The real reason Dems hate Bush

[opebo]

Couldn't agree more Gustaf - Soviet statistics were pure fantasy.

Personally I don't see any difference at all between socialism and 'communism'.  

Not at all!  Socialists use violence to 'achieve their goals' - they just do it after the election.  Just try to hold on to your property in a 'socialist' society and you'll find out how quickly they resort to violence to take it from you and throw you in jail.  Not much comfort in knowing your rights have been violated democratically as opposed to by revolution.
Then you should get better glasses. Communism and radical socialism have the same goals, but Communists accept the use of violence to acheive these ends, socialists want to do it democratically. Big difference, imo.

OK, I can see how that thinking works from a liberal viewpoint. Still, socialism requires support from the majority of the people communism doesn't. Socialists thus respect the will of the people, Communists don't. And to me the right to life is more sacrosanct than the right to property, even though I'm a strong supporter of both.

To me they're inseparable.

You don't think your right ti live is even slightly more worth than your right to your property?

See how long I live without my property.  A couple of days?

[angus]

booze and madcow, a winning combination.  no?

yeah, my parents were social democrats and pro-socialized medicine and all that crap.  You ever seen family ties?  No, I understand the difference.  

oh, the other link is www.campaignline.com

also, while I'm thinking about it, the green papers won't give you all the names on the ballot, you have to go to the states individually for that.  Or was that someone else?

gotta produce today boys, can't chitchat.  peace.

[Gustaf]

Couldn't agree more Gustaf - Soviet statistics were pure fantasy.

Personally I don't see any difference at all between socialism and 'communism'.  

Not at all!  Socialists use violence to 'achieve their goals' - they just do it after the election.  Just try to hold on to your property in a 'socialist' society and you'll find out how quickly they resort to violence to take it from you and throw you in jail.  Not much comfort in knowing your rights have been violated democratically as opposed to by revolution.
Then you should get better glasses. Communism and radical socialism have the same goals, but Communists accept the use of violence to acheive these ends, socialists want to do it democratically. Big difference, imo.

OK, I can see how that thinking works from a liberal viewpoint. Still, socialism requires support from the majority of the people communism doesn't. Socialists thus respect the will of the people, Communists don't. And to me the right to life is more sacrosanct than the right to property, even though I'm a strong supporter of both.

To me they're inseparable.

You don't think your right ti live is even slightly more worth than your right to your property?

See how long I live without my property.  A couple of days?

You can lose some of your property, but not all of it. Besides, if we're pre-supposing a socialist utopia, the common good would take care of you...

[opebo]

Couldn't agree more Gustaf - Soviet statistics were pure fantasy.

Personally I don't see any difference at all between socialism and 'communism'.  

Not at all!  Socialists use violence to 'achieve their goals' - they just do it after the election.  Just try to hold on to your property in a 'socialist' society and you'll find out how quickly they resort to violence to take it from you and throw you in jail.  Not much comfort in knowing your rights have been violated democratically as opposed to by revolution.
Then you should get better glasses. Communism and radical socialism have the same goals, but Communists accept the use of violence to acheive these ends, socialists want to do it democratically. Big difference, imo.

OK, I can see how that thinking works from a liberal viewpoint. Still, socialism requires support from the majority of the people communism doesn't. Socialists thus respect the will of the people, Communists don't. And to me the right to life is more sacrosanct than the right to property, even though I'm a strong supporter of both.

To me they're inseparable.

You don't think your right ti live is even slightly more worth than your right to your property?

See how long I live without my property.  A couple of days?

You can lose some of your property, but not all of it. Besides, if we're pre-supposing a socialist utopia, the common good would take care of you...

Ugh.  That is hands down the creepiest idea in politics.  

[Gustaf]

Couldn't agree more Gustaf - Soviet statistics were pure fantasy.

Personally I don't see any difference at all between socialism and 'communism'.  

Not at all!  Socialists use violence to 'achieve their goals' - they just do it after the election.  Just try to hold on to your property in a 'socialist' society and you'll find out how quickly they resort to violence to take it from you and throw you in jail.  Not much comfort in knowing your rights have been violated democratically as opposed to by revolution.
Then you should get better glasses. Communism and radical socialism have the same goals, but Communists accept the use of violence to acheive these ends, socialists want to do it democratically. Big difference, imo.

OK, I can see how that thinking works from a liberal viewpoint. Still, socialism requires support from the majority of the people communism doesn't. Socialists thus respect the will of the people, Communists don't. And to me the right to life is more sacrosanct than the right to property, even though I'm a strong supporter of both.

To me they're inseparable.

You don't think your right ti live is even slightly more worth than your right to your property?

See how long I live without my property.  A couple of days?

You can lose some of your property, but not all of it. Besides, if we're pre-supposing a socialist utopia, the common good would take care of you...

Ugh.  That is hands down the creepiest idea in politics.  

A socialist utopia?

[opebo]

Couldn't agree more Gustaf - Soviet statistics were pure fantasy.

Personally I don't see any difference at all between socialism and 'communism'.  

Not at all!  Socialists use violence to 'achieve their goals' - they just do it after the election.  Just try to hold on to your property in a 'socialist' society and you'll find out how quickly they resort to violence to take it from you and throw you in jail.  Not much comfort in knowing your rights have been violated democratically as opposed to by revolution.
Then you should get better glasses. Communism and radical socialism have the same goals, but Communists accept the use of violence to acheive these ends, socialists want to do it democratically. Big difference, imo.

OK, I can see how that thinking works from a liberal viewpoint. Still, socialism requires support from the majority of the people communism doesn't. Socialists thus respect the will of the people, Communists don't. And to me the right to life is more sacrosanct than the right to property, even though I'm a strong supporter of both.

To me they're inseparable.

You don't think your right ti live is even slightly more worth than your right to your property?

See how long I live without my property.  A couple of days?

You can lose some of your property, but not all of it. Besides, if we're pre-supposing a socialist utopia, the common good would take care of you...

Ugh.  That is hands down the creepiest idea in politics.  

A socialist utopia?

Yeah, makes my skin crawl.  I like buying things from disinterested capitalists.. people nosing around in my 'common good' creeps me out.

[Gustaf]

Couldn't agree more Gustaf - Soviet statistics were pure fantasy.

Personally I don't see any difference at all between socialism and 'communism'.  

Not at all!  Socialists use violence to 'achieve their goals' - they just do it after the election.  Just try to hold on to your property in a 'socialist' society and you'll find out how quickly they resort to violence to take it from you and throw you in jail.  Not much comfort in knowing your rights have been violated democratically as opposed to by revolution.
Then you should get better glasses. Communism and radical socialism have the same goals, but Communists accept the use of violence to acheive these ends, socialists want to do it democratically. Big difference, imo.

OK, I can see how that thinking works from a liberal viewpoint. Still, socialism requires support from the majority of the people communism doesn't. Socialists thus respect the will of the people, Communists don't. And to me the right to life is more sacrosanct than the right to property, even though I'm a strong supporter of both.

To me they're inseparable.

You don't think your right ti live is even slightly more worth than your right to your property?

See how long I live without my property.  A couple of days?

You can lose some of your property, but not all of it. Besides, if we're pre-supposing a socialist utopia, the common good would take care of you...

Ugh.  That is hands down the creepiest idea in politics.  

A socialist utopia?

Yeah, makes my skin crawl.  I like buying things from disinterested capitalists.. people nosing around in my 'common good' creeps me out.

Well, I agree with that sentiment.

[nclib]

And I am not some feminazi, because well I'm male.
 

Well if feminazism is merely belief in social and political equality of the sexes, it's certain that men can be feminazis as well.

I certainly support feminism and find it ridiculous that the word 'feminism' would have such a negative connotation even though most people would not question a system based on equality between the races.

we have a g word for that it's egalitarianism.  If you really believe in equality between the sexes (gender, race, ethnicity, ethnoreligiousgroup, whatever) you wouldn't go around inventing others.  Lie to youselves, not to me!

There's a forum called for dems only or something like that you ought to go on there and tell every bit of this vile sh**t and circle jerk each other.

The word 'feminism' needs to be used because patriarchy is so ingrained into our culture and feminists are trying to address that. Think of the sexism in nursery rhymes for example.

And feminists address other types of inequality as well.

[angus]

don't lecture me on mind control.  I get that lecture every day.  we're contracting for the gov't, doing a little R&D, you should hear the conversations around the coffeemaker.  Leftist propoganda.  And most of these guys are bigger whores than I am, all things considered.  I swear if I had a nickel every time I heard the phrase "dumb as dirt" in conjunction with my President, I'd have enough to retire to some moist warm Caribbean island and live out the rest of my days in splendid hedonism.  

[opebo]

don't lecture me on mind control.  I get that lecture every day.  we're contracting for the gov't, doing a little R&D, you should hear the conversations around the coffeemaker.  Leftist propoganda.  And most of these guys are bigger whores than I am, all things considered.  I swear if I had a nickel every time I heard the phrase "dumb as dirt" in conjunction with my President, I'd have enough to retire to some moist warm Caribbean island and live out the rest of my days in splendid hedonism.  

Hey Angus, did you know I live in Thailand, speaking of Tropical Hedonism?  Alas my 7 months are up - heading home in about a week.

[angus]

sweeeeeeeeet.

[classical liberal]

And I am not some feminazi, because well I'm male.
 

Well if feminazism is merely belief in social and political equality of the sexes, it's certain that men can be feminazis as well.

I certainly support feminism and find it ridiculous that the word 'feminism' would have such a negative connotation even though most people would not question a system based on equality between the races.

we have a g word for that it's egalitarianism.  If you really believe in equality between the sexes (gender, race, ethnicity, ethnoreligiousgroup, whatever) you wouldn't go around inventing others.  Lie to youselves, not to me!

There's a forum called for dems only or something like that you ought to go on there and tell every bit of this vile sh**t and circle jerk each other.

The word 'feminism' needs to be used because patriarchy is so ingrained into our culture and feminists are trying to address that. Think of the sexism in nursery rhymes for example.

And feminists address other types of inequality as well.

exxamples of sexist nursery rhymes would include...

[angus]

Any of youse ever been to Nantucket?

[Mort from NewYawk]

And I am not some feminazi, because well I'm male.
 

Well if feminazism is merely belief in social and political equality of the sexes, it's certain that men can be feminazis as well.

I certainly support feminism and find it ridiculous that the word 'feminism' would have such a negative connotation even though most people would not question a system based on equality between the races.

we have a g word for that it's egalitarianism.  If you really believe in equality between the sexes (gender, race, ethnicity, ethnoreligiousgroup, whatever) you wouldn't go around inventing others.  Lie to youselves, not to me!

There's a forum called for dems only or something like that you ought to go on there and tell every bit of this vile sh**t and circle jerk each other.

The word 'feminism' needs to be used because patriarchy is so ingrained into our culture and feminists are trying to address that. Think of the sexism in nursery rhymes for example.

And feminists address other types of inequality as well.

NCLib, I am so excited about your commitment to the struggle for equal rights for women in our deeply patriarchal culture, and I share your dismay when I consider the sexism rampant in nursery rhymes.

You know, I was just reading this morning how the new constitution that Iraqi leaders compromised on provides for equal treatment under the law regardless of gender, and guarantees that 25% of the seats in the new Iraqi national assembly would go to women. The news article said that if approved, the new constitution would be the most progressive such document in the Arab world.

Would you mind if I asked you, since you're such a strong supporter of women's rights, do you know how I can do something to support this new constitution? What would be your recommendation for a candidate for president who would continue to support the liberal causes of freedom, ethnic tolerance, and gender equality in Third World countries?

[Gustaf]

don't lecture me on mind control.  I get that lecture every day.  we're contracting for the gov't, doing a little R&D, you should hear the conversations around the coffeemaker.  Leftist propoganda.  And most of these guys are bigger whores than I am, all things considered.  I swear if I had a nickel every time I heard the phrase "dumb as dirt" in conjunction with my President, I'd have enough to retire to some moist warm Caribbean island and live out the rest of my days in splendid hedonism.  

Hey Angus, did you know I live in Thailand, speaking of Tropical Hedonism?  Alas my 7 months are up - heading home in about a week.

I don't remember if you told me, but what is it that you do in Thailand?

[Gustaf]

And I am not some feminazi, because well I'm male.
 

Well if feminazism is merely belief in social and political equality of the sexes, it's certain that men can be feminazis as well.

I certainly support feminism and find it ridiculous that the word 'feminism' would have such a negative connotation even though most people would not question a system based on equality between the races.

we have a g word for that it's egalitarianism.  If you really believe in equality between the sexes (gender, race, ethnicity, ethnoreligiousgroup, whatever) you wouldn't go around inventing others.  Lie to youselves, not to me!

There's a forum called for dems only or something like that you ought to go on there and tell every bit of this vile sh**t and circle jerk each other.

The word 'feminism' needs to be used because patriarchy is so ingrained into our culture and feminists are trying to address that. Think of the sexism in nursery rhymes for example.

And feminists address other types of inequality as well.

NCLib, I am so excited about your commitment to the struggle for equal rights for women in our deeply patriarchal culture, and I share your dismay when I consider the sexism rampant in nursery rhymes.

You know, I was just reading this morning how the new constitution that Iraqi leaders compromised on provides for equal treatment under the law regardless of gender, and guarantees that 25% of the seats in the new Iraqi national assembly would go to women. The news article said that if approved, the new constitution would be the most progressive such document in the Arab world.

Would you mind if I asked you, since you're such a strong supporter of women's rights, do you know how I can do something to support this new constitution? What would be your recommendation for a candidate for president who would continue to support the liberal causes of freedom, ethnic tolerance, and gender equality in Third World countries?

The sad thing is that it seems like the democracy in Iraq will bring the radical shias to power, who will actually turn the clock BACK on a number of issues - such as women's rights. Saddam's Iraq was fairly secular, probably the only positive trait it had (and one of the reasons for his staggering popularity).

[Mort from NewYawk]

Staggering popularity?!

Gustaf, I'm surprised to hear this argument coming from you (I guess I should get some smilies, since my reply to nclib was completely tongue-in-cheek).

The reason for Saddam's "staggering popularity" was that if you supported any opposition to him, you'd find that your father had dissappeared into a prison torture cell.

[Gustaf]

Staggering popularity?!

Gustaf, I'm surprised to hear this argument coming from you (I guess I should get some smilies, since my reply to nclib was completely tongue-in-cheek).

The reason for Saddam's "staggering popularity" was that if you supported any opposition to him, you'd find that your father had dissappeared into a prison torture cell.

I didn't mean to write 'staggering popularity', it came out the wrong way... I meant to say something to the effect that it contributed to his impopularity. I am fully aware of his brutality, and you know I agree with you on that issue. I was just pointing out that the fierce opposition from the shia opposition originated in religious-secular conflicts.

[BushAlva]

I agree totally that the Democrats are jealous of President Bush.  

I am a Republican from Oklahoma.  I don't think these Liberal elitists from the Northeast or California even know where Oklahoma is.  They think we're just as stupid, if not more so, than Texas.  Oklahoma is the least talked about state in the entire United States of America.  Only very rarely will the national news, like CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, etc, mention anything about Oklahoma.

By the way, UT grads, I am a big OKLAHOMA SOONERS fan.  We look forward to making it 5 years in a row in about 7 months.

Along with being republican, I am also a very right-wing person.  I believe that women should NOT have the right to commit abortion.  People may call them fetuses, but that is latin for "BABY".  If I were President, I would seek to CRIMINALIZE abortion, equating it with FIRST-DEGREE MURDER.  I am also strongly against same-sex marriages and even same-sex unions.  I am a Southern Baptist Christian and the Bible says in Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind".  It also says in Proverbs "God hates hands that shed innocent blood"

I think the US Government should endorse Christianity.  Because lets face the truth,
Buddha won't save you
Mohammed won't save you
Joseph Smith won't save you
Only JESUS CHRIST can save you.

I'm not trying to preach, I'm just trying to express my views, radical though they might be.

I'm hoping for a landslide in November in favor the current President.

[angus]

I don't think these Liberal elitists from the Northeast or California even know where Oklahoma is.  

But the conservative elitists from California know where oklahoma is.  Beaver's bend is my kind of swimming hole.

Did you know that even though they started at different places, the Buddha and the Christ reached many of the same conclusions?  There's lots written about this by good Christians and good Buddhists, not that I'm either.

A big tent, indeed.  Welcome, friend.

[BushAlva]

I don't think these Liberal elitists from the Northeast or California even know where Oklahoma is.  

But the conservative elitists from California know where oklahoma is.  Beaver's bend is my kind of swimming hole.

Did you know that even though they started at different places, the Buddha and the Christ reached many of the same conclusions?  There's lots written about this by good Christians and good Buddhists, not that I'm either.

A big tent, indeed.  Welcome, friend.

I know the conservative elitists know where Oklahoma is.

By the way, they don't call us "right-wing" for nothing!!!!

Chew on that!

[Mort from NewYawk]

Staggering popularity?!

Gustaf, I'm surprised to hear this argument coming from you (I guess I should get some smilies, since my reply to nclib was completely tongue-in-cheek).

The reason for Saddam's "staggering popularity" was that if you supported any opposition to him, you'd find that your father had dissappeared into a prison torture cell.

I didn't mean to write 'staggering popularity', it came out the wrong way... I meant to say something to the effect that it contributed to his impopularity. I am fully aware of his brutality, and you know I agree with you on that issue. I was just pointing out that the fierce opposition from the shia opposition originated in religious-secular conflicts.

OK, I'm relieved.

I believe, though, that there is room for cautious optimism that the Iraqi Shiite leaders will be less dogmatic than their Iranian brethren. Certainly Sistani has made a number of compromises so far. Perhaps coming out of Saddam's oppression has given that country enough of a distaste for tyranny that they will tolerate compromise?

[Gustaf]

Staggering popularity?!

Gustaf, I'm surprised to hear this argument coming from you (I guess I should get some smilies, since my reply to nclib was completely tongue-in-cheek).

The reason for Saddam's "staggering popularity" was that if you supported any opposition to him, you'd find that your father had dissappeared into a prison torture cell.

I didn't mean to write 'staggering popularity', it came out the wrong way... I meant to say something to the effect that it contributed to his impopularity. I am fully aware of his brutality, and you know I agree with you on that issue. I was just pointing out that the fierce opposition from the shia opposition originated in religious-secular conflicts.

OK, I'm relieved.

I believe, though, that there is room for cautious optimism that the Iraqi Shiite leaders will be less dogmatic than their Iranian brethren. Certainly Sistani has made a number of compromises so far. Perhaps coming out of Saddam's oppression has given that country enough of a distaste for tyranny that they will tolerate compromise?

I hope so...but I have a certain wariness when it comes to Shia Muslims. It hasn't looked promising so far. I know the US has tried to stop propositions to reduce women's liberties and that the reason for the US administration to stop democatic rule in Iraq is basically that they are scared of the possible results. It's tragic really, how people vote in a lot of countries. Like Eastern Europe, but worse.

[classical liberal]

I agree totally that the Democrats are jealous of President Bush.  

I am a Republican from Oklahoma.  I don't think these Liberal elitists from the Northeast or California even know where Oklahoma is.  They think we're just as stupid, if not more so, than Texas.  Oklahoma is the least talked about state in the entire United States of America.  Only very rarely will the national news, like CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, etc, mention anything about Oklahoma.

By the way, UT grads, I am a big OKLAHOMA SOONERS fan.  We look forward to making it 5 years in a row in about 7 months.

Along with being republican, I am also a very right-wing person.  I believe that women should NOT have the right to commit abortion.  People may call them fetuses, but that is latin for "BABY".  If I were President, I would seek to CRIMINALIZE abortion, equating it with FIRST-DEGREE MURDER.  I am also strongly against same-sex marriages and even same-sex unions.  I am a Southern Baptist Christian and the Bible says in Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind".  It also says in Proverbs "God hates hands that shed innocent blood"

I think the US Government should endorse Christianity.  Because lets face the truth,
Buddha won't save you
Mohammed won't save you
Joseph Smith won't save you
Only JESUS CHRIST can save you.

I'm not trying to preach, I'm just trying to express my views, radical though they might be.

I'm hoping for a landslide in November in favor the current President.

Two things:

first its not that none of those people other than Jesus CAN save you, its just that Jesus is the only one who will.

second:

"no law respecting an establishment of religion" its in the constitution.

[classical liberal]

Also, the Oklahoma-Kansas game was playing on the local stations in the DC area.