POLITICALLY CORRECT THINKING

[johnnymk]

1) Everyone is Equal (but somehow different)
2) Rich people got that way illegally
(therefore they should pay a whole lot
more taxes)
3) There is no life before birth,
therefore, abortion is OK
4) There is no boss in marriage
5) Successful relations demand living
together first.
6) Guns kill people.
7) The government will solve all of man's
problems.
8) Throw enough money at a problem and it
will be solved.
9) Globalism is good for America.
10)A man's character has nothing to do with
his ability to govern
11)All roads lead to God
12)The Christian right is the source of most
of America's problems.
13)Evolution can be proven by the Scientific
method, and is therefore a Fact
14)Homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle
and affects no one

And finally, if you don't believe all of the
above, you are a bigot, prejudiced, or are
mentally unstable.


[Edited by johnnymk on 07-03-2001 at 02:29 PM]

[zenbooty]

Somebody's bitter!

[ironchef]

Originally posted by zenbooty
Somebody's bitter!
christian fundamentalism will do that to a person...

[froggystyle]

conservative right wing thinking

1) Every White anglo saxon christian uppermiddle class or above male is equal(everyone else is inferior)
2) Rick people should pay less taxes than poor people
3) There is potential life even before people think of conceiving and therefore must
4) Women are servants to man
5) Successful relationships demand the female be submissive to all the mans needs and not have any of her own.
6) Rock music kills people.
7) God will solve all of mans problems.
8) Throw enough money at corporations and unrelated problems will be solved.
9) America doesnt need anyones help.
10)A man's character is more important than his ability to govern
11)Only the christian road leads to god
12)Marilyn manson is the source of most
of America's problems.

And finally, if you don't believe all of the
above, you are a blasphemous, ignorant, dopehead lunatic

[froggystyle]

sorry what i ment to say was conservative right wing christian fundamentalist thinking

[topane]

No, no. This is the correct way of thinking:

1) Everyone is equal, except for me
2) All taxes should be given to me
3) Abortion is bad, unless your daughter's knocked up by some coke-snorting loser from down the road. Then it's OK. Just don't tell anyone
4) I am my wife's boss
5) I am your boss, too
6) Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people
7) Your problems are not mine
8) If you give me enough money, I'll have no problems
9) America is a bunch of self-centered lunatics
10) A man's character is not as important as how well he lies when he's caught
11) All roads lead to other roads, which lead to other roads, which eventually end at the ocean. Drive until the bubbles stop
12) Television is the source of America's problems

[mojo]

someone needs to insert:

i am right. if you don't agree, you're an idiot.
i don't have to consider your point of view.
anything that <insert name here> says has to be wrong or idiotic.
i am infallible in my thinking.
i don't have a complex.
i don't dwell on things.
i have to blame others for every little thing. it's the law of the land.
everything everyone says about my views in disagreement is a personal attack.
hate is good.
it's best to disparage others.
i am not loud and opinionated....ever.

[froggystyle]

I stand corrected.

Actually the funny thing about this is that i generaly lean more to the right than the left (cept for religion abortion and drugs) I just dont like fundamentalist extremist views that infringe upon others rights. just cause i dont belive in the christian god does not make me a bad person and doesnt make me deserving of eternal damnation. I also happen to to treat my significant other with the same amount of respect that she treats me, nobody is the boss of anyone. Cept my boss at work shes the boss of me and shes pissed at me right now for typing away on the net. Thats all.

Oh and one more thing..I certanly dont condemn jonnymk for his views. He has a right to say what he wants and belive what he wants.

[Ice-9]

Originally posted by topane

11) All roads lead to other roads, which lead to other roads, which eventually end at the ocean. Drive until the bubbles stop

LOL :heh:

Nice.

[LPMiller]

Originally posted by froggystyle
conservative right wing thinking


2) Rick people should pay less taxes than poor people


dammit, I hate Rick people. And I hate Richards even more.

[froggystyle]

ok ya got me. cant you just let it die

[johnnymk]

topane..... you are definitely funny LOL

[Markel]

"There are two great rules of life, the one
general and the other particular. The first
is that everyone can, in the end, get what
he wants if he only tries. This is the
general rule. The particular rule is that
every individual is more or less an
exception to the general rule." - Samuel
Butler, English author (1835-1902).

[Grimm]

I'm going with mojorisin's rules.

[welfareloser]

ow, side stitch... lol

but y'all forgot a few....

13)the more missing links scientists find, the more spaces there are between links, therefore, since there is an ever-increasing number of missing links, evolution is stupid, see? i proved it! duh! science is dumb, and if you don't believe me, ask me about the polonium halos, which prove that the earth is a very biblical 6000 years young...

