What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

California governor

  • Thread starter FinnishKid
  • Start date
  • #22
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll miss being able to vote by some 40 days but am following the election quite closely anyhow, and would love to know.
smile.gif
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Noah,

In California, the deadline to register to vote for an election is 15 days before each local and statewide election day, so you still have time. You could also register online -- https://ovr.ss.ca.gov/votereg/OnlineVoterReg
 
  • #23
Well the long and short of it is this. As long as there is this adversarial bipartison system of government, nothing is likely to change. Its truely shameful the way every time one side says anything, the opposition immediately begins discrediting and slandering the other side.. and BOTH parties are equally responsible for this. Every time an idea is brought forward there are 50 opponants who jump up and only look for negatives which in turn creates 50 of their opponants finding negatives in those comments and it goes on and on till millions of dollars are wasted and NOTHING gets solved. Why cant people just be good losers? If a Democrat is elected, then support him while he is in office, weather you be Republicain or Democrat. Work for the common good and not the good of the few who have the most money to funnel into their little "pet projects". I have long ago lost all faith in our government system, seeing the constant bickering and whining and complaining by both sides. All that is ever achieved is more unhappy people. Face it people.. no matter who is in office, someone is going to complain about the way he does his job. It sucks, but its true.

Steve
 
  • #24
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (buckeye @ Aug. 16 2003,8:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hi Buckeye,

<<<Actually the blackout was caused by an old power grid. If the liberal EPA environmentalists would have allowed the government to upgrade the grid then the blackout probably would not have happened.>>>


As far as I know the answer to the Blackout's cause is undetermined.

<<<Why shouldn't the millionaires get the biggest tax cut when they pay they pay by far the most taxes? I don't understand why someone who doesn't pay any taxes should get free money from the government.>>>


Your reasoning is too simplistic and individualistic. What you are basically saying is why should anyone do anything that does not suit their own interests or wishes. Society cannot work that way. Why shouldn't millionaires pay more; they benefit more from what society offers. There is not a person in this country who does not pay taxes if in no other way than by paying sales tax. Why should married people get tax breaks singles do not? Why should people with kids get tax breaks childless people do not? Why should home owners receive breaks? Why should the elderly? Again, society cannot function when ugly selfishness is presented as enlightened moral fairness.

<<<Social security was a flop because it was a pyramid system. There's suppose to be as many people paying in to it as it is paying out. But soon more people will be collecting than people paying in. This could be due to less population growth from birth control and abortion or it could just be the fact that people don't want to have as many kids anymore. It is not the Republican’s fault. By the way, Social Security was started by a Democrat named Franklin D. Roosevelt.>>>

SS is not a flop. Look, we have to pay to have the kind of fair, just, democratic society we profess to love. It's that simple. It is expensive and requires that we sacrifice for the good of all. We cannot have it all -- plain and simple. I want Civilization. If you want the law of the jungle have a ball.
Hopefully, people have fewer kids because they realize the world is overpopulated with human beings. We need to leave some space for a couple of flytraps!
Yes, SS was a Democratic idea and God Bless FDR -- our greatest President.


<<<Separation of church and state is made up from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. His intent was that the government would be separate from the church, not the church be separate from the government. He simply didn't want the government to take control of the church or religion. That's all there is to it.>>>

I doubt your facts here but true or not the only way to insure a fair secular society and freedom of all worship is to keep church and state as far a way from one another as is humanly possible. If the Founding Fathers -- who were anything but right wing Christians -- failed to see this then thank God more intelligent and insightful leaders followed who could correct their mistakes.

