Yet another religious cult raided

[Occhidiangela]

No, not countries. The schism that you speak of exists here in the USA, too. We've had 8 to 14 years of tilting to the retro-Reaganites, we may get a much-needed break in 2009. Of course, now that McCain has become Bush III, we might not.

How do you figure that? It takes a truck load of blinders-on partisanship to come up with that.

My problem with him is that I don't think he's too bright, in terms of what job he's looking for.

Never forget: this is the guy W beat in the GOP primary in 2000. How sharp can he be?

Five years ago, it hurt, literally hurt, to be green in this country*.

Still does.

The GOP was seeking to move this country to a one-party system, people who didn't worship the latest of the Reagan Dynasty were removed from their jobs, and no one was listening to those of us who cared about water, air, atmospheric issues -- you know, "hippie" issues. Nothing was more pathetic than a "hippie".

How do smart people fall into such ignorance?

Is it also true, Van, that the Democratic Party was moving to make this country a one party system when it had the House, Senate, and White House at the same time?

Look around, Van, there are still two parties around, sorta, and a few other parties who wish they could get in on the graft.

Once, about four years ago, two politicos knocked on my door and asked me what my biggest issue was; I told them it was water quality and they were dumbfounded -- they had no talking points for that!! and they were the Democrats!!

See my "sorta" in the above paragraph.

But things are getting better now. For instance, it is only the occasional crank complaining that they can't buy incandescent bulbs. (nyuk nyuk) And hey, thank God for Evangelicals -- they now want to save the earth. After all, God so loves the earth -- and all the animals species (ark ark) -- wash away all those people that would eradicate species.

Funny, most farmers understand not wasting anything, and good stewardship of the land. See also the Amish. What's your beef with these Evangelicals? Do you think they are all industrialists? How about you widen your field of view?

Of course, what's discouraging now is that a lot of good-intentioned efforts are just creating other problems. For instance, using corn for biofuels is only slightly better if at all than regular gas (sugarcane is much better). Supposedly, deforestation is happening to grow more corn (though that's better than more pavement). Sadly, deforestation is happening anyway -- for many reasons.

We agree, and we both agree that it sucks.

One solution is to significantly reduce the human population. (Four bilion ought to do, methinks) Of course, the very tough question is: which two billion go into the big woodchipper? Not an easy answer.

I told people at my office a year ago that I was glad gas prices were going up. Still am -- it seems to be driving (HAH!) a push to finally deliver improved technology to the American market.

After thirty five years of horsecrap energy policy, it was a bill ignored that came due, with a penalty. (Good article in Newsweek about the original leader of Greens in the US who left due to the blinders on approach so many of his colleagues were taking. Their thirty plus years of anti nuke protests helped keep coal and fossil fuel plants on the top of the heap, thanks very much.)

Van, do you think this will serve as a wake up call?

I don't. I still see SUV's and monster trucks all around me, and I live in a suburban area.

Nuts, absolutely nuts.

Anyway, I'll stop my rant.

Why? You were on a roll.

My point is that you tarred all Americans with your brush, and it doesn't apply to all of us.

Nice try at being sly. Failed.

*Replying about Kermit will only show your age

I was sorely tempted. :whistling:

Occhi

[eppie]

Eppie, did you ever wonder where the sentiment that gave rist to the term Eurotrash came from? Your own rhetoric is a fine example of the inspiration. So I toss Eurotrash back at you for your perjorative usage of redneck, and it goes so far over your head you must be living in a mining pit.

Occhi

If I thought defending religious extremists that abuse young girls was a typical American thing I would have said that. However I know better and know that is not the case, that is why I used the redneck term.
But you are right that it might be a term that is offensive to people so I will refrain from using it again.
Personally I have no problems with being called eurotrash by the way, and I actually have no idea where the term comes from.

Why do you however write some of the slang words complete and other with underscore and exclamation marks? And no I have never heard words before.

Anyway I find it a pity that you don't continue the discussion and start blaming again.