14)the homosexuals next door are sucking the virtue out of my household, and if they go near my eagle scout son, he damn well knows what to do with his fine collection of "hunting rifles"


okay, come on... i have to respond to the evolution one... there is a scientific method. we scientists use it to figure out useful things. nothing in science is fact, anything can be disproven by better information later down the road of discovery... the body of scientific knowledge is constantly being reshaped by better observations... and evolution is about as close to fact as it gets in science... and if you don't want to believe in it, that's fine... just don't start spouting shit about contrary evidence, because 99% of the tangible evidence points toward evolution, and that's why scientists are pretty much convinced that that's what happened, can you blame them?!?!?! ... not believing in evolution is fine, it is also highly unscientific... so if you don't wanna believe in evolution, fine, just don't say you can disprove it, cause you can't.

and of course there's a boss in every marriage. if she doesn't buy it, beat her into submission. no fists necessary, just belittle her a lot, she'll come around to the correct point of view.

dammit, i get so homicidal when i read diatribe like this... it's so black and white and disconnected from reality...

i would call the man a troll, except that i'm pretty sure that he's really goddamned sincere, which just scares the holy poop out of me...

[sbp]

Political correctness sucks

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by sbp
Political correctness sucks
Of course it does. I mean, it's much better to go snorting and drinking through your young life and then...oh, become President of the United States.

Ha. A cheap shot. I couldn't resist.

As for johnnymk, I think your list should be retitled "Here's what doesn't further the white fundamentalist christian agenda...and I'm a mysoginist to boot". Keep on hunkering in your bunker, and good luck shooting down the black helicopters.

[sbp]

At least he didn't draft dodge.

[froggystyle]

no he just pussed out and joined the national guard

[mojo]

Originally posted by sbp
At least he didn't draft dodge.

yes!!!!!!!!! (er....."booyah, granma" or something like that dribble)

not to mention countless other acts which are mentioned in the post to which yours rebuts. these alleged acts could have been also done by a more stealthy predecessor.

but who really cares in the end. he could still be a good man despite all the naysayers. and i don't care if it costs me popularity points for saying so. nya :P

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp
At least he didn't draft dodge.

No, he just had his connections get him into a "safe" National Guard unit flying obsolete planes that had next to NO chance of seeing any action.

And then didn't show up for a good chunk of his commitment.

That's a MUCH more honorable way to serve, isn't it? :rolleyes:

[sbp]

afaik Bush performed his national guard duties just fine.

It seems you gents have a problem with the national guard fulfilling military service obligations. Take it up with those who decide such things. Tell them you also think student deferments were a bunch of crap.
http://pages.prodigy.net/gbruck/tourduty.htm

[mojo]

sbp, you have a guts to show everyone what's what. unfortunately a decision has been made. when people are determined to find something wrong with something, they will be successful. it's not so difficult to do.

your sig sums it up pretty well ;)

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp
afaik Bush performed his national guard duties just fine.

It seems you gents have a problem with the national guard fulfilling military service obligations.

I have no problem with people serving in the National Guard to complete their service. I'm a little disappointed when people join the National Guard, and then just skip out....

"Contrary to Bush's emphatic statements and several published reports, Bush never actually reported in person for the last two years of his service – in direct violation of two separate written orders. "

"Astonishingly, Bush suddenly disappeared from the skies altogether near the start of his fourth year. Bush flew for the last time in the cockpit of an F-102 in April of 1972. From that point on, Bush never flew again, in spite of the fact that he still had two full years remaining of his six-year pilot service commitment. And on May 15, 1972, Bush simply "cleared this base" according to a written report by one of his two Squadron supervising officers, Lt. Col. William D. Harris Jr.

On May 24, Bush requested in writing a six-month transfer to an inactive postal Reserve unit in Alabama, for the stated purpose of working on the campaign of a Republican Senate candidate. If Bush had been temporarily transferred there, he would not have continued flying until he returned to Texas, because the Alabama unit had no airplanes.

In fact, Bush's transfer request was denied by National Guard Bureau headquarters on May 31 1972, and Bush should have returned to his base in Houston and continued with his flying duties. Instead, he remained in Alabama until late in the fall. And something critical happened on August 1, 1972 – George W. Bush was summarily suspended from flying duties."

Oh, there's lots more good stuff, too. WHY he was suspended for the last two years is a big question. However, since the Board of Inquiry records are now MISSING, we might never know. Odd that they should disappear. Sounds vaguely Clinton-esque!



[Edited by jase71 on 07-05-2001 at 11:53 AM]

[sbp]

See folks this is very sad. Bill Clinton with his lies and twisted behavior has so denigrated the presidency we expect future presidents to be like that lying, pond scum sucking pos! :disa:

[LPMiller]

Originally posted by sbp
Great. Four more years of whining

Making it alot like the last 8, only with different whiners.

[mojo]

Originally posted by LPM

Originally posted by sbp
Great. Four more years of whining

Making it alot like the last 8, only with different whiners.

lol! got a link to those posts, LPM? i hope they match in numbers......we can prorate for the amount of time in office.

[sbp]

haha it won't even be close!

