I found this pretty funny (and accurate!)

[QueenAdrock]

A Great Idea!!

Dear Red States:

We're ticked off at the way you've treated California, and we've decided
we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the
other Blue States with us.

In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe
this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people
of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.

We get stem cell research and the best beaches.

We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.

We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.

We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.

We get Harvard. You get Ole Miss.

We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get
Alabama.

We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay
their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian
Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and
we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need
people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently
willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you
don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish
you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing
to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of
the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and
lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's
quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of
all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S.
low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy
League and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and
MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88
percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92
percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90
percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually
100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University,
Clemson and the University of Georgia.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was
actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless
we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that
evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and
61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals
then we lefties.

By the way, we're taking the good pot, too.

You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.

Sincerely,
Author Unknown in New California

[QueenAdrock]

So I guess that means they serve a purpose. Thank you for your wonderful insight.

And WTF does that have to do with anything, anyways?

[QueenAdrock]

It's not the point if we're pro-choice, and anti-death penalty.

The point is YOU say YOU'RE "for life" yet support the death penalty. And this war, with many innocent people killed. You also plow down wildlife to go get oil, and pollute the air which will lead to many deaths in the long run. The red states are not "for life" they're just "anti-abortion." We don't claim to be "pro-life" and turn out to be hypocrites, YOU DO. Get it right.

[Medellia]

Guns produce less accidental deaths than doctors.
Prove it.

[QueenAdrock]

There are plenty of Liberals who live in red states. There are plenty of conservatives who live in blue states.
You are pro choice, but you don't want to let the innocent baby decide if it should live or die.

And you don't want to let another human being on death row decide whether he should live or die (and he can actually SAY whether or not he'd like to live), because you think it's your business to PLAY GOD.

And I'd be more than happy to let a fetus tell me if it wants to live...OH WAIT IT CAN'T BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN BORN YET OR LEARNED TO SPEAK OR THINK FOR ITSELF FOR THAT MATTER, SO I GUESS BY DEFAULT IT'S THE MOTHER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

And by the way, what happens if that fetus grows up and decides it DIDN'T want to live, and decides to kill itself? Doesn't THE BIBLE say they're going to hell, then? So pretty much people are forced to rot away on this planet, no matter what the circumstances, listening to inbred fucks like you? That's pretty selfish.

So to sum up:
Abortion = bad
Suicide = bad
Letting a Brain-Dead Vegetable acheive eternal peace = bad
Death Penalty = good

People should have the right to choose life or death, without being told they're going to hell.


Not all pro life-ers are pro death penality.

I know. And I highly respect those people, though our ideas and thoughts differ on those subjects. I respect people who try their hardest to think clearly and come up with their own ideas, rather than just going with what a hundred of years old book tells them to think.

[Medellia]

okay

http://warrmanstruth.blogspot.com/2005/03/guns-vs-doctors.html
I refuse to go to anything you link me to that has the word "blog" in the address. Find something from CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Associated Press, anything CREDIBLE.

I'm trying to be nice, but you make it extremely difficult.

[EN[i]GMA]

Read some of that blog, it's hilarious!

What saddens me about being a libertarian, is that I'm grouped in with the conspiricy theory wackos like that.

It's nice to know sisko gets his political news from tools like this:

Enough Said
Ok, so let’s talk about the London bombing thing! We all know that it was another New World Order hit. The people where crying about the new ID card, they will not go to the Euro; they want to stay on the pound. The people of England were starting to see Tony Blair for the Reptile that he really is. So once again the New World Order slim bags had to kill some common people to get the agenda back on track. Once again millions where made in stock for a lucky few inside traders. Once again there was prier knowledge. Once again the cameras recorded nothing and the police a gathering up all of the bystanders video and photos. Once again the agenda is back on track and the sheepeople are put back in line.
Enough said!
In the Love of Yahushua,
James

I know of at least 8 factual errors in that one short paragraph. Impressive.

And I like the reference to 'Reptile'; he obviously believe the Reptilians are behind the NWO, putting him in the upper echelon of crazies.

[jennyb]

Yay! Sounds like this New California is a pretty nice place!

That was damn funny, emailing to friends now. (y)

[sam i am]

Queen AdRock - I've seen this theory of a separation of the country posited before.

How about we do as you say, but you give us all of those who voted for Bush and keep all of those who voted for Kerry or Nader or some other splinter political party.

Then, let's see how much gets done in your new Utopia!

Sit around and smoke dope and die of starvation and disease...sounds great to me. Then we'll move back in and remake the country in our own image....sounds like we've found common ground - GO FOR IT! (!)

[QueenAdrock]

It's a democratic society actually. And democrats aren't about smoking dope and getting nothing accomplished. We believe in having a better society. We had a booming economy and great job growth and better environmental legislation under Clinton. Oh, and respect from other countries. Or were you too young to remember the days when we had a democrat in power?

However, you can live in Jesusland. Move outside of the painful radiation zone into the quick and easy die zone, though. Trust me, it'll be much better to die quickly than from the fallout. :(

[sam i am]

How are you going to have a better society without money? Isn't money evil to your way of thinking? Money differentiates and makes some winners and some losers in society. If you have a way to get around that without fundamentally altering human nature, let me know please and I'll go along with you in a second... :cool:

BTW, I'm older than you think... :o

[QueenAdrock]

...without money? what the fuck are you talking about?

Do you know ANYTHING about the Democratic party?!? It's not socialism, we are still capitalists.

We believe in standing up for the little guy, if that's what you mean. But that doesn't mean we're socialist. :confused:

[sam i am]

really? you're not socialist or communist or anarchist? I was really sure you were from your posts thus far.

Well, it's good to know that you believe in capitalism. That's something we can definitely agree on. (y)

Anyhow, why would you not want to be with fellow capitalists, then, even if we have some differing opinions? If we can agree on capitalism as the basis for our society, shouldn't we promote that around the world? Democracies don't make war with each other, they're too busy making money.....

[QueenAdrock]

I don't agree with what the red states believe in. They want to push their agenda, and pretty hard too. A lot of it is, since they believe in the Bible, they think everyone should follow it as well. I believe in stem cell research, I'm pro-choice, pro-environment, and anti-war. These aren't the same ideals that the red states stand for, so the idea of branching away from them, and creating a capitalist society in which people's civil rights are protected, and we don't get involved in other people's business (unless it's necessary, as is in the case of genocide).

I have no problem with whether or not they have different beliefs. It's whether or not they try to push them on people who don't agree, and this administration very much does so.

So, we'd make a country that was more along the lines of say, Canada.

[sam i am]

I don't agree with what the red states believe in. They want to push their agenda, and pretty hard too. A lot of it is, since they believe in the Bible, they think everyone should follow it as well. I believe in stem cell research, I'm pro-choice, pro-environment, and anti-war. These aren't the same ideals that the red states stand for, so the idea of branching away from them, and creating a capitalist society in which people's civil rights are protected, and we don't get involved in other people's business (unless it's necessary, as is in the case of genocide).

I have no problem with whether or not they have different beliefs. It's whether or not they try to push them on people who don't agree, and this administration very much does so.

So, we'd make a country that was more along the lines of say, Canada.

OK, now we're making some headway. Many of us who are conservative feel just like you, that "[we] don't agree with what the [blue] states believe in. They want to push their agenda, and pretty hard too."

I do believe in the Bible, but it encourages first and foremost to question and think. I don't have blind allegiance to anything. God gave me a brain to think and ask questions. Just because I'm pro-life, not AS worried about the environment as you might be, and for the war doesn't mean I don't want you as my fellow American and friend.

My best friend in the whole world, whose loyalty in high school to this day makes him one of the best human beings I have ever known, feels much as you do about most of these issues. I want all of us to work together as a country and would HATE it if I couldn't have him around to talk to in the same country. There are beautiful parts of America that we all share and there are crappy parts as well. We might disagree about almost everything, but we call agree on being fellow Americans.

Hope you feel the same.... :confused:

[QueenAdrock]

I definitely do agree. It's so hard in this country to not be split over a lot of these issues though, because it's so one-side or the other. It's the idea that you're either with us or against us. I've been called unpatriotic because I disagree with what the government pushes, and that's a bunch of shit.

Many of us who are conservative feel just like you, that "[we] don't agree with what the [blue] states believe in. They want to push their agenda, and pretty hard too."

The difference is, Democrats are in a minority now. They can't pass anything, so even if we do try to push things very hard, they get shot down. It's so hard living in this country, because there's no middle ground anymore. I consider myself a moderate, which is why I'm a Democrat. I feel like there's been a shift, that the Republicans in this country have become too extreme, and the Democrats have become more moderate to cater to the right side. Such as in the debates, Kerry had to be careful with what he said; though people called him a flaming liberal, he was a moderate. He doesn't believe in abortion, he is a Christian, he voted to let the President use force in another country...the "left" in this country is now the socialists, democrats are the moderates, and republicans are the "right".

I don't believe in extremes on either side. I think there are always circumstances for the death penalty, abortion, going to war, etc. I don't think it's either FOR or AGAINST, I think you have to look at each issue separately, and I don't see that that much in this country. Which is another reason why I'd like to branch away; to get away from extremism. If we're all going to live together, I think that President Bush has to do SOMETHING to help unite America, though. Left, Right, Moderates, everyone - they all have different ideals, and I think Bush should try to do anything he can to help unite us as a country and not just reach out to one side.

[sam i am]

I definitely do agree. It's so hard in this country to not be split over a lot of these issues though, because it's so one-side or the other. It's the idea that you're either with us or against us. I've been called unpatriotic because I disagree with what the government pushes, and that's a bunch of shit.



The difference is, Democrats are in a minority now. They can't pass anything, so even if we do try to push things very hard, they get shot down. It's so hard living in this country, because there's no middle ground anymore. I consider myself a moderate, which is why I'm a Democrat. I feel like there's been a shift, that the Republicans in this country have become too extreme, and the Democrats have become more moderate to cater to the right side. Such as in the debates, Kerry had to be careful with what he said; though people called him a flaming liberal, he was a moderate. He doesn't believe in abortion, he is a Christian, he voted to let the President use force in another country...the "left" in this country is now the socialists, democrats are the moderates, and republicans are the "right".

I don't believe in extremes on either side. I think there are always circumstances for the death penalty, abortion, going to war, etc. I don't think it's either FOR or AGAINST, I think you have to look at each issue separately, and I don't see that that much in this country. Which is another reason why I'd like to branch away; to get away from extremism. If we're all going to live together, I think that President Bush has to do SOMETHING to help unite America, though. Left, Right, Moderates, everyone - they all have different ideals, and I think Bush should try to do anything he can to help unite us as a country and not just reach out to one side.

:cool: Very cool. Now we both are making some real progress. For the past 40 years, from 1954-1994, the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States. From 1961-1969 (Kennedy / Johnson), then again from 1977-1981 (Carter), and finally, from 1993-2001 (Clinton), the Democrats also controlled the Presidency.

Those of us on the republican, conservative side went along, when we didn't want to, with things like Welfare, and Roe v. Wade, and the decimation of the military, and what we considered unreasonable environmental regulations. But, we never threatened to leave the country or called those Presidents to "reach out" to us and make us happy. The Democrats won elections and got their way. Now, we've won elections and it's our turn to get our way. Again, just because we think differently on most issues does not mean that we want this to be a horrible, nasty country. There are plenty of Jews and Muslims and Atheists and Gays and Moderates and even Democrats who voted for Republican legislators and a Republican President.

So, my point is, and I do have one, that we should disagree vigorously, but not give up on each other. Think of it like a marriage, we're all stuck together in this great country : let's do our best with it....

Again, hope you agree....

[sam i am]

BTW, I am REALLY enjoying our discussion....

[D_Raay]

So, my point is, and I do have one, that we should disagree vigorously, but not give up on each other. Think of it like a marriage, we're all stuck together in this great country : let's do our best with it....
I never in my life thought I would read this coming from a conservative...

[sam i am]

I never in my life thought I would read this coming from a conservative...


why not? some of us are reasonable. We do care about society and those who are truly unfortunate. We just have different solutions to the problems of society than you do. We believe more in helping yourself or charity than government intervention. We believe in everyone having the same opportunities to succeed, but not in forced outcomes. We believe that freedom and republican ideals are found in the Constitution and not on the judicial bench.

But, we are also law-abiding and willing to compromise when it is truly for the greater good. Here's two great examples : two of the best presidents of our country's history were Conservative Republicans - Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. Lincoln so believed in humans' ability to use their freedom for their own betterment that he went to war (mostly after the Emancipation Proclamation) to free the slaves. Roosevelt invaded Cuba but he was also an ardent environmentalist, setting up much of the framework for our current National Park system.

I love those two guys and think they did a hell of a lot make this a better country while still holding on to values that most Americans, and especially Liberals today, would find abhorrent : to whit, they both loathed the idea of women voting, they both believed only propertied gentlemen should vote, they both were strong militarists, attempting foreign ventures where the US didn't belong.

So, the point is that we Conservative Republicans are not these big bugaboos, but rather just a bit different than you Liberals in our way of going about things and what we believe it is important to accomplish.

[Medellia]

Wow. I'm confused.

[sam i am]

Wow. I'm confused.

about what? :confused:

Let me know and I'll try to explain better if I caused confusion.

[Medellia]

about what? :confused:

Let me know and I'll try to explain better if I caused confusion.
Because most of the conservatives (and let's be honest, many of the liberals as well) are a tad mean. But even though I don't agree with you, you seem to be......nice. And a nice conservative on the internet confuses me.

[sam i am]

Because most of the conservatives (and let's be honest, many of the liberals as well) are a tad mean. But even though I don't agree with you, you seem to be......nice. And a nice conservative on the internet confuses me.

You made my day. I love showing that we (conservative republicans) are not as bad as we are generally made out to be. I don't want to just come in here and flame everyone and laugh. I like Beastie Boys people and I figure we got THAT in common, why not try and have reasoned, rational discussions?

My sister and I disagree on almost all things in life, but we both love the Beasties and we can get along with that as at least a starting common ground. So, my theory is that there's more of us out here like that than those who only want to flame and argue endlessly without ever attempting to educate and learn.

So....thanks! :D :cool:

[Medellia]

Awesome. Because there are people who have joined who clearly don't like the Beasties and only want to fight with the more liberally minded people who tend to come here. Sisko, for example, has claimed that he USED to like the band, but as far as I know he has never said what songs or albums he likes (or at the very least DID like).

Also, all he does is cut and paste Bible quotes. :rolleyes:

[sam i am]

From what I can tell, it seems like there has been little reasoned discussion due to both sides having their walls up instead of listening and replying thoughtfully.

Like I said, it sucks to just be a flamer. All it does is make people defensive.

I have some pretty controversial ideas, but I believe I can impart them in a rational way and that I can also learn from others with their perspectives.

Glad to have the opportunity to continue the process and take the journey with all of the Liberals, Conservatives, Libertartians, but, most of all Beasties and Americans (plus you few foreigners...you're all right too.... ;) )

[Ali]

BTW, I'm older than you think... :oAct your age, then.

[Ali]

(plus you few foreigners...you're all right too.... ;) )Including the French?

[sam i am]

Ali, are you serious?

Why are you even replying to me?

OK, I'll bite one more time for the sake of shits and giggles....

I am VERY grateful to the French for helping us to gain our freedom from the British during the American Revolution. I believe the graves in Flanders and Normandy more than attest to the fact that we paid that debt back.

I have nothing against the French people, other than their inability to elect leaders who will support the US's goals of a better world. De Gaulle thought he knew better : proven wrong by the march of history. The current French administration is so paralyzed by a lack of will to make the necessary world changes that it is a joke. The French have no products that most of the world wants (have you SEEN a french film recently? But, I digress....) but expects to have influence beyond it's place.

Grow your military, get on board with promoting freedom and capitalism, then we'll be PARTNERS instead of wary allies....

[sam i am]

Act your age, then.

OK, screw you and the horse you rode in on.

Is that acting my age? :confused:

:eek:

[QueenAdrock]

But, we never threatened to leave the country or called those Presidents to "reach out" to us and make us happy. The Democrats won elections and got their way. Now, we've won elections and it's our turn to get our way. Again, just because we think differently on most issues does not mean that we want this to be a horrible, nasty country.

I think we're threatening to leave the country nowadays for the number one reason of the war. I, living in the painful radiation zone of DC, am scared to have Bush in office. I do think this war is a breeding grounds for more terrorism to arise in Iraq, and I think Al Qaeda is strengthening. I don't feel like Bush is doing much to go after Osama, and that worries me. It worries me as someone who drives the beltway every day, as someone who lives in between two major airports, and 20 minutes away from the capital. I also do not agree with the fact that Bush has done a minimal job of strengthening our country against another potential attack. I feel like he's gone on the offense, rather than defense...cops and other emergency units in D.C. are underpaid, and have gone through many budget cuts. The only time I've seen armed personnel or any sort of "homeland security" measures is right after an attack has happened.

So though we may have our differences of OPINIONS, (i.e. abortion, taxes, etc.) this is the only difference that would have me go running for the hills. I feel vulnerable in our country, unsafe, and scared.



...and President Clinton did reach out to Republicans, he had a few Republican-friendly people appointed at urging of top Republicans. (y)

[sam i am]

I think we're threatening to leave the country nowadays for the number one reason of the war. I, living in the painful radiation zone of DC, am scared to have Bush in office. I do think this war is a breeding grounds for more terrorism to arise in Iraq, and I think Al Qaeda is strengthening. I don't feel like Bush is doing much to go after Osama, and that worries me. It worries me as someone who drives the beltway every day, as someone who lives in between two major airports, and 20 minutes away from the capital. I also do not agree with the fact that Bush has done a minimal job of strengthening our country against another potential attack. I feel like he's gone on the offense, rather than defense...cops and other emergency units in D.C. are underpaid, and have gone through many budget cuts. The only time I've seen armed personnel or any sort of "homeland security" measures is right after an attack has happened.

So though we may have our differences of OPINIONS, (i.e. abortion, taxes, etc.) this is the only difference that would have me go running for the hills. I feel vulnerable in our country, unsafe, and scared. (y)

Hey Queen - good to see you posting....

Ok, worry and fear are emotions, not rational thoughts. People were scared when a Democrat started a war : ever seen the movie 1941? A DEMOCRATIC administration rounded up innocent civilians in this country and sent them to Relocation Camps (the Japanese-Americans for those who aren't aware of this despicable episode in our history). What a shameful episode, and one where some America Firsters (like Lindbergh) were willing to consider leaving the USA.

You used "worry" and "scared" a lot, which worries and scares me as a fellow American. I wish you could rationalize that it's not worth living your life in fear, but that you should continue on with bravado. If you "run for the hills," you've let the terrorists win.

I'll reiterate what I've especially been posting lately : we live in the greatest country in the world and we need to be proud of what we have, are, and will accomplish. If you hate Bush, he'll be out of office in a few years. Campaign hard for who you think is better. Or, run for office yourself and prevail in the marketplace of ideas. BUT, please, I implore all of you fellow Americans, DO NOT give up. Fight for your beliefs but stay here to do it. Or, follow D_Raay to Canada. They'll LOVE you all up there...don't mind the winters...

;)

[QueenAdrock]

I'll reiterate what I've especially been posting lately : we live in the greatest country in the world and we need to be proud of what we have, are, and will accomplish. If you hate Bush, he'll be out of office in a few years. Campaign hard for who you think is better. Or, run for office yourself and prevail in the marketplace of ideas. BUT, please, I implore all of you fellow Americans, DO NOT give up. Fight for your beliefs but stay here to do it.

I agree, I do love this country and what I believe we should stand for. And I do fight, I'm an active member of the Democratic party, and am currently working to get Mayor O'Malley of Baltimore elected as governor next year.

However, I am very pessimistic at this point. I'll continue to fight for my beliefs, but if I see them being oppressed and laws passed that take away the very rights I enjoy as an American, not too sure if I'd stay. A lot of the laws that Bush wants to pass infringe on what I feel are my rights, and therefore, I wouldn't be living in MY America anymore, if that makes sense. It's kinda like breaking up with a girlfriend because she's not the same anymore. I mean, you'll always love her, but that bitch is crazy.

And I personally feel as though the terrorists have won in a big way. They have the element of surprise; no one knows when they'll hit, and they do so at our most vulnerable. There was 8 years between the '93 bombing and 9/11. They are very meticulous, and patient. I don't feel as though I'm being governed by my emotions, as much as I am ration. I live in Montgomery County, MD. In 2001, a building 10 minutes from my house was hit in a terrorist attack. In fall of 2002, I had to lie low inside my car when pumping gas because a sniper was picking off people left and right. It's not like I live in Nebraska, where terror levels are low or unlikely. I'm in an area that has a high possibility of terrorism. It's only rational to think that the terrorists are going to come around and try to attack DC. I think it would be irrational to sit back and believe that we're safe. Because it's at that time, and only that time, that we are attacked.

[sam i am]

Queen - now I'm worried about you. :(

I'm so sorry you think the terrorists are winning. It's a crying shame.

Well, the only thing I can offer on a personal level is e-hugs and the reassurance that there are 300 million people in this country and only maybe a couple thousand terrorists. We'll eventually kill them off and we'll have losses too. Big picture : we'll win eventually, with or without you, but it will be a better America with all of the dissent than without...

[sam i am]

BTW - do any of you Liberals/leftists/etc. have any ideas or actions to take or do you only have the ability to critique and throw rhetorical bombs at Bush and us conservative republicans? :confused:

[zorra_chiflada]

BTW - do any of you Liberals/leftists/etc. have any ideas or actions to take or do you only have the ability to critique and throw rhetorical bombs at Bush and us conservative republicans? :confused:

this thread proves that there's not much difference betweens the liberals and conservatives in your "great" country.

[sam i am]

this thread proves that there's not much difference betweens the liberals and conservatives in your "great" country.

Zorra : what you talking about, Willis? :confused: ;)

Enlighten me please. I'd love the opportunity to show you just how different we are... :)

[zorra_chiflada]

Zorra : what you talking about, Willis? :confused: ;)

Enlighten me please. I'd love the opportunity to show you just how different we are... :)

it's a shame that there is a limited opportunity for real debate because the democrats and the republicans are different sides of the same coin.
i don't think that the democrats (or liberals as they're often refered to) are left-wing at all, they're just less right-wing than the republicans.
while you tend to disagree on a few issues, both sides have the same ideologies.
we have the same problem in australia. the two major political parties are too similar.

[sam i am]

it's a shame that there is a limited opportunity for real debate because the democrats and the republicans are different sides of the same coin.
i don't think that the democrats (or liberals as they're often refered to) are left-wing at all, they're just less right-wing than the republicans.
while you tend to disagree on a few issues, both sides have the same ideologies.
we have the same problem in australia. the two major political parties are too similar.

Then start your own party. Just because you live below the poverty line doesn't mean you can't give more and do more. Quit your job and rely on all of those who believe as you do. Go out and "care" for the people of the world. If you want to stay local, go down to where the homeless are, after selling all your possessions, and give them food and clothing and shelter and medicine. Make a difference. Just because you have little doesn't mean you can't do more.

[zorra_chiflada]

Then start your own party. Just because you live below the poverty line doesn't mean you can't give more and do more. Quit your job and rely on all of those who believe as you do. Go out and "care" for the people of the world. If you want to stay local, go down to where the homeless are, after selling all your possessions, and give them food and clothing and shelter and medicine. Make a difference. Just because you have little doesn't mean you can't do more.

i know. :)

[sam i am]

i know. :)

cool. I'm glad we agree. :) :cool:

[zorra_chiflada]

cool. I'm glad we agree. :) :cool:

but on that same token, i would like to see more wealthy folks give up some of their unnecessary luxuries.

[sam i am]

but on that same token, i would like to see more wealthy folks give up some of their unnecessary luxuries.

Who gets to decide what's necessary or "unnecessary?" Whoever it is better have wisdom greater than Solomon, because the last I looked private property rights were still enshrined in most Western nations' Constitutions (including Australia and New Zealand if I'm not mistaken)....

Do you want to fundamentally alter the basis of law and change Constitutions? How far are you willing to go to have "the rich" give to "the poor"?

[Medellia]

From what I can tell, it seems like there has been little reasoned discussion due to both sides having their walls up instead of listening and replying thoughtfully.
It's hard to have a real discussion with someone who's reply is always "THANX FOR PLAYING YOU LIBERAL INCHWHIPPERS. HERE'S SOME BIBLE QUOTES TO PROVE MY POINT, EVEN THOUGH ALMOST ALL OF YOU AREN'T CHRISTIAN AND WANT ME TO GIVE YOU FACTS FROM UNBIASED SOURCES."
Who gets to decide what's necessary or "unnecessary?"
I think we can all agree that twenty cars for one person is a tad unnecessary.

[sam i am]

It's hard to have a real discussion with someone who's reply is always "THANX FOR PLAYING YOU LIBERAL INCHWHIPPERS. HERE'S SOME BIBLE QUOTES TO PROVE MY POINT, EVEN THOUGH ALMOST ALL OF YOU AREN'T CHRISTIAN AND WANT ME TO GIVE YOU FACTS FROM UNBIASED SOURCES."

I think we can all agree that twenty cars for one person is a tad unnecessary.

Medellia - I agree that gmsisko is over the edge sometimes. Gotta take him with a grain of salt. I believe it's better not to overtly flaunt your religious beliefs, but slowly and surely divulge them if people ask questions.

For someone who grew up with little to nothing and has the perseverance and/or luck and/or talent to get to a point in life where they have 20 cars (like many basketball players or movie stars or businessmen), why shouldn't they get to decide how they spend that money? What about all those who would be out of jobs if they DIDN'T buy those cars? Probably a hundred people would be without livelihoods (the manufacturing jobs, the salespeople on the car lots, the car lot owners, the people who work for the steel companies that comprise the car, the tire company people, etc.)

Those who have money to SPEND support those who PRODUCE. It's a great cycle.

So, I don't agree, but nice try. How about we NOT make decisions for others (I'm sure you wouldn't want someone else making a decision for you about aborting a fetus in your body would you?). Just like the parenthsized example, I'm sure I wouldn't want someone else making a decision for me about how I spend my earned money. Make sense?