<<<The democrat left the state so they wouldn't have to vote. The Republicans didn't "chase" them out. The republicans wanted the Texas Rangers (not the Fed. gov't) to round up the democrats and bring them back so they could actually get some work done. The Democrats are also stalling Congress in an attempt to block all of the Bush Administration judges. Courts all over the US are extremely backed up due to there being such a shortage of judges. Republicans, under clinton's leadership, would ok judges as long as they were qualified and weren't too liberal. But the democrats won't even allow qualified very moderate republicans to be judges.>>>

Hmmm, let's see. The Repubs led by Tom DeLay in Washington are slamming through the session a bill that will eliminate the Democratic members' districts and turn those districts into guaranteed Repub districts. The Repubs will not take "No" for an answer and could care less about the wishes of the voters who put those Democrats into office -- Nahh, you are right. The Democratics were just lazy bums who decided to take a vacation as a group to Oklahoma and later New Mexico. Yeah, that's what happened. It was all simple, clean and pure. The Repubs were just hard working honest stiffs without any political agenda or ultimate plan. Not.
Actually, the Democratics have ok'd many more of the Repub judges than the Repubs ever did for Clinton. They fought his nominees like ####. The Democrats are only blocking a few right wing religious ideologus and bigots that Bush wants in to please his right wing voter base. It has nothing to do with justice at all. It is pure politics.
I especially like the right wing fanatic in Alabama who Bush wants on the Appeals Court but who is now defying the law and refusing to remove an unlawful monument of the 10 Commandments he had placed in the court house. Yeah, always got to have those lawbreakers as Judges.


<<<By the way, if clinton had done his job 9/11 might never have happened. Clinton should have taken out Al-Qaeda and Osama when they attacked the USS Cole on 10/12/2000. But being a draft dodger himself he wouldn’t want any conflict, so we did nothing. But you'd never hear that on our liberal national news.>>>

Well, if Clinton had not been fighting off a Repub coup at every turn and had not had "Wag The Dog" thrown in his face every time he made a move maybe he would have gotten Osama. He tried. When the Bushies went into office they basically did away with all the groundwork the Clinton White House had built on Osama. They were going to do it their way. Clinton was one kind a draft dodger -- a smart kind. Bush was another. Bush had a rich powerful Daddy to get him a placement in the Texas National Guard. Clinton did not. They both did essentially the same thing. I will say that Clinton at least had the class not to dress up as a fighter pilot! Ever notice in history that the Democrats fight the big tough long wars -- WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. The Repubs fight Grenada, Panama, Kuwait and Iraq. I think that is a telling little fact.
If you would turn off Fox News and listen to News not influenced by Bush family members or the right wing you might have a broader perspective.

Bobby
 
  • #25
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the liberal EPA environmentalists would have allowed the government to upgrade the grid then the blackout probably would not have happened.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Do you have proof to back this up? I don't think EPA was responsible for any of it.

What happened was that Northern California (NorCal) depends on power from the Pacific Northwest. There was a shortage of snowmelt, so NorCal didn't get much surplus power. Also, Colorado which supplies power to NorCal didn't have much surplus that year. Southern California (SoCal) had power, but the transmission lines couldn't handle the load. Matter of fact, Dept. of Water and Power in Los Angeles had a surplus of power.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why shouldn't the millionaires get the biggest tax cut when they pay they pay by far the most taxes? I don't understand why someone who doesn't pay any taxes should get free money from the government.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yet at the same time, ultra-rich elite members can write off more things, so that they pay less taxes than say a six-figure salary making middle-class member. Wouldn't that be free money?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This could be due to less population growth from birth control and abortion or it could just be the fact that people don't want to have as many kids anymore. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Umm, there are more people living today than in when the Social Security Act was passed in 1935. It's depleted from the Baby Boom generation who are living much longer than antcipated.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He simply didn't want the government to take control of the church or religion. That's all there is to it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

No it isn't. That's one interpretation of it. This link below will shed light to the other interpertations as well.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/viewidx.htm

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By the way, if clinton had done his job 9/11 might never have happened.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Or if the Republicans didn't spend extra resources on digging into Clinton's scandals, perhaps things would've been discovered earlier.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Clinton should have taken out Al-Qaeda and Osama when they attacked the USS Cole on 10/12/2000.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The problem began when the Reagan adminstration trained and gave weapons to the Afghanistan Freedom Fighters.
 
  • #26
Hi biggun110 and Emesis,

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yet at the same time, ultra-rich elite members can write off more things, so that they pay less taxes than say a six-figure salary making middle-class member.  Wouldn't that be free money?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I fail to see the connection here.  The "ultra-rich elite members" still pay income taxes even if they have some tax write offs.  Therefore they deserve to get a tax refund just like everyone else who pays taxes.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Umm, there are more people living today than in when the Social Security Act was passed in 1935.  It's depleted from the Baby Boom generation who are living much longer than antcipated.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I stated that there is less population growth not that there are less people now.  Yes you are right that the baby boomers caused this.  The baby boom includes people born between 1946 and 1964.  So some of the baby boomers have retired and when the rest retire social security will be almost used up.  I agree with you on this.  But the reason social security may be gone is because more people will be taking out than there are putting money in.  This is because the baby boomers had less kids than families did in the past.  Most parents had 1 or 2 kids instead of 3-5  in the past.


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No it isn't.  That's one interpretation of it.  This link below will shed light to the other interpertations as well.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I took a look at that site.  It showed the first ten words of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."  Umm tell me where in the 1st amendment it says anything about "separation of church and state."  It was written in a letter by Jefferson and the supreme court took the liberty to say it was in the constitution even though it was not.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or if the Republicans didn't spend extra resources on digging into Clinton's scandals, perhaps things would've been discovered earlier.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah right.  It was the republicans' fault that clinton lied every time he opened his mouth.  They shouldn't investigate a liar.  Everyone wants a president who lies uncontrollably.  Any how, even during the investigation clinton still read the reports and he knew osama was a threat but he chose to do nothing.  And before someone says Pres. Bush is liar because we haven't found WMD in Iraq yet, remember that Iraq had weeks to hide them.  Even if there were never any WMD in Iraq Bush still is not a liar.  He had intelligence that told him there were weapons of mass destruction there.  So he listened and believed what they said just like every other Pres. has.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Your reasoning is too simplistic and individualistic. What you are basically saying is why should anyone do anything that does not suit their own interests or wishes. Society cannot work that way. Why shouldn't millionaires pay more; they benefit more from what society offers. There is not a person in this country who does not pay taxes if in no other way than by paying sales tax. Why should married people get tax breaks singles do not? Why should people with kids get tax breaks childless people do not? Why should home owners receive breaks? Why should the elderly? Again, society cannot function when ugly selfishness is presented as enlightened moral fairness.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I don't follow.  How does wealthier people getting a tax cut cause selfishness?  I said millionaires deserve the biggest tax cut because they pay the most.  I didn't say they should pay the least income tax.  Rich do pay the most and it is evident in the following statistic. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income pay 37.42% of the federal taxes.  And the top 50% pays 96.09% of taxes.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Clinton was one kind a draft dodger -- a smart kind. Bush was another. Bush had a rich powerful Daddy to get him a placement in the Texas National Guard. Clinton did not. They both did essentially the same thing.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

So clinton was smart to abandon his country in a time of need?  Bush did serve his country in the National Guard, clinton did nothing.  So are you saying the National Guard is worthless?  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you would turn off Fox News and listen to News not influenced by Bush family members or the right wing you might have a broader perspective.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Nah.  I'll stick with "the fair and balanced news" and you can watch the Clinton News Network (CNN).


