Rep vs. Dem Differences

C J Campbell wrote:

Any action taken at that
moment would almost certainly have been the wrong one. As a pilot, one of
the first things you learn about emergencies is to wait and see what the
emergency is before deciding what, if any, action should be taken.

NPR recently interviewed a U.S. Army General (retired). IIRC, it was "Stormin'
Norman". When asked about this incident, he said basically the same thing. He stated
that, when he was younger, he had been prone to make rapid decisions, and they were
almost always inferior to those he would have made had he thought about them for a
while.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

Political Liberals don't believe human beings are capable of taking care of
themselves or making decisions that make any real difference in the outcome
of events in their lives. Liberals feel that they, being the elite humans
because of their compassionate humanitarian attitudes, education, etc., are
the only humans capable of making any decisions of any relevancy whatsoever.
Therefore political Liberals take more and more of the real decision making
power away from the common person usurping his/her efficacy to the point
where they ultimately rule the lives of everyone.





Political Conservatives have an uncontrollable desire to tell people what to
do under the pretext of what is right for them. They feel they have an
incredibly well developed sense of what is right and what is wrong regarding
themselves as well as everyone else. Consequently, Conservatives make up
rule after rule and law after law in the name of universal morality. This
creates a continuous and unrelenting stifling of individual rights in an
effort to govern the moral and ethical lives of the populace to the point
where they ultimately rule the lives of everyone.





Most of what you just read is rhetoric. The only relevant words in each
paragraph are the first two and the last six.



Just my two cents.



BillC

"Brian Burger" wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, C J Campbell wrote:


"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in
message
...

To the contrary, it is the freedom OF religion amendment, not
freedom
FROM
religion.

Can't have one without the other.

You certainly can. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. Freedom FROM
religion amounts to a prohibition of religion, whereas freedom OF
religion
means that anyone can worship who, what, or how they wish, or not at all
if
it suits them.

Errr... the last part of your sentence ("...or not at all...") IS freedom
from religion, isn't it? IE you can choose to be free from religion, while
other people can choose to practice whatever religion they want.

BINGO!!!

They aren't mutually exclusive, the larger one (freedom of...) should
automatically include the detailed one (freedom from...).

....depending on how you hold. You can't have freedom of religion unless you
correspondingly have freedom FROM it as well. That's what a secular republic
is all about, though the US was the first (and probably the only one) in
history,
America's New Secular Order (Novus Ordo Seclorem).



Where it gets complicated, of course, is where someone else's religion
invades public life. "In God We Trust", and stuff like that... I'm not
going to go there right now, it's even MORE off topic that we already
are...

See above.

"Earl Grieda" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Wdtabor wrote:


And the "liberal" ones, Soviet, China, Korea, Cuba, have slaughtered
more
than Germany could ever hope to.

Spin that!!


No need to. You already have done it.


Care to elaborate on that?

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:01:18 -0700, "Tom S." wrote:

His smooth assured and decisive reaction? He sat there stunned for 8
minutes on camera until someone came and hustled him out of the
classroom.

Wow!!! You're a pilot AND a mindreader!!

You're one for two.


Well, if you think (apparently) he was stunned into paralysis, you must be a
mindreader...(i.e., knowing what was going through his head)...

What is "liberal" about Kerry
supporters that trash storefronts and beat Bush supporters up? How is
their
behavior any different from that of thugs in 1935?

The reason a lot of people "support" Kerry is because he is not Bush and he
is the best shot at getting Bush out. They do not necessarily actually
support Kerry and his ideas. Another case of not voting "for" someone but
voting "against" someone else. I strongly suspect that who you call "Kerry
supporters" are in fact part of the anti-Bush crowd. I'm quite sure Kerry
would treat such hooligans pretty severely (as others have pointed out, the
differences between the parties here is actually small).

Myself? I am strongly biased against whoever is in power. They bear the
burden of proof of what they have done - their accomplishments. I am vastly
unimpressed by the current administration: the deception, the secrecy, the
control and manipulation, the intrusion of the Church into politics, the
poor economic performance, the corruption, the list goes on and on. I don't
know if Kerry would do any better but I would rather he and his
administration have the chance than continue on what to me seems like a very
bad path. Remember also that the Republicans had majorities across the
government these past 4 years so if ever there they had the opportunity to
show their mettle this was it and to me it looks pretty obvious their
performance was poor *at best*. I would never accept such screwed-up
leadership in a corporation I had interest in, so why should I in the
country I live in?

If Kerry gets in, I will be just or even more critical of his
administration's performance. The bigger the mess (and it seems to be
getting worse rather than better), the higher my expectations are of the
administration of the most powerful country on the planet.

Do I think we are better off than we were 4 years ago? No. Does the
current administration seem to have a clear plan to improve things? No.
Therefore, time for change.

Just my humble opinion.

"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message
...
Martin Hotze opined

"Ash Wyllie" wrote:

Aren't we clever? We let other idio^W^Wour allies pay for it, so we
don't
have
10% of our population in poverty.

That is a good plan, right up until someone stops providing your
security.
Then you start having a problem. Luckily you have 10.6% of your
population
unemployed,


Austria: 4.2%
EU: 9%

(in German http://www.wirtschaftsblatt.at/cgi-b...e.pl?id=362324


http://tinyurl.com/585b7

"BillC85" wrote in message
...
Political Liberals don't believe human beings are capable of taking care
of
themselves or making decisions that make any real difference in the
outcome
of events in their lives. Liberals feel that they, being the elite humans
because of their compassionate humanitarian attitudes, education, etc.,
are
the only humans capable of making any decisions of any relevancy
whatsoever.
Therefore political Liberals take more and more of the real decision
making
power away from the common person usurping his/her efficacy to the point
where they ultimately rule the lives of everyone.





Political Conservatives have an uncontrollable desire to tell people what
to
do under the pretext of what is right for them. They feel they have an
incredibly well developed sense of what is right and what is wrong
regarding
themselves as well as everyone else. Consequently, Conservatives make up
rule after rule and law after law in the name of universal morality. This
creates a continuous and unrelenting stifling of individual rights in an
effort to govern the moral and ethical lives of the populace to the point
where they ultimately rule the lives of everyone.





Most of what you just read is rhetoric. The only relevant words in each
paragraph are the first two and the last six.



Just my two cents.



BillC


Clever. I'll mod you up one.

BillC85 wrote:

Just my two cents.

Sigh too true. But it wasn't always this way!

Once upon a time, a "political conservative" would have been apalled at the
notions expounded by religious zealots. Today, these terms of come to be
hopelessly intertwined. Annoying.

Similarly, once upon a time "democracy" was a liberal idea. Today,
"liberal" appears to carry all sorts of unrelated baggage.

What we really need are better labels.

I take the evolution of "conservative" more personally, I suppose, because I
used to be a "conservative". But, believing as I do in small government,
free trade, separation of church and state, states' rights, personal
responsibility, etc. has left me label-free (and abandoned by the major
party that claims to represent me).

- Andrew

In article , James Robinson
writes:


Fascism, and by extension Nazism, are clearly right wing philosophies.
They cannot be characterized as being "liberal" by any stretch of the
imagination.

At least that is how the left thinks of it.

Nope. That's how the dictionary thinks of it.



Fascism comes in a number of flavors, but the key elements a

An authoritarian power structure
A collectivist economy (either socialism or feudalism will do)
Expansionist foreign policy
A central ethnic, religious or nationalist identity

The first two elements require supremacy of the collective over the individual,
which is why fascist regimes rise from democracies but not from republics. The
the extent we stray from our Constitutional Republic toward a democracy, we
risk becoming a fascist state.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG