PDA

View Full Version : Politics & Government



wolfdancer
03-09-2007, 12:07 AM
Suppose you were an idiot.
And suppose you were a member of Congress....
But then I repeat myself.
-Mark Twain

I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a
man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
-Winston Churchill

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support
of Paul.
-.George Bernard Shaw

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what
to have for dinner.
-James Board, Civil Libertarian (1994)

Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich
countries to rich people in poor countries.
-Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to
teenage boys.
-P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian

Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live
at the expense of everybody else.
-Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops
moving, subsidize it.
-Ronald Reagan (1986)

I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.
-Will Rogers

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs
when it's free!
-P.J. O'Rourke

In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as
possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
-Voltaire (1764)

Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics
won't take an interest in you!
-Pericles (430 B.C.)

No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in
session.
-Mark Twain (1866)

Talk is cheap...except when Congress does it.
-Unknown

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The
inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
-Winston Churchill

The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the
taxidermist leaves the skin.
-Mark Twain

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill
the world with fools.
-Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)

There is no distinctly Native American criminal class...save Congress.
-Mark Twain

What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.
-Edward Langley, Artist (1928 - 1995)

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to
take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson

Gayle in MD
03-09-2007, 07:54 AM
Thanks, these are great! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

pooltchr
03-09-2007, 04:46 PM
It would seem that common sense was far more popular in years gone by. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Steve

llotter
03-10-2007, 10:12 AM
Speaking as a small-government conservative, I am quite surprised that wolfdancer and Gayle, two of the biggest supporters of big government/big brother would post all these quotes that rightly demean the wisdom of concentrated political power. Can you straighten me out on this perception?

Gayle in MD
03-10-2007, 10:50 AM
Yeah, I can straighten you out real quick. Neither Wolf or I are in favor of big government. Nor are we in favor of Imperial Presidencies, or the breaking of Constitutional Law, or the blurring of the line between Separation Of Church And State, or the use of Signing Statements to avoid adhereing to Congressional Legislation, or the use of torture against innocent people, or the destruction of Habeas Corpus, or the out-sourcing of war needs, to corporate fascist pigs, for jobs that our own service people can do much cheaper, or the building up of a massive bureaurocracy so out of control that our troops can't even get the medical asistance they need after they are slaughtered in a civil war, on the other side of the world, or be able to even answer the call in national emergency situations, because Bush has built up such a huge bureaucracy with Homeland Security, and FEMA, that people drown in the midst of a Chinese Fire Drill, or having our tax dollars scoooped up by war profiteering friends of the White House, while our injured troops live in squalor, and billions are unaccounted for, or lies that lead to illegal wars, or the financial raping of the Middle Class, by the rich and powerful, or the breaking of FISA laws, or the spying on innocent Americans, into their finances, e-mails- phone converstations, and library information, or spending 70 million bucks investigating what a president did with his penis. Just to name a few....Any other questions? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif Just because one is not in favor of huge tax breaks, for corporate fascist pigs, while government turns it's collective head away from all the hungry children in this country, and ignores the foreign occupation of our country by illegals in order that the fascists can get all the cheap labor they want, and underpay the American worker, all the while out-sourcing other jobs to foreign countries, as the wages for the middle class here, sontinue to slide, doesn't mean that one is in favor of big government.

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
03-10-2007, 12:31 PM
Gayle eloquent.####

Gayle in MD
03-10-2007, 12:40 PM
XOXOXO...Thanks sweetie! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

BRussell
03-10-2007, 12:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote llotter:</font><hr> small-government conservative,<hr /></blockquote> In my experience in American politics, that's almost an oxymoron. Not only does the party of conservatives in the US spend more, they also are far, far more intrusive in personal matters, they often want federal control over those issues (e.g., medical marijuana, gay marriage, abortion), and they want a far more powerful government when it comes to national security matters.

Lots of us, especially out here in the West, are small-government "liberals" /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif : Moderate government spending on basic safety-net issues like health care and education and employment, no government intrusion into personal privacy issues, and a very skeptical attitude towards a government's powers during war.

Gayle in MD
03-10-2007, 01:18 PM
Then this would be of great interest to you...From Dan Froomkin's White House Watch, in the Washington post.

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
John Solomon and Barton Gellman write in The Washington Post: "A Justice Department investigation has found pervasive errors in the FBI's use of its power to secretly demand telephone, e-mail and financial records in national security cases, officials with access to the report said yesterday.

"The inspector general's audit found 22 possible breaches of internal FBI and Justice Department regulations -- some of which were potential violations of law -- in a sampling of 293 'national security letters.' The letters were used by the FBI to obtain the personal records of U.S. residents or visitors between 2003 and 2005. The FBI identified 26 potential violations in other cases."

But Glenn Greenwald writes in Salon with an important point overlooked in all the mainstream coverage today: The National Security Letter reporting requirements passed by Congress "were precisely the provisions which President Bush expressly proclaimed he could ignore when he issued a 'signing statement' as part of the enactment of the Patriot Act's renewal into law. Put another way, the law which the FBI has now been found to be violating is the very law which George Bush publicly declared he has the power to ignore. . . .

"It was The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage who first drew attention to the Patriot Act signing statement in a typically superb article, back in March, 2006, which reported: 'When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.' . . .

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

(Just another way of saying that he thinks he is above the law!)

From the same article...

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

"Back in November, 2005, when the re-authorization of the Patriot Act was being 'debated,' the abuse by the FBI of these NSLs was documented in an excellent expose by The Washington Post's Barton Gellman."

Greenwald concludes: "One of the very few attempts over the last six years from Congress to impose at least some safeguards on the use of radical new executive powers was to require that the FBI report to Congress on the issuance of NSLs, so that Congress could at least know about (and, theoretically, take action in response to) any abuse of these powers. But the minute George Bush got what he wanted -- re-authorization of the Patriot Act -- he proclaimed for all the world to hear that he had the power to violate those provisions and refuse to comply with such safeguards. And now it is revealed that the FBI has, in fact, violated the very provisions which the President proclaimed he could violate."


[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

I share you views. Too bad others are not more watchful during these critical times.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
03-10-2007, 01:21 PM
Gayle, thank you for correcting that guy over his assumptions and accusations....saves me from unleashing a string of expletives, that would most certainly get me deleted from the board.
I think that's the kind of propaganda that they put out at the
right wing, bund meetings...(you can't attend unless you wear the identifying arm band)
I heard them say on cable TV "a$$hole"....why can't we say that here????

wolfdancer
03-10-2007, 01:34 PM
Gayle, it now seems there is a movement to pardon Libby for his perjured testimony ....quote "he's a good candidate" although the guidelines for a pardon are much more stringent.
Good thing he isn't the President...but, wait....he could then pardon himself!!!
Well, I'm still trying to understand the moral justifications of Newt, outraged over the Clinton affair, while having "An Affair to Remember" of his own.
We know that "deep throat" outed Bill.....wonder who dropped the dime on Newt?

Gayle in MD
03-10-2007, 01:44 PM
The answer is simple, my friend, they have a double standard. Notice, all the right wing pundits, demanding Scooter Libby's immediate pardon, before the ink is even dry on the conviction? Suddenly, a lie, isn't a lie, and atleast Scooter's lie, is just the result of criminalizing friendly political retaliation against the administration's critics. And telling one, under oath, isn't really breaking the law at all, atleast not this week! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Last week was so much fun, I could hardly wipe the smile off my face all week. those great pictures of the Repubs, glorifying, and embracing the gay porn star, and singing his praises, I haven't laughed that hard since the first time I watched Weekend At Bernie's.