    -buckeye
 
  • #27
Hi Buckeye,

It's not that Bush outright lied about weapons of mass destruction it is that he probably did not present the objective truth of the available intelligence. Like in the case of Nigerian uranium in the State of the Union speech. It's not that he out and out lied -- he has plausible deniability -- it's just that he sold damaged goods as A number 1 top of the line Honest Injun facts. He may not lie but I now doubt his ability to objectively judge the intelligence he is given. He seems to see what he wants to see. Poor judgment is as bad a lying in the final analysis.
Clinton lied about sex. Big whoop. I never understood why Repubs hate him. He ended welfare as it was and in the manner the Repubs wanted. He gave big business Nafta. His whole concern was business, business, business. He led a great economy. Saved Mexico. Russia and the Far East from collapse economically. He believed in God. He went to church. He stayed married to one woman and raised a beautiful child. He was only a liberal when compared to the Pope. The Repub anger always just seemed like jealousy to me. Clinton won and they could not stand it and; furthermore, he was a better politician than any of them so he left Newtie and the gang bawling in the pig stye. But the Repubs would stop at nothing to get him, even if it meant holding the country hostage to all their schemes. I used to just disagree with Repubs. Now I find them disgusting.

If serving in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War is serving one's country then all the poor working class stiffs who did not have a rich powerful Daddy to twist an arm or call in a favor should have had the same choice as Bush -- they should have been able to gain all the glory and respect of service by sitting it out, not showing up and having a ball back stateside -- instead they died in mud. Bush got through his "service" like he got into Yale -- he's a Bush. If the man had class, he would admit just how priviledged he was and never never never pretend to a military legacy or record he in no way earned -- like landing on an aircraft in pilot drag for a photo-op. Tacky, Tacky, Tacky.

Bobby
 
  • #28
Okay.. I am staying out of this save for one point. LIBERAL IS NOT A BAD WORD! Please people, stop throwing it around like it is.

Get a dictionary, look it up, I think you'll be surprised.
 
  • #29
Hi Buckeye,

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The "ultra-rich elite members" still pay income taxes even if they have some tax write offs. Therefore they deserve to get a tax refund just like everyone else who pays taxes. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I agree they deserve refund as well, but I'm saying that they can claim more deductions than the a person who's not in their tax bracket.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I stated that there is less population growth not that there are less people now.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

True.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But the reason social security may be gone is because more people will be taking out than there are putting money in. This is because the baby boomers had less kids than families did in the past. Most parents had 1 or 2 kids instead of 3-5 in the past.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Even though the the number of Baby Boomer offsprings decreased, that generation was still able to reproduce their initial population size. So now we have both their generation and their offsprings, and their offsprings' offsprings are coming into play.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It was written in a letter by Jefferson and the supreme court took the liberty to say it was in the constitution even though it was not.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Well, the Supreme Court makes the final interpretation of our country's Law.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[Bush] had intelligence that told him there were weapons of mass destruction there. So he listened and believed what they said just like every other Pres. has.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Or he choose to believe in something regardless of the amount of (or lack of) evidence.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bush did serve his country in the National Guard, clinton did nothing.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Now, I'm not a Democrat, but I found this site which goes into Bush's National Guard serving.

http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=165

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll stick with "the fair and balanced news"...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I think most American journalism is tainted w/ sensonalism and similar views. It is because only a handful of coporations are owning the majority of the networks, driven by profit.
 
  • #30
One more thing, I came across this...

http://www.uaw.org/cap/01/news/day3media.html

I'll highlight the interesting part.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Wasting no time, delegate Charlie Cox from UAW Local 2162, who is a Vietnam veteran, set the tone by asking why George W. Bush got a free ride from the media regarding reports that he was AWOL during most of the time he served in the National Guard during the Vietnam war.

"Let me give you some statistics," responded panelist Paul Begala, "I worked for Bill Clinton in 1992 and …in anticipation of this very question, I looked this up on Nexis. There were 13,641 stories about Bill Clinton 'dodging the draft' …and there were 49 stories about Bush and the National Guard," Begala said.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
 
  • #31
Here is the simple truth people. Everything is for sale including your candidates. Check out "Project Vote Smart" and see what lobbyists are funneling monies to your "holier than thou" candidates. I have lost faith in the Republican party, but not in God Almighty,or His Son the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
  • #32
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now, I'm not a Democrat, but I found this site which goes into Bush's National Guard serving.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The problem i have with this site is the fact that it's democrats.com.  The title is "Bush's Top 10 Lies, Exaggerations And 'Obsfucations' About His Military Service."   This shows it's a very one sided story.  The site's goal is to defeat Bush so they take statements out of context and tweak things to make everything sound as bad as possible.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One more thing, I came across this...

