Political Beliefs of Bisexual.com Members

[childofwinter]

I was just wondering what politiucal beliefs were held by members of the forum.Most liekly there'll be people across the spectrum.

Personally, I'm a Libertarian Socialist, or Anarchist-Communist. I believe in equality and the right of people to do as they wish so long as they don't harm, exploit, coerce or attempt to rule over another person. I'm not against religion itself (although am against organised religion) and not against people being religious in any future post-revolutionary society.

[darkeyes]

I was just wondering what politiucal beliefs were held by members of the forum.Most liekly there'll be people across the spectrum.

Personally, I'm a Libertarian Socialist, or Anarchist-Communist. I believe in equality and the right of people to do as they wish so long as they don't harm, exploit, coerce or attempt to rule over another person. I'm not against religion itself (although am against organised religion) and not against people being religious in any future post-revolutionary society.
Jeez.. anotha 1..a male me...almost...tillya get 2 the religion bit...wud abolish..loathe hate religion...accept tho, an respect religious beliefs in othas...think they believe in bollox...but its their belief...an who knos they may b rite...me jus don think so.

[biwords]

Nicely put, Fran.

I'm pretty much disabled from having strong political convictions, since I can usually see the appeal of any position and sooner or later develop some sense of its limitations as well. And so I'm disgusted by the liberal/leftist tendency to excuse any behaviour on the part of the 'oppressed', and also by the let-'em-sink-or-swim philosophy of Ayn Rand's followers and some conservatives/neoconservatives. I imagine that if I'd been a German in the early 1930's I might well have been seduced by Nazism, which makes me very glad to have been born a Canadian in the 1950's instead. If I have a core political belief, it's one that's been better expressed by others on this site -- namely, that most of us want a good and just society, we just disagree on the means of attaining it. And, as you can imagine, I have little patience with people who are so committed to a position that they believe anyone opposed to it must be dishonest or evil.

[someotherguy]

Being bisexual I feel obliged to also be bipartisan.

[Azrael]

Green Libertarian. Viva Ron Paul :cool:

[Cantaloupe Island]

Green Libertarian. Viva Ron Paul :cool:

Amen! Ron Paul for President! I consider myself a Classical Liberal like Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Mill (early), Ricardo, Hayek, and Friedman.

Cheers!

[DiamondDog]

I'm very liberal but I'm apolitical for the most part here and I avoid politics in general.

I've dated and fallen in love with people who would be considered "conservative" but they didn't call themself that and this isn't necessarily a bad thing either.

[ghytifrdnr]

Many hundreds of years ago I was a Republican (conservative for those outside U.S.), then I became a Libertarian, and now I'm an anarchist who believes that ANY form of government will be corrupt and unjust.

:2cents:

[shameless agitator]

Die hard commie here. A bit left of Trotsky in fact. Che vive!

[justafriend]

Extremism in either direction is dangerous!!!!

[coyotedude]

I'm one of those damn left-wing liberal hippie nut cases. Proud of it, in fact.

But I do enjoy jousting with others across the political spectrum, because I find I learn something from even the most die-hard right wing conservative nut cases. (Who, of course, are very proud of that fact as well.)

We're all human, after all, ain't we?

Peace

[Doggie_Wood]

Extremism in either direction is dangerous!!!!

A simple 6-word statement. But extremely bold and powerful. And I most whole-heartedly agree.
Although I am a conservative, I do not align myself with a particular party but more so with the individual and the platform represented. Issues are what I look at and when/how those issues are going to be and are dealt with.

:doggie:

[the mage]

Politics is just window dressing to keep the masses diverted by scandal and exposed corruption, while the true masters of your life make decisions behind locked boardroom doors and multinational executive offices.

Wal Mart has FAR greater influence in China than does G.W.


I am a socialist/liberal.

[Dagni]

Scandinavian bisexual social liberal,,,,and monarchist too, no matter that Finland is not monarchy, but other countries are.

[MarieDelta]

I hate politicians.

In a word liars, none of them are what they are pretending to be.

When I vote, I select the one I think is closest to my views, but I get tired of listening to either side whine on and on about their causes and slander and sling mud. Just for what? To be top of the heap, to be the guy in the office who signs his name?

I think that, for the most part, all of these guys have waaaay more money than you & I do and that's why they get elected into office.



Ugh!

:rolleyes:

[warmpuppy]

I don't believe that trees have greater rights than an unborn child.

I don't believe that my money should be taken from me and redistributed to some lazy, do-nothing.

I don't believe that George Bush is responsible for the melting icecaps on Mars. The explanation must be elsewhere.

I don't believe in using one square of TP per bathroom visit. I lack the necessary dexterity skills, and the area under my fingernails tends to get soiled.

I'm not particularly interested in contracting leprosy or other weird diseases just so that people can sneak into this country (USA) without at least being checked out medically.

I don't believe that I'm incapable of raising my own kids. Screw the village.

I'm not particularly interested in experiencing the "joy" of Government-in-my-face.

I don't believe that God is an illegal alien.

I guess all of the above makes me a red state conservative, a definite minority on this website.

[furrycritter]

:bipride: I agree with Dogwood and Warmpuppy and then there are some others I agree with. Just to much BS and big government. But when you listen to them talk about the issues (when they do) you don't get the details. Like how teir going to pay for all of this stuff. For example the SCHIP, I know they said they were going to tax cigs .61 per pack, but you look at history and it tells you that smokers go down in numbers when taxes go up, so where are they going to get the money? And who ever heard of a child being 25 years old. That would mean that a man earning $80,000.00 a year and being 24 and a wife and kids that are younger would be covered by SCHIP. This is what I was saying that they don't tell you how their going to pay for all these big ideas.
Just my 2 :2cents:

[passerbyeuk]

We're out and out liberals....until we're offended against and then we believe those responsible should be punished most severely.

[cand86]

Objectivist Libertarian . . . I'm sick of both parties' behavior and quite honestly believe that Ron Paul might be the best thing we've got going.

[bhg08054]

Random thoughts:

Any person wanting to be president (or governor, for that matter) should be disqualified
Both of the big parties should be disbanded
Government has devolved into "government of the corporation, for the corporation, by the corporation"
All ballots should include a "none of the above" choice
Career politicians represent themselves, their party, and their corporate sponsors, NOT the people

[TaylorMade]

I'm a conservative who finds political life explained by this maxim. . .do not attribute to malice what can be explained to stupidity.

*Taylor*

[biwords]

I'm a conservative who finds political life explained by this maxim. . .do not attribute to malice what can be explained to stupidity.

*Taylor*

Bingo! No wonder half the site is in love with you, Taylor. Brains and beauty. (I'm immune, but that's only 'cause I'm spoken for, at least on the female side). Keep rockin'.

[biwords]

Objectivist Libertarian . . . I'm sick of both parties' behavior and quite honestly believe that Ron Paul might be the best thing we've got going.

Don't you find it peculiar that Ayn Rand, the great defender of individual, demanded slavish confiormity and obedience from her followers -- even to the point of demanding that they smoke, as she did? Seems you could take the girl out of Stalin's Russia, but you couldn't take Stalin's Russia out of the girl. And she was a humorless bitch, too.

[canuckotter]

Personally, I'm fiscally fairly conservative and socially fairly liberal... which, believe it or not, has landed me in the Green Party. :) I just take a longer view of conservatism than most people do... I base my decisions on what the impact will be to my kids and grandkids. We have some wiggle room when it comes to polluting our environment and using our natural resources, but that wiggle room is finite and we're using it up at an unsustainable pace. I'm not particularly an environmentalist, I just think that if a form of environmental exploitation is earning someone a ton of money then the cost of cleanup (soil, water, and air) should be on them, not spread across society as a whole.

[2bdiscreetru]

I just want warmpuppy to know that he is not alone ! I couldn,t agree with him more, BRAVO well said

[Herbwoman39]

I'm a fiscal conservative and definitely lean towards Libertarian. Less government = better for everyone!

[ghytifrdnr]

Politics is just window dressing to keep the masses diverted by scandal and exposed corruption, while the true masters of your life make decisions behind locked boardroom doors and multinational executive offices.

I agree completely and that's why I'm an anarchist; I believe the above situation will ALWAYS be the actual situation in ANY form or flavor of government.
:(

[hardandhomealone]

I'm an independent. My political beliefs truly align with candidates whom I believe to be honest. Without honesty, the rest doesn't matter. As we all have, I've seen dishonest Democrats, dishonest Republicans, dishonest liberals and dishonest conservatives. Yet, I'm loathe to paint all politicians with the same brush as being evil and corrupt. From my experience, about a third of them are honest. And it's from that group come people who can inspire us: the Bobby Kennedys, the Barack Obamas, the Howard Bakers, the Alan Simpsons. I would hate to have the country run by one party because we're a society that places a premium on diversity. To me, that means having liberals rule alongside conservatives, whites alongside blacks, Hispanics and Asians, straights alongside gays and bis, and so on. But again, they're not all crooked. The trick is finding the one-third or so who are honest, then putting them in charge.

[bearisbare]

Canadian, left-leaning. I have voted for the left-wing party (New Democratic Party) and the centrist one (Liberal) in the past.

Currently I sometimes need to apologize for having a name very close to that of the current Prime Minister.

[Fire Lotus]

I'm American, and I'm liberal.

[CardShark]

I guess I would be classfied as very liberal, but I hate politics! :( It is the biggest bunch of bullshit lies and both sides republican or democrat are to blame! Rarely do people in politics vote there heart even. They vote by either what gives them the most political gain or by party. The whole thing to me is also overrated in some ways. They dwell on so many issues that honestly don't amount to a hill of beans. :rolleyes: I'm also not a real big fan of america being the savior of the world per say....I mean who gives a fuck who is starving in some desert on the other side of the world! Help the starving homeless children in America first!!! I know that may seem cruel to some but damn. :( You know how many people in America have no health insurance? I just wish people in politics cared more about America instead of elections or votes!

[someotherguy]

They care about the americans they care about, but who cares about some american half way around the country who is starving, damn.

[fishfry29]

The best thing Ronald Raygun did for me was make me vow to never, ever, ever, ever, vote for any Republican for any office, including dogcatcher. I do conciter myself moderatly concervative, and am at issue with mainstream democrats that are pro abortion, anti 2d ammendment, support ppl too lazy to work, and give Texas and California back to Mexico types. I do strongly feel this country needs health care reform, labor law reform, and Govt. run by corporations reform....my :2cents:

[12voltman59]

I really don't have a political philosophy--other than to try to be rational and look at how things really work in the world--while not always the case---it does seem that the more liberal modes of operation do tend to have a bit more real world relationships--take abortion since someone mentioned it---abortion is a terrible thing and should not happen--but the reality is--it always has taken place in some form and always will--might as well make it legal and safe as possible--if we do get rid of abortion here in the states--it will only mean that the poor will still get them--it will be done by back alley butchers and the rich will get them by doctors here in America in safer, more sanitary conditions---and its done with a wink and a nod--or the woman takes a trip to some place where abortions are legal if they make the laws so onerous and dangerous that it makes it impossible for doctors to perform them at all here----the rich will still get theirs--

On the drug wars---it is generally a conservative thing to be anti-drugs and be all for the "war on drugs" --it's a war just like Georgre's Folly in Iraq--it has been a disaster and failure from the get-go--once again--mgiht as well get "real" and make drugs if not legal--at least decriminalized --for all the war on drugs has done is to put tens of thousands of people into the prison and related systems--to the tune of billlions of dollars ---but has not done anything to curb the use or desire for drugs---

Another area where the conservatives push an idea that is pretty stupid--Gay marriage and the numerous "defense of marriage" laws--
One of the raps against gays and those they lump into the category of "gay"---is that they are so promiscious---but when gays want to declare their love for one person--settle down with one person--they go ballistic---

I do not see how the "marriage" of two men or two women is any threat to the marriage of any straight couple any more than the marriage of other straight couples would be---there are many threats to any individual marraige--and that comes from the two parties involved with that particular marriage and how each of those parties act---if one of them is a slut who will screw anyone (of any sex that comes along)--that is just human nature--I have seen more threats to hetero marriages that come from heterosexual behvavior than come from homosexual behavior.

In terms of politics/political leanings--both sides do stupid things and are equally guilty of mucking the world up--no one side can claim any moral or ethical high ground---there is enough blame for hosing things up to go around on both sides--

I do get so sick of hearing about how great and moral those on the right are supposed to be and that anyone who is a liberal is some sort of sick bastard.

There does tend to be an awful lot of closeted gay men who call themselves conservative Republicans--I see that the president of the national Young Republicans is under investigation for performing oral sex on a younger guy who was staying at the same house he had been a guest at without the consent of that young man--this is not the first time he has done something like this--the incident took place in Jeffersonville, Ind--just across the Ohio River from Louisville, KY in the past few weeks or so--the guy resigned from his position with the national group and as head of his county Republican party organization...for more on that story: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/08/young_republican_nat.html

So much for Conservative, Republican family values--they sure do have more than their share of guys who are outed doing crazy shit!!!

I really do tend to go with the politicos I think will do the least amount of harm---

I just find that for my taste--as a rule--- I do tend to favor Democrats and liberals---but that is not always the case--just usually I do have to say!!!!

[Skater Boy]

I like money, but I wouldn't consider myself a Capitalist. I agree with some of Marx's theorems, but wouldn't call myself a Marxist. I have fairly liberal views, but wouldn't consider myself a total Liberal. I do not agree with Communism, but I see some merits in what it tries to achieve. Etc, etc, etc.

I like to think I'm an individual who borrows aspects from many different schools of thought to combine them into my own philosophy.

I have yet to write my own book that solves the world's problems though. One day... :bigrin:

[Azrael]

I like money, but I wouldn't consider myself a Capitalist. I agree with some of Marx's theorems, but wouldn't call myself a Marxist. I have fairly liberal views, but wouldn't consider myself a total Liberal. I do not agree with Communism, but I see some merits in what it tries to achieve. Etc, etc, etc.

I like to think I'm an individual who borrows aspects from many different schools of thought to combine them into my own philosophy.

I have yet to write my own book that solves the world's problems though. One day... :bigrin:
Exactly. My political views, like my spiritual outlook, rather than being one school of thought are hybrids of all the useful things I've learned from everything I've delved into over the years and applied to my own philosophy. . I told this to a defrocked baptist preacher who was in the psych unit with me. He paused, thought for a second and said "I think I get it. Eat the meat, spit out the bones.". I'm like "Yup" :cool:

[HighEnergy]

While I can't seem to trust any of them, I always seem to favour the dems. I am the flaming liberal after working with some incredible homeless folks who couldn't get the medical care they needed in order to be functional to work. I also am pro-choice and couldn't bring myself to have an abortion. She's 21 and beautiful, but I'm glad I had the choice. I sure as hell don't want some man in a suit in Washington decide! I think we need to do something about the medical care in this country and fast. I am self employed and can't qualify for getting health insurance on my own. My response to the Sicko movie was to propose to Michael Moore. ;)

When I was married to a republican, I always said we all get screwed by the republicans, I just got to enjoy it once in a while. :bigrin:

[hudson9]

The most interesting thing about this thread is that there seems to be more exceptions and contradictions to peoples' concepts of "liberal" and "conservative" than there is consistency. The popular/traditional issues- or ideology-based definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" have become practically useless -- and in fact interfere with rational discussion of issues. As has been pointed out, the extremists on both "ends" have more in common with each other than those in the "middle."

I would like to propose new definitions. Characterizing "liberal" and "conservative" as "left" and "right" presupposes that politics exists on a one-dimensional continuum (a straight line stretching from left to right). However, at it's most basic, politics and the exercise of power is based on the concepts of "us" and "them." Picture a sheet of paper (2-dimensional) with many randomly placed dots representing people and groups. You are one of those dots. Some of the other dots are near you, others farther away. If you draw a circle with you at it's center, some dots fall inside your circle, and some outside. This circle is your "us." Every dot outside your circle, is "them." Humans being social animals, you are very concerned about everyone within your circle (us) and act/behave in a way to protect "our" people and "our" interests -- sometimes at the expense of "them." Where there are differences in interests among people within the same circle, compromises are found (after all, they're one of "us") or, sometimes they may be moved outside the circle.

Note one thing -- the circle is an arbitrary size.

Throughout history, movements, theologies, philosophies, and ideologies have sought to either enlarge, constrict, or maintain the size of the existing circles, either intentionally, or as a byproduct of a particular construction of behaviors or beliefs. Generally (*generally, not always*) liberal or progressive movements have enlarged the circle (who is included in "us"), and conservative movements have maintained or constricted the circle.

The interesting thing is that, if you accept this 2-dimensional "circles" model, many seemingly contradictory or anachronistic aspects of the traditional 1-dimensional model become more easily explained:

At different points in history, the same movement/philosophy/etc. may be viewed as liberal or conservative.

Christianity -- in it's early history, was uniformly pretty liberal -- it sought to enlarge the circle ("God's people/kingdom") beyond it's origins in the Jewish people, to include Gentiles. As far as it (in later times) sought to exclude people of different races/beliefs/orientations from receiving the benefits of "Gods Kingdom" -- it became conservative.

Nationalism -- when it was a movement that sought to unite various tribes or city-states or dukedoms into a larger "national" group (circle), it was liberal. When it sought to limit membership in the group based on ethnic, racial, or other differences, or opposed cooperation with other national groups because they have competing interests, it became conservative.

Communism -- when it sought to empower working people to benefit from their labor equally with the "owners," it was liberal. When it sought to restrict power to the Party, it became conservative.

"Politics makes strange bed-fellows" -- occasionally 2 different circles overlap. While their centers may be widely separated, on some particular issues, they may overlap.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- well, maybe, sometimes. Your enemy is a circle with which your circle has no overlap. There is a 3rd circle which also has no overlap with circle 2, and is therefore also an enemy of circle 2. However, you and circle 3 may or may NOT have any overlap yourselves. If you don't, then beware -- they are NOT really your friend!

In reality, people have many areas of concern or interests that contribute to where their personal us/them circles are drawn. That's why you can have Log Cabin Republicans -- on issues of sexuality, they may have a large circle that includes gay people, but on economic or environmental issues perhaps, they may have a much smaller circle -- defined by their economic interests.

With this definition, it is possible to have liberal and conservative capitalists, liberal and conservative socialists, liberal and conservative Christians/Jews/Muslims/etc., or liberal and conservative atheists. The concept is tied to your definition of "us" and "them" -- those you care about and those you don't -- rather than any particular economic, social, or religious mechanism.

So, according to this definition, I consider myself pretty liberal, because I understand that something that could happen to someone else, could happen to any of us. I'm more concerned about the health and well-being of immigrants and their families than my access to a minimum-wage job, or the less-than minute chance they may give me leprosy. I'm more concerned about civilians dying in Iraq than my access to cheap oil. I'm more concerned about the effects on all of us of global warming and climate change than the rate of return of the stock market, or that China might not be cutting back on CO2 as much as me. I'm more concerned about the thousands of people killed by handguns each year than the ridiculously small number of times a handgun actually prevents a crime, or about my ability to fire an Uzi at a gun range. I'm more concerned that everyone get the healthcare they need, than that someone get something for nothing.

I think I have won the prize for longest post, only slightly shorter than the average Russian Novel...

Peace.

[mulhollanddrive]

Tree-hugging-vegetarian-pro-choice-animal-rights liberal.

When I boil down to actual political party, I'd be Natural Law Party... but its not very well known. When people ask, I usually just say Democrat.

[biwords]

HUDSON9: really fine analysis of underlying principles, though your examples of your of personal beliefs at the end was full of false dichotomies and plain weirdness (why would you care less about your own child getting leprosy than about the well-being of an immigrant’s child, for example? Do you have kids? Is the local Childrens’ Aid Society aware of your priotities? :) For that matter, why not say “I’m troubled by the number of handgun-related deaths in the US, but am not comfortable with the state and the criminal class having all the guns and the people having none”? Why not worry about the impact of illegal Mexican labor on black unemployment levels? And so on).

MULLHOLLANDDRIVE: I don’t know much about the Natural Law Party either, but aren’t they into something called “yogic flying”?

HIGHENERGY: Up here in Canada it’s well-known that Michael Moore glossed over the problems with Canadian socialized medicine (it’s still not a bad system on the whole, but I gather that Moore romanticized it shamefully).

AZRAEL: “Sodomizing the Western thoughtblock with every breath”? Funny, it’s in the Eastern thoughtblock that sodomy is punished by death. Why do they get a pass?

FISHFRY29: “The best thing Ronald Raygun did for me was make me vow to never, ever, ever, ever, vote for any Republican for any office, including dogcatcher”. Umm, OK, but have Teddy Kennedy and Jesse Jackson had any effect on your willingness to vote for Dems? Just wondering.

CARDSHARK: “I'm also not a real big fan of america being the savior of the world per say…I know that may seem cruel to some but damn”. Yay CardShark!!!!!! Rest easy, it didn’t seem cruel to John Quincy Adams or to George Washington, either…both of them excellent examples of what would later be defamed as ‘isolationists’.

BEARISBARE: “Currently I sometimes need to apologize for having a name very close to that of the current Prime Minister”. No subscription to Harper’s, then?

SHAMESLESSAGTITATOR: You have me confused – You’re a “Die hard commie” who celebrates the psychopathic gunman Che Guevara, then you add, quoting Dr. King, that "Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that". Hmmmm….

Good thing I’m not political – I might make enemies.

[Azrael]

HUDSON9: really fine analysis of underlying principles, though your examples of your of personal beliefs at the end was full of false dichotomies and plain weirdness (why would you care less about your own child getting leprosy than about the well-being of an immigrant’s child, for example? Do you have kids? Is the local Childrens’ Aid Society aware of your priotities? :) For that matter, why not say “I’m troubled by the number of handgun-related deaths in the US, but am not comfortable with the state and the criminal class having all the guns and the people having none”? Why not worry about the impact of illegal Mexican labor on black unemployment levels? And so on).

MULLHOLLANDDRIVE: I don’t know much about the Natural Law Party either, but aren’t they into something called “yogic flying”?

HIGHENERGY: Up here in Canada it’s well-known that Michael Moore glossed over the problems with Canadian socialized medicine (it’s still not a bad system on the whole, but I gather that Moore romanticized it shamefully).

AZRAEL: “Sodomizing the Western thoughtblock with every breath”? Funny, it’s in the Eastern thoughtblock that sodomy is punished by death. Why do they get a pass?

FISHFRY29: “The best thing Ronald Raygun did for me was make me vow to never, ever, ever, ever, vote for any Republican for any office, including dogcatcher”. Umm, OK, but have Teddy Kennedy and Jesse Jackson had any effect on your willingness to vote for Dems? Just wondering.

CARDSHARK: “I'm also not a real big fan of america being the savior of the world per say…I know that may seem cruel to some but damn”. Yay CardShark!!!!!! Rest easy, it didn’t seem cruel to John Quincy Adams or to George Washington, either…both of them excellent examples of what would later be defamed as ‘isolationists’.

BEARISBARE: “Currently I sometimes need to apologize for having a name very close to that of the current Prime Minister”. No subscription to Harper’s, then?

SHAMESLESSAGTITATOR: You have me confused – You’re a “Die hard commie” who celebrates the psychopathic gunman Che Guevara, then you add, quoting Dr. King, that "Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that". Hmmmm….

Good thing I’m not political – I might make enemies.
Figure ov speech, dood. Don't read too much into it. I'm just an ardent fan of sodomy. Also, some pacific rim countries are much safer than the states to be a queer in, according to my friends over there. I just got bored with my old sig and chose one that reflects my recent decision to stop taking psychotropic drugs. Things are VERY CLEAR
:bigrin:

[biwords]

No prob, Az. Glad to hear that your decision seems to be working out well.

Meanwhile, a cousin sent me the following, which is cute as far as it goes:

"The Story of Two Houses"

House #1 A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms ) heated by
natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest
house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more
energy than the average American household does in a year. The
average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In
natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the
national average for an American home. This house is not situated
in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.

House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a
leading national university. This house incorporates every
"green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is
4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on a high prairie in the
American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal
heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the
ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F. ) heats the house in the winter
and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or
natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a
conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected
and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from
showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then
into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land
surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area
enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

~~~~~
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville , Tennessee ; it is the abode of
the "environmentalist" Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford,
Texas; it is the residence of the President of the United States,
George W. Bush.

An "inconvenient truth".

--from snopes.com

[domill]

My grandad was deported to a concentration camp during WW2, so ever since I knew how to talk (or read?) my parents told me that voting/being an educated citizen (Hitler was elected, after all) was one of the most important things in life... because things can easily get out of control.

Being a foreigner in the UK, I can only vote for EU or local elections (oh, and the Eurovision of course :eek: ), but I keep an eye on the news.

But I find it quite sad that so many people in the US have no interest in politics whatsoever. Especially when choices made in the "greatest democratic country in the world" (and I believe it is, in spite of all the "oops once again, Florida voted twice") have such a big impact on the rest of the world.

Anyway, here was my :2cents:

[hudson9]

...why would you care less about your own child getting leprosy than about the well-being of an immigrant’s child, for example? Do you have kids? Is the local Childrens’ Aid Society aware of your priotities?...

If you read carefully, you will notice that I said "than less-than minute chance" (I was unsure at the moment how to spell "infinitesimal"). The point being that public health experts know that an immigrant bringing a leprosy epidemic into this country is an order of magnitude less than being stuck by lighting in the dessert -- perhaps I should have said I'm less susceptible to fear-mongering and demonization.


For that matter, why not say “I’m troubled by the number of handgun-related deaths in the US, but am not comfortable with the state and the criminal class having all the guns and the people having none”?
Because it is the easy availability of legal handguns, and the (intentionally designed-in) easy evasion of what little regulation there is, that creates the vast pool of handguns available to criminals -- combined with the fact that there has not been a single reputable study that has shown handgun possession by "the people" to be either a deterrent, or a safe and successful intervention to a crime. It should also be telling that law-enforcement professionals are almost unanimously in favor of strict gun-control laws (perhaps because they know how dangerous handguns really are in the hands of amateurs).

[TaylorMade]

I really don't have a political philosophy--other than to try to be rational and look at how things really work in the world--while not always the case---it does seem that the more liberal modes of operation do tend to have a bit more real world relationships--take abortion since someone mentioned it---abortion is a terrible thing and should not happen--but the reality is--it always has taken place in some form and always will--might as well make it legal and safe as possible--if we do get rid of abortion here in the states--it will only mean that the poor will still get them--it will be done by back alley butchers and the rich will get them by doctors here in America in safer, more sanitary conditions---and its done with a wink and a nod--or the woman takes a trip to some place where abortions are legal if they make the laws so onerous and dangerous that it makes it impossible for doctors to perform them at all here----the rich will still get theirs--

On the drug wars---it is generally a conservative thing to be anti-drugs and be all for the "war on drugs" --it's a war just like Georgre's Folly in Iraq--it has been a disaster and failure from the get-go--once again--mgiht as well get "real" and make drugs if not legal--at least decriminalized --for all the war on drugs has done is to put tens of thousands of people into the prison and related systems--to the tune of billlions of dollars ---but has not done anything to curb the use or desire for drugs---

Another area where the conservatives push an idea that is pretty stupid--Gay marriage and the numerous "defense of marriage" laws--
One of the raps against gays and those they lump into the category of "gay"---is that they are so promiscious---but when gays want to declare their love for one person--settle down with one person--they go ballistic---

I do not see how the "marriage" of two men or two women is any threat to the marriage of any straight couple any more than the marriage of other straight couples would be---there are many threats to any individual marraige--and that comes from the two parties involved with that particular marriage and how each of those parties act---if one of them is a slut who will screw anyone (of any sex that comes along)--that is just human nature--I have seen more threats to hetero marriages that come from heterosexual behvavior than come from homosexual behavior.

In terms of politics/political leanings--both sides do stupid things and are equally guilty of mucking the world up--no one side can claim any moral or ethical high ground---there is enough blame for hosing things up to go around on both sides--

I do get so sick of hearing about how great and moral those on the right are supposed to be and that anyone who is a liberal is some sort of sick bastard.

There does tend to be an awful lot of closeted gay men who call themselves conservative Republicans--I see that the president of the national Young Republicans is under investigation for performing oral sex on a younger guy who was staying at the same house he had been a guest at without the consent of that young man--this is not the first time he has done something like this--the incident took place in Jeffersonville, Ind--just across the Ohio River from Louisville, KY in the past few weeks or so--the guy resigned from his position with the national group and as head of his county Republican party organization...for more on that story: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/08/young_republican_nat.html

So much for Conservative, Republican family values--they sure do have more than their share of guys who are outed doing crazy shit!!!

I really do tend to go with the politicos I think will do the least amount of harm---

I just find that for my taste--as a rule--- I do tend to favor Democrats and liberals---but that is not always the case--just usually I do have to say!!!!

If both sides do stupid things, according to your estimate, why did you point out only one?

Just a question.

*Taylor*

[biwords]

If you read carefully, you will notice that I said "than less-than minute chance" (I was unsure at the moment how to spell "infinitesimal"). The point being that public health experts know that an immigrant bringing a leprosy epidemic into this country is an order of magnitude less than being stuck by lighting in the dessert -- perhaps I should have said I'm less susceptible to fear-mongering and demonization.


Because it is the easy availability of legal handguns, and the (intentionally designed-in) easy evasion of what little regulation there is, that creates the vast pool of handguns available to criminals -- combined with the fact that there has not been a single reputable study that has shown handgun possession by "the people" to be either a deterrent, or a safe and successful intervention to a crime. It should also be telling that law-enforcement professionals are almost unanimously in favor of strict gun-control laws (perhaps because they know how dangerous handguns really are in the hands of amateurs).

Struck by lighting in the dessert? Is that like dropping a strobe into your Creme Brulee? :)

It is, of course, almost impossible to mount a study to show much any deterrent actually deters. Take speed limits, for example; you can show that they fail to deter speeders, but you can't really show that non-speeders refrain from speeding BECAUSE of mandated speed limits. Nonetheless, it's a primary axiom of economics that people respond to incentives, both positive and negative. I'm a peaceable soul, but in the course of my life I've known two people whom I literally would have killed had I thought I could get away with it (both were in the context of business, incidentally). I still think that one of them could use killing. But I'm never going to do it, because I don't like the thought of prison. How will the success of the Criminal Code in deterring me show up on a study?

Of course there's some merit in your position. As I've noted above, there's usually some merit in any position. But if you find it telling that cops want laws against handguns, I find it telling that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all opposed private gun ownership, and that the oldest continuous democracy (of sorts) in the world, namely the US, has the Second Amendment. And cops are part of the state apparatus anyway; sometimes their interests coincide with those of 'the people', and sometimes not.

[canuckotter]

combined with the fact that there has not been a single reputable study that has shown handgun possession by "the people" to be either a deterrent, or a safe and successful intervention to a crime.

Actually, I don't think the rationale for gun rights has anything to do with crime prevention. It was to help make sure that the British wouldn't be able to reconquer America and, perhaps more importantly, to make sure that when (not if -- your founding fathers weren't optimistic about how long their government would stay honest) the government began to be oppressive, the people would have firearms handy to be able to mount a successful revolution. Basically, it's all about making sure that the people always have the option to rid themselves of tyrants.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of gun rights, but by far the most careful and coherent argument I've seen regarding the 2nd amendment made it clear to me that like it or not, the law really is that gun rights are currently protected, although the government does have the right and responsibility to impose reasonable restrictions, just as there are restrictions on free speech.

Just thought I'd throw in my :2cents: ;)

[hudson9]

Struck by lighting in the dessert? Is that like dropping a strobe into your Creme Brulee? :)
Actually, I was just confused by the candlepower of my last birthday cake... :eek:

Yes, of course people respond to incentives. But that's not the only motivating factor in behavior. There have been people that I too, would have liked to smack in the head with a lead pipe, but I chose not to, not because of the threat of the death penalty or life in prison, but because I choose not to be that kind of person (Ghandi said we must be the change we wish to see in the world -- and he defeated the British Empire). Yes, I agree that deterrence is hard to study. That does not mean that we should eschew empirical evidence in favor of "what we know in our gut" (that worked out so well for all of us when Cheney decided he needed to set up his own intelligence unit in the Def. Dept., because he knew better than what the CIA was telling him...).

Speaking of the British Empire -- Great Brittan has democratic institutions that predate our own, and they have strict gun control laws -- in fact, their police do not routinely carry firearms. And please, please please! -- do not forget that the 2nd amendment *Begins* "A well-ordered militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." i.e., remote towns and villages being at risk from Indian attack and those crazy French and English Canadians to the north... When the Constitution talks about "the people" they are referring to the concept that sovieriengty (OK, I KNOW I spelled that wrong) and therefore the rights to security and safety, rested with the people, not the crown or the mechanisms of the national government, and that therefore the Central Government must not be allowed to remove mechanisms of law enforcement and public safety and security from the local (state) governments.


Be well, and keep thinking -- and keep me thinking as well... !
:bigrin:

[Azrael]

Voting is sexy...

[biwords]

There have been people that I too, would have liked to smack in the head with a lead pipe, but I chose not to, not because of the threat of the death penalty or life in prison, but because I choose not to be that kind of person (Ghandi said we must be the change we wish to see in the world -- and he defeated the British Empire).

I can't resist noting (and I claim no originality here, God knows) that Gandhi's techniques worked because he was dealing with the British, who for all their flaws don't like to think of themselves as unfair and who will make some attempt to see others' point of view as well as their own. If Gandhi had faced the Germans instead, they'd have ground him up into bonemeal. And so I relucantly accept that some people really do deserve the lead pipe. I'd have used it on Himmler without scruple, and as for the person I referred to above as deserving it -- well, he was just a Himmler without Himmler's opportunities. :)

[Azrael]

Struck by lighting in the dessert? Is that like dropping a strobe into your Creme Brulee?
Sir, you fuckin' slay me sometimes :bigrin:
Speakin' of...
http://main.bisexual.com/forum/showthread.php?p=71907#post71907

[biwords]

Actually, I was just confused by the candlepower of my last birthday cake... :eek:

Yes, of course people respond to incentives. But that's not the only motivating factor in behavior. There have been people that I too, would have liked to smack in the head with a lead pipe, but I chose not to, not because of the threat of the death penalty or life in prison, but because I choose not to be that kind of person (Ghandi said we must be the change we wish to see in the world -- and he defeated the British Empire). Yes, I agree that deterrence is hard to study. That does not mean that we should eschew empirical evidence in favor of "what we know in our gut" (that worked out so well for all of us when Cheney decided he needed to set up his own intelligence unit in the Def. Dept., because he knew better than what the CIA was telling him...).

Speaking of the British Empire -- Great Brittan has democratic institutions that predate our own, and they have strict gun control laws -- in fact, their police do not routinely carry firearms. And please, please please! -- do not forget that the 2nd amendment *Begins* "A well-ordered militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." i.e., remote towns and villages being at risk from Indian attack and those crazy French and English Canadians to the north... When the Constitution talks about "the people" they are referring to the concept that sovieriengty (OK, I KNOW I spelled that wrong) and therefore the rights to security and safety, rested with the people, not the crown or the mechanisms of the national government, and that therefore the Central Government must not be allowed to remove mechanisms of law enforcement and public safety and security from the local (state) governments.

Be well, and keep thinking -- and keep me thinking as well... !
:bigrin:

Agree with you re:the Constitution (speaking as a ignorant foreigner, mind you :) ) and yes, please be well and keep me thinking as well.
Paul

[laloo3]

I've always been a progressive/liberal, but never very active until the Bush Administration scared me into actively supporting the Democratic Party. My wife shares my politics, but to my surprise my male partner of 3 years turned out to be a staunch conservative. This was doubly surprising to me since he is sexually submissive. Neither being bi or being submissive fits with my stereotype of a conservative! Live and learn. We have an unspoken agreement not to discuss politics, and meantime the sex with him is fantastic

[lastlaf44]

Politics are too messy. If there are problems with the government (i.e. corruption), there are scads of people already out there who will
deal with it/raise awareness/criticise/inform the public/protest, etc.

I'll support a party that has policies I agree with and vote for them. That's about it...which, in my defense, is more than some do (who don't even vote). ^_^

~Lastlaf~:female:

P.S. Oh, and I'm a liberal...maybe a little more liberally liberal. :)

[JoyJoyHollywood]

I'm an Independent. No party can count on my vote automatically. What else do I believe politically? Well...

I believe that I have the right to shoot anyone who tries to hurt someone I care for, am responsible for or myself.

I believe that abortion is neither right or wrong. It's a woman's personal business and any person who tries to control it needs to grow up and get some manners.

I believe that any country in the world has the right to decide who becomes a citizen and who doesn't. I also believe that I have the right to say who enters my house and uses my bathroom.

I believe that total party allegiance is counter productive to democracy. I also believe that our Constitution was crafted with this in mind.

I believe that citizens have the right to criticize religion when it controls a large segment of the population. I do not believe that members of a religion are responsible for actions that their religion promoted more than one hundred years ago. I do not believe that any religion has the right to exist in a static state without change or modification when change is needed. I believe that people who are more concerned with religious rights than human rights are (expletive) holes.

I believe that I have the right to be left alone.

I believe that I have the right to be a mean person. Just like everyone has the right to be what they want to be without some goodie goodie ordering them about.

I believe that you shouldn't comment on what makes a good war or bad war unless you have been shot at a few times and know what it feels like.

I believe that the United States of America has all the laws and regulations it needs and we just need to actually start using and inforcing them not spend all of our time trying to fix and change them.

I believe that a doper is not a big deal on the scale of things and maybe we should pay more attention to organized crime, rape, murder, child molestation, animal abuse and actual crimes.

I believe that our country is good, even if most of our representatives are cowards.

I believe that sitting around for seven years while the Taliban chopped off heads, raped, murdered, destroyed and oppressed the people of Afghanistan was yellow and we should have done something sooner.

I believe that if the world wants us to fix it's starvation, disease, political uprisings and general catastrophes then it can accept the fact that we too can have a (expletive) up sometimes and maybe think about what the real world is like down here off the marble pillar and help to find a solution that works.

I believe that every person who says that they are complete opponents to war should think about how they felt ten hours after they saw those big shiny buildings fall, people jump ten stories to their deaths and heard terrified screams on a plane-then try and pull my other leg.

I believe that a persons body type is their own business and the government should mind it's own.

I believe that someone with more money than me should have to pay more taxes, not less.

I believe that our representatives should be held accountable for their actions. Even if that means just telling the government what you want by phone or mail.

I believe that we should listen to our elders because they do know much, much more than we do.

I believe that people who don't vote because "it doesn't make a difference" when they are in fact just lazy apathetic bums should stay as silent now as they were at the poles when the rest of us cared enough to do something.

I believe that maybe we should just try and be responsible for our country and stop complaining about it so much.

[JoyJoyHollywood]

Oh-one more thing. I believe that Anarchists are wonderful because you can spend all day slapping them around and they will just whine about it.

[Skater Boy]

You're a strong-minded woman, JoyJoy. For that, I like you. :)

[Azrael]

You're a strong-minded woman, JoyJoy. For that, I like you. :)

She sure is something :bigrin:

[biwords]

[1] I believe that abortion is neither right or wrong. It's a woman's personal business and any person who tries to control it needs to grow up and get some manners...

[2] I believe that total party allegiance is counter productive to democracy. I also believe that our Constitution was crafted with this in mind.

[3] ...I do not believe that any religion has the right to exist in a static state without change or modification when change is needed.

[4] I believe that sitting around for seven years while the Taliban chopped off heads, raped, murdered, destroyed and oppressed the people of Afghanistan was yellow and we should have done something sooner.

[5] believe that people who don't vote because "it doesn't make a difference" when they are in fact just lazy apathetic bums should stay as silent now as they were at the poles when the rest of us cared enough to do something.

I liked a lot of what you had to say, but some points grated. Brief comments for your consideration:

[1] A good example of a religious-fundamentalist statement. If you believe that a fetus is a mere clump of cells rather than an unborn child, that's your business. But why are people who disagree with you guilty of 'bad manners'? If abortion is an unlimited good, you're right, it should be subject to no controls whatsoever. If it's a partial good, perhaps it should be subject to some limited controls. If it's bad, it should be subject to more rigorous controls or prohibited entirely. Surely it's legitimate to investigate and debate each of these possibilities?

[2] Of course, many of the Founding Fathers hated and feared democracy, seeing it as a failed ancient experiment that inevitably led to tyranny. But without knowing what you mean by 'democracy', it's hard to evaluate your point here.

[3] If churches have no 'right' to remain true to their core doctrines, then it follows that someone can legitimately compel them to change. Who might that be? If you mean "the members of the church themselves", well, that's obvious. The only other candidate that springs to mind is the State. Surely you aren't saying that the State should be able to compel change in the churches? That wouldn't sit well with your admiration for the Constitution.

[4] Is the US obliged to spend its blood and treasure on righting every wrong in the world? Omigod, women are being raped in Whatsistan! Send in the troops! On this view, the US is doomed to weaken itself even as its chief rival, China, grows stronger.

[5] There are plenty of people who are anything but 'lazy apathetic bums' but who choose not to vote at one time or another. And there are many ways of being a good citizen other than casting a statistically insignificant ballot for Tweedledum or Tweedledee.

[Skater Boy]

Ha! And Biwords demonstrates his ability for logical thought once again. You and Joy could probably argue eachother into the ground if you ever met in real life...

[biwords]

Ha! And Biwords demonstrates his ability for logical thought once again. You and Joy could probably argue eachother into the ground if you ever met in real life...

Well, I'm a lot closer to the ground than she is.
I hope I'd have the good sense not to argue, but to just read poetry to her or feed treats to Zeus, or the other way 'round, or something. Anything but argue....

[JoyJoyHollywood]

I liked a lot of what you had to say, but some points grated. Brief comments for your consideration:

-Cool, thank you. I like a lot of what you wrote too.

[1] A good example of a religious-fundamentalist statement. If you believe that a fetus is a mere clump of cells rather than an unborn child, that's your business. But why are people who disagree with you guilty of 'bad manners'? If abortion is an unlimited good, you're right, it should be subject to no controls whatsoever. If it's a partial good, perhaps it should be subject to some limited controls. If it's bad, it should be subject to more rigorous controls or prohibited entirely. Surely it's legitimate to investigate and debate each of these possibilities?

-I believe that the only controls that should be placed on it are medical standards for quality treatment. Who cares if it is a clump of cells or a concious human? Because it's morally right or wrong? Who's morality? And it is bad manners to be overly concerned with what goes on under a strangers skirt. What goes on is none of our business. We let human beings eat glass at shock shows, ride bikes without helmets, undergo countless medical proceedures that have no health benefits. Why should the majority of any region be able to decide what is right and wrong medically? That pregancy is not our collective responsibility or property. It's the mothers. We have no right to tell her what to do with her body, or her unborn offspring. The same way she doesn't have the right to tell us what to do with our sexuality or respective religions. It's a matter of free will. We do not have the right to take it away from others. It's their right as a human being. It belongs to them.

There is no such thing as unlimited good or bad. Or a standard amount of good or bad on this issue. That concept does not mesh with a world that exists outside of absolutes. Some women will have them and never regret it. Some will have them and regret it. But it's their right to decide, if that decision is good or not. It is not our place to decide what is "right" for them. Women do not need to be looked after for their own spiritual, physical or emotional good. They can take care of themselves and live with their decisions. That is their right-freedom to make mistakes and be human. Live their lives as they see fit. Not as we do.

[2] Of course, many of the Founding Fathers hated and feared democracy, seeing it as a failed ancient experiment that inevitably led to tyranny. But without knowing what you mean by 'democracy', it's hard to evaluate your point here.

-What are you saying? My point was this-it is counter productive to vote totally under one party. To only vote Republican, to only vote Democrat. We should look at the politician, not his party when we vote. We should not feel beholden to cast a full ballot under one party alone. We should pay more attention to the individual, not take reassurances that his party has historically given. Simply put we should do this-pay attention to the people that we give power to. Not blindly vote. Not just cast our ballots for the team we think best represents us-but look deeper and not be afraid to pick and chose among them.

[3] If churches have no 'right' to remain true to their core doctrines, then it follows that someone can legitimately compel them to change. Who might that be? If you mean "the members of the church themselves", well, that's obvious. The only other candidate that springs to mind is the State. Surely you aren't saying that the State should be able to compel change in the churches? That wouldn't sit well with your admiration for the Constitution.

-No, I do not believe that any religion has the right to remain true to it's historical habits and outside the range of the law. I do not believe that some Mormans have the right to take multiple child brides. I do not believe the Koran has the right to encourage wife beating, femal subjugation and massive murder suicide. I do not believe that the practitioners of some religions have the right to mutilate children physically. And I do believe that the State, any State or country, has the right to halt such procedures by use of the law. I do not believe that freedom of religion gives freedom of action. I believe that freedom of religion gives freedom from religious compulsion. And that sits very well with the Constitution I love.

[4] Is the US obliged to spend its blood and treasure on righting every wrong in the world? Omigod, women are being raped in Whatsistan! Send in the troops! On this view, the US is doomed to weaken itself even as its chief rival, China, grows stronger.

-Probably-it started after WWII with corporate power growing hugely and with out any monitoring. We are already weak. We hold huge debts to them. But that is a world away from the reality of life under the Taliban. I'm sorry-but there is a huge difference between world politics and manipulation and letting human beings get their head chopped off in a soccer field by a pack of lunitics that don't have one one hundredth of the soldiers, arsenal or military capabilities of China. Taliban-ignorant, uneducated lunatics with comparatively low range weaponry in low population and little international trade besides opium. China-huge population, incredibly intelligent, incredibly educated, weaponry up to nuclear arms with massive international trade. Can you sense the difference between the two confrontations?

[5] There are plenty of people who are anything but 'lazy apathetic bums' but who choose not to vote at one time or another. And there are many ways of being a good citizen other than casting a statistically insignificant ballot for Tweedledum or Tweedledee.

-When Tweedledee can blast another continent off the face of the planet, perhaps one should pay attention at regular intervals. Insignificant is in the eye of the beholder. Yes, alone they are small. But they add up. It's hard to get up, drive to the middle of nowhere, stand in line for hours while not expecting to get the result we want. But maybe-just maybe we will be wrong just once and will elect a wonderful politician. Maybe we will make a change. The number of non voters in the U.S. is getting larger. They are becoming apathetic to government and to the voting process. Because they consider themselves statistically insignificant.

It is important to take a chance and go out of our way-so maybe, maybe we will be one of those hundred votes that mean the difference between living in a country that is strong in it's culture and politics and one that is just going on a slow sleigh ride to nowhere fast.

__________________________________

Thank you, that was nice to clarify. And I can't give Zeus any treats right now. He is getting hip dysplasia and it is very hard for him to get up or move with out my help. So he can't take the added weight. Yes, I do like poetry. Very much. I find the simplification of verse to be very refreshing to my taste and eyes. I'm almost of the mind to say that you do too.

And-just a little interjection. You have no idea what level of ground I occupy one way or another.

And another thing-I take absuloutly no offense to what you have written what so ever.

[biwords]

We're not going to agree on abortion, plainly. I don' t mean simply on whether it's right or wrong, but on the whole complex of assumptions and beliefs you've described. To take only one example: "Who cares if it is a clump of cells or a conscious human?" Well, I'd have thought it matters a lot, one way or another. After all, you write that free will is inalienable since it's the right of "a human being". So evidently, one's status as human or non-human has consequences.

More generally, it's one thing to say that "the radical individualism I espouse has the following arguments to support it, and yields the following benefits...", and quite another to suggest that the issue is so simple that only an idiot could fail to see it the way you do. (I'm being blunt here, but am not at all angry, believe me).

Of course I agree that one should evaluate the politician as well as his or her party. But I don't think that those who vote by party are any less 'democratic' than those who vote on any other basis.

I also agree that churches have to abide by the laws of the land. But if the laws are specifically made to enforce doctrinal change on churches -- for example, if a law is passed that no church may teach that homosexuality is sinful -- then you've got State tyranny. Which to my mind is even worse than putting up with the Rev. Phelps.

Was it really 'corporate power' that determined the US on its post-1941 course of foreign intervention? That sounds a bit too pat and Marxist to me. FDR was an interventionist, period. He didn't like isolationists like Lindbergh. FDR's policies undoubtedly made many corporations wealthier. But that he was simply their puppet is, again, a caricature of the Oliver Stone/Michael Moore/village Marxist variety.

I think you misunderstood my point about China, which was simply that it uses its resources to make China stronger, rather than to make the world in general a better place. In the long run, that will make it stronger than a US which feels a moral obligation to fix everyone's sore teeth, regardless of the cost to itself. And that concerns me. Yes, this Canuck is an America-Firster!

You write: "The number of non voters in the U.S. is getting larger. They are becoming apathetic to government and to the voting process. Because they consider themselves statistically insignificant". Or because they can't read the signs directing them to the polling booth? :)

I'm sorry to hear about Zeus's dysplasia, poor thing. And yes, I love poetry. Most poems are junk, but as Clement Greenberg famously said, "90% of everything is junk".

You wrote: "You have no idea what level of ground I occupy one way or another". I thought you said you're 5'11"? So I'm five inches nearer to the ground -- that's all I meant. Wanna switch? :)

You wrote: "And another thing-I take absuloutly no offense to what you have written what so ever". It's mutual, darlin'.

[JoyJoyHollywood]

We're not going to agree on abortion, plainly. I don' t mean simply on whether it's right or wrong, but on the whole complex of assumptions and beliefs you've described. To take only one example: "Who cares if it is a clump of cells or a conscious human?" Well, I'd have thought it matters a lot, one way or another. After all, you write that free will is inalienable since it's the right of "a human being". So evidently, one's status as human or non-human has consequences.

-We could argue until the end days if it is a matter of emply cellular tissue or a human being. So why not leave that for the mother to decide? Why should we decide to undertake a public investigation into this matter when we ultimately should have no say on what another can do reproductively? Why should we have the right to decide that if yes, if this is deeply immoral than we shall keep others from acting immoraly in our judgement? What can possibly give us the power to say that in the judgement of our concious, our morality, ethics that what they do is wrong and they shall be prohibited? We have no right to do so.

Why must we afford this issue debate? Why can't we instead just decide to accept that it is the choice of the individual and not give ourselves endless rounds of logical agony in the States domain? Why can't we simply decide as individuals if this is right or wrong and act accordingly? What, in our grand natures as humans, gives us the right to legislate reproduction one way or another, when all it comes down to is individual decision?

Why must we decide morality for others outside of plain issues of inhumanity?-

More generally, it's one thing to say that "the radical individualism I espouse has the following arguments to support it, and yields the following benefits...", and quite another to suggest that the issue is so simple that only an idiot could fail to see it the way you do. (I'm being blunt here, but am not at all angry, believe me).

-Okay. Excellent.-

Of course I agree that one should evaluate the politician as well as his or her party. But I don't think that those who vote by party are any less 'democratic' than those who vote on any other basis.

-I don't either. The same way the I don't wish death on every person that cuts me off. But it would still be nice to see more people looking more closly.-

I also agree that churches have to abide by the laws of the land. But if the laws are specifically made to enforce doctrinal change on churches -- for example, if a law is passed that no church may teach that homosexuality is sinful -- then you've got State tyranny. Which to my mind is even worse than putting up with the Rev. Phelps.

-There is a difference between telling your flock that homosexuality is evil and directing them to cut a homosexuals head off. I don't believe that they have the right to directly order (which one must admit does happen to some religious-they do recieve orders) a follower to commit criminal actions under the banner of religious freedom.-

Was it really 'corporate power' that determined the US on its post-1941 course of foreign intervention? That sounds a bit too pat and Marxist to me. FDR was an interventionist, period. He didn't like isolationists like Lindbergh. FDR's policies undoubtedly made many corporations wealthier. But that he was simply their puppet is, again, a caricature of the Oliver Stone/Michael Moore/village Marxist variety.

-Okay. Excellent.-

I think you misunderstood my point about China, which was simply that it uses its resources to make China stronger, rather than to make the world in general a better place. In the long run, that will make it stronger than a US which feels a moral obligation to fix everyone's sore teeth, regardless of the cost to itself. And that concerns me. Yes, this Canuck is an America-Firster!

-So am I. But I don't believe that we should treat halting atrocity like charitable works.

China also does the following: have one of the worst human rights records in modern countries, use slave labor, have one of the most misrable animal rights records, have some of the most deeply ignored poverty in it's rural regions, monitor and censor all of it's citizens education, public speech, news and research. I don't think they make the best model.

I think we do it because our ideal for this country is to be in such a time of prosperity that the cup runeth over and we can share our wealth to the world at large. Unfortunately, it seems the cup is getting a little low.-

You write: "The number of non voters in the U.S. is getting larger. They are becoming apathetic to government and to the voting process. Because they consider themselves statistically insignificant". Or because they can't read the signs directing them to the polling booth?

-You know I get that a lot coming from Florida. Trust me. Not that many of us are quite at that level of stupid to account.

Thank you for complimenting my height. I like that. Bocu cookie points for your round. Zeus thanks you for your regards.-

You wrote: "And another thing-I take absuloutly no offense to what you have written what so ever". It's mutual, darlin'.

-Me too.-

[biwords]

[QUOTE=JoyJoyHollywood;72276]Why must we afford this issue [abortion] debate? ...Why must we decide morality for others outside of plain issues of inhumanity?-[/COLOR]

Debate is required because the country is nowhere near an explicit consensus on it. And as for 'plain issues of inhumanity', that's precisely what's at issue for the pro-life/anti-choice side. If you sincerely believe that Roe v. Wade is on the same level as, say, the Nuremberg Racial Laws, it follows that you'll want to overturn it, and won't rest until you do.

I don't believe that we should treat halting atrocity like charitable works. China also does the following: have one of the worst human rights records in modern countries, use slave labor, have one of the most misrable animal rights records, have some of the most deeply ignored poverty in it's rural regions, monitor and censor all of it's citizens education, public speech, news and research. I don't think they make the best model.


Youre less of a Machiavellian than I am, that's clear. Even so, not saying they're a model, except perhaps in pursuing their national insterest vis-a-vis the rest of the world, rather than dissipating their resources trying to fix it.

Ah well......"tomorrow to fresh woods and pastures new....". Ciao JJ! :)

[hudson9]

I agree with almost everything JoyJoy has to say, but I do want to comment on 2 things...


I believe that any country in the world has the right to decide who becomes a citizen and who doesn't. I also believe that I have the right to say who enters my house and uses my bathroom.


I try to keep statements of belief/principles as far away as possible from sloganeering. Sloganeering oversimplifies not the belief, but it's application to the question at hand, often intentionally obscuring the subtleties of the issue. The immigration issues the US is facing today are extremely complex, poorly understood by many people, and in the hot-button, reflexive responses by many people (on all sides), the human issues get lost.


I believe that every person who says that they are complete opponents to war should think about how they felt ten hours after they saw those big shiny buildings fall, people jump ten stories to their deaths and heard terrified screams on a plane-then try and pull my other leg.


I will remember how I felt every day for the rest of my life -- as I watched the towers fall, I was watching my step-son die. I also remember walking the site the next several days, and thinking, this must be what Dresden was like, or London, or Tokyo...

In the entire history of humankind, the number of truly necessary wars can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand -- with several fingers left over. Gandhi asked "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" In the wars of the 20th century (even discounting the Holocaust), the vast majority of casualties have been civilian, not military. This has been perpetrated by the "good guys" as well as the "bad guys."

War turns everybody into bad guys. Douglas MacArthur said "I have known war as few men now living know it. It's very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes."

Is it possible that there could be circumstances where a war is truly justified, truly needed, truly unavoidable? Yes, it's possible. But, for me at least, there is a very, VERY high burden of proof to be overcome. And this current war, especially, does not meet the standard. Despite what Bush/Cheney would have us believe, this war never did, and never will, have anything to do with "those who attacked us on 9-11." Those who did attack us on 9-11 are mostly still at-large, and regrouping. But, as has mostly been the case throughout history, the people who decide to have the wars have their own agendas -- they just expect the rest of us to die for them.

"When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die."
- Jean-Paul Sartre

[Artist]

Please put me down as a socialist: I believe in free enterprise, to a degree, but I also believe that no one should profit from something that everyone needs (health care, power, water, etc.). I used to think that anarchy sounded pretty cool (having grown up in the 80's), but I've come to believe that anarchy really means that those in control tend to be men with guns.

Also, please put me down as a pantheist.

[biwords]

no one should profit from something that everyone needs (health care, power, water, etc.)

Why not? if not for the profit motive, many of the technologies that come under 'health care' would never have come into being. Same with hydroelectric power. Let's come at it another way: if everyone had access to health care, power, etc., would you still maintain that it's wrong for those supplying it to make a profit? or are you simply concerned that so long as the profit motive is to the fore, access will be reduced rather than increased? and if it's the second, what do you make of the fact that shortages are chronic in non-capitalist economies? (all those bare supermarket shelves etc.).

[biwords]

I used to think that anarchy sounded pretty cool (having grown up in the 80's), but I've come to believe that anarchy really means that those in control tend to be men with guns.

As in Gaza, to take only one example. Ah, there's hope for you yet! :)

[wolfcamp]

if not for the profit motive, many of the technologies that come under 'health care' would never have come into being.

It's true that capitalism powers our economy and drives innovation, but it also needs regulations and checks and balances. Capitalism is a system of exploitation where a resource is exploited to satisfy a market. That resource might be crude oil or cheap labor or the intellectual ideas of scientists and engineers. This system can be good in that it delivers goods and services to appreciative markets, but sometimes the entrepreneurs are a little (or a lot) overzealous and assault our sense of decency and fairness, or even our sense of self-preservation. It's because of the excesses of capitalism that we now have child labor laws and the minimum wage, and rules about overtime. We have been forced to create the EPA, OSHA, the FDA and a host of other controlling organizations.

If it weren't for restrictions and regulations our redwoods might now be all extinct (the old giants would be gone for sure), more of our drinking water would be polluted, we'd have critically high levels of mercury and lead in our blood (even higher than now). My point is that the free market can't be entirely free and without restrictions and oversight, because there are some people out there who are unscrupulous and would screw things up for the rest of us (or just plain screw us). We are at that point with health care. The trick will be to keep incentives in place for innovation while leveling the field for access and affordability. Personally, I'd like to see the insurance companies thrown completely out of the health care equation. I'd rather pay a retainer directly to a doctor and be able to see him whenever I need to.

As to the original question, I try to be a centrist, but I lean moderately to the left. Maybe I'm a progressive.

WC