Then there was Rove, out there making speeches about how future presidents will be so grateful for the Bush Doctrine, HA HA HA, he'll be lucky to get out of office without being impeached! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

And then, we saw the FBI, and the Attorney General, both on the hot seat for ignoring the safe gaurds which were put into the Patriot Act, to prevent abuse of power, the same ones that Bush used a signing statement to declare himself above the law, well, suffice to say, the re-emergence of oversight, through the Democratic majority, has made all the difference. Things are looking up. We may just escape this Imperial Presidency, with our privacy rights re-instated, and our Constitution back in the service of We The People! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif


to top off the week, I read that publications are dropping Coulter like hot chicken legs, and I do mean chicken legs! And the Firemen's association, is organizing protests against Guiliani, because he kept them from doing what they always traditionally do, get their lost people out of the rubble.

Interesting, Guiliani was told not to put the central disaster operations in the basement of the World Trade Center, after the first world Trade Center attack in 92, but to put it in Brooklyn, instead. Being a Republican, though, he didn't listen to expert advice. Guess where it is now, Brooklyn. But, there he is out there, pretending his performance was outstanding.

Next time a big tree falls in my woods, I'm going to call the news people, jump on the stump, with a megaphone, and shout out encouragement to the other trees. Who knows, I may end up in the White House!

Love,
Gayle

Gayle in MD
03-10-2007, 01:48 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot that one, lol. Too sweet. Well, my friend, at the risk of sounding like a Washington insider, everybody here knew about that. I was really surprised that it took on the flavor of a new story.

Did you know that Plame will be testifying on the Hill next week? Possibly Fitzgerald, also. I'll be glued for sure!

Gayle in Md.

llotter
03-11-2007, 02:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Neither Wolf or I are in favor of big government. <hr /></blockquote>
I’m sorry, Gayle and wolfdancer, but your oft repeated screed against the current administration does not at all address the issue I raised. If fact it only reinforces my case and the case the above quotes make over and over again, i.e., government is not to be trusted to do anything right or efficient or without usurping the rights and prerogatives of the citizens and therefore must be severely limited to doing only those things where there are no possible alternatives. Lord Acton’s familiar quote about power corrupting applies equally to Democrats and Republicans and that does appear somewhat obvious in the way the Republicans have acted since their ascension in ’94 in their crude abuse of power and profligate spending, especially in the last six years. It’s only fair to say, however, that the Democrats, with their long experience in the seat of power became marginally more sophisticated in their corruption and abuse, not in their altruism.

But when you say, almost incidentally, that you are not in favor of big government, when you have been arguing so long and so eloquently for the Democrat agenda belies the facts. The only thing the Democrats want to cut is the military budget, as they did so ham-handedly under Carter and Clinton to support a government program for every problem (or constituency). When the Left/Democrats talk about a balanced budget, it is never in terms of spending cuts (other than military) but only tax increases. Now I know Gayle said recently that she was happy to pay her taxes in support on this or that welfare/transfer program but I would bet that not one in a million tax payers, if given the choice between giving extra money to the government to help the needy or giving it to the Salvation Army or some other charity, would choose government. All but a handful know that government bureaucracy is wasteful and effectual and yet in spite of the obvious, a coalition of special interests and political do-gooders are successful using the law to force people to do what they would never do of their own free will. Yes, such intrusions on personal freedom doesn’t seem to be a problem for the Left because really, from each according to his ability and too each according to his needs.

The fact that the federal government has failed in the ‘war on poverty’ after spending over $10 trillion, failed in education and medical care while driving the price higher than most citizens can afford. The government not only fails to solve social problems with their programs, they invariably make matters worse. This affliction has more recently infected the Republicans as well but denial is an art that Democrats have become accustomed to for decades. Inheriting the Welfare State/Entitlement morass by the Republicans in ’94 is probably similar to what the Democrats will inherit in ’08 if they get elected and the war in Iraq is still ongoing. Of course, the Dems are doing everything they can to insure that that failure and its consequences fall solely on the Republicans before they get back into the presidency.

Another quote, this one by Churchill, about the young being liberal and usually turning more conservative with age and responsibility also seems to find its truth in this little debate we are having. As Thomas Sowell observed in a recent article that contrary to what Churchill said, this general truism is not reflected by the Supreme Court Justices who often become more ‘liberal’ with more time on the bench. And similarly, the Republicans become more ‘liberal’ as they gained power. In both cases however, I think it is the acquisition of power that is driving both the Justices and the bureaucrats toward the Left and its concomitant abuses. To gain power tends to be corrupting.

wolfdancer
03-11-2007, 03:15 PM
I think it is the acquisition of power that is driving both the Justices and the bureaucrats toward the Left and its concomitant abuses. To gain power tends to be corrupting.

I had never even considered that....the "pure-of-heart Rightist politician, once elected to office......led astray by the nefarious left.
it exonerates then,the Republicans from the scandals and corruptions, rampant in their last few admins....and places the real blame
squarely on the left...
you could have been a corporate lawyer....for Enron, or World Com...or...

Gayle in MD
03-11-2007, 04:30 PM
You see it your way, your perrogative, of course. You fail to address the often obvious contempt for the poor, displayed quite clearly in the passionate condemnation of the poor, by the so called small government, compassionate, God fearing, frugal right. You don't mention the gross waste, missing money, tax dollars stolen by war profiteering friends of the White House. You, like many others, have no appreciation for the possibility of tax dollars, going for the good of the people. There are some programs, well worth keeping in place, among them, was the head start program, and Meals On Wheels, both of which I was involved in, and could see first hand the good that was accomplished, and the money well spent.

You write, like a right leaning, slightly confused, libertarian, which I suspect you to be. I am very drawn to some libertarian ideals, and also drawn to some liberal ideas. The difference is that Republican ideology is tarnished with greed, and a great lack charity. I find that interesting, since they proclaim to be so close to God, for when Jesus spoke, above all else, he instructed us most often about helping the poor, the hungry, and those in dispair.

My loyalty goes with which ever party I feel is doing the most good, at any given time. I can't see how redistributing wealth, to the top 1% in the country, smacks of American ideals. Nor do I believe that America was launched on ideas of intrusion into personal life, private life, private decision, nor religious intrusions or interference into the free choices of others. For this reason, I am completely against the Republican ideology. It endeavors to instruct others as to what is right and wrong, about their personal private decisions. I find that to be intrusive, and pompus, arrogant, and without merit. Religion was to be a free choice, free to practice, or not. It was not to be shoved down the throats of us all.

As I stated, I am against removing the Separation of Church and State from our national expectations, just as I am against government actions, hidden from public view and scrutiny, and concealed behind false statements, under the cloak of Christianity. Hence, I find the Republican Neocon right, repulsive, and evil.

Personally, I would much prefer to watch my government fail in a war on poverty, than watch them fail in an illegal, immoral war, the reasons for which they lied about, mishandled, and launched under false pretenses. Try as you may, there is no way you will ever succeed in convincing the majority of Americans, that this war was anything other than a Republican Fiasco. Wiggle all you want, it belongs to them, now and forever. The greatest mistake made by the Republican Rovarian fascists, was the over estimation of their decietful tactics. Ultimately, people were bound to see, eventually, their dishonesty, and greed, their evil motives, and their disgusting blend of arrogance and incompetence.

I find, also, rather pompus, your connection of the ideology of liberalism, to naive', inexperienced youth, not yet mature enough to grasp all the implications of any particular point of view. There are as many life long Democrats, as there are life long Republicans, hence, another of your suppositions, while popular Republican propaganda, untrue statistically, and a moot point.

Your not so well hidden suggestion that liberal ideology must always be accompanied by unrealistic dreams of justice for all, and a nation of true compassion and generosity, with no one above the law, no one living in hunger, without imperialism at the helm, and with war as a last resort only, ....a rather weak argument, considering those were the ideals which our Fathers have died for, low these many years, most of them liberals, I suppose.