http://www.uaw.org/cap/01/news/day3media.html
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

UAW is a powerful union with a liberal agenda.  They want democrats in office so they put stories like this on their site to influence people.  Again it is not an unbiased story.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Clinton lied about sex. Big whoop.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The problem is clinton's lie was perjury before a grand jury.  If he had admitted to the jury that he had sexual relations with Monica then he would not have been impeached.  He simply would have been unfaithful to his wife.  Having an affair is still morally wrong but is not illegal and would not have caused clinton to be impeached.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He led a great economy.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Presidents have no control over the economy.  The economy is a business cycle.  It goes from recovery (Clinton Pres.) to a peak (Clinton also pres.) to a recession (end of Clinton Pres., beginning of Bush Pres.) to a trough (low point of recession, Bush pres.).  We are now back into the recovery part of the cycle.  Soon we will be back to the strong economy present during clinton's presidency.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He believed in God. He went to church. He stayed married to one woman and raised a beautiful child.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

If you're trying to make him sound moral then you're wrong.  He was not a moral man.  Believing in God and going to church does not mean anything if you live like he did. He lied to everyone in this country.  He chased women.  He had affairs with some of them.  Also, He and his wife were involved in scams, like white water, to make some money at other's expense.  I will never ever respect this man.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I used to just disagree with Repubs. Now I find them disgusting.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That’s funny i feel the same way about democrats.  They'll say something one time and then say the complete opposite another time.  They say whatever makes people happy at the time, even if they have to flat out lie.


  -buckeye
 
  • #33
Hi Buckeye,


Here's some questions for you. Do Republicans ever lie? Do they ever spin the facts to make their candidate or position look better than they are? Do they make websites and press statements that take Democrat's history and positions out of context to serve election ends? Did Reagan and Bush #1 lie about Iran Contra? Do you feel Bush's Vietnam era military service record is crystal clean and is the same as some poor working stiff who was drafted into the infrantry? Do you feel it was anyone's place to ask Clinton about his sex life and do you feel those like Linda Tripp on were only concerned for the national character and were utterly devoid of private and political agendas? Do you feel such a lie warrants impeachment? Do you think Bush always tells the truth? If Presidents have no influence over economic matters why did Bush run on being a business man? If the Clinton made money on shady deals what about Bush being "bought" out of failed oil businesses and being made a millionaire through the Texas Rangers? All those "deals" were kosher -- not just "legal" -- but ETHICALLY kosher? Remember you are attacking Demos and Clinton on ethics and he who throws the first stone must be PURE himself. Are your guys PURE?

Bobby
 
  • #34
hi biggun110,


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do Republicans ever lie? Do they ever spin the facts to make their candidate or position look better than they are? Do they make websites and press statements that take Democrat's history and positions out of context to serve election ends?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yes some do lie. I never said they didn't. Yes most politicians do spin facts to their advantage. This is all part of the political game. And yes there are pro-republican websites.  I never said there aren't republican websites that tear apart democrats because there are some.  And the stories are one-sided just like the democrats.com stories.  I merely said that in a discussion, one-sided stories should not be used as the ultimate truth.  Which is why i never used facts from rushlimbaugh.com in my responses.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you feel it was anyone's place to ask Clinton about his sex life and do you feel those like Linda Tripp on were only concerned for the national character and were utterly devoid of private and political agendas?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

When the President of the US, who represents us Americans to the rest of the world, is having an affair i think it is our business.  When someone become president they no long have a personal life.  Their entire lifelong history is open to the public.  This ranges from affairs to smoking marijuana in college, all of this information becomes public knowledge when a man become president.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you feel such a lie warrants impeachment?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Do you even have to ask me?  Of course lying under oath to a grand jury and obstruction of justice warrants impeachment.  Nixon lied about a scandal and he would have been impeached.  Fortunately he had the guts to resign. Clinton, on the other hand, decided to continue to be a national embarrassment and refused to resign.  So you see there is a difference in the character of  republicans and democrats.  Republicans, for the most part, do what is best for the country.  Democrats do what is best for themselves.  This was made more evident after Al Gore's crying refusal to concede the 2000 election.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If Presidents have no influence over economic matters why did Bush run on being a business man?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Presidents have no control over the economy.  The economy is a business cycle.  Presidents can try to get tax cuts or they can try to increase gov't spending in order to jump start the economy.  However, they have absolutely no control over when the economy is booming or when it's in recession.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are your guys PURE?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I never said my guys are "pure."  No one human being is perfect.   I just think republicans try harder to be than demos do.



   -buckeye
 
  • #35
I stopped at about the hundreth post. Lest face it. The economy has gone to $#!(.
 
  • #36
Mat_man44, the economy didn't go to #$#@, the truth it, I'm amazed at our economy, after 9/11 we noticed many changes, and then our economy went down, but we are recovering slowly, and we are notcing more things about ourselves as a country that we didn't realize before. So, I think our economy is actually getting better in some ways, even though some of this politicians things just doesn't make any sense
 
  • #37
If you are offended by frank analysis of politics and uncomfortable with the practical underpinnings of religion…don’t read this post.

Dear fellow CP lovers:

At the risk of offending everyone, I felt compelled to post the following in response to the discussion of the recall election underway in California.  The conversation seems to have drifted substantially from the recall to the state of American politics in general.  I think that if you read carefully and think critically, you will find that there is more commonality than difference.  So, with that in mind I will tread in with my two cents.  I would like to address some of the most salient points mentioned in the preceding posts.  During which I will attempt to avoid castigating any one political party or individual or religious viewpoint.  So here it goes:

1. The Preservation of Our Republic is Dependent of the Separation of Church and State

Throughout history, religion and politics have often been wedded together, with spectacularly disastrous results.  Barring the Pharonic models employed in the mono-cultural environments of ancient Egypt and Imperial China, most theocracies have led to religious persecution, war/crusades, and the subjugation of human rights in the name of temporal religious authority.  Europe was racked for centuries by religious war and persecution.   For centuries prior to the Reformation, Europe was held in the iron grip of a Catholic Church more concerned with material wealth and temporal authority than true salvation.  The Spanish Inquisition was centuries old institution intent of rooting out heresy, demons, and Jews.  

The founding fathers need only have observed recent British history to determine the need to keep spiritual authorities out of government.  Henry VIII decision to break with the Catholic Church and assume the mantle of spiritual leader led to a vicious cycle of violence that continues even today (see N. Ireland).  The bloody mary cocktail (a Sunday brunch favorite of mine) takes its name from Henry’s eldest daughter, Mary I, who attempted to squash religious tolerance through the immolation of over 300 people.  The situation improved dramatically with ascension of Elizabeth I, who nominally divested herself of religious authority.  Instead, she transformed herself into the personification of the State, creating a mystique of a virgin queen (sound familiar).

The Puritans did not land on Plymouth Rock out of some drive for religious freedom.  No, they were driven from Britain when Oliver Cromwell’s ultra-conservative religious Commonwealth failed.  All of this and more weighed heavily on the minds of the Founding Fathers when they drafted the Constitution.  They were intimately familiar with oppression by not only kings and parliaments, but of Popes and Archbishops.  They were well aware that government should create a neutral environment for religion (and in their world-view, Christian religion) so society would not devolve into religious violence.  The government heretofore has worked hard not to advocate the superiority of one religion over the other.

Today however, we have government officials advocating the establishment of an official endorsement for the Ten Commandments, the codification of marriage based on religious principle, and the restriction of intimate relationships based on ancient tribal customs.  The Federal Government should take no position on these matters; we have a rule of law that is based not on spiritual principles, but on individual freedom.  It is the responsibility of the government then to reconcile the individual’s needs and the survival of the entire society.

A monument to the Ten Commandments doesn’t have to appear in a federal courthouse for people to respect and obey them.  Most of the Commandments are already laws and principles espoused by all major world religions…but the display does constitute an official endorsement of Judeo-Christian philosophy.  Furthermore, what is the logical conclusion of this policy?  Does a Jewish Justice get to display a monument to the Torah, would a Muslim Justice get a monument to the Quran?  Hopefully, it is clear that the federal establishment of religion would create an untenable situation of intimidation and social injustice.  

If, for arguments sake, we stuck with Christianity as the official state religion, whose brand would it be?  Which, of the myriad denominations, should the state endorse?  I fancy myself somewhat of a connoisseur of Protestantism and I can tell you that they are all very different in feel and form.

A look around the world today shows you that no major political/economic power is a theocracy or religious oligarchy.  Most democracies officially espouse secular humanism that respects all religions and none. The Middle-East is a mess, rife with corrupt men who oppress and subjugate their populations in the name of God.  The House of Saud, for example, is charged with the protection of Mecca and Medina and the continuance of the Hajj; not with becoming rich off Western oil addictions, but I digress.

But this whole movement plays into a larger American socio-political context which will be discussed later.

2. American Politics is as Pure as Mud

I was struck by a comment by a participant that one party attempts to be more pure than the other.  It strikes me as a bit inane, but I’ll address it anyway.  American society, despite the best intentions, has undergone significant stratification…resulting in the emergence of a powerful political class.  This political class is not truly interested in governing for the establishment of the common good, but for its own sake (read power hungry).  A great thinker once said “Power doesn’t corrupt, it attracts the corruptible”.  This phenomenon transcends party lines an affiliation, it is merely the current paradigm that we live in and accept.  Note that it is commonly assumed that politicians lie, that they will say anything to be elected.  The ruling class, as have all members of that niche throughout history, will work consistently to consolidate their own power; often to the detriment of their subjects.

It is demonstrable that power structures tend to attract people who want power for the sake of power and that a significant proportion of such people are imbalanced-in a word, insane.- Frank Herbert

What then is the solution?  Simply fund all elections publicly.  The current system encouraged the wealthier among us to enter into government and adjust the system for their own good, and not the good of all.  Large corporations and individual donors can purchase access to policy and politicians that most citizens can not.  The viewpoint that those who make the most are somehow more worthy than others for special treatment is silly and naïve (notice how I didn’t say pay the most, if you combine state tax, payroll tax, and sales tax…middle class and lower income earners pay the most in a regressive tax environment that favors the rich…even before the Bush tax cut).  The common good of the nation is more important than a factory, energy company, or oil executive.  Corporations and financial interests are not entitled to representation, especially at the expense of the citizenry.

Republicans, Democrats, and Independents have all been compromised by this type of bribery.  The degree to which you think this is so is dependent upon your party affiliation.
But here is some food for thought (count the zeros while you are at it):

*1998 George H. Bush wrote to the Oil Minister of Kuwait (on Presidential Stationary) on behalf of Chevron Oil.  Later, Chevron donates $657,000 to the Republican Party

*The same as above earned $13,000,000 from his Global Crossing stock when it went public.  Global Crossing also kicked in $1,000,000 into his son’s campaign for president.

*The same president as above changed an 1872 Mining Law to allow Barrick Gold Strike to purchase $1,000,000,000 in gold ore rights from the U.S. government for $10,000.  George H Bush is the Honorary Senior Advisor to the company’s International Advisory Board.

*The current George Bush needs $200,000,000 to win (buy?) another election for the good of the country.

That doesn’t seem very pure to me and it doesn’t even cover the Florida election debacle where Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris decided thousands of black folks shouldn’t vote.  Or the money trail from the Bin Laden family to the Bush Family corporate interests.  But I guess all this was done in the interest in the country…I can sleep better now.  By the way Gore didn’t concede the election for one simple reason, he won it.  ‘Nuf said.

*For more on the above, check out the extremely well written and DOCUMENTED The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast. It should really be called, The best $14.00 you will ever spend.  I’ve purchased and donated several dozen copies, heck I give them away for free when I’m on airplanes.

3. Economic Policy of the Current Administration

It is true that economic fortunes are cyclical in nature.  It is also true that President of U.S. in truth has very little control over the economic engine of the economy (neither does Congress, they ceded that power to the Central Bank long ago).  The president and his team can advocate large scale economic policy to Congress such as tax cuts, brackets, and spending schemes.  However, we have a situation where one wealthy businessman has decided to conduct a fire sale from the Whitehouse and call it economic recovery.  The economy is suffering because the largest spender (read the government) doesn’t have any money.  Government revenues are always spent, and they are spent in the private sector.  The federal government has curtailed its revenues, and by law state governments have had to reduce their payroll tax revenues as well.  Now Joe Sixpack has an extra $300 to go shop at the mall.  Wow!  

I’m not upset or disturbed that millionaires and billionaires will be able to afford that extra Porsche or new house in the Hamptons.  I am concerned about the logical consequence of all these tax cuts; the elimination of federal and state programs, i.e. Social Security and Public Education.  If the president is an honest man, as many claim he is, he should level with America and say the government shouldn’t be involved in these endeavors and here is your money back.  Instead, he has chosen a backdoor approach to starve these programs of funding, precipitating their collapse…so they can be snatched up later for bargain prices under a privatization scheme.  Never before has an administration had such contempt for working class people and the institutions that serve them as this one.

If the president really wanted to drive the economy he would push to eliminate payroll tax on the first $40,000 of income for individuals.  To those of you not yet in the real world (paying bills and working full time) making $40,000/year or less in San Francisco sucks.  This would affect a huge portion of society…people would actually be able to save money instead of living paycheck to paycheck. Not only that it would encourage companies to hire workers...employers have to match the some of the taxes removed from your paychecks. On second thought though, I have my $300 so I'm o.k. GWB should look not to Ronald Reagan but to FDR, people need jobs...working people grow economies, not trickle down economics. And lets face it, his own dad called it voodoo economics.

The result of these rabid kick-backs to the rich will be the elimination of the middle-class.  The middle class is an unnecessary component in a free market anyway.  Wealth will continue to be consolidated while the ‘middle classes’ are squeezed by property and income tax legislation enacted on the state level to makeup for declining payroll revenues.  But if you’ve never received a $5000 property tax bill, you probably wouldn’t know that. Nor would you know it if you are still in HS/college, but again, I digress.



O.k.  So, I castigated one party more than another…but unfortunately it’s all true.  The Republic is in serious trouble, but people are too focused on the acquiring the biggest SUV and the largest house that they don’t have time to pay attention to a tyrannical government heck-bent on rewarding wealthy cronies with generous kickbacks.  They call is an 'aspirational culture', as if hyper consumerism is a good thing.

What really is going on here is two competing visions for the future of the county.

One wants to move the country back into a time economic and social Jim-Crow wrapped in a religious myth fabric.  The creation of a religious oligarchy.  Class warfare is real and is occurring every time taxes for the very few are cut at the expense of many.  I’m sure you can guess which party platform that is.  

Another seeks a progressive stance and acknowledges that people are not created equally but they are equal under the law…but that understands since people administer the law there will be flaws.  That people have the right to self determination and happiness no matter their socio-economic status, race, gender, or sexual orientation.

I don’t want to get into any flaming contests on this listserve, so if you have any angry responses to this post, e-mail me.  I’ll gladly conduct intelligent dialogue with anyone interested.

Peace

Damon
 
Back
Top