A Usenet persona calling itself Larry C wrote:

The reason that I assert that the the the liberal left has lost touch
with America is that they have consisitantly lost ground in recent
elections to the Republic/moderate/right. That's just simple math, look
at the makeup of Congress, the Governorships of the states, and the
trend in memberships in the state legislatures. I live in a state that
is HEAVILY democratic, to the tune of 3 to 1, yet we now have a
Republican legislature and governor. Manipulated the Media? The media
I saw were all heavily in favor of Kerry.

Want to know why this is happening, and will only continue to happen?

It's because lefty liberals are (not) breeding themselves into extinction.

When liberals resolve to not have kids in order to save the planet, where is
the next generation of lefty liberal tree-huggers going to come from and
who's going to inculcate them into socialist dogma so they can take over the
world?

Conservatives, on the other hand, view children as a positive benefit to
society and they like making babies, who they then raise as conservatives,
who then vote the increasingly endangered liberal/socialists out of office.

It's the essence of "hoist on their own petard" for the liberals.


But to blame this swing on "fundamentalist christians" is stereotyping
and scapegoating, frankly it sounds like a bunch of Nazis blaming all
their troubles on the Jews, or the Klan on the Blacks.

Indeed. Particularly when they identify anyone who holds any sort of
religious Christian belief as "The Moral Majority" or the "Religious Right"
or "fundamentalist Christians."

I'm none of the above, but even I know that, for example, the Catholic
church (members of which comprise more than 20% of the US population...some
65 million citizens) is just about evenly split these days between liberals
and conservatives when it comes to politics.

Moyer
stated that there is a anti environmental element in the Protestant
Christian Religion, I say that it is absolute bull****.

I agree. He's a hack.

I don't see
armies of Christans wacking down trees to hurry the END. I've had to
sit through many a sermon in my day, from Catholic to Pentecostal, and
I have never heard anything like that from any of the pulpits. Do the
"Christians" vote a more conservative social value than espoused by the
Democratic Party? Yes, but mainly on issues like abortion and gay
marriage. But this is America and they do have the right to speak and
vote for what they believe whether you agree with them or not.

Well put.


Frankly, I find the idea that since my guy didn't win, the people that
supported the winner are stupid and gullible as elitist at best. It's a
big country out there and people have a lot of different priorities on
why they vote, many may not be yours. But it's pretty evident from
recent elections that the Republicans have presented a program more to
their liking than the Democrats.


Yup. Democrats have radicalized their way right out of the public favor.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Tinkerntom wrote:


Since you mention the Interstate Highway system, They were originally
established as federal defense corridors during the cold war. They are
designed such that the feds could close them down and block them off,
and be used solely for federal purposes. I don't know if they could get
away with that now that a lot of us have got use to using them, but
that was the original plan, as confirmed by a retired federal emergency
preparedness planner.

So I am sure that to use them as you suggest, is certainly in the
sights of someone. But then the right of driving our car on the
interstate is not assured in the Constitution. Matter of fact I don't
recall Connie saying anything about cars or driving at all. Must have
been an oversight.


Interstate commerce is a Constitutional right. The federal highway
system is part and parcel to interstate commerce. Our right to utilize
roads comes in large part from our being taxed, through fuel and
vehicle taxes, to pay for highway construction and maintenance.

The US Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration
has an exhaustive history of highways; See:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/history.htm


Of course that gets me to rivermans big word of "conserve". Maybe the
best way to conserve would be to just confiscate all the
"unconstitutional" cars and let us walk again. That would probably
solve the whole oil crisis, and at the same time solve the "fat nation"
problem. I think you could be on to something riverman, unless that is
not exactly what you had in mind. I suspect the latter!

Conserve is good. Alternative fuel sourse is good. Again do you have
any practical "black and white" suggestions. To do all this while we
have reserves to carry us through transition is wise, But who says we
are wise. Usually we wait until the situation is critical, and then
think that if we throw enough money at it we can fix anything. Maybe
when the price of oil gets high enough, we will be able to develope oil
shale, or coal.


I'm extremely suspicious of "alternative" fuels, especially hydrogen.
Hydrogen burns clean, but the production of hydrogen from natural gas
and coal can generate considerable greenhouse carbon dioxide.
Interestingly, the largest US reserves of natural gas and coal are in
Texas and Wyoming.


So the real question comes down to how much are you willing to pay for
a gallon of gas, in order to keep driving. Maybe the feds won't have to
close the highway, they will be the only ones that can afford the gas
to drive their nuke waste trucks on the highway that runs through
Sherwood Forest! But then conservation and the environment will not be
the hot issue, but how we have enough fire wood to cook our beans and
stay warm, without cutting down the whole forest!


The real question must be asked by everyone of himself. How much of
the earth's resources does it take to make and run and stock each one
of our homes, and cars and places of work? Think of all the drilling
and mining and manufacturing and energy required to do all of that.
Then, look at all your neighbor has, and his neighbor... We have dug
ourselves into a karmic and spiritual and environmental debt that is
impossible to reconcile. But, the reconciliation begins with the
development of an environmental consciousness, and continues into an
expansion of that consciousness.





--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

On 9-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Who, exactly, is the "Christian Right?" Care to name names? Can you identify
a PAC or other organization called the "Christian Right?" How does one
identify a member of the "Christian Right?" Do they have tattoos? Do they
wear yellow stars on their clothes so that they can be easily identified by
the socialist left? How many of them are there? Where do they live? What do
they look like?

Richard Viguerie was a guest on the Daily Show (Jon Stewart) Wed. night and
he said that the liberals are many different special interest groups that
aren't united or organized in a single entity. The right, OTOH, he said is
organized and have been working together for decades. In his words, the
current political situation is the result of lots of steady work and
is not a flash in the pan. If he can identify them, why can't you?

Mike

Frederick Burroughs wrote:
Tinkerntom wrote:


Since you mention the Interstate Highway system, They were
originally
established as federal defense corridors during the cold war. They
are
designed such that the feds could close them down and block them
off,
and be used solely for federal purposes. I don't know if they could
get
away with that now that a lot of us have got use to using them, but
that was the original plan, as confirmed by a retired federal
emergency
preparedness planner.

So I am sure that to use them as you suggest, is certainly in the
sights of someone. But then the right of driving our car on the
interstate is not assured in the Constitution. Matter of fact I
don't
recall Connie saying anything about cars or driving at all. Must
have
been an oversight.


Interstate commerce is a Constitutional right. The federal highway
system is part and parcel to interstate commerce. Our right to
utilize
roads comes in large part from our being taxed, through fuel and
vehicle taxes, to pay for highway construction and maintenance.

The US Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration
has an exhaustive history of highways; See:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/history.htm


Of course that gets me to rivermans big word of "conserve". Maybe
the
best way to conserve would be to just confiscate all the
"unconstitutional" cars and let us walk again. That would probably
solve the whole oil crisis, and at the same time solve the "fat
nation"
problem. I think you could be on to something riverman, unless that
is
not exactly what you had in mind. I suspect the latter!

Conserve is good. Alternative fuel sourse is good. Again do you
have
any practical "black and white" suggestions. To do all this while
we
have reserves to carry us through transition is wise, But who says
we
are wise. Usually we wait until the situation is critical, and then
think that if we throw enough money at it we can fix anything.
Maybe
when the price of oil gets high enough, we will be able to develope
oil
shale, or coal.


I'm extremely suspicious of "alternative" fuels, especially hydrogen.

Hydrogen burns clean, but the production of hydrogen from natural gas

and coal can generate considerable greenhouse carbon dioxide.
Interestingly, the largest US reserves of natural gas and coal are in

Texas and Wyoming.


So the real question comes down to how much are you willing to pay
for
a gallon of gas, in order to keep driving. Maybe the feds won't
have to
close the highway, they will be the only ones that can afford the
gas
to drive their nuke waste trucks on the highway that runs through
Sherwood Forest! But then conservation and the environment will not
be
the hot issue, but how we have enough fire wood to cook our beans
and
stay warm, without cutting down the whole forest!