Although that argument seems to be a favorite among the right, linked to a suggestion of their imagined intellectual superiority, reality seems to give us far too many examples of their own inability to see reality, or to admit to it once all have seen it, accepted it, named it, and embraced it, still it is denied by the right, even long after authors have idetified it and historians are well into recording it for history, yet still, the right, adheres to it's own version of the truth, skewing factual information, with the help of the Obierns, and O'Reilly's, the Coulters and the Limbaughs, the Rove's and the little Scooters...Oh my, such a very colorful group.

We are fighting a civil war in the Middle East, between Sunni and shiia, and calling it a war on terror. Billions of our tax dollars are missing, and Billions more stolen, Billions yet to be spent re-building, and Billions more investigating all that went wrong. There will be billions more required to pay off all those whom we have pissed off, and further billions spent trying to get out of it. There will be more billions paying off the debt spent to pay for this mis-named war, and billions more spent paying the interest on debt taken on to pay for it in order that Republicans can LOOK like they offer low taxes. As far as I know, we don't pay interest on the taxes we collect. Even my eight year old grand daughter understands the difference between pay as you go, and spend what you don't have. Amazing how that concept seems to escape the Reagans and the Bush's of the world, AND their followers. Pahleeeze, don't talk to me about denial, my dear man, you are so deeply burried under it, you shall die long before the light ever invades your self inflicted tomb.

It would seem a war on poverty would be a much more realistic goal, given the vast numbers of people who are killing our troops, are not terrorists, at all. Any group, Repub, or Dem, must first be honest enough, and intelligent enough to properly identify the enemy we die fighting each day, rather than continue to call him by a false name, and decieve Americans daily as to whom exactly is killing our children on the battlefield, and for what reason.

While I do not subscribe to every single view point of the Democratic agenda, I hardly think you can lay big government, invasion of privacy issues, redistribution of wealth, or huge debt leading eventually to tax burdens, at the foot of the Democratic party. On the contrary, I find not only redistribution of wealth, invasion of privacy, and big government, undeniably evidenced in the results of these last years of Republicn control. I am not against a strong military, nor do I think you are reasonable in offering only two spending options for spending tax money, and forgive me, but to hear you link denial to Democrats, well, may I say, your credibility went into the can on that one. Hence, I believe that in may ways, there has been a sort of role reversal, and I leave you with Bush's statements, from his 2000 speech, from which to ponder my assertions.


[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
I am proud to have Dick Cheney by my side...We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence. Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, "Not ready for duty, sir."...They had their chance. They have not led. We will...We know the test of leadership. The issues are joined. We will strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the greatest generation and for generations to come...Now is the time to give American workers security and independence that no politician can ever take away...On principle, those with the greatest need should receive the greatest help...The world needs America's strength and leadership. And America's armed forces need better equipment, better training and better pay...We will give our military the means to keep the peace, and we will give it one thing more: a commander-in-chief who respects our men and women in uniform and a commander-in-chief who earns their respect...A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam: When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming...

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>


/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

BRussell
03-11-2007, 05:41 PM
Wow. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

llotter
03-11-2007, 07:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I think it is the acquisition of power that is driving both the Justices and the bureaucrats toward the Left and its concomitant abuses. To gain power tends to be corrupting.

I had never even considered that....the "pure-of-heart Rightist politician, once elected to office......led astray by the nefarious left.
it exonerates then,the Republicans from the scandals and corruptions, rampant in their last few admins....and places the real blame
squarely on the left...
you could have been a corporate lawyer....for Enron, or World Com...or...
<hr /></blockquote>

Of course, I should not be at all surprised that a lefty would distort what I said to serve his half-too-cute penchant for sarcasm as a substitute for an honest discussion. The case I made clearly was in support of the corrupting effect that power has on the human condition and only to the extent that Republicans were a long time out of power did they appear to be more innocent than those in power. Those conservative ‘principles’ that the Republicans espoused for all those years, principles to which I still ascribe, while they were in the minority, admittedly appear now, with hindsight, to have been just empty rhetoric. Maybe being out of power but so close to it meant feigning a position of the traditional conservative values regardless of what they believed…I can’t have the power therefore nobody should have it. Maybe I was gullible to believe them but the traditional conservative position is a legitimate position and had a long history within conservative ranks. I gave up supporting the Republicans shortly after holding my nose and voting for Bush Sr. as I have said many times here.

The fact remains however, that long list of quotes you posted above warn of the danger, nay, stupidity of entrusting government with anything more than the minimum while at the same time supporting the Democrats whose only platform is concentrating more money and power in government.. I can understand why many liberals look to government as a salvation but I can’t quite see how that position can be compatible with the quotes.

pooltchr
03-11-2007, 07:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> The difference is that Republican ideology is tarnished with greed, and a great lack charity. I find that interesting, since they proclaim to be so close to God, for when Jesus spoke, above all else, he instructed us most often about helping the poor, the hungry, and those in dispair.

My loyalty goes with which ever party I feel is doing the most good, at any given time. I can't see how redistributing wealth, to the top 1% in the country, smacks of American ideals.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Since we all know how you research everything before you speak, may I ask how you came to these conclusions? Numerous studies have been done regarding charitable contributions. Those who classify themselves as conservatives are more prone to giving a greater percentage of their income to charity than those who consider themselves liberal.
The Democratic party loves to give to charity. Unfortunately, the prefer to give out tax dollars, rather than reaching into their own pockets for the donations.
As for that big bad ugly 1% of the wealthiest, take a look at the country's wealthiest individual, and see how much (percentage and actual dollars) he gives away to charity each year. It would seem he would rather give his money directly to the charity than to give it to the government to redistribute it for him.
Please be sure to let us all know what your research on this particular topic uncovers.
Thanks
Steve

Gayle in MD
03-11-2007, 08:02 PM
No problemo, my friend. The latest reasonable answer to the statistic you mention is the fact that those who consider themselves conservative, reside in both parties. I can surely tell you that I consider myself far more conservative, than your Big spender in the White House, or his cronies on the hill, not to mention the fact that among that statistic you will find the top 1% ... billionaires, and multi millionaires, among whom giving is a social event, often likened to keeping up with the Jones's, as it seems they have a lot of time on their hands for fifty thousand dollar a plate dinners, and huge donations to their favorite art gallary, or hospital wing after pappa drops dead from the stress of doin' it to them, before they can do it to you, but just listen to their business philosophies, and you will hear and read between the lines in a loud and clear voice....F**K the little guy!

The term, Conservative Republican, is the oxymoron of the New American Century....LMAO Wake up! Take a look at where the money is going, UP UP UP... Take a look at where the debt is going...UP UP UP...the idiots on the right, present company accepted, yapping about taxes, are getting it where the sun don't shine, and they don't even know it...HA HA HA...when every single person in this country is thirty thousand dollars in debt, and people are happy because the idiot in the White House is waging a war and cutting taxes but paying for it by borrowing money from china, and other enemies, who I personally wouldn't trust in a bar fight, let alone in the global competition that we are presently pretending does not exist, what can I say, ya gotta just laugh! Penny wise and pound foolish, or, as they say in some circles, don't know their a$$es from...

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
03-11-2007, 09:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
while at the same time supporting the Democrats whose only platform is concentrating more money and power in government.. that is a broad, sweeping statement, that is not true, don't you think? I can understand why many liberals look to government as a salvation, Most do not! but I can’t quite see how that position can be compatible with the quotes.

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

Maybe it is because your take on liberals is not correct. I think I recall once that Deeman and I once communicated in a thread where we shared our important beliefs, and found that on most things, we agree. Personally, I think that both the majority of Conservatives and the majority of Liberals could meet in the middle, ideologically speaking, it's the extreme's of both sides which annoy both majorities. The terms really need to be replaced, with other terms that better describe the middle view point of each group, liberal and conservative. I am presently a Democrat, for example, but I have been registered Republican and Independent. Like you, I got fed up, but a little sooner, because I got fed up with Reagan. I liked him as a man, but I did not like his policies. And, I didn't like it when he passed the buck on the Iran/contra deal, or the Lebonon situation, very poorly handled, and also, he did not end the cold war, give me a break, the collapse was already coming before he got into office!

Too many Republicans think that Democrats want to support the lazy good for nothing types, with tax dollars, and that is not what most liberals are all about, just like I don't think that most conservatives believe in what Bush, and the recent Republican Majority has done as regards spending, and the debt. Where I have a problem, is that people on the right just don't seem to realize that we can't wage war, and cut taxes, at the same time. And borrowing money to do so is ridiculous! And particularly borrowing it from China! Why oh why is that so hard for people to get? And you can't keep sending our jobs out of the country, and bringing in cheap labor, here. And you can't do away with the working grunt's unions. It was REeagan who stared that, and it was wrong. American workers are the hardest workers in the world. They deserve to make a decent wage and live a decent life. I just cannot understand why people dont get those simple principles. I surely don't understand why people can't see that the chasm between the rich and the poor is growing like crazy. We're back to the twenties! These people who have to raise kids, and get by on the wages they get today, with all their high medical expenses, and energy expenses, cannot afford a government that is pro cheap labor, and pro out-sourceing of our jobs! We're getting screwed, and Bush isn't doing a damn thing about it, because again, he put himself in a trick bag. That's why when he tried to get China to get real about their mis-valueing of their yen, they laughed at him, ha ha ah, you owe us trillions, and you're going to give the orders, yeah right, ha ha ha...Just like the Middle East is laughing at us, ha ha ha, you need our oil, and you're going to dictate to us, ha ha ha...They want to put the knife in our backs, and he's helping them to do it.

Unbelievable! He has sure made a huge mess. Ideology, void of practicality, is folly!

gayle in Md.

BRussell
03-11-2007, 09:15 PM
It's interesting to me that conservatives here talk about "less government" as their defining philosophy. Because I just don't see it.

People used to say that there were two dimensions, economic and social, and we differed like this:

Conservatives: less government in the economic dimension, more government in the social dimension.

Liberals: less government in the social dimension, more government in the economic dimension

It sounds nice and balanced, and if it was true, the views of liberals and conservatives with respect to government power are equal, just different.

But here's my thing: After years of seeing what's up, it sure looks to me like conservatives actually end up making the government more powerful on both economic and social dimensions. They increase spending, they nationalize education funding, they pass federalized drug benefits, and they run up deficits. And in recent years we can add a third area, national security, and we certainly don't see less government there from conservatives. Add this to the usual conservative positions on big government in social issues like abortion, gays, sex, and the like, and my question is: Where in the world do conservatives actually believe in less government?

I'm genuinely interested in how conservatives here think about this, because I just don't get the reasoning.

Gayle in MD
03-11-2007, 09:27 PM
Bravo, my friend. Well said! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif And lets not forget what we've seen in the field of the environment from Bush! Good God, he's like the furor, intimidating Scientists, censoring Scientific Studies, (which WE all pay for with our tax dollars) to help out the worst polluters, appointing former oil lobbyists to head up environment protection, tax breaks for the oil insdutry, in which profits are through the roof! It's almost like he set out from the start to destroy this country. The Imperial presidency. Only the furor, and the rich friends of the furor, will succeed, and all the rest must support their lavish lifestyles.

Hey, I got it all figured out! Thirty percent of the people in this country, are nuts! The other sixty five percent, all agree with me! Five percent, don't give a good ****! and they're the ones with all the billions!

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
03-11-2007, 09:28 PM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

pooltchr
03-12-2007, 04:49 AM
Speaking as a self-defined conservative, I can tell you what I think. Both major parties in this country are nearly identical when it comes to grabbing power. Since government doesn't produce anything, they can only spend money they steal from the population in the form of taxes. Whoever is in power controls how the money is spent. Each party spends everything they can in an effort to convince voters to let them stay in office. But both parties will spend every penny they can, and then some.
I have seen memo's on government projects encouraging employees to spend more money. The reason is that if they spend everything in their budget this year, they have a better chance of getting more next year. If they don't spend their entire budget, someone might decide they really don't need as much, and their budget gets cut next year.
Government programs are by and far inefficient, and often ineffictive. Much of the money spent by the government could accomplish much more if it were flowing through the private sector. But that would reduce the money and power that government has. So each party is working as hard as possible to build their power, at the expense of the taxpayers.
Steve

Gayle in MD
03-12-2007, 10:52 AM
Oh Steve...Please research the American Enterprise Institute, and read the letter....Project for The New American Century, digest their listed goals, think about all the questions that surround the failure to heed the many, many warnings pre 9/11, look into all the things that were left out of the investigation, remember Ollie North's testimony during the investigations on Iran Contra, Read up on the Scientific studies regarding the way the buildings collapsed, how quickly the steel was removed, and recycled, check out how much of our tax dollars end up going into private industry, to pay defense contractors.

No one ever wants to think about the small group of Neocons whose goals fell right in line with 9/11. They even alluded to the fact that it would take an attack like Pearle Habor, to quell suspisions of the American People, to limit public questioning, to provide reasons for removing our privacy rights. To suspend Habeas Corpus.

Justification of prolonged wars, all over the world, brutal torture, imbedded media lies, Corporate Freedom, government spying on Americans, the destruction of the Constitution, global military dominance. What does that lead to? Massive defense contracts for the huge industrial military complex. Eisenhower, was the best and the brightest, but also the ONLY honest Republican Prsesident of my adult years. North was working on destroying the Constitution, way back in the Reagan Administration. He was asked about that in the Iran/Contra Investigations, The gavel was pounded, by a DEMOCRAT, and the questioner was silenced, told the matter could only be discussed behind closed doors.

Fitzgerald, knew about the alqaeda cell in New York. Ali Mohommed was in and out of this country for years before 9/11. He was the named planner of the first attack, the trainer of many other terrorists used in alQaeda attacks in other countries. Our government knew he was the planner of the first WTC attack, and he was an operative, with our own C.I.A.

The stated goals, of the Neocons, read them, right in their Project For The New American Century.

Then ask yourself, who's making all the money off this war. Who's losing their rights. Why did Pentagon Generals cancel flights out of National, the day before 9/11. Why was the first statement from Bush, to Clarke, in the White House, on 9/12, about finding connections to Iraq? Iraq?

If you are so concerned about taxes, why aren't you looking into where all that money is going, how it figures into this war, why so much information was blocked from the 9/11 investigation, why are Scientists, and Scholars, who are still demanding true answers on 9/11, being demonized for their questions? How did the F.B.I. have the names of 19 High jackers, before the last plane even crashed, by 10:00? How the hell did they find Attas passsport so quickly in the rubble?How did our government, in all the flurry, get every single one of bin Ladens relatives, on a plane, and out of the country, before Bush ever got back to Washington? Why did the plane that hit the Pentagon, just happen to hit on the opposite side of the building from where Rumsfeld and the Generals had their offices? Why was the film from the 7/11 across the street, that recorded the hit, confiscated by the F.B.I., and then deep sixed, but never viewed in the investigation, and now completely missing. Why did Bush try to stop the 9/11 investigation. What is the real reason for the massive Mexican infiltration into this country? Did you know, that among the Neocon plans, were plans for huge detention facilities in this country? Supposedly for housing illegals, and aren't they being invited to come, and isn't Bush offering amnesty? Who do you think they were really to house? Ever heard anything about Gladia? A European Operation, bombings in Europe, by our own, then blamed on the communists.

How come when Canada stopped Alli Mohommed, way back in the nineties, he called the F.B.I., and was released?

My concerns about our country go far, far beyond partisanship, as should every American's.

richard Clark's book, Against All emenies ...what is the reast of that sentence??? Foreign And Domestic

He was, and is, a dedicated man, Every American should read his book. The moderate conservatives, like yourself, need to stop closing their eyes, and do the research, before they consider another Republican in the White House!!! Instead of worrying about the piddly money representative of welfare waste!!!

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
03-12-2007, 11:23 AM
Sorry, but without your additional explanatory comments....from those two sentences, I still read that acquiring power moves one towards the left, and corrupts one.
That would infer that that moving left and corruption are linked.
But I've gone against my promise to not reply to you, twice now......I think your views are a little extremist...and I find extremists alarming....I'm sure if I heard you pontificating in a bar...I'd finish my drink and leave...or just leave

pooltchr
03-12-2007, 06:54 PM
Excuse me????? I was responding to BRussell's question. Now what does anything you wrote in those 10 paragraphs have to do with my post?
Try reading and comprehending something before you spew your hatred of all things Republican.
Thank you.
Steve

Gayle in MD
03-13-2007, 05:36 AM
I comprehended when you said that both major parties were equal. I can't recall a time when Democrats had this many people breaking the law at one time. Don't recall Democrats ever launching a war using fake intelligence. Don't recall them exploiting the blind faith of the religious, fanatics for political purposes. I could go on. While neither party is perfect, nothing comes close to what the NEOcon Republicans have pulled off in the last twentyfour years. This terrorism thing began on Reagans watch. He did nothing about 241 slau8ghtered marines. None of your supporters ever mention that. never mention the pardon of Casper Weinburger, and several others, who committed high crimes. Never seem to notice our attorney General, breaking the law. bush using signing statements, saying that FISA would block efficient use of spying on terrorists, then when it comes out that FBI, has spied on thousands who are just Americans, and that Gonzales has been using his spying, and the entire countries attorney generals for political purposes, he suddenly says, oh, we'll use FISA, we'll abide by the law.

No, there is no other administration of my lifetime that has displayed the blatant law breaking, and the lies, that this one has. But, I guess, for you, a lie, told by a republican, isn't as bad as a lie, told by a Democrat?

BTW, you post to me when I haven't posted to you first, You do it all the time....we all do...

Gayle in Md

DickLeonard
03-13-2007, 06:59 AM
Gayle Bush and Cheney came into office with the intent to take us to war against Iraq. They are trying to bring Democrazy to Iraq while they destroy our Democrazy.

For the life of me I can't believe we are spending a trillion dollars for a war and we wouldn't spend a dime to impROVE our own country.####

hondo
03-13-2007, 11:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Gayle Bush and Cheney came into office with the intent to take us to war against Iraq. They are trying to bring Democrazy to Iraq while they destroy our Democrazy.

For the life of me I can't believe we are spending a trillion dollars for a war and we wouldn't spend a dime to impROVE our own country.#### <hr /></blockquote>

Dick, that is a very simple question that I have asked
over and over on both forums and NEVER get an answer.
All of the money that could be solving America's problems
is going into the war machine and " rebuilding" countries
that we have destroyed.
The neo- cons &amp; libertarians scream about money going for
education and health care but don't say a word about
the fattening of Exxon &amp; Haliburton and all the foreign
aid going overseas. It's beyond me.

wolfdancer
03-13-2007, 12:29 PM
And now even Haliburton is "going overseas"...with their new HQ in Dubai. A no-bid contract to supply our troops...and now?????
This might make as good a story as William Lederer's "Our Own Worst Enemy"... in that expose, during the Viet-Nam "conflict" many of our supplies were diverted to the enemy, and many of our Soldiers had to buy their own equipment on the Black Market.
Haliburton might even take the opportunity now to open a chain of military supply stores, "Hal-Mart" in the Middle East???

Gayle in MD
03-13-2007, 01:09 PM
Tap Tap Tap[ /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
03-13-2007, 01:11 PM
Tap Tap Tap! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
03-13-2007, 01:17 PM
Nothing I know of beats Bush sending money to the Saudis, for them to give to the Sunnis, to fight against the Shiia, and our own! I have not yet researched this little item, but will do so this week. If this is true, it's as crazy as everything else he does.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
03-13-2007, 02:03 PM
Gayle, HAL moving corporate HQ to Dubai is true.....while it looks like a tax dodge....there are some issues complicating that for them.
They will be laying off American employees though.....and investing their $1.4 billion there, instead of the USA...

llotter
03-13-2007, 05:06 PM
I have tried on several posts to separate the current Republican Party generally and especially the current administration from anything resembling traditional conservatism. Traditionally conservatives supported small, limited government, strong military and Judeo-Christian values, often referred to as ‘family values’, and these are the positions I support. Now I am not sure what you mean exactly by ‘more government in the social dimension’ but I presume you are referring to things like the gay marriage issue or the abortion issue, or separation of church and state, In God We Trust, Christmas etc.

Let me see if I can explain why conservatives think these issues as so important to the future of a free society. I would start off with this quote from George Washington’s farewell address back in 1796:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
Most of us on the right would be happy if the government and courts would just back off of their frontal assault on religion since the early 60s and we do not believe that religion presented anything oppressive in the first 180 years of our history, in fact, just the opposite. The very concept of individual liberty has in at its root the Judeo-Christian tradition and far from that heritage being oppressive, it led to the quest for truth, spreading liberal education through out the western world. The great universities, Harvard, Princeton, Yale and many, many others were started as religious schools and had liberal teachings at their heart. ‘The truth shall set your free’ is a quote from Jesus and Christians were not and are not afraid of the truth but search for it with an open mind.

A free and civil society is no a created through anarchy but through generally accepted rules of behavior. Those rules aren’t for the purpose of restricting freedom but enhancing or permitting it to blossom. These moral rules are somewhat analogous to having good manners which allow people to interact more easily with less strife because each knows what to expect from others, the manners are generally accepted. If all of these rules are undermined and replaced with everyone doing whatever they felt like doing, chaos would result. Our Judeo-Christian heritage is largely responsible for our moral foundation and it is at our extreme peril the we delegitimize the source. Nothing can replace it.

On the other hand, the Left wants to replace our heritage of free people with a conscience, with the state…instead of self-control, it will be police control.

BRussell
03-13-2007, 07:14 PM
llotter and pooltchr, thanks for your thoughtful responses. I don't come to the same conclusions as you, but I understand where you're coming from.

llotter
03-13-2007, 08:39 PM
Gayle,

It is a broad sweeping statement about the only platform that the liberals/Democrats have is to put more power and resources in government but for the most part, it seems to be true it you can get past the platitudes and look at actual legislative proposals. You would have to look pretty hard to find any programs they want to eliminate but there is a very long list of programs they want to either expand and add.

I thought you were about to enlighten me on why my take on liberals was in error but instead you continued on your rant about how inept is the Bush administration.

My take on liberals is that they have a deep empathy for the less fortunate in society and think it is appropriate to tax the more fortunate to support those in need. And further, because liberals feel their unsurpassed empathy is not shared by ‘others’ the force of law must be employed to insure those ‘others’, confused and pompous like me, contribute their ‘fair share’ to bring necessary relief to those in need.

Plus, liberals have a great antipathy toward capitalism and the free markets and that because they consider themselves in the elite class and have a great and unmatched understanding of what is best for society, liberals want to have control over the economic domain through detailed regulation to insure business follows the rules they have set down.

Plus, liberals, because of that deep empathy for the less fortunate, are inclined to be understanding of their criminal behavior, just look at their environment to see why they act as they do. This has often led to the ‘soft on crime’ moniker that liberals have worn.

In short, liberals do trust their fellow citizens to do freely what they think they should do and therefore most always resort to the police powers of government to help ‘others’ do what the liberals know to be the right thing.

Am I wrong?

Gayle in MD
03-14-2007, 12:08 AM
Those are beautiful words, but they presume that without the threat of suffering and punishment and fear, the human spirit cannot rise above the inherent pitfalls of being human. To suggest such a thing, to me, is to suggest that without the fear of retaliation for ones sins, humans cannot live their lives from high intention. I cannot believe that.

Let me say that until the day I die, I will believe that homosexual people do not have a choice in their gender preferences. I do not know if there is a God, but if one exists, I do know that to punish others for the way He made them, must surely be wrong.

Prayer, to some, is salvation. To others, it can be admired, but at the same time seem somewhat pointless, since we all truly make our own way. As for me, I find it pointless to ponder issues for which I know I will never have reliable answers. To each his own. Mixing politics, and religion, however, can never work. To do so flies in the face of what this country is about, and I believe that with all my heart. I never hear of atheists, for example, judging Christian, only just wanting to be left to their own beliefs, and unhampered in following them. I would not presume to judge my fellow humans for anything but harming another. Nor do I expect all others to think and experience life from my point of view. I believe that we are now faced with an option of whether we will work to save our way of life,or not. Not because of people from the other side of the world, but because of what we are becomming.

G.

cushioncrawler
03-14-2007, 02:04 AM
llotter -- GW musthavbeen a stupid prikc. Fancy killing other americans in yor first civil war. And, all koz americans paid about 1/50th the tax that their english fellows paid.

Christians have held the human race back allmost 2000 years. If it werent for the rotten christians, we would have been on the moon in 969. I am not happy. madMac.

DickLeonard
03-14-2007, 06:48 AM
Gayle Guiliani tough on crime stance in New York City drove the criminals out of the city with its 30,000 man police force. They were sent scurring into New yorks other cities with there very limited number of police officrs. Giving them a field day for their crime/drugs/etc.####

eg8r
03-14-2007, 07:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Let me say that until the day I die, I will believe that homosexual people do not have a choice in their gender preferences. I do not know if there is a God, but if one exists, I do know that to punish others for the way He made them, must surely be wrong.
<hr /></blockquote> Well, basically, you are stating you don't know if there is a God, but if there is he would definitely have purposefully made some people homosexual. There is nothing that supports this idea.

eg8r

llotter
03-14-2007, 09:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Those are beautiful words, but they presume that without the threat of suffering and punishment and fear, the human spirit cannot rise above the inherent pitfalls of being human. To suggest such a thing, to me, is to suggest that without the fear of retaliation for ones sins, humans cannot live their lives from high intention. I cannot believe that. <hr /></blockquote>

There is no doubt whatsoever that the 'rule of law' requires punishment for law breakers, including prison terms and even the death penalty. For every law enacted, there are consequences for failure to obey. You seem to have no problem with State, using its police powers, enforcing the millions of laws and doling out punishments but heaven forbid if there should exist a voluntary, religiously based moral code that is only enforced by your conscience, an admonition to do right and not wrong. Is this really your position?

Gayle in MD
03-14-2007, 01:03 PM
I am pro law, just disgusted that our legal system is corrupt, and that some of the worst offenders reside and work in the White House, and on Capital Hill, the F.B.I., and the Justice Department, most at the highest levels, of course. Law enforcment that is not enforced from the top levels of Government, to the average Joe Blow, doesn't amount to law enforcement at all, it amounts to a police state and worse.

Religious intervention into political and government matters, threaten both government, and religion.

The Separation of church and State was not meant to give organized religion the dictating hand in our Government, our Constitution provides us with that service.

You are quite welcome to your religiously based moral code, just not justified in using it to judge or condemn the unique interpretations of others. Constitutional Law assures us that we are free to worship, or not worship, as we wish. It does not give Organized religion the right to dictate their view of others in a way that removes the rights of others, nor was it meant to do so. The religious condemnation of homosexuals, for example, does not belong in our constitution, as it is to benefit all of us equally through legal protection. Organized religion was not meant to have the last say in our legal affairs, we are all given the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, hence we no longer have slave owners, and should not discriminate against others for their sexual preferences, their opinion on abortion, or their personal decision to end their own life, with the assistance of a Doctor, who can advise how to do so with the least suffering.

It is unconstitutional, for example, for our government to require contractors to reveal their position on abortion, or to discriminate against those who wish to serve their country, and happen to be homosexual. The Law must not serve as a means for any particular group to discriminate or demonize any other group, nor to set their value or their rights from religious dogma, hence, women now vote, perhaps one day they will also be paid equal pay for equal work. We are to be equal, under the law.

Also, IMO, Christianity is not a requirement for living an honorable, decent, love filled life, dedicated to high and good intention. If God created everything, the world and everything in it, then he created homosexuality, also, and it is present in the animal kingdom, as well. Organized religion has always been wrought with harsh definitions of many natural and beautiful aspects of life. One person loving another, is among those things. I personally do not presume a right to judge others by their uniqueness on behalf of any religious dogma. I will leave that to God.
I believe I must live and let live, and that it is my personal right to embrace my own philosophy, but I do not have the right to force my own religious values, or personal philosophy, upon others, nor do those with oposing views have that right. To each his own.

Gayle in Md.

cushioncrawler
03-14-2007, 03:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote llotter:</font><hr> ..... You seem to have no problem with State, using its police powers, enforcing the millions of laws and doling out punishments but heaven forbid if there should exist a voluntary, religiously based moral code that is only enforced by your conscience, an admonition to do right and not wrong. Is this really your position?<hr /></blockquote>llotter -- "Moral Code" and "Religion" are not compatible. Religion is a dogma -- u havta do what "they" say -- "good" is what they say "good" is. But, u did say "religiously based moral code", in which case "based" gets u off the hook here a bit. SaintMac.

cushioncrawler
03-14-2007, 03:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> ..... Also, IMO, Christianity is not a requirement for living an honorable, decent, love filled life, dedicated to high and good intention..... <hr /></blockquote>Gayle -- Christianity is about "u" making god happy, so that "u" can be happy in Heaven for ever and ever. But, this is of course bullkrap -- religion is actually about priests looking after priests.

Who woz it that said ....."faith is an unshakeable beleef in something u know to be untrue"..... saintMac.

Qtec
03-14-2007, 09:51 PM
If God is infalible, gays were meant to be.

[ QUOTE ]
Behavior modification
Main article: Ex-gay
Homosexuality was officially removed as a disorder from the DSM in 1974 (although a category of "sexual orientation disturbance" and then "ego-dystonic homosexuality" remained for another 14 years). Homosexuality is no longer generally regarded as a mental illness or as needing "treatment", and there are also moves to delete "Gender Identity Disorder" from the DSM-IV[24] Most mainstream medical and psychological organizations will not perform psychotherapy to change sexual orientation as they consider it ineffective and potentially harmful.[25]

Nevertheless, a number of groups, particularly religious ones, continue to promulgate the view that homosexuality is a defective behavioral condition which can be corrected with behavioral conditioning. Reparative therapy is a form of aversion therapy aimed at the elimination of homosexual attractions and is employed by people who claim that homosexuality is a disorder or a sin; this has in the past involved such methods as shock treatment[26] with the electrodes hooked up to a man's testicles, drugs used to induce physical illness while the subject is being shown pictures of naked men.[27], and the administration of Metrazol to induce convulsions[28]. It should be noted that no such "treatments" will be performed by credible psychotherapists that practice in the United States, as this would be a breach of the APA's code of conduct and ethics.[29]. More modern reparative therapy organizations such as NARTH neither practice nor condone such techniques. A "transformational ministry" claims that homosexual behavior is essentially a sin that can be overcome through a religious approach employing repentance and faith.

According to the group Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, many groups that practice "conversion therapies" claim high success rates, in some cases as high as 70%. These studies are not presented to peer groups for evaluation and often lack much data when published. When these claims are investigated by means of scientific studies based on available data, they actually have a success rate of only 0.4 to 0.6% (statistically zero).[30]

"Ex-gay" supporters point to people who claim to have experienced success. [31] [32] [33]Conservative groups point to critique papers such as the one written by the Council for Responsible Genetics that sexuality may not be predetermined either way. [34] However, most of this evidence is anecdotal, being based on testimonies by ministry participants, and to the neglect of the scientific method.

<hr /></blockquote>




Q

Gayle in MD
03-15-2007, 01:14 AM
I wish I could meet you my friend. I'm sure we would be fast friends. I enjoy the way you think. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
03-15-2007, 01:17 AM
I agree. Reading you quoted material, well, that's the kind of thing that makes my blood boil, and why I find organized religion personally repulsive.

Gayle in Md.

cushioncrawler
03-15-2007, 01:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I agree. Reading you quoted material, well, that's the kind of thing that makes my blood boil, and why I find organized religion personally repulsive. Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote> Gayle -- My billiardz mate from Sydney beleevz every word in the bible, and he hates (my word) all organized religion, ie Catholic Church etc. He sez that religion is between u and god, and duznt involve priests or anyone else. He iz (sort of) a member of a sect that hates sects (my wordz). Of course he knows that i dont beleev one word of the bible. StMac.

DickLeonard
03-15-2007, 06:44 AM
Gayle I love that people say this country was formed on Judeo-Christian principles while almost every signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution owned slaves. In my mind that makes those two documents pretty worthless. ####

eg8r
03-15-2007, 06:45 AM
Gays were meant to be people, just not gay people. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

DickLeonard
03-15-2007, 06:51 AM
Hondo I won't be happy till the Democrats supenoa the notes on the energy conference held in the White House that should eliminate both the Vice President and President. I guarantee that the notes have been destroyed.####

hondo
03-15-2007, 07:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I agree. Reading you quoted material, well, that's the kind of thing that makes my blood boil, and why I find organized religion personally repulsive. Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote> Gayle -- My billiardz mate from Sydney beleevz every word in the bible, and he hates (my word) all organized religion, ie Catholic Church etc. He sez that religion is between u and god, and duznt involve priests or anyone else. He iz (sort of) a member of a sect that hates sects (my wordz). Of course he knows that i dont beleev one word of the bible. StMac. <hr /></blockquote>

Well, I don't hate sects, but I do practice safe sects.

hondo
03-15-2007, 07:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote llotter:</font><hr>

On the other hand, the Left wants to replace our heritage of free people with a conscience, with the state&amp;#8230;instead of self-control, it will be police control. <hr /></blockquote>

Funny how people see things differently! In my almost
59 years I have found the opposite to be true.The right,
while spouting state's rights, etc, have been the ones
who have driven us toward a police state. It's never
been more true than with the current administration
and the advantanges they have taken toward human rights.
Plus, look back at the paranoia of the Nixon era.
Look at the firing of those prosecuters recently.
I could go on &amp; on. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that
i see things quite differently.

Gayle in MD
03-15-2007, 08:00 AM
Tap Tap Tap! Cheney didn't go to the Supreme Court to block relevations on his secret meetings with the oil cartel, for nothing. The administration is wrought with secrecy, and cover ups, but only seventy percent of us can connect the dots. The right is good at bashing, and distorting the truth, but completly unable to work up answers to explain why Bush works in secret, using extraordinary effort to cover up what they have done, or explain why they fail miserably over and over to correctly understand likely consequences of their half baked policies, tell the truth, or act responsibly in the midst of disaster.

One may ask over and over, why did Cheney go all the way to the Supreme Court to block information on his secret meetings with oil from public scrutiny? No answer, just more bashing. Why did Bush do everything possible to block an investigation of 9/11, even trying to cut off the funding? No answers from the right, just more insults and bashing. I've developed a tough skin, thanks to the right. I am no longer insultable, my own word, lol, and am now completely indifferent to critcism regardless of the onslaught, the source, or the method. I'm not responsible for their intolerance, incorrect facts, or fanatical thinking. My conclusions are supported by their behavior, self designated censors, /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gifroughly thirty percent of Americans are nutty fanatics, /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif our only hope is that they will learn to love our country more than they hate liberals.

Religious dogma, Madison Avenue style buzz words, and fascist right wing media, have them burried in BS. I'm surprised Bush has implemented book burning! /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif


Love,
/ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

eg8r
03-15-2007, 09:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
My conclusions are supported by their behavior, self designated censors, roughly thirty percent of Americans are nutty fanatics, our only hope is that they will learn to love our country more than they hate liberals.
<hr /></blockquote> Well if the liberals were not so unpatriotic the 30 percent might not be so nutty. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I love it when you post all your stats, but remember your 70% are the sheep. Thank goodness the USA is not a Democracy.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-15-2007, 10:15 AM
Those unpatriotic Liberals are in Congress today, forcing your incompetent, heartless, dishonest Commander &amp; Chief to provide proper equipment, health care, and emotional rehabilitation for our troops, which he has failed to do throughout his egomaniacle administration. Pretty bad when a president destroys the country's army, for trumped up reasons, and than refuses to give them what they deserve for having served their country so bravely.

Gayle in Md.

llotter
03-15-2007, 10:47 AM
It is often difficult to make a provable relationship between effects and the causes but when you say that a people can define for themselves what is right and what is wrong with any reference to our Judeo-Christian heritage, I would say to look at the moral decay in our society since the early ‘60s and ask you why this decay is happening. Whether you look at the divorce rates, violent crimes, illegitimacy, school drop out rates, broken families or almost anything that I can think of as an indicator that we are on the wrong track, all are pointing dramatically in the negative. From a moral perspective, it is hard to think of anything positive that has happened alongside the long list of negatives. Even the SAT tests have had to be adjusted downward on at least two occasions. There is hardly a commercial TV program that isn’t built around cheap sexual innuendo from which children should be protected but usually aren’t.

Are these observations on no real importance in the big picture? To me, the decay of our society is the biggest problem we face. What do you think?

Qtec
03-15-2007, 11:22 AM
Are you going to talk in riddles now?
If you are wrong why can't you just admit it.
We all know that your argument [ gays are either sick or they were made gay] cannot stand up to the facts or any kind of scientific norm.
Not long ago there was a leader of a church who was caught in a gay relationship and after 4 weeks church therapy was proclaimed to be cured? [ I will find a link]

Found it.
<font color="blue"> Ted Haggard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ted Arthur Haggard (born June 27, 1956) is a former American evangelical preacher. Known as Pastor Ted to the congregations he has served, he is the founder and former pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado; a founder of the Association of Life-Giving Churches; and was leader of the National Association of Evangelicals from 2003[1] until November 2006.

In November 2006, he resigned or was removed from all of his leadership positions after allegations of homosexual sex and drug abuse were made by Mike Jones, a former male prostitute. Initially Haggard denied even knowing Mike Jones, but as a media investigation proceeded he acknowledged that some allegations, such as his purchase of methamphetamine, were true. He later added "sexual immorality" to his list of confessions.[2]

On February 6, 2007, one of four ministers who oversaw three weeks of intensive counseling for Haggard, Tim Ralph, stated that Haggard "is completely heterosexual." [3] Rev. Tim Ralph later said he meant to say that therapy "gave Ted the tools to help to embrace his heterosexual side."[4]
</font color>

LMAO............Ted is now left handed???????? LOL


BS.
You like girls or you don't. End of story.

Q

Gayle in MD
03-15-2007, 12:09 PM
I think it's pitiful. I blame much of the family issues which fail our children on the idea that many people who should never become parents, do so regardless. I think it is the fault of parents, more than any other reason, why our educational system is failing our children, and that No Child Left Behind, demonizes teachers unfairly. I blame organized religion for promoting the idea that our greatest mission is to pop out babies non stop, and for sticking it's collective nose into private personal matters in order to demonize people for using birth control, for having early term abortions, the only kind which should be legal, other than those which serve to maintain women's critical needs, emotional, physical and psychological, which they require in order to survive. I blame the media for its obvious lack of good taste, and greed. I think when we lost Mothers in the home, family values began to suffer, children did not have proper attention from home, particularly during their formative years, and parents whose mission was more money, above all else, did not form close enough bonds with their children, and did not stay involved closely enough with our schools. I've met and worked with many teachers over the course of my life, and the vast majority of them, nearly to a person, were extremely dedicated, loved teaching and children, and were beaten down by the lack of parental oversight and cooperation, parents who fail to address the problems of their children, emotional and intellectual.

I think there are loads of people who have severe sexual problems, that need help, which they never get, and that the pharmaceutical industry is responsible for the bulk of addictive problems in this country.

I think that the news industry has failed to be the watchdogs of our government and democracy, since the rise of entertainment news, and that media greed, and corporate greed, overshadow professionalizm, Patroitism, conscience, and integrity.

At the same time, I also don't think women who work outside of home, should be demonized. In my younger years I saw husband after husband fail to support their young wives after their children were born. I saw many husbands and fathers dumping their wives and children for more available single women who would assuage their insecurity and immaturity with instant sexual gratification, in place of more important long range goals. The vast majority of marriages which I knew of were ruined because men couldn't or wouldn't rise to the occasion of providing support, both emotional, and financial, for their families. Many women began to view having their own jobs, as an inusrance policy agaist ending up on welfare, after being deserted by their husbands.

I think that Corporations should consider and benefit their employees by providing social support for them which support family values, and that our government should provide tax brakes for them when they support the family values issues, rather than issues of greed. I think that government, and corporate corruption has failed the American worker, and the American family, with poor and damaging political policies, that reward antifamily, anti employee, and antiamerican traditional values.

I think that an out of control immigration policy, which is really no policy at all, along with government abandoning the poor and middle class in this country, to benfit the extremely wealthy, leads to much more crime in our country, of all kinds, and much of it is devastating to our educational system, our health care system, and our children's futures.

Most of our social problems, if one had to select the core causes, are the overall result of greed, graft, overpopulation, our failing correctional and judicial systems, and organized religion. I also think that a governments policies in the treatment of their old, poor, and military service people, has tremendous impact on the American family, and sets the pace for what kind of country we have, hence, this administration has failed miserably.

Organized religion degrades. Good mental health has it's roots in one's ability to identify reality, to learn to love and accept oneself, and all others, with love and compassion. The decision to think, is the basis for healthy self-esteem. Organized religion requires suspension of critical thinking. Critical thinking is not the same thing as being judgemental. Jesus taught forgiveness, compassion, and charity. Those principles are available to us regardless of our religious beliefs. Making others feel badly about themselves, is the antithesis of love, and all love evolves from self love.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
03-15-2007, 03:07 PM
As an ordained Minister in the Universal Life Church....I am appalled at this heresy....I'm in the planning stages of a mission to Australia , to spread the word, and increase my "flock" (donations to offset my expenses... can be made using Paypal)....if I get enough extra, I'll stop off in Hawaii...where I'm told, many lost souls can be found on the golf Courses there....
A few years back, a TV Evengelist from L.A, cancelled his planned mission to SF....we didn't send enough "seed money"
He warned us that the City would be in peril from the Wrath of God, over this. I think God is checking out the Washington,DC situation first though...
Don't let this happen over there......

cushioncrawler
03-15-2007, 04:13 PM
Woolfy -- We had a funny local tv series in Ozz re religion. In one episode the host went on a mission to SaltLakeCity to spread the word that God duznt exist. He went door to door. At one joint the very angry rezident said "that this iznt appropriate". At another joint he woz seen off with a broom.

I reckon that its a pity that the first lot of christians didnt win (back in about 100AD) -- homosexuality woz compulsory, and eating (drinking) of semen. I remember that one old painting (in their church) shows one christian on his hands and knees getting it from behind by another christian, who in turn is getting it from behind by another christian (beats baptism). Its a pity that the 3 didnt (dont) have halos, like all saints did in later years. StMac (the just).

wolfdancer
03-15-2007, 04:32 PM
May you rot in England,(forever) for spreading such a tale.....your Bible stories, I think, are somewhat different then mine.
Was that in the King James, or the Douay version? Or perhaps the older Vulgate Bible??

cushioncrawler
03-15-2007, 04:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> May you rot in England,(forever) for spreading such a tale.....your Bible stories, I think, are somewhat different then mine.
Was that in the King James, or the Douay version? Or perhaps the older Vulgate Bible?? <hr /></blockquote>I think it woz in the Illustrated Children's Bible. I think that Jezu is the one in the middle, at least that is where he was drawn when the 3 were later crucifyd after they were dobbed-in by (jealous) Judas -- i think that the painting was Exhibit A at the trial. StMac (the lusty).

wolfdancer
03-15-2007, 07:31 PM
Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.

llotter
03-15-2007, 08:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I think there are loads of people who have severe sexual problems, that need help, which they never get, and that the pharmaceutical industry is responsible for the bulk of addictive problems in this country.

Most of our social problems, if one had to select the core causes, are the overall result of greed, graft, overpopulation, our failing correctional and judicial systems, and organized religion. I also think that a governments policies in the treatment of their old, poor, and military service people, has tremendous impact on the American family, and sets the pace for what kind of country we have, hence, this administration has failed miserably.

<hr /></blockquote>
I want to reconnect this thread back to the original post of the quotes above. I was merely expressing some surprise that liberals would post quotes with which a conservative, like myself, so strongly agree, i.e., government is not to be trusted and therefore should be kept to a minimum. That is the essence of the Constitution itself.

Most of those problems I mentioned previously, I would lay at the feet of an overgrown government that is corrupted by power and does whatever that’s required to maintain and enhance that power. They do this by creating all manner of programs to build a culture of dependency on ever increasing spending and therefore ever increasing power in the hands of government. This pattern destroys the sense of responsibility of individuals and therefore are they unprepared to shoulder the burdens of living in a free society. The opportunity to build personal character is limited because the important decisions have too often been usurped.

Many of the problems you list are, IMO, as consequence more than a cause but I’m sure we will just have to agree to disagree. I do think that the more power government undertakes, the bigger the problems will become, including all that corruption you so often point to.

eg8r
03-16-2007, 10:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's pitiful. I blame much of the family issues which fail our children on the idea that many people who should never become parents, do so regardless. I think it is the fault of parents, more than any other reason, why our educational system is failing our children, <hr /></blockquote> However, you are also the first person in line handing out "ribbed for her pleasure" condoms and telling the youth to run rampant and have all the sex they want. Don't let anyone tell them not to have sex because their saviour is ABORTION. I guess these parents are reaping Gayle's wrath because they did not drink at the Fountain of Gayle and abort those babies.

eg8r

eg8r
03-16-2007, 10:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Are you going to talk in riddles now?
<hr /></blockquote> You need to work with me here. I am desperately trying to use the English language in a way you can understand, normal discussion was a failure. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
If you are wrong why can't you just admit it. <hr /></blockquote> I am not wrong, and you have never proven otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
We all know that your argument [ gays are either sick or they were made gay] <hr /></blockquote> The second part is wrong, it does not agree with my argument. I do not believe they were made gay. I think it is a choice they make and I believe the choice is wrong and most definitely sick.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote q:</font><hr> Not long ago there was a leader of a church who was caught in a gay relationship and after 4 weeks church therapy was proclaimed to be cured? [ I will find a link]
<hr /></blockquote> Your link was... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Q's proof:</font><hr> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <hr /></blockquote> LOL, if you are going to use Wikipedia then let me know in the beginning you intend to be a joke.

eg8r

eg8r
03-16-2007, 11:01 AM
Like I said, your posts are sounding points from the sheeple, thank goodness we are not a Democracy.

eg8r