My point was; I don't agree with somebody that finds trying to improve relations with Cuba unheard of but finds religious communities in his own country that abuse girls and women worth 'getting a second chance'.
To me this sounds like entering a discussions with too much prejudice. To me this sounds like the thinking of somebody 'who lives in a mining pit'.

[eppie]

The converse is also true - not everything the US does is bad and anyone with a different opinion than yours is bad.

Of course the converse is also true. I didn't have the idea that needed to be spelled out here at the lounge.

Thats the high horse they're talking about. I don't necessarily see eye to eye with Occhi or Kan but I'd rather read their posts than your knee-jerk reaction statements.

I am happy for you. And a travel advice. If you ever travel to Europe, go to the south. The people in the north are much to direct and the southerners find us very rude, find that we have a morbid sense of humor, and that we are very cold and of course that are food sucks.....and on average they are right about that.:)

[eppie]

Anyway, I'll stop my rant. My point is that you tarred all Americans with your brush, and it doesn't apply to all of us.
-V*Replying about Kermit will only show your age

See my reply to Occhi and Tal, I didn't tar all Americans with my brush. If I would have I wouldn't have to resort to calling names (redneck... (last time I will use it)) but I would just use the word Americans.

In the part about the guns vs drugs issues I wanted to name the average sentiment differences between the US and in that case Holland. And the average sentiment is of course best found by looking at the law at this moment. (US: guns legal drugs illegal, Holland: guns illegal drugs legal)

[Bolty]

Dammit, this thread was fun to read until the last 15-20 posts or so. Decent debating overall, addressing of issues instead of the posters, etc. Now, a bunch of you need your hand slapped.

Can we get back to the original subject, or shall the hand-waving between "Eurotrash" vs "Redneck" concepts, which basically amounts to name-calling of stereotypes, keep going until I close the thread? Don't make me go all Rodney King on your butts. I don't expect everyone to get along with the vastly different world views that exist around here, but this is getting petty.

Back to the topic, please.

-Bolty

[kandrathe]

See my reply to Occhi and Tal, I didn't tar all Americans with my brush. If I would have I wouldn't have to resort to calling names (redneck... (last time I will use it)) but I would just use the word Americans.

Ok, back to the high road... I'm ignoring the last 15 or so posts. We can discuss cultural and national arrogance, Cuba issues, and Columbia another time.

Eppie, I think you still miss the nuance of my discussion. I don't support anyone having sexual relations with under-aged girls, even when its under-aged boys. Ok, got that? I fully support the law on this.

What is the age of adulthood? It is a good philosophical question, and one we have debated and changed in our societies in the last 30 years. The trend is to move it higher, and then you and I might wonder how high is too high. Would you support 25 or 30 as the age of adulthood? I've seen (and participated in...:)) lots of anecdotal evidence to indicate the people in their 20's are too immature to handle many of life's complications. Can you see this as a political tool to limit the rights of citizens?

I believe I have clearly called into question the collision of modern American/World culture with an antiquated culture (FLDS) that has existed (under persecution for its beliefs in Polygamy, Paternalism and young marriages) for over one hundred years since its inception with the teachings of Joseph Smith Jr. and carried out west by Brigham Young. This then gets into the nature of RELIGIOUS freedom. There is a conflict with current law and FLDS religious teaching and practices. The mainstream LDS church decided, when Utah became a state, to alter their stance and "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" in other words submit to the laws of the land. This splinter group decided to remain true to their faith, and have struggled with authorities off and on since then. Some fled to Mexico, some fled to Canada, and some tried to hide in the hinterlands of rural America. Under what they felt was persecution by Utah, and Arizona they moved to Texas where the laws were friendlier to their practices. Then they changed the laws.

I ask you (all, not just eppie) again, should the US government, or the state governments destroy this sect? Should they give all the adults lengthy prison terms, and farm out all the children to adoption? Then in the future, wherever and whenever anyone is suspected of being in FLDS should the government also rush in, arrest everyone in the home, and seize all the kids? Do you support that as a valid response from government? Can the government declare FLDS an outlawed religion? Does that violate the 1st amendment?

In my mind, the idea of the government rushing in and destroying a family and a home is chilling. The idea of a government deciding which beliefs are valid and invalid also gives me pause. I do believe that Christian theology is clear that citizens are subject to the laws of their state, and if they don't like it they should leave. Yes, these are unusual circumstances, and weird wacko people by our standards, but at some point it may become easier and easier for the government to do to other less wacko groups. Then, consider how people live on reservations (I cited before, "one in every four girls and one in every seven boys will be a victims of sexual abuse in Indian Country") , in barrios, in government housing projects. Are there other groups that maintain a culture that perpetuates impregnating underage girls? This is the Texas CPS case, that it is the culture of belief in FLDS traditions that makes it necessary to remove ALL the children to end this belief. I agree that abuse (sexual and physical) needs to stop wherever it happens, but using the keen edge of law should not be the only method to change practices which the majority culture finds abominable.

Can you see my questions as valid checks on the violations of liberties? I think it is a valid concern to want to protect all liberty for Native American parents, for urban Hispanic parents, for Urban Black parents, and yes, even for FLDS parents as distasteful as that is for our society. I've spoken before about the tyranny of the majority, which in this case leaves only the courts to step in to protect them for this minority. I think this legal journey has only begun for them.

Edit; Another case that caught my eye while doing research. Underage Marriage in Yemen. So, consider Sharia Law, and here is a potential precedent for allowing Islamic Law to be practiced in the US Native American Courts: Precedent for an Islamic arbitral system Islam is another religious system that practices Polygyny, Paternalism, and arranged under aged marriages.

[eppie]

Ok, back to the high road... I'm ignoring the last 15 or so posts. We can discuss cultural and national arrogance, Cuba issues, and Columbia another time.

Eppie, I think you still miss the nuance of my discussion. I don't support anyone having sexual relations with under-aged girls, even when its under-aged boys. Ok, got that?

Yes of course I got that, I just wanted to make a point after I read the Cuba remark. Sometimes the things get said a bit tougher than you really want. Hope you didn't get offended. (well you know me by now right? :blush:)
So back to the discussion........ .Tomorrow, because I am off to bed now.

eppie

[eppie]

Ok, back to the high road... I'm ignoring the last 15 or so posts. We can discuss cultural and national arrogance, Cuba issues, and Columbia another time.

Ok one last short answer.
Of course I can see this point, although reactions were a lot different some year ago when in Holland an organization of pedophiles wanted to start a political party with as points that they wanted the legal age to have sex with an adult brought down to 16. Even though in ancient Rome and Greece it was very normal to have sexual relations with small boys.

Although I was not against these people to start their party (it is democracy and a pedophile that is in parliament will not likely engage in an illegal 'relationship' with an underaged person), but I was against this lowering of the age these people wanted. Because in our society today under16s are often not mentally mature enough leading almost sure to an unequal relationship).

The same with this religious group. The point is that (in my opinion) these marriage and sex with underage girls is not based on equality and respect but on power and oppression. And that is the point. It is in the basis of this cult that these things happen.
Abuse of under aged girls or relations with mutual consent happen also with whites, blacks and Hispanics and everywhere in the world but it is not an organized phenomenon in these cases. And that is exactly why I think the government did the right thing here in the case of this sect. Even though it might for sure be possible that some of these girls were perfectly happy.

[kandrathe]

The same with this religious group. The point is that (in my opinion) these marriage and sex with underage girls is not based on equality and respect but on power and oppression. And that is the point. It is in the basis of this cult that these things happen.

So, here is where I would point out your cultural bias against them. You believe that the relationship (in marriage and outside of it) should be a mutually respectful and equal one. That is a modern cultural bias, and one I share with you. But should all cultures be expected to change to our ideals of egalitarian marriage? Are we imposing our belief system upon another culture, or in this case religious group? America prides itself on being the refuge from the tyranny of religious intolerance practiced in Europe in the last 400 years. Now admittedly we've drawn the line with Polygamy and the LDS in the past, and mostly they've agreed. I think it has always remained a controversial decision, and in the light of America being a richer, more heterogeneous blend of cultures now we should be careful about how we try to homogenize it.

So, as an interesting footnote here as I reflect on this; I support your notions of gender and racial egalitarianism, but reject your notions of social egalitarianism. :)

Abuse of under aged girls or relations with mutual consent happen also with whites, blacks and Hispanics and everywhere in the world but it is not an organized phenomenon in these cases. And that is exactly why I think the government did the right thing here in the case of this sect. Even though it might for sure be possible that some of these girls were perfectly happy.

So "abuse" here is defined to be under-aged marriage. However, as Occhi pointed out, it is still practiced extensively in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and South/Central Americas. Only in Europe/North America do we have an exclusively "modern" view of the age of marriage. Even in the US, as I suspected when checking the US pregnancy statistics, there is a correlation between underage (<15) pregnancy and your proximity to the southern border. Yes, some nations in the "red necked" continents I've mentioned have more restricted marriage laws, but many do not or choose to ignore their national laws in the backwater more "primitive" areas. So, is it "abuse" when practiced in Iran where the legal age for girls to marry is 13? Should we encourage "the government" to do "the right thing" and protect the human rights of the all the nations that persecute their girls with non-egalitarian marriage? What do you think then of the "enlightened" approach of the Scandinavians to sex and marriage? That is... Marriage has been mostly rendered meaningless there. How does a society function when paternity is optional, and women and their children often become wards of the state? Isn't this also of concern to women, and against our notions of sexual egalitarianism?

[Vandiablo]

What's your beef with these Evangelicals? Do you think they are all industrialists? How about you widen your field of view?

The prob with being sarcastic or facetious most of the time is that when you mean what you say, people think you mean the opposite. I really am glad that a larger part of the religious groups in this country are viewing stewardship of the earth seriously. I was always puzzled that you could walk into any (Christian) church and you are guaranteed to see something some thing about Noah made by kids, yet it seemed that most of them would never see an environmental issue as something they cared about.

Now when I said it that way, didn't you yawn?

One solution is to significantly reduce the human population. (Four bilion ought to do, methinks) Of course, the very tough question is: which two billion go into the big woodchipper? Not an easy answer.

Start with the lawyers, then move on to people who create too many threads, then people who respond to too many threads, people who never end their sentences, people who jump on some detail as proving what is wrong with the world, people with gas problems, people who talk too much, people who drive too slow, people who don't ever tip, people who use exit lanes to get ahead of other cars, people who litter, people who tell you that they will return to clean up the dog poop but don't, people who abuse dogs, people who don't like kids, people who like to make stupid lists, people who use more than one et cetera, people who have nothing better to do than to read stupid posts, et cetera, et cetera.

Nice try at being sly. Failed.

Sly??? You confuse me with such long words, sir.

[eppie]

So, here is where I would point out your cultural bias against them.

I have indeed a cultural bias against organized religion (but I guess you understood that from my posts). To me also organized religion is based on power. Most (if not all) of the countries were e.g. guys can marry their 9 year old niece are highly religious. And actually this is one of the reasons why Europe and the US are in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment according to our leaders.
Our enlightened views on marriage and equality are fruits of our religious freedom (in the sense of that you wont be killed if you are an atheist:) ) In a modern society women are in fact equal to men (no scientific reason to think otherwise) so in our societies it is a good thing that we 'order' (using the law) people to behave likewise.

What do you think then of the "enlightened" approach of the Scandinavians to sex and marriage? That is... Marriage has been mostly rendered meaningless there. How does a society function when paternity is optional, and women and their children often become wards of the state? Isn't this also of concern to women, and against our notions of sexual egalitarianism?

What is this enlightened approach in Scandinavia? I just know about a lot of happy families and 400 days of paid childcare leave. I know that Sweden and especially Denmark are the among most properous countries in the world and people are (according to polls) the happiest overall.

[kandrathe]

I really am glad that a larger part of the religious groups in this country are viewing stewardship of the earth seriously. I was always puzzled that you could walk into any (Christian) church and you are guaranteed to see something some thing about Noah made by kids, yet it seemed that most of them would never see an environmental issue as something they cared about.

I think if you dig deep enough you will find that it is the majority of the religious people who really care about a compassionate society. The problem is when they care too much, and that spills over into repression of other peoples freedoms. This is also a large segment of the population that is willing to be led, so occasionally they are led astray and that makes the headlines which scares those of you who are not involved with religion.

Start with the lawyers, then move on to people who create too many threads, then people who respond to too many threads, people who never end their sentences, people who jump on some detail as proving what is wrong with the world, people with gas problems, people who talk too much, people who drive too slow, people who don't ever tip, people who use exit lanes to get ahead of other cars, people who litter, people who tell you that they will return to clean up the dog poop but don't, people who abuse dogs, people who don't like kids, people who like to make stupid lists, people who use more than one et cetera, people who have nothing better to do than to read stupid posts, et cetera, et cetera.

Heh, good try. :shuriken: I'll be one of those in the armed minority. Also, you forgot about people who create run on sentences.

Seriously Van. If I didn't post would this board get any activity other than the occasional photo of a dog drinking beer?

[kandrathe]

I have indeed a cultural bias against organized religion (but I guess you understood that from my posts). To me also organized religion is based on power. Most (if not all) of the countries were e.g. guys can marry their 9 year old niece are highly religious. And actually this is one of the reasons why Europe and the US are in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment according to our leaders. Our enlightened views on marriage and equality are fruits of our religious freedom (in the sense of that you wont be killed if you are an atheist:) ) In a modern society women are in fact equal to men (no scientific reason to think otherwise) so in our societies it is a good thing that we 'order' (using the law) people to behave likewise.

Good, we admit to our biases. Now, do you agree that our governments should convert people to our way of thinking with the force of state, national, international governmental laws (e.g. Native American culture, Black Culture, Iran, Rwanda, Congo)?

I just know about a lot of happy families and 400 days of paid childcare leave. I know that Sweden and especially Denmark are the among most prosperous countries in the world and people are (according to polls) the happiest overall.

Anecdotally, I know some too. I have a large number of distant relatives there (the ones that stayed behind). I think that culturally Scandinavia has some huge problems with the disintegration of the family. In America, we to have some areas where the concept of family is gone, and in those areas crime and violence have sky rocketed.

Did you see they have the Happiness Conference 2008?

Here is what I'm concerned about, an excerpt from the Communist Manifesto (Marx & Engels)

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical get riled up about this shameful intention of the communists. What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property. It exists in all of its meaning only for the bourgeoisie, but it finds its complement in the enforced lack of families of the proletarians and public prostitution. The family of the bourgeois naturally falls by the way-side with this, its complement, and both will vanish when capitalism vanishes. Are you accusing us that we want to end the exploitation by parents of their children? We confess to that crime. But, you say, we abolish the closest relationships, by putting social education in place of the domestic one. And, isn't your education, too, determined through society? Through the social circumstances, within whose scope you educate, through the direct or indirect involvement of society, by means of the education system, etc.? The communists are not inventing the influence of society on education, they are only changing its character, they tear education away from the influence of the ruling class. The common turns of speech about family and education, about the close relationships of parents and children become the more revolting the more as a result of burgeoning industrial development the family ties for the proletarian are torn apart and children are simply transformed into articles of trade and instruments of labour.

By removing the dependence on the family, it is replaced by dependence on the state. I suspect that the intentional destruction of family is a part of the socialist/communist agenda as laid out by Marx and Engels. You see here also the concept of "tear education away from the influence of the ruling class", which is what I experience in my local school systems. Communist Manifesto

What does it say about religion?

“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.” “There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

Here is a notably biased link to a Christian Philosophy Site that describes the failure of this world view in its modern state expressions. I don't believe that we have found a substitute to modern religion for establishing the framework for a compassionate society of just law. I'm not saying that all religious dogma is just, only that it presents a framework as outlined by the American Revolution for a just society.

[eppie]

Seriously Van. If I didn't post would this board get any activity other than the occasional photo of a dog drinking beer?

Haha, can I use this one for my signature?

Seriously, if I knew how to post pictures there would be a lot more animals in funny situations on the lounge.

[Occhidiangela]

My point was; I don't agree with somebody that finds trying to improve relations with Cuba unheard of but finds religious communities in his own country that abuse girls and women worth 'getting a second chance'.

This is called, by some, a non sequitur. They have as much to do with each other as Diablo II has to do with the price of the Euro in dollars.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

people who have nothing better to do than to read stupid posts,

I guess I'm a dead man.

It's been a good run, for all that, so thanks to you all for the ride.

Occhi

[Vandiablo]

How do you figure that? It takes a truck load of blinders-on partisanship to come up with that.

I figured that by going to a blinders-on partisan website: the McCain website.

I had remembered a McCain that had some differences with Bush. However, soon after locking up the nomination, the McCain website showed a changed man. A man in line with his party, rather than a man leading his party. I think we've had enough of that.

How do smart people fall into such ignorance?

I blame the Internet.

Is it also true, Van, that the Democratic Party was moving to make this country a one party system when it had the House, Senate, and White House at the same time?

And in which period were civil rights expanding and in which were they shrinking??

Your answer, I suppose, depend on which rights you hold most dear. Me, I like privacy and would prefer judges over agents deciding whether to listen in on my home. Even when, like me, you have nothing to hide. (Except some deviant practices that are not anyone's business... and those old Playboys in a box somewhere; they have some good articles.) It's the principle. I suppose some of you prefer to not wear seatbelts and may have a different point of view. (6 feet under??)

A one-party system in a state with no civil rights is authoritarian. A one-party system in a state with ample civil rights eventually grows into two-party when some divisive issue arises.

Of course, our government is not really a party system at all. (Except maybe VP elections??) The parties are there, of course, but I think Constitution doesn't have them, does it? The parties are politics self-inserting onto the scene.

The bad time I was referring to was laying the corner block to introduce a new McCarthyism. You are free to hold liberal beliefs, but not if you want to work again. (Ref: K street project.)

One solution is to significantly reduce the human population. (Four bilion ought to do, methinks) Of course, the very tough question is: which two billion go into the big woodchipper? Not an easy answer.
After thirty five years of horsecrap energy policy, it was a bill ignored that came due, with a penalty. (Good article in Newsweek about the original leader of Greens in the US who left due to the blinders on approach so many of his colleagues were taking. Their thirty plus years of anti nuke protests helped keep coal and fossil fuel plants on the top of the heap, thanks very much.)

And nuclear, if done properly, is a viable source for many greens today. But there are many who have not heard that it is possible to make a safe reactor, and others who don't believe it. I am in favor now, though I was opposed for many years.

Van, do you think this will serve as a wake up call?

I don't. I still see SUV's and monster trucks all around me, and I live in a suburban area.

Well many of them have to still make payments. The recession will take a lot of them. The people next door to my parents had their new big ol' pickup repo'ed. Now they drive less. Of course, someone else will buy that truck and drive it. I feel bad for them, they have 3 kids and have a daughter who is a friend of my daughter and is a very sweet girl.

Nice try at being sly. Failed.

um... did you mean eppie??

I was sorely tempted.

Sorry, I didn't mean to tempt your sores.

-V

[Occhidiangela]

Dammit, this thread was fun to read until the last 15-20 posts or so. Decent debating overall, addressing of issues instead of the posters, etc. Now, a bunch of you need your hand slapped.

Can we get back to the original subject, or shall the hand-waving between "Eurotrash" vs "Redneck" concepts, which basically amounts to name-calling of stereotypes, keep going until I close the thread? Don't make me go all Rodney King on your butts. I don't expect everyone to get along with the vastly different world views that exist around here, but this is getting petty.

Back to the topic, please.

-Bolty

*Monty Python voice*

You're no fun anymore.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I figured that by going to a blinders-on partisan website: the McCain website.

I had remembered a McCain that had some differences with Bush. However, soon after locking up the nomination, the McCain website showed a changed man. A man in line with his party, rather than a man leading his party. I think we've had enough of that.

We shall see whether or not he can lead his party, since he's not in a formal party leadership role at the moment, or not, pending his success in getting elected. If he fails to get elected, that answers that.

I blame the Internet.

I am with you, brother Van. Can I get an Amen from the folks in the rear pews?

And in which period were civil rights expanding and in which were they shrinking??

An interesting spin on history. For another example of one party control, try the post re-construction South and the Redeemers for a model of the Democratic Party in a one party system.

Your answer, I suppose, depend on which rights you hold most dear. Me, I like privacy and would prefer judges over agents deciding whether to listen in on my home. Even when, like me, you have nothing to hide. (Except some deviant practices that are not anyone's business... and those old Playboys in a box somewhere; they have some good articles.) It's the principle. I suppose some of you prefer to not wear seatbelts and may have a different point of view. (6 feet under??)

We aren't that far apart, though my right to bear arms is near the top of my list, as is my desire for the government in general to leave me the hell alone.

A one-party system in a state with no civil rights is authoritarian. A one-party system in a state with ample civil rights eventually grows into two-party when some divisive issue arises.

And your fantasy is that this is the aim of the GOP? You might find a lot of anti-GOP libertarians who characterize the Democratic party in the same light.

Where ya sit determines what ya see, Van, particularly when you construct a phantasmical bogey man to be a "they" who are the embodiment of all evil. Godwin has many cousins.

Of course, our government is not really a party system at all. (Except maybe VP elections??) The parties are there, of course, but I think Constitution doesn't have them, does it? The parties are politics self-inserting onto the scene.

Indeed, the assumption was that the branches of government would be in conlfict with one another, not parties per se. Note: George Washington was very much against the establishment of political parties, but his utopian view on that seems to run afoul of human nature. People tend to congeal together in political affairs in groups and clumps, as milk does when it goes sour.

The bad time I was referring to was laying the corner block to introduce a new McCarthyism. You are free to hold liberal beliefs, but not if you want to work again. (Ref: K street project.)

McCarthyism

More Godwin relatives come for a visit, how nice.

And nuclear, if done properly, is a viable source for many greens today. But there are many who have not heard that it is possible to make a safe reactor, and others who don't believe it. I am in favor now, though I was opposed for many years.

Been a fan for over thirty years, and I heartily welcome you, brother Van, into the realm of the enlightened. You made my day. :)

Occhi

[Vandiablo]

McCarthyism
More Godwin relatives come for a visit, how nice.

It is NOT much of a stretch. I've been working in federal govt offices for 20 years now, and in some it is professional suicide to be labeled as liberal. The worst was in 2001 and 2002, before people started realizing the emperor had no clothes. Maybe you're in a comfy area where you can look at D.C. from afar and think it's not a problem, but MY effin livelihood was on the line and I had a kid to feed. While it was not yet at the level of McCarthyism, it was definitely headed in that direction. "You're either with us or against us." came down from the top. Remember? From the bottom, on TV and in bookstores, the blonde skeleton with the poison pen was proclaiming that liberals were traitors. Once the top and bottom connected, that was going to be it. And with the Patriot Act, and in the name of "protecting the homeland", the government was free to compile lists of who you associated with.

Godwin, my ass.

And speaking of my ass:

I heartily welcome you, brother Van, into the realm of the enlightened.

I'll say it politely: please go back to your amateur proctology practice. It is not my "enlightenment" that has changed, it is technology. Just as my current opinion is based on what I read about the current state of the industry, my opinion back then was also based upon what I read the then-current state of the industry. I do, BION, try to keep an open mind, and when change happens, I can revisit my opinions. Just like you did, with regard to Clinton's nation-building efforts in the 1990's.

From my seat (where my ass is, no exam for me please) your egotism looks bigger even than mine! Your standard for "enlightenment" is whether one agrees with you or not. While that is a very common standard, I don't associate it with people I consider "enlightened". . . . . So . . I hope you are joking ... or at least half-joking ... well maybe one-third joking is okay . . . but one-quarter joking or less is an outrage!

-Van

p.s. All this ass talk reminds me of part of my standup routine: . . Don't tell Moses, but I covet my neighbor's wife's ass. I just want to pat it. Pat it and say "Nice! . . Oh so nice! . . Such a nice nice nice donkey!" (Hee Haw)

p.p.s. I really DON'T have a donkey named Godwin.