The real question must be asked by everyone of himself. How much of
the earth's resources does it take to make and run and stock each one

of our homes, and cars and places of work? Think of all the drilling
and mining and manufacturing and energy required to do all of that.
Then, look at all your neighbor has, and his neighbor... We have dug
ourselves into a karmic and spiritual and environmental debt that is
impossible to reconcile. But, the reconciliation begins with the
development of an environmental consciousness, and continues into an
expansion of that consciousness.


There in lies the problem. We each develope our environmental
consciousness at different thresholds of awareness. Who is in the
drivers seat saying we all have to have a certain level of awareness at
a particular time. Usually the only point we have in common is when we
hit crisis level, and then it may be to late. Maybe already if it is
already impossible to reconcile.

I was thinking of the little prairie dogs I saw setting by the side of
the road earlier today. They sat there and watched the buffalo
disappear, and the coming of horses and wagons and now cars. They may
even watch the airplanes fly over. We have learned to coexist with
them, and they to a greater extent, them with us. I see one every once
in awhile run over on the road, and I hear of attempts to relocate
colonies. But when all is said and done, and cars are a distant memory,
and planes no longer fly because fuel cost to much. The little prairie
dogs will still be setting out there eating grass seeds and enjoying
the good life. TnT




--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

Frank Bell wrote:

I think that is the problem with Moyers position. First he lumps
all
Christians into one pile, sets up a straw man arguement, and then
states that we are all wrong. Convienent, but simplistic, and sad
commentary about a supposed journalist. But it also represents
the
error of a lot of liberal thinking, and they then cheer
themselves on in
their group support meetings.



ROFL

--riverman
(You DO see it, don't you?)




Hehehe! Good point :-)

It appears that riverman went fishing Frank, so it falls on you to
enlighten us who do not see it. I would appreciate your vision of what
is so funny. TnT

Larry C says:
===============
The reason that I assert that the the the liberal left has lost touch
with America is that they have consisitantly lost ground in recent
elections to the Republic/moderate/right.

Frankly, I find the idea that since my guy didn't win, the people that
supported the winner are stupid and gullible as elitist at best.

But it's pretty evident from
recent elections that the Republicans have presented a program more to
their liking than the Democrats.
==============

Clearly, for you Americans, it is YOUR election and your government.
Unfortunately, as a nation, you are so powerful and influential that
who you elect has an impact on virtually every other soul on this
planet. YOU may have decided that the Bush right-wing agenda is right
for America. Many (the vast majority) of us outside of the United
States do not agree.

I find it curious and disheartening that America can be so out of step
with prevailing global opinions. The rest of the western world is
clearly "blue". Likely we could color the prevailing
anti-intellectualism of places like Afghanistan and other
fundamentalist cultures "red".

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:


Clearly, for you Americans, it is YOUR election and your government.
Unfortunately, as a nation, you are so powerful and influential that
who you elect has an impact on virtually every other soul on this
planet. YOU may have decided that the Bush right-wing agenda is right
for America. Many (the vast majority) of us outside of the United
States do not agree.

Well said Wilf. It's funny to see people who are both politically almost
off the far right side of the political scale complain about their
differences. It's troubling to see the ones representing them not only
try to carry out those ideas inside the U.S. but also try to force them
onto the rest of the world. It's even more troubling to see that they
are trying to export that what they call "democracy".

I find it curious and disheartening that America can be so out of step
with prevailing global opinions. The rest of the western world is
clearly "blue". Likely we could color the prevailing
anti-intellectualism of places like Afghanistan and other
fundamentalist cultures "red".

It's very simple: the vast majority of the U.S. population just don't
care what anyone else outside the U.S. thinks. :-(
Being that out of touch with the rest of the world and behaving like it
doesn't matter what anyone else thinks has one drawback though: it does
have its consequences when other people get it in their heads to make it
painfully clear to you that they have a differing opinion. Still,
nothing that can't be hidden (for a while) from the population through a
thick layer of propaganda...

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 9-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Who, exactly, is the "Christian Right?" Care to name names? Can you identify
a PAC or other organization called the "Christian Right?" How does one
identify a member of the "Christian Right?" Do they have tattoos? Do they
wear yellow stars on their clothes so that they can be easily identified by
the socialist left? How many of them are there? Where do they live? What do
they look like?

Richard Viguerie was a guest on the Daily Show (Jon Stewart) Wed. night and
he said that the liberals are many different special interest groups that
aren't united or organized in a single entity. The right, OTOH, he said is
organized and have been working together for decades. In his words, the
current political situation is the result of lots of steady work and
is not a flash in the pan. If he can identify them, why can't you?

And how, exactly, is "lots of steady work" by "the right" which is
"organized" a definition of the "Christian Right?"

Are you stating that merely because conservatives of various political and
religious persuasions work steadily and organize to achieve their common
political objectives that this makes them all members of the "Christian
Right?"

Care to support that specious assertion with some facts?
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Larry C says:
===============
The reason that I assert that the the the liberal left has lost touch
with America is that they have consisitantly lost ground in recent
elections to the Republic/moderate/right.

Frankly, I find the idea that since my guy didn't win, the people that
supported the winner are stupid and gullible as elitist at best.

But it's pretty evident from
recent elections that the Republicans have presented a program more to
their liking than the Democrats.
==============

Clearly, for you Americans, it is YOUR election and your government.
Unfortunately, as a nation, you are so powerful and influential that
who you elect has an impact on virtually every other soul on this
planet.

And we like it that way...and intend to keep it that way.

YOU may have decided that the Bush right-wing agenda is right
for America. Many (the vast majority) of us outside of the United
States do not agree.

Tough noogies. We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal
socialist agenda (or whatever dogma you prefer) merely because you don't
like our system of government.


I find it curious and disheartening that America can be so out of step
with prevailing global opinions.

Well, it's because we are smart enough to learn the lessons of history that
prove that socialism is an unworkable political concept and that
representative democracy and capitalism are the most effective way to ensure
liberty, freedom and justice for all.

The rest of the western world is
clearly "blue".

"Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
not sure about the former." Albert Einstein

Hopefully the rest of the western world will come to their senses.

There's a reason that we're the most powerful and influential nation on the
face of the earth, and socialism is not it.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:

BCITORGB wrote:


Clearly, for you Americans, it is YOUR election and your government.
Unfortunately, as a nation, you are so powerful and influential that
who you elect has an impact on virtually every other soul on this
planet. YOU may have decided that the Bush right-wing agenda is right
for America. Many (the vast majority) of us outside of the United
States do not agree.

Well said Wilf. It's funny to see people who are both politically almost
off the far right side of the political scale complain about their
differences. It's troubling to see the ones representing them not only
try to carry out those ideas inside the U.S. but also try to force them
onto the rest of the world. It's even more troubling to see that they
are trying to export that what they call "democracy".

Wah. Democracy works. Socialism doesn't. Just ask Stalin's victims.


I find it curious and disheartening that America can be so out of step
with prevailing global opinions. The rest of the western world is
clearly "blue". Likely we could color the prevailing
anti-intellectualism of places like Afghanistan and other
fundamentalist cultures "red".

It's very simple: the vast majority of the U.S. population just don't
care what anyone else outside the U.S. thinks. :-(

We care deeply what you think. We just think you're deluded and oppressed,
and we want to educate you about the benefits of representative democracy
and capitalism, which is what makes the US the most powerful, influential
and free nation on the planet. Caring about what you think does not mean
that we have to accept your fallacious dogmas.

Being that out of touch with the rest of the world and behaving like it
doesn't matter what anyone else thinks has one drawback though: it does
have its consequences when other people get it in their heads to make it
painfully clear to you that they have a differing opinion.

They're entitled to their opinion, even when it's wrong. What they're not
entitled to do is to oppress, enslave, torture, abuse and murder others
because their "opinion" is that they have some right to do so. When they
actualize such "opinions" and oppress others, then the US can, and will step
in to liberate the oppressed and destroy the tyrants. If you don't like
that, then don't oppress others.

Still,
nothing that can't be hidden (for a while) from the population through a
thick layer of propaganda...

I hope you're right, because that way, sooner or later, the veil of
socialist propaganda will be pierced and people will see that they can
obtain security, freedom and happiness by embracing representative democracy
and capitalism.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser