Democrats versus Republicans

[cardiacpaul]

Yea, we've made our mistakes in the past concerning who to back, how to back them and what support we should have given or not given to the crack-pot dujour.

Where we should not make any further mistakes is WHEN these whack jobs get a feeling they'd like to meet their maker by straping a bomb to their a** and taking us out... is how long it takes us to pick up a really big bat and dent some wigs till that feeling they get goes away.
(oh man, how much college education was wasted writing that redneck little commentary, eh? ("Feel good diplomacy my ass, get the hell outta by back yard!" )

[cardiacpaul]

Oh, wanna tick them off? tell 'em that you've read the Koran... and you can't find anywhere that it says you're going to get 72 FEMALE virgins.

[T34C]

Originally Posted by cardiacpaul

Oh, wanna tick them off? tell 'em that you've read the Koran... and you can't find anywhere that it says you're going to get 72 FEMALE virgins.

LOL!!! Paul - I hope you don't mind if I quote you (frequently) on that one!!
That is hilarious!

[RAGNAR]

ppp

[RAGNAR]

yyy

[RAGNAR]

hhh

[sailaway21]

Rags,
Thanks for the long post. I would challenge your entire premise, vis a vis religion, with one statistic. Europe is the current culture of anti-faith, with intellectual reasoning dominating the political and social landscape. The rubes in the US continue to believe, to a far greater extent, in a Higher Power that has relevance to their lives, if not politics. Which continent would you consider the "statist"?

I would agree with most of your defense of federalism, in response to Camaraderie, and certainly with the fundamental one that charity is the function of charitable organizations and not the government. Putting the government in the charity business inevitably results is an "unlawful taking" as well as voluminous waste. Charities, often religous in nature also, do a much better job of what many feel their duty to do.

I have not responded to many of your points, while agreeing with them, because of your continual references to the buga-boo of religion. It is from your posts, and your posts alone, that I draw those conclusions. In my opinion, you have wasted many quite good and reasoned arguments by dragging religion into the topic.

As far as sharing a common goal, while arriving at it from different perspectives, I would disagree with your requirement that we must share the argument behind them. My neighbor and I can both agree that it would be unwise for his unmarried teenage daughter to become pregnant, and that the best way to do that is for her not to have sexual relations. We can agree on that point, while approaching it from completely different philosophical view points. Perhaps you would, at least, concede this as an alliance of convenience, if not, something more.

Finally, I would state that I am reading your posts, and if you would lighten the load on your ass you'd realize that I enjoy them, and, in no way, am trying to pick on you or your points. I prefer to dwell on the areas of agreement, of which there are many, and since we seem to be irrevocably split on the marginal utility of faith, I was endeavoring to distance that discussion form the Dems/Reps thread. If you're bent about that-tough. If not, write on for the enjoyment of all.

[sailaway21]

Hellosailor,
"evil to triumph, is good men do nothing" Edmund Burke.

Cam,
While I must admit that i was equally chagrined by the way hello posted his thoughts on 9/11, upon further reading I found that, while I think it should be stated differently, his fundamental point was right on the money.

I do not believe that anyone does not think we 'should' be able to fly about without security on airplanes. We should not have to worry about such matters in a sane world. OK, so much for that former reality. The primary job of the federal government is to protect the American populace. It is allowed to levy taxes for the purpose of raising and maintaining a standing army to that end. My Libertarian friends would say that we have now reached the end of the federal government's obligations with fulfillment of my last statement. Others feel differently. Regardless, all agree that defense of the nation and her peoples is the number one responsibility of the giovernment. I have written on this elsewhere, but will repeat that the federal government has controlled avaition for a very long time, under a reading of the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. That reading makes aviation a federal matter. And, no where, do regular American citizens sacrifice more freedom than in flying a commercial airliner, even pre 9/11. We don't accept similar restrictions on any other form of travel.

Now, this gets back to the validity of hello's point. Our government is charged with defending us against foreign agression and has assured us that it is capable of ensuring safe airline travel. The terrorists are responsible for the deaths on 9/11. The federal government is responsible for making those homicides so easy to commit. That does not mean the federal government is complicit in the 9/11 attacks, but it may mean that the federal government, specifically the FAA, is criminally negligent.

If my aging mother walks out to the bus stop and boards the bus, which then crashes and burns, due to bald tires and the driver being drunk, I would be suitably enraged. Although, my mother had the ability to inspect the tires and the driver before choosing to entrust her life in either. Now, let's put the old girl on an airplane overseen by Norman Minetta's FAA. She will have no opportunity to evaluate the safety of her flight plans, and must rely on the platitudes of a government and airline that assure her they will take good care of her. In the case of 9/11, the government screwed the pooch! And I am interested in hearing how it is any better today. Interested, but sceptical.

Lastly, consider this; if the federal government allowed citizens to carry firearms on commercial aircraft, 9/11 would probably never have happened in the way it did. Remember the punch line from the old joke?-'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you'.

[PBzeer]

Well, CNN reports that Rudy boy has reiterated his support of public funding of abortions for poor people. His reasoning being, that one should be able to avail themselves of a "constitutional right", and if a person can't afford an abortion, then the government should pay for it. I won't even go near the fallacy of that kind of reasoning, it's too self evident for anyone with half a brain.

I'm guessing though, that he pretty well threw away the GOP nomination with that statement and will probably coalesce the social conservatives behind someone they find more palatable. They were already leery enough of his social positions, not to mention, his personal life. I'd bet this turns them off completely from holding their nose and voting for someone "electable".

[sailaway21]

I suspect you are right.
Rudy is a one note horn player. The trouble is that Tokyo is the only step up for his job qualifications!
I would be very surprised if, say by the summer solstice, the momentum has gone out of his campaign. American's won't bat an eye at a divorced canidate. One that was fooling around, publically, on his second wife with the future third wife may play in the Big Apple, but the curtain ain't gonna rise on that one in Peoria. As the Beezer suggests, he won't win the Republican nomination, let alone the general election, with the baggage he's toting around. It's also handy to have your son on speaking terms with you when seeking the nation's highest office. The fact that the son, and the son's mother-wife number two, think he's a ***** is not going to rally many to his cause. At least from somewhere around the Hudson River, westward, to approximately the Sierra Nevada's.