprising that they would have the Ten Commandments outside their courthouses.

You can tell Iraq’s democracy was birthed by the United States by this story of the week: Iraq reports corruption epidemic.

Wow. That’s the perfect bookend for the US State Department’s report criticising the new Iraqi government for “extra-judicial killings, torture, rape and illegal detentions.”

I just read the last post before mine here and the answer I have for all those founding fathers refering to God,you might have to consider that all those statements were made in the 18th century…and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves,and had african-american wenches.

I fully agree Bin Laden is laughing up a storm at all of us because we are definetly divided now.

I also fully agree that the ten commandments are good lines to live your life by,but a person can be any other religion and do right by his neighbor.I personally try to follow Jesus’ teaching because they make sense.But a lot of other things in the bible don’t.

Brian,

“I don’t feel anyone should have a problem with public displays of the Christian religion on government property because that’s our history.”

You make a statement like that and but don’t give one example of a historicly significant display.
No one disputes that the founding fathers were men of faith, with the exception possibly of Jefferson.
But you leave out a few important facts, such as there were no Hindu, or Muslim, or Bhuddist, or Ba’hai, or Jewish founding fathers.
My point is that our country has become much more diverse in the last two hundred years. This is not just a Christian country.

This is not just your founding father’s country anymore either, and we all live here, and all don’t nescessarily want to play with your ball. Many have brought their own.
I don’t need to see the Ten Comandments scattered about willy-nilly on government property.

Save it for your church.

Brian,

Moreover, even a highschool student knows that, while Christian metaphor was commonplace in the linguistics of the time, the Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Deist, which is to say, they believed in a “Clockmaker” God. They believed that God sort of wound up the cosmos and let it go, and took no active intervention in its affairs.

Ask any Christian evangelical if that is a Biblical view, and they’ll probably laugh in your face.

Also, I don’t see any reason why the intent of the Founding Fathers should hamstring our ability to interpret the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were also slave owners; does that mean this is a country of slavery by its very nature?

David Remer,

I will Google the Medicare prescription plan as you suggest.

As to the original posts that condemned the program on cost without showing a general cost-benefit relationship (not a comprehensive description of the plan) is not making much of a point.

I guess “too high a cost to taxpayers” is subjective. WHAT WOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE COST.

There is little to be gained by continuing this discussion. My first response should have been that I don’t consider the cost high at all. Then faster than a speeding bullet you would have challenged me to produce analyses/reference as to
proving my statement.

Rocky -

Reading comprehension goes a long way.

You wrote - You make a statement like that and but don’t give one example of a historicly significant display.

I wrote - So can we please stop getting upset that the Ten Commandments are held by Moses above the Supreme Court, our nation’s highest level of law?

The Ten Commandments have been above the Supreme Court SINCE IT WAS BUILT. I’d say that is pretty historic. Furthermore - http://www.ten-commandments.us/ten_commandments/publicdisplay.html has pictures of several other 10 Commandment displays, which are all over the Supreme Court building. Why should we suddenly become upset they are there when some of them have been there for the duration of the Supreme Court building?

Rocky wrote - This is not just your founding father’s country anymore either, and we all live here, and all don’t nescessarily want to play with your ball.

and unkind wrote - Also, I don’t see any reason why the intent of the Founding Fathers should hamstring our ability to interpret the Constitution.

Read my post again. I wrote - I’m not trying to say that the government as a ruling body should try to enforce a specific set of religious principles.

I SPECIFICALLY stated that the government cannot enforce or attempt to institute a national religion or a specific set of religious principles. I AM making the argument that these displays of Christianity are historical in nature and should therefore be remembered. The Founding Fathers owned slaves and the two of you are right - we shouldn’t own slaves today. But I guarantee you that no one in the US today has forgotten that there was slavery in this country, just like we should never forget where we came from.

Your argument is just plain wrong. Chrisitanity is our history, and everyone should remember it as such. Just because today (and since our nation’s conception) we’re allowed to worship who we please doesn’t erase our history. This is why displays such as the 10 Coms. should be left alone - many of them have been there since the court was built.

Furthermore, where do you get off telling me to save it for my church? To be cliche, you don’t know me, my religious principles, or any of my religious affiliations and you shouldn’t. This argument is above such pettiness, or it at least should be. This is about historical significance, not who you choose to worship.

FURTHERMORE - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Means do not make laws concerning a specific religion. It doesn’t mean we can’t have the 10 Coms above our Supreme Court house just because Muslim people live here too. unkind and Rocky, you need to begin separating history from religious endorsement.

David:
“in the same way Bush is seeking to bankrupt the Soc. Sec. system, his design on Medicare was to make it an unaffordable social program paving the way for its elimination sometime down the road. There is method to his madness, the madness being acting in total contradiction to conservative fiscal policy and beliefs.”

I agree completely. And as has been shown by your linked article entitled: “House Approves Cuts to Labor Programs” the enormous amount of funding needed for the Medicare prescription drug benefit is now being used as a convienient excuse to gut other programs that we know the Neocons would like to see crushed out of existence. Anything that helps low-income American’s seems to fall under this category.

Steve:
“As to the original posts that condemned the program on cost without showing a general cost-benefit relationship (not a comprehensive description of the plan) is not making much of a point.”

Look Steve, you may not want to see the points I was trying to make, but I thought I showed exactly how fiscally irresponsible and half-assed this programs planning and design has been right from the beginning. I consider any bill that was designed to keep us from trying to broker a better deal for ANYTHING to be a bad one. Don’t you?
As I said before, if you wish to defend all of Bush’s changes to the program, please do so. Why on earth should it up to me to provide you with a cost-benefit analysis?

I’m not trying to be rude here, but in case you’re not aware of this, I feel I should tell you something. There is a very tiresome pattern of this kind of thing in WB. Of people on the right asking those of us on the left for more and more proof to back up our assertions, while they do very little in the way of trying to prove their own points. It seems you guys are forever claiming the information we provide isn’t enough or is somehow irrelevant. It’s a bit of a drag, you know?

Adrienne,
When you say that a program was rammed through congress, I understand and accept what you say.

When you say the cost to the taxpayers was revised two or three times from it’s original estimate I undertand and take your statement as accurate.

When you say that the drug companies were big lobbyists for and will profit greatly from the program, I understand that. The drug company however seems to be behind and profiting from just about everything.

Since the figures that you mentioned are in the billions of cost dollars all I was looking for is some frame of reference to the value for the expense. I did not want an explanation of the program itself (I believe David said that you are not my librarian).

What I was looking for was something like, what makes the program asinine is the fact that a) only 38% of the Medicare participants will actually save on drugs, b) even with the huge expense, the cost of drugs on an annual basis to the participant is still $4,800, c) even though it’s possible to be on Medicare prior to age 65, the program requires you to be 65 to take advantage of the drug discounts, d) Only certaqin drugs are eligible under the program, e)Canadian drugs will still be cheaper by 26%, etc.

Note : The examples a) through e) are imaginary, not real figures or statements.

I was merely looking for a comparison (rough if it needed to be) to show what the money was going to provide.

I honestly dont think you can condemn something and catagorize it as asinine merely by saying it was rushed through, it cost billions and drug companies are going to profit. Those things alone do not necessarilly make something bad. I think you need to provide some frame of reference.

As far as the heads up as to this kind of thing being tiresome I don’t think that when poster A says something is no good and a significant reason is it’s cost, it is not out of line or unreasonable for Poster B to ask for a frame of reference as to the cost-benefit relationship.

If you feel differently, then if I ask a question to which the answer is not needed to support your point simply say so.

I am hoping that your last paragraph is informative and not some type of veiled threat.

Brian,

You’re absolutely right. My arguments were a bit off point. I attacked points you weren’t making. My bad.

BUT, trying to be more on point, let me say that I do think even the historical argument is a bit pretextual. I just think it sends the wrong message to American people from other cultural traditions when we have a religious image (historial underpinnings or no) engraved on a government building. We can leave teaching history to history books and schools, and not sneak in religious imagery under the aegis of “historical veracity”.

Hell, why can’t we just make government buildings plain-fronted, i.e. undecorated?

Moreover, most of the things that make this country great and distinctive (personal freedoms and whatnot) have, I would say, little to no grounding in Christian traditions. So I don’t see why the Ten Commandments needs to be placed on any government building.

Steve:
“I am hoping that your last paragraph is informative and not some type of veiled threat.”

No, not at all Steve!
I just think, as David suggested, you might want to do a little reading about this subject as I did a while back — and that I have to admit, I really don’t feel like going back to scan through in order to provide you with the exact info you were asking about. But trust me, there is a lot of detailed info about this medicare bill out there. I gotta warn you though, much of it makes for pretty dry reading! :^/
When and if you do, perhaps then you’ll understand why I’ve come to the conclusion that the prescription drug bill was a terrrible law because it was never intended to be a good deal for seniors, or for us as taxpayers.
Then, in the future when this topic comes up, I’ll be looking forward to our being in complete agreement! ;^)

PS. I’m not the veiled-threat kind of woman, though I am sometimes a bit of a wisenheimer. No hard feelings, I hope?

Adrienne,

There most certainly are no hard feelings. We simply had a spirited discussion. I think we have had a few of those before. It takes a wisenheimer to0 know a wisenheimer.

I happen to agree (I am 62 years old and disabled) that a good prescription plan needs to be provided for seniors and, I have not seen a good one proposed yet.

I am fortunate to have a COBRA health insurance plan that I pay quite a bit of money for and it has a prescription drug plan which is terrific. Unfortunately it will go away in about 18 months and I will not be 65 and will not yet be on Medicare, so I will have an enormous prescription drug expense.

So, when I get involved in prescription drug discussions, it is personal.

Unkind - I see your points and completely agree.

So, to make it short, my argument is thus: Leave everything that’s there, there (Christian or otherwise) and just don’t put anything new up. I say this because, honestly, I would hate to see that engraving of Moses and his tablets removed when they’ve been there longer than I’ve been alive. It really upset me when the Taliban destroyed the two statues of Buddha in Bamiyan, Afghanistan and, while the engravings above the Supreme Court aren’t exactly on that level, it would upset me to see Moses go.

aclu suspended one of its members

kctim,

I hadn’t heard about this. I found only one small article on it. Why do you think it’s “important political news on the radar screen”? It doesn’t seem that important to me.

