Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
Brian Nystrom scribbled:


Keenan Wellar wrote:


[snip]


There's a big difference between civil rights and the socialist agenda
being pushed by the left.


Socialist my ass. The Democrats?!?!? Geezus man, they are so far from
socialist it ain't funny. Unlike Republicans who want more guns and more
jesus as the answer to every problem, the Democrats seem willing to actually
consider that there might be other answers. But socialists? I can't see how
people can think that applies.

Then you're blind. Democrats are the party of BIG government, BIG social
programs, BIG entitlements and "cradle to grave" government care. Give
them all your money and your freedoms and they'll take care of you for
life. That's about as socialist as one can get.


Actually, this is not remotely true. New Yorkers receive an average
return (in services) of $0.68 on every dollar paid in Federal taxes.
Los Angelinos receive $0.73 (and that return includes benefits accrued
to every company that evades taxes and takes advantage of "loophole"
subsidies). Residents of "red" states (actually, the "red" *counties*
of the "red" states) receive an average of $1.70 in various farm
subsidies, water subsidies, grazing rights, jobs in mine-giveaway and
forest-products-giveaway businesses, Federal
infrastructure-building...

While this is true, what does it have to do with the big
govenment/socialist philosophy of the Democrats? I agree with you that
some of these programs are seriously flawed, particularly mining, timber
and grazing rights.

The Republicans consistantly harp on "reducing Big Gubmint" as a
campaign theme. During the Bush administration the size of the
Federal Gubmint has grown; during the Clinton administration it
shrank. Go figger.

I agree that's troubling, but it would only get worse if the Democrats
controlled everything again. The only reason that government got smaller
under Clinton was that he wasn't able to get Hillay's outrageous health
care program through Congress. It was so outlandish that even the
Democrats wouldn't vote for it. After '94, the Republicans kept him in
check.

The Republicans will never cut the programs that provide jobs or lower
commodity and services costs for the heartland "conservatives". They
would prefer to (hypocritically) subsidize a farm family that votes
*against* Big Gubmint than to provide food and heating oil for the
children of a single mom (so what if Mom is a dirtbag; I'm talking
about her children here -- but Christians don't understand such fine
distinctions) in a big city. Personally, I don't mind subsidizing the
heartland counties, but then, I'm a "big gubmint" liberal, and
compassionate enough to want to care for my fellow Americans in the
depressed areas, even if they are stupid, uneducated, and hypocritical
enough to vote *against* the very Big Gubmint that sustains them.

Fine, feel free to donate as much of your income as you see fit. The IRS
WILL accept extra tax contributions. Just don't expect anyone with any
sense to follow your lead. If you reall want to help people, it's FAR
more efficient to donate to a charity that supports those you want to
help than it is to give it to politicians to redistribute.

There is not an economist in the country who will tell you (with a
straight face) that the Republicans are fiscally conservative (that's
why I am no longer a Republican.)

Granted, they have strayed badly and need to be reigned back in.

They will maintain the programs
that sustain the rednecks, to keep their voting base, and they will
maintain the anti-free-market policies that sustain the corporations,
to keep their financial base.

So now Democrats are supposed to be the free market party??? That's
hilarious!

What the Republicans ARE is SOCIALLY
conservative, and that is like ****ing in the wind; society will
change whether they want it to or not. People will use dope whether
it is legal or not. Homos will screw homos whether the good
Christians like it or not. And women will get abortions, whether they
are legal or not. The only way they can keep society from changing
socially is to institute police-state tactics (where is John Ashcroft
when we need him?) and to keep NeoCons in power by keeping the
Terrorist Alert level up there around Orange to keep people
frightened, whether there is any proximate cause or not.

It's funny how society backlashes against these changes periodically.
While we can never go back to the 50's, the pace of change can be slowed
so that changes can be assimilated more gradually and with less societal
trauma. The real problem is our "instant gratification" mindset. The
simple truth that we can't have it all right now.

As for health care, it's long past time that people realize that health
care is not a "right", never has been one and shouldn't be one. Despite
the flaws in our system, we still have the best health care in the
world, as evidenced by the number of people who still flock here from
other countries.

How the hell is that evidence that it's the best health care?

If it wasn't, why would people come here specifically for it? I wouldn't
go to Mexico for health care, but they come here. The same is true with
people from around the world.


If you want to see what a disaster socialized medicine
would be, all you have to do is look to the north.


Um, er... Canada has greater mean longevity than the US, and lower
infant mortality; the two best indicators of health-care quality.
Hardly a "disaster", and it cost considerably less per capita than
American health care. Jeez, what kindergarten did you flunk out of?

I daresay that it has a lot more to do with lifestyle than the health
care system. I've spent a lot of time working in Canada and there just
doesn't seem to the the same stress levels and pressures that are
typical down here. That's definitely a healthier attitude.

And while yer raving about how "liberal" the Democrats are, just
remember that Richard Nixon favored a national health care system.
Our country has just gotten more stupidly right-wing since then.

And your point would be? JFK would be considered a conservative by
today's standards. Dredging these things up is pointless.

How much further north can I go? I'm in Canada. My health care is excellent.


I'm glad you think so, but that doesn't seem to be a particularly widely
held opinion.

BTW, if you're from Canada, why the Hell you you even care about our
politics?


Nonsense! While it's definitely true that most Americans consume/waste too
much, recycle too little and don't put environmental concerns above issues
like values, security and economics, there is still enough concern to
prevent an environmental catastrophy. You watch, once the economy recovers
fully, there will be a push toward stronger environmental policies. In
some ways it's sad, but environmentalism only comes to the forefront when
we can afford it.

That perspective is sad indeed.

What can I say, that's the reality of the situation. No one in
Washington - regardless of their political affiliation - is going to
sacrifice the economy for the environment.


That's because the politicians -- and 50% of the voting public -- are
morons.

Oh, yeah, I forgot that liberals are the annointed keepers of all
knowledge and truth. Please forgive me.

"The environment" is where we live. Every householder spends
good money for a vacuum cleaner and for cleaning fluids and supplies.
We all go to the expense of building a garage or to the inconvenience
of working outside so that we won't wreck the livingroom repairing our
boats, motorcycles, or whatever. Spending money to live in a clean
house is standard; how can you dum****s not see that spending money to
live in a clean country is equally important?

It is, but would you rather be able to afford to live in your own house
or be stuck in a run-down tenement? There is a balance to be struck.
Environmental improvements much be made thoughtfully and progressively,
so that negative impacts on the economy are minimized. Right now is not
the time for draconian evironmental measures.

Thats't the perspective that is said. To see the economy and environment as
separate things. That's why we're so screwed.

They're not separate, which is the problem. They're tightly
interrelated, so one affects the other. If they were separate, one could
act on both without adversely affecting either. You've got it backwards.


That's one reason that Ralph
Nader or the Green Party will never become a substantial force in
American politics; their radical agenda would devastate the economy,
assuming they could get any of it through Congress.

The Green Party in Canada is actually quite fiscally conservative.

Good for them, but that's not really the issue down here. The problem
wit the Greens here is that they are vehemently anti-business and don't
seem to understand that you CAN have "environmentalism without fanaticism".


Not too
sure what you've got going on down south, since the US media doesn't seem
too interested in talking about anyone but the Rs and Ds.

You don't seem to be too informed about anything going on down here.


Well, really; I *do* live here, and I am totally amazed and apalled at
the phenomenal stupidity of the American public. No wonder someone
who lives outside our borders cannot understand what's going on here.
The President keeps talking about improving education (you remember --
the underfunded No Child Left Behind program?) In fact, in the second
debate, he answered four different questions (none of which were on
the topic of education) with a rant about how we need to improve
education. Notice, he kept saying "we need to improve education"; he
never said he was actually going to try to do it! After all, an
educated public is the last thing you would want if you are the head
of a deceitful Administration that relies on a public that will not
research the truth, can not see through yer lies, and does not know
how to apply a critical analysis to yer idiotic pronouncements.

Ah yes, the classic liberal response. Ever notice that when
conservatives lose an election, they become introspective and ask "where
did we go wrong", but when liberals lose, they become indignant and
immediately start pointing fingers and blaming the public for "being
stupid" and "not understanding". Afterall, they are pre-ordained to
rule, right? What liberals don't get is that you lose because people DO
understand! They absolutely get it and they're SMART enough to reject
it! As long as liberals live in a world of denial, they'll never
succeed. So, keep up the good work!

BTW, I understand that Canadians are offering sanctuary to "disaffected"
liberals from the US. You can probably get free grief councelling up
there, too. You might have to wait a few months...