[sbp]

Hey Miller how does this grab ya:

__________________
Great. Eight years of whining. (http://sbp777777.homestead.com/files/democraticpartyseal.jpg) http://sbp777777.homestead.com/files/crying.gif

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp
See folks this is very sad. Bill Clinton with his lies and twisted behavior has so denigrated the presidency we expect future presidents to be like that lying, pond scum sucking pos! :disa:

http://www.smokingjet.com

Links added

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/One_year_gap_in_Bush_s_Guard_duty+.shtml

http://tompaine.com/opinion/2000/09/27/index.html



Sponsored by democrats.com. The site is obviously biased, by no worse than some of the Anti-Clinton sites I've seen over the last 8 or 9 years that have been treated as gospel by conservatives.

And, if you'd really like to see it all without the commentary, you can find exactly the same info by filing a Freedom of Information Act request for Bush's military records.

Now see folks, this is very sad. Those folks that lambasted Clinton for his poor military record somehow see the same failings as excusable when it's their own boy as president. Double Standard? Why aren't conservatives digging into this potential scandal? Because Bush is a Republican, and these things only matter if you're a Democrat.



[Edited by jase71 on 07-05-2001 at 12:26 PM]

[mojo]

ok...everyone check your pulse.....be sure you're at optimum level for this exercise.....don't overdo it

[sbp]

It sure it a double standard. Folks that defended their own boy Clinton as president for his poor military record now lambast Bush for his military record.

[jase71]

Originally posted by mojorisin
lol! got a link to those posts, LPM?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com :D

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp
It sure it a double standard. Folks that defended their own boy Clinton as president for his poor military record now lambast Bush for his military record.

I never defended his military record. It's pretty obvious what his military record is.

But then, Clinton didn't claim to be from the Party of Personal Responsibility, did he? :)

Or the party that was going to bring Dignity and Respect back to the Whitehouse! :)

Clinton's military record was embarassing. It was a target of ridicule by Republicans for 8 years. Why is Bush's military record now suddenly not germain? Why is questioning it now a low blow after what Republicans did for 8 years?

[eSDee]

Originally posted by sbp
It sure it a double standard. Folks that defended their own boy Clinton as president for his poor military record now lambast Bush for his military record.

It seems to me you can't defend unless you are first accused(in this case anyways). The Republicans accused Clinton of having a shady military record first, and the Democrats defended him. Now the Republicans are trying to defend Bush from the same tactics that they used against Clinton. A double standard? Absolutely. Started by the Republicans!!

I have decided to give Bush a chance and not ridicule each and everything stupid he does. However those Republicans who believe that Bush should be exempt from the same questions that were thrust upon Clinton are hypocrites. You can't have it both ways. Either throw mud or don't throw mud. You can't toss a mudpie at your opponent's girlfriend, and not expect retaliation.

This carousel of bickering and mudslinging is never going to end, as long as Republicans and Democrats are the only two parties that even have a chance of gaining office. What we need is a third party to mix it up a bit. Why don't we all drop our party affiliations next time and just vote independent?

[mojo]

Originally posted by jase71

Originally posted by mojorisin
lol! got a link to those posts, LPM?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com :D


thanks, LPM. now how about a link to a GA thread....

:disa: you can't find, cuz they don't exist. some statements can't be supported.......

[sbp]

Originally posted by jase71

Originally posted by mojorisin
lol! got a link to those posts, LPM?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com :D



Funny. I didn't know gotapex was affiliated with limbaugh.

[sbp]

Originally posted by jase71

Originally posted by sbp
It sure it a double standard. Folks that defended their own boy Clinton as president for his poor military record now lambast Bush for his military record.

I never defended his military record. It's pretty obvious what his military record is.

But then, Clinton didn't claim to be from the Party of Personal Responsibility, did he? :)

Or the party that was going to bring Dignity and Respect back to the Whitehouse! :)

Clinton's military record was embarassing. It was a target of ridicule by Republicans for 8 years. Why is Bush's military record now suddenly not germain? Why is questioning it now a low blow after what Republicans did for 8 years? I never said you did that now did I buddy? :)

Clinton said his administration would be the most ethical ever. Well was it?

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by sbp
Clinton said his administration would be the most ethical ever. Well was it?

WHEN did he say that? I certainly don't remember.

[sbp]

Originally posted by EsDeeLoco
It seems to me you can't defend unless you are first accused(in this case anyways). The Republicans accused Clinton of having a shady military record first, and the Democrats defended him. Now the Republicans are trying to defend Bush from the same tactics that they used against Clinton. A double standard? Absolutely. Started by the Republicans!!

I have decided to give Bush a chance and not ridicule each and everything stupid he does. However those Republicans who believe that Bush should be exempt from the same questions that were thrust upon Clinton are hypocrites. You can't have it both ways. Either throw mud or don't throw mud. You can't toss a mudpie at your opponent's girlfriend, and not expect retaliation.

This carousel of bickering and mudslinging is never going to end, as long as Republicans and Democrats are the only two parties that even have a chance of gaining office. What we need is a third party to mix it up a bit. Why don't we all drop our party affiliations next time and just vote independent? Why is okay for Democrats to defend Clintons sad draft record but not for Republicans to defend Bush's record? And therein lies another double standard.

And what happened to Bill Clinton over his draft dodging ways? Nothing. So what do you expect to happen if anything shady turns up about Bush record? :hmm:

"I have decided to give Bush a chance and not ridicule each and everything stupid he does." Too bad others around here don't do this.

And aren't the Democrats who defended Clinton and now lambast Bush hypocrites?

By the way EsDeeLoco this type of mudslinging has been going on for a long time. You should have seen some of the crap said about Reagan. Crap like he was starving the poor, wanted to make people homeless (remember Mitch Snyder anyone?) and didn't care about people with aids. :rolleyes:

[sbp]

Originally posted by zenbooty

Originally posted by sbp
Clinton said his administration would be the most ethical ever. Well was it?

WHEN did he say that? I certainly don't remember. At the beginning of his presidency Clinton promised
the "most ethical administration in history".

[Ice-9]

Someone remind me to not bother reading any political thread in the future. If anyone is interested in my political views, they are as follows:

Party: Democrat
Abortion: Pro-Choice
Gun Control: Pro
Education: Pro
Environment: Pro
Thoughts on Clinton: Good president, lousy guy
Thoughts on the Shrub: Dumb as a post, hopefully won't screw up the country too badly

But I don't feel the need to convince anyone else of the demonstrable correctness of my views. So if someone wants to argue with me over the power handling of a JBL speaker or the displacement of a C2 Turbo engine, I'll gladly oblige, but you won't see me in any more of these political threads. They give me a headache. Buh-bye!

[LPMiller]

What the hell am I getting attacked for? I wasn't even talking about gotapex for christ sake. We've had 8 years of Republican whining. Period. We'll have at least four of Democrat whining. Period. 8 doesn't seem likely, but you never know. It isn't a statement based on party lines, or anything like that, just a simple fact that when one side is in, all the other side does is bitch.

Which grates, dulls, and likely is the biggest reason for voter apathy. Repubs spent 8 years campaiging for President, slid in, and now we get to have 4 years of democrats doing it. It's a joke. It's sad.

You best get those "he's a liberal" daggers lines away from me right now, because I ain't.

[mojo]

i came here to escape reality....not relive it

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp

Originally posted by jase71

Originally posted by mojorisin
lol! got a link to those posts, LPM?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com :D



Funny. I didn't know gotapex was affiliated with limbaugh.

Ah, I see. Whining only counts if it's on GotApex?

I think 8 years of Limbaugh whining outweighs ANYTHING that could go on here on GotApex!

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp
Why is okay for Democrats to defend Clintons sad draft record but not for Republicans to defend Bush's record? And therein lies another double standard.

Problem is, I haven't heard anyone DEFEND Bush's record yet. Just ignore it, or try and hide it.

The problem lies in that Republicans were first to the attack. They first attacked Clinton's record. (And rightfully so, if you feel that that's important).

When they did that, they opened themselves up to scrutiny about their own candidate's record.

Had Republicans left Clinton alone about his record, it would be unfair to question Bush on his. But they didn't leave Clinton alone. They hounded him. So turnabout is fair play.



And what happened to Bill Clinton over his draft dodging ways? Nothing. So what do you expect to happen if anything shady turns up about Bush record? :hmm:

Shady stuff has already turned up about Bush's record. And what has happened? Nothing!

But I hope you're not suggesting that just because Clinton dodged the draft with academic deferrments that Bush should be allowed to get away with being AWOL for two years. Two wrongs don't make a right. Reagan scraped by without being impeached, when he probably should have. Does that mean we should have just let Clinton off the hook? I don't think so...



"I have decided to give Bush a chance and not ridicule each and everything stupid he does." Too bad others around here don't do this.

Ya know, I've been pretty light on Bush's decisions since he's become president. He handled China reasonably well.
I've stated that he's not responsible for the economic downturn, because he hasn't been in office long enough to have much effect yet. Only on the tax cut details has he really annoyed me. He's done a passable, although not brilliant, job as president so far.

But that's not the issue here, is it? You wanted to bring up the draft dodging issue, sbp. You mentioned it first.
I'm just responding to that!



And aren't the Democrats who defended Clinton and now lambast Bush hypocrites?

No more than the Republicans who attacked Clinton who now defend Bush. Both are probably hypocritical.

Luckily, if you don't blindly follow one party or the other, you can recognize that both Clinton AND Bush are
pretty unethical, and have some pretty serious questions about their past.


By the way EsDeeLoco this type of mudslinging has been going on for a long time. You should have seen some of the crap said about Reagan. Crap like he was starving the poor, wanted to make people homeless (remember Mitch Snyder anyone?) and didn't care about people with aids. :rolleyes:

Pfft. He was much too busy selling arms to Iran to illegally fund the Contras to worry about poor people! :) Kidding!

[Edited by jase71 on 07-06-2001 at 05:24 AM]

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp


Clinton said his administration would be the most ethical ever. Well was it?

<chuckle> Nope.

Reagan said his big tax cuts would have the budget balanced by 1984. Well was it? :D

We can play "election promises" all day. If you wanna play "ethics", we can compare Clinton to Bush Sr. and Reagan. There's enough meat there to keep both of us busy for a long time to come. Croooked across the board. Not fair to pick on GW yet, since he hasn't been in office long enough to have too many moral dilemmas.

[Markel]

One difference (definitely not the only!) I see between George W and Clinton. When some things were brought up, GW admitted he'd made mistakes in the past (drinking problem, drunk driving conviction, etc.), AND he has show (as far as I can tell) that he has made some changes in his life with regard to them. But it seems like whenever Clinton was put on the spot he just tried to lie his way around it ("I didn't inhale", "no sex with her", etc.) until he was confronted with irrefutable (dna) evidence. Then he just tried to say "I'm sorry" and pretend that it never happened.

Unfortunately, I think that our political system is so messed up that I can't fully trust anyone who has an advanced political posistion. There's just too much "politics" involved. Maybe that's the message our friends in Minnesota were sending when they elected a pro wrestler as their governor -- it can get hard to tell the difference between one windbag with a microphone and another (except perhaps the type of audience they are trying to appeal to).

[jase71]

Bush has weaseled around badly his drug history... "I can pass the FBI Background Check" rather than just saying "No, I haven't used drugs". So I don't see him being any different than Clinton in that regard.

The strike against Clinton is that some of his weaseling was done related to deeds while in office. Bush's were in the past. Whether or not Bush will do shady things in office, we don't know. Time will tell. He might end up just like Clinton. Or he might stay clean. I honestly hope for the latter.

But I'm honestly hoping that all this bickering will turn people toward third parties. I think the Greens on the left, and the Reform and Libertarians on the right can make some hay out of these types of issues. We need parties that aren't afraid to take a stand. Right now, any issues stance is for sale to the highest bidder in the Republican and Democratic parties. They're corporate sellouts.

The Greens and the Libertarians can gain some headway against the Dems and Repubs, and maybe force the parties back into representing the people, rather than representing the largest contributors.

[Markel]

Originally posted by jase71
We need parties that aren't afraid to take a stand. Right now, any issues stance is for sale to the highest bidder in the Republican and Democratic parties. They're corporate sellouts.

I'm wondering if we need parties at all. I'd much rather see the whole party thing dumped and let each politician stand on their own convictions.

[Grimm]

You people act like there is a real difference! It's just which special interest groups get all the money. They are politicians. They lie for a living and call it leadership. If NAMBLA could get a few million together in campaign contributions and pull enough votes, a party would pick them up on it's platform so fast your head would spin. It wouldn't even matter which one, both are for sale.
People let themselves be led so easily. They fall for this stuff all the time. I am thanking god that that congressman(?) switched sides from the Republican party giving Democrats control of one house. Neither side should have control of both houses and the Presidency. They can steal too much from the country that way.
We need to start putting people from 3rd parties in office. Republicans and Democrats are too entrenched in the system.

[jase71]

Originally posted by Markel


I'm wondering if we need parties at all. I'd much rather see the whole party thing dumped and let each politician stand on their own convictions.

I think, in some sense, we need parties to let people with similar beliefs work toward common causes. It also simplifies things for the average confused voter. I'd agree that ideally there shouldn't be any need for parties.
Each individual should vote his or her conscience, not by party. But I don't think we're ready for that yet. It would require study, work, and effort by voters. That won't happen overnight.

However, there's no reason I can see why we can't have 3, 4 6, or even 10 parties all as legitimate contenders. European governments seem to make it work with more than just two parties.

[pennypinch]

I disagree. 3 parties, sure. Four is pushing it. But once you get into Italian territory, you're just getting silly. Sure, sure, we don't have the same electoral system as they do, but still: fracturing power into such granular levels only means compromised values between coalesced parties. If I vote one way, I sure as hell don't want my party selling out what may be my core belief in a power grab...oh wait, I guess that happens now!

Proceed...

[johnnymk]

The more parties you have, the less they could agree on. Therefore, no decisions, no bills passed.
BINGO, nothing gets accomplished. What more could you ask? We don't need no more steenking bills. There are enough already.

[mojo]

put me down for saying that things can run a lot more efficiently...but they (gov) doesn't want that to happen, lest they be out of nice, cushy jobs. they can prolly get more done with less than a third of the current staff.

now if you'll excuse me, i gotta pack now and head off to a remote island before the feds get here.