Come on LB.
The aclu “says” that they support all of our rights as Americans but yet suspends one of its chapters for excersising one of their rights. Thats not important? Why?

“group plans to offer food, water, and assistance to illegal immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, but would still report them to border patrol agents”

They are narcs, a neighborhood watch type of group. If they want to sit around and report crime they should be supported.
Can you imagine the uproar the aclu would make if it was a neighborhood watch group who was keeping tabs on who didnt attend church and then posted their names?

The aclu are hypocrites. They pick and choose rights based on their agenda.
Thats why people see them as a leftwing support network.

So yes, when a group purports to be “our nation’s guardian of liberty” but refuses to extend that to everybody and makes their living off political issues, I do find that to be important political news.

kctim,

They probably believe that the minuteman project goes against the goals of the organization and don’t want the ACLU to be associated with it.

You seem to be implying that the ACLU shouldn’t be allowed to have internal standards for their associates more strict than what they wish the government had for its citizens. That really doesn’t make sense to me.

For example, they support the first-amendment rights of pornographers. However, I wouldn’t be offended or consider it hypocritical if they disciplined an employee who was creating and selling pornography in a way that associated the porn with the ACLU.

There’s a difference in the standards an organization can hold internally and the restrictions the government should hold on all of us.

I just don’t see the issue, but I have seen that you really hate the ACLU because you interpret its neutrality on gun control as a war on the second amendment. Oh well.

“They probably believe that the minuteman project goes against the goals of the organization and don’t want the ACLU to be associated with it”

Yeah, reporting illegal activity is one terrible goal to have.

Standards? Do as we say, not as we do, always works doesn’t it?
Havent there been complaints about this administration doing just that?
At least they don’t hide the fact that they have a rightwing agenda.

Yes LawnBoy, oh well.
“The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns”

Real neutral.

Standards? Do as we say, not as we do, always works doesn’t it?

Internal for employees vs. government restrictions on citizens. Huge difference that you’re just ignoring.

Real neutral.

Here’s a larger excerpt:

BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for “ignoring the Second Amendment” and refusing to fight for the individual’s right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today’s world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual’s right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

So, they don’t fight for or against any gun control, but officially agree with a standard interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

They have never said anything against the 2nd Amendment! They have never done anything to weaken the 2nd Amendment!

However, since you don’t agree with them, you define them as “at war” with the 2nd Amendment. There’s such a huge gap between your rhetoric and the reality that I can’t express it.

“So, they don’t fight for or against any gun control, but officially agree with a standard interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.”

A standard interpretation held by the left.

“There’s such a huge gap between your rhetoric and the reality that I can’t express it.”

That is how we view those who think the aclu supports ALL of our rights.
Quit looking at everybody who believes in the whole Constitution as it was meant and that have different views as spewing rhetoric.
They do NOT support the 2nd Amendment and this “neutral” saying is just a political copout.
If it wasn’t, those who DO believe in the 2nd Amendment would trust them alittle more.

If Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and Sean Penn, do not cast a vote, does that make them neutral?

No, I don’t think so because they sway others votes w/ their celebrity!

granted, they don’t sway them effectively but still the same.

So many issues have grown out of this thread it’s difficult to pick one to register a point or, a counterpoint.

IMO this entire Ten Commandment issue is relatively a new one that began with the monument having to be removed from a courthouse. It gathered momentum when other “rights” issues began to surface recently.

For those who are pro-Ten Commandment material being permitted in or on government property or buildings take heart. The monument that was removed from that courthouse was put on a flatbed trailer and transported all over the country as a public exhibit. It gathered more and more positive support as it went.

I believe that the Ten Commandments, religious connotation aside is an excellent set of guidelines for civilian conduct and, if people look inside themselves would agree following those guidelines is a pretty good way to
pattern their lives.

Gun control :
I support gun ownership for all citizens under rights granted by the Constitution. I would agree that the appropriate licenses, etc. should be obtained. The framers could never have imagined that one day guns would reach the automatic firing capability that they have. As such I would support any legislation to prohibit weapons with excessive power and discharge quantity capability be restricted to law enforcement, military, etc.

By strict interpretation of the Constitution I believe that any “gun” would be permissible for individual ownership under the same type of interpretation as flag burning is.

Common sense tells us that we don’t need an AK47 for personal protection although it is our right to have one, just as common sense should tell us do not burn an American Flag even though it is our right to do so.

Laws are created and maintained for our protection and to foster a harmonious citizenry. As such each law has a “spirit” which is as important as the literal interpretation.

steve smith~

Very nicely put! I like the way you express yourself!

Yes Steve, even though I disagree with some of it, it was very well said.

And Charles? Yes, I do believe Steve does NOT support the 2nd Amendment in its whole either.

“I would agree that the appropriate licenses, etc. should be obtained.”

Its not just the liberals who pick and choose:)