[jase71]

Originally posted by johnnymk
The more parties you have, the less they could agree on. Therefore, no decisions, no bills passed.
BINGO, nothing gets accomplished. What more could you ask? We don't need no more steenking bills. There are enough already.

Seems to me this would be right up the Libertarian's alley!
They'd love it!

I think you'd find parties working together on some bills where they had common cause, and against each other on different bills. It wouldn't be just "Us vs. Them".

The Libertarians and Greens might work together on a bill to check the power of corporations, but be at each other's throats when it comes to social issues, where the Libertarians and Republicans might work together.

I think you'd end up with better Law in the long run. Consensus would have to be reached on each issue, and a majority gathered, rather than just having the half with the slight majority ram-rod it through the vote with little discussion. It would also make it much more difficult to "buy" legislation, since the support of more than one party would be required to pass any legislation.

[Edited by jase71 on 07-06-2001 at 10:57 AM]

[fakesurfers]

Unfortunately, Jase, that doesnt seem to be the way things really work. Look at Israel as an example. What you end up with in a closely divided electorate is a few 'fringe' groups deciding to form a government for an even bigger sellout. The result is legislation that is mildly unpopular to a large part of the population and extremely popular to a small part.

Our country was designed to work as a two party system for precisely this reason. Ross Perot gave us Clinton I, Ralph Nader gave us Bush II. Minor parties in the US, when they any effect at all, usually elect someone diametrically opposed to their interests.

Let's take back our 'public' airwaves (and cable too, your municipality owns those lines, not the cable company) and give candidates free TV time. Let's figure out a constitutional way to take the big money out of politics and stop extremely wealthy people from buying elections (which is why campaign finance reform won't happen, every politician fears the billionaire challenger more than anything else). Most importantly, we need a constitutional amendment to repeal [can't remember the court decision, the one that decided corporations are people under the law]. Corporations are not people!

The eventual rise of multi-party American 'Democracy' will otherwise make the minor corruption of the 80's 90's and 00's look like the good old days by comparison.

Oh and here's a point for Johnny(I like Ike)MK:

1) Treat people equally, but recognize their differences.
2) Taxing the rich more is good insurance, buddy. Beat on the poor long enough and they will come up with marvelous ideas like guillotine executions and carjackings.
3) How many abortion opponents are death penalty advocates? I'm not personally in favor of abortion, but people will get them, one way or another. Do you want the mothers to die too?
4) There is a boss in the marriage. And she likes it that way.
5) Everyone has a different style. How does another couple living together before marriage hurt you?
6) Guns are great! That gun control lobby in centered on the coasts, in the major cities. Put a gun ban to a vote and exclude New York and California. It'll fail 90-10. That's not politically incorrect, just common sense.
7) The government is the only entity who's job it is to try to help people. Charities or corporations or churches all have some other purpose. Some things have to be done by the government. How much do you think license plates would cost if you had to buy them from Lockheed? Do you want the local synagogue teaching your kids that Jesus was a regular guy? Do you want the big local factory to move to Germany because your schools and colleges suck, and not everyone can afford private school? Government is a necessary evil, whether you like it or not.
8) Throw enough ideas at a problem and it will be solved. In our society, that means money. People gottas eat.
9) We have no choice about globalism. It's coming anyway. We need to be lean and mean or they'll mop the floor with us. (note: the politically correct statement is that Globalism is bad. Got news|paper? )
10) We're not going to have perfect public officials. Character counts. Let's just set some ground rules. What is appropriate and what isnt? Do we really want the people that have never, ever screwed up to represent us? Deciding on an ad-hoc basis only emboldens the cheats. (note: JFK was a womanizer, Churchhill was a drunk, the FOunding Fathers owned slaves, FDR let them bomb Pearl Harbor on purpose, Reagan lied to Congress, Clinton got busted giving head, and GWB got busted for cocaine, some of them still did decent jobs.)
11) :confused:
12) Intolerance is the source of a lot of our problems. The Christian Right's leaders are intolerant. That's it. The movement isnt necessarily the problem. Wouldnt you like everyone to leave you alone to practice your religion how you want? Then get the hell out of our business. Keep your social laws out of my house and I'll leave you alone.
13) Evolution is a generally accepted theory. So is gravity, the Vernoulli effect and internal combustion. Do you believe in airplanes?
14) You hit the nail on the head right there. Look around next time youre at church. 10% of the people there have had a homosexual experience (and that's a low estimate). Are they evil? How exactly do homosexuals hurt you?

wrong citiation




[Edited by fakesurfers on 07-06-2001 at 03:15 PM]

[jase71]

Originally posted by fakesurfers
Unfortunately, Jase, that doesnt seem to be the way things really work. Look at Israel as an example. What you end up with in a closely divided electorate is a few 'fringe' groups deciding to form a government for an even bigger sellout. The result is legislation that is mildly unpopular to a large part of the population and extremely popular to a small part.

That description actually applies just as well to our own government as to Israel's.


Our country was designed to work as a two party system for precisely this reason. Ross Perot gave us Clinton I, Ralph Nader gave us Bush II. Minor parties in the US, when they any effect at all, usually elect someone diametrically opposed to their interests.

The problem with using Perot and Nader as examples are that they don't belong to "true" third parties. They're marginalized, and don't get the respect that is required to really make them work.

If Perot gives us Clinton, and Nader gives us Bush, it's because they stole enough votes to do the damage. Why did they steal those votes? Because they raised issues that the current two parties have ignored. And continue to ignore.

Now, outside of additional parties, what will force the two major parties to address those issues? Currently, the Dems and Reps take very few controversial stances, because they're trying to build a 51% stake. So they play it safe and tame. And they keep their candidates in line. They play the numbers, rather than trying to take a definitive stance on anything important.

I think additional parties would take away the ability to just play for the simple majority, and make those parties EARN their votes, rather than just collecting the most by offending the least.



Let's take back our 'public' airwaves (and cable too, your municipality owns those lines, not the cable company) and give candidates free TV time. Let's figure out a constitutional way to take the big money out of politics and stop extremely wealthy people from buying elections (which is why campaign finance reform won't happen, every politician fears the billionaire challenger more than anything else). Most importantly, we need a constitutional amendment to repeal Plessy v Ferguson. Corporations are not people!

Hear Hear!

The best political proposal I've read on GotApex yet!

If we could honestly do those things, many of my personal reasons for supporting additional parties would become moot.

Well spoken, fakesurfers!


[Edited by jase71 on 07-06-2001 at 02:03 PM]

[Grimm]

Fakesurfers, well said, I mostly agree with what you said except: This country was not designed to have only 2 political parties. Historicaly there were many. It used to be that the 1st runner up was made the vice-Prez, and therefore the head of the senate. There were no "tickets" with multiple candidates. This created some balance of power, that has been lost to us so we are now stuck with the scam we have now.

Jase, "Stolen" votes? I have to strongly disagree. They were their votes. That's what happens when people are given a choice. The real stolen votes are the people who would vote third party except they are afraid that the person demonized by the party they find less objectionable will win. So they do not vote their concience.

[johnnymk]

Well, I do agree with you on Number 1, 9 and 10. But to discuss the other items would take forever.
One thing that you did admit is that evolution is a theory. Gravity can be proven as a fact.
I am a mechanical engineer by trade. No one has to explain to me the law of thermodynamics, the law of gravity, the inertia laws, etc. etc. They have been proven and stand up to the most intense scrutiny imaginable. Plus they are practical laws which are exhibited in everyday life.
Everyone who tells me that evolution is a fact has literally no documentation to back it up.They will spout off about a silly little animal that changed it's colors when moved to another part of the world or some kind of strata that has been dated by a very questionable Carbon 14 dating technique. Even Darwin called it a theory. Show me the proof!
Evolution is a religion and it takes more faith to believe in it's silly views than Creation.

[froggystyle]

show me the proof of creation....

[Grimm]

Evolution is not a religion. Even the Pope admits to evolution. What realy, realy irks me is that fallible human being say "God had to do it this way" as if God has to do something their way and they personally know exactly how God "must" do everything.
Get a clue, God does things in ways you cannot comprehend. Evolution states that existence came about the SAME way as the Bible says it does. If you would bother to open your mind up just a crack and maybe actually READ the book, you would see this.
To many people substitute religion for thinking. You can have both. You just have to get up off your a$$ and do it.
Quit letting people tell you what the Bible means. Read it yourself and find out for your self what He means. Unfortunately, many people see religion as a way to control people and do use to for that purpose.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by johnnymk
But to discuss the other items would take forever.
Nope, I'm not buying. That's just heading out the back door, hoping no-one'll notice. You brought it up, you better stick around to defend it! :)

Just answer me this: that list was clearly dominated by certain underlying Christian principles. Now, if I don't subscribe to said beliefs, why should the outgrowths of those beliefs significantly impact my life?

[mojo]

Originally posted by pennypinch

Originally posted by johnnymk
But to discuss the other items would take forever.
Nope, I'm not buying. That's just heading out the back door, hoping no-one'll notice. You brought it up, you better stick around to defend it! :)

Just answer me this: that list was clearly dominated by certain underlying Christian principles. Now, if I don't subscribe to said beliefs, why should the outgrowths of those beliefs significantly impact my life?

actually that was very kind and candid of him. i totally buy into that, cuz who wants to read a long thread. this isn't literature (i learn a lot from some of these posts, but not necessarily the long ones). who wants to hang out and read a long post about politics? not me! and judging by the number of people that respond to them (that was a disclaimer to any hints of being an absolute figure), not many others are, either.

thank you, johnnymyk, for not subjecting us to a blow-by-blow narrative on why each and every point may be or may not be true.

[johnnymk]

mojo: you da' man! I really got upset when pennypinch assumed that I was retreating out the back door when I didn't address all of the issues that certain people objected to. You surprised me with your reply. I couldn't have said it better. To the others:
I knew that I would go against the grain of a lot of people who don't agree with me, but hey this is an OffTopics forum.
I have always admired people who THINK about things, instead of just sheepishly accepting ideas which the mainstream readily accepts.
I have been a Christian for nearly thirty years. The more I learn, yes, learn about the Bible, the more I realize that what is written in that book is true. Most of the information does not set well with the natural mind. It speaks of putting the other person first, to obey the government, to listen to your boss, to love others who persecute you, to put away fleshly lusts and on and on. Obviously, these practices could not be accomplished unless one had the Holy Spirit living within him, but that's another topic.
My point is that I view most politically correct thinking to be destructive to individuals, and to society in general.Popular attitudes endorsed by the Mainstream and influential people generally become laws after a period of time, whether thay make any sense or not.
Evolution is widely accepted as a fact. It will not stand up to the scrutiny of the Scientific Method to become a Law. Does believing evolution further the dignity of man who was created by God after his image? I don't believe so. It makes us no more than an animal who just blindly reacts to his environment, and basically offers no hope in anything. It makes Life cheap and encourages selfish thinking. It is a pitiful concept.
The discussion of the other topics can be found in magazines, books and in other media. I don't have time to discuss every nuance of every rebuttal that the readers address. Maybe that's a cop out, Oh well.

[Edited by johnnymk on 07-07-2001 at 03:58 AM]

[mojo]

you know, johnnymyk, we may not agree on everything. but i am not about to do a personal jab becuz of it. i will trust that most people see that for what it is.

[froggystyle]

OK so here is the thing. Your list is not pc thinking. Its liberal thinking.

Now the problem i have with your list is that you damn everyone with views other than yours. It is not your job to tell people that homosexuality is wrong. If homosexuality is really wrong god will take care of it. Nowhere in the bible does it ask you to go preach to everyone. you are taking it upon yourself to do so. Those that are true to your faith will be redemed according to your faith.... and those who are not will be judged BY GOD. One of the key points of christianity is that we have been created witht he ability to judge for ourselves, and only when we do so on our own merrit will our faith be true.

Imposing christian views and attempting to frighten us into submission will not create a true belief. It is not those who pray to god because things are not going well for them that are true belivers. It is those who pray to god when things are going well for them. Those who follow the faith unselfishly.

God will judge what is right or wrong and if anyoine chooses to live other than the way you see the bible to communicate, then god will pass judgement. You just worry about yourself.

I will tell you this though.. I have been finding myself and my faith for years and have come very close to accepting christianity on many occasions. But every time i see a bible thumper like you come arround and try to tell everyone how it is and what is right and what is wrong. That is when i loose faith. When did god give you the right to judge anyone. As I understand it the only one with the right to judge what is right or wrong is god himself. It is your responsibility to see this and live that way. It ist is not your responsibility to worry about anybody else living "within the light ". All the bible tells yout o do is love and to respect gods words.

Now if you want to argue creation versus evolution go ahead im open to a good argument against it. If you want to argue politics thats great. I love a good political debate. but do not impos your poius or impious views on me...I will decide that for myself.

[johnnymk]

What does imposing my views or scaring a person into submission mean? I brought up various points that I believe in .Am I forcing you to believe in anything? You have your own mind and will believe what you want to believe . I have no power over what you believe in. I do believe, however, that the Bible is the absolute authority about Life's general questions. I suggest that you examine it and decide what is really in it's contents instead of speculating what a lot of people THINK is in there.
You shall find the truth, and the truth will set you free. Please note: God never forces his ideas on anyone. The Holy Spirit may convict you of truth, of sin and of the reality of Death's consequences, but neither He or his believers force you into anything. He really prefers obedient people who love Him with their body, mind and soul. That's the source of real joy in this world.

[froggystyle]

For your information I have read the bible...all of it ...end to end. Ive read the laws in leviticus ive read the geneology in numbers all the way through revelations. What im pissed about is the fact that you are telling people whats right or wrong and taking it upon yourself to judge other peoples lifestyles...If you belive you are spreading the word of god you arent..you are just turning more and more people away from it. I wonder if god will judge your for that...

[jase71]

Originally posted by evilcyclops


Jase, "Stolen" votes? I have to strongly disagree. They were their votes. That's what happens when people are given a choice. The real stolen votes are the people who would vote third party except they are afraid that the person demonized by the party they find less objectionable will win. So they do not vote their concience.

Sorry. I was using "stolen" votes because it's the terminology of those think voting for the third party was somehow wrong, or that those votes were "stolen" from Bush or Gore. I was trying to explain that if they DID "steal" votes, it's because they were addressing the issues better than the candidates they "stole" them from.

I actually voted for Nader. I don't think he stole my vote. He earned it.