[Medellia]

For someone who grew up with little to nothing and has the perseverance and/or luck and/or talent to get to a point in life where they have 20 cars (like many basketball players or movie stars or businessmen), why shouldn't they get to decide how they spend that money? What about all those who would be out of jobs if they DIDN'T buy those cars? Probably a hundred people would be without livelihoods (the manufacturing jobs, the salespeople on the car lots, the car lot owners, the people who work for the steel companies that comprise the car, the tire company people, etc.)
Sure they have the right to spend their money the way they want to, but that doesn't mean that it is necessary, which is what you asked in the first place:
Who gets to decide what's necessary or "unnecessary?"
I'm sure even the people who are able to buy twenty cars realise that it is unnecessary. They don't need that many vehicles to survive. Hence, unnecessary.

[sam i am]

Sure they have the right to spend their money the way they want to, but that doesn't mean that it is necessary, which is what you asked in the first place:

I'm sure even the people who are able to buy twenty cars realise that it is unnecessary. They don't need that many vehicles to survive. Hence, unnecessary.

Actually, I asked who gets to decide? Do you have an answer? What if that same person, or group of people, wanted to decide who could and couldn't have babies? After all, they eat up resources that could be more equitably distributed without more mouths to feed? What about deciding a certain group or race is "subhuman" and needs to be eliminated for the "greater good?" After all, without them around we'd have more resources for all remaining. And, besides, they're not really "human" anyways....

You see where this type of unilateral decision-making can lead? Stalin and Hitler are great examples of how your ideals can be twisted into monumentally horrendous crimes against humanity.

So, I ask again....who decides?
:confused:

[Medellia]

Actually, I asked who gets to decide? Do you have an answer? What if that same person, or group of people, wanted to decide who could and couldn't have babies? After all, they eat up resources that could be more equitably distributed without more mouths to feed? What about deciding a certain group or race is "subhuman" and needs to be eliminated for the "greater good?" After all, without them around we'd have more resources for all remaining. And, besides, they're not really "human" anyways....

You see where this type of unilateral decision-making can lead? Stalin and Hitler are great examples of how your ideals can be twisted into monumentally horrendous crimes against humanity.

So, I ask again....who decides?
:confused:
Hey, I didn't say they had to give up everything. I'm sure all of us have a ton of unnecessary stuff that we don't want to give up. Hell, unless you're typing on this board at work, then the computer you are on right now is unnecessary. All you asked was who decides what is unnecessary or not. Anyone with common sense can figure that out.

[DroppinScience]

The French have no products that most of the world wants (have you SEEN a french film recently? But, I digress....)

Whoa, whoa, whoa... the French have had multitudes of excellent films throughout the years (up until today). And hey, we all seem to enjoy their wines and their cheeses. Hell, I also like to drink Perrier water when I'm feeling pretentious and hoity-toity. ;)

[Medellia]

Hell, I also like to drink Perrier water when I'm feeling pretentious and hoity-toity. ;)
Young man, you are only twenty-two! I can't believe you just used the phrase "hoity-toity". :(

[sam i am]

Young man, you are only twenty-two! I can't believe you just used the phrase "hoity-toity". :(

That Droppin Science seems pretty damn smart for twenty-two. He's been a pretty good debater with thoughtful and insightful retorts. He can use "hoity-toity" anytime he likes as far as I'm concerned.... (y) :)

[Medellia]

That Droppin Science seems pretty damn smart for twenty-two. He's been a pretty good debater with thoughtful and insightful retorts. He can use "hoity-toity" anytime he likes as far as I'm concerned.... (y) :)
It just makes me sad because I'm older than him, but he used "hoity-toity". *le sigh*

[zorra_chiflada]

Why? That is just like a true liberal. Don't they deserve the things they have bought. MOST of them have earned every penny they got. When they buy things, it helps most of us. (As Sam I am said)

Those people pay more taxes in dollar amount, and percentage than all of us.

i doubt if pop stars, models and actors earn every penny they got

some of the worst paying occupations involve the hardest work (child carers, cleaners, teachers)

[Documad]

Hell, I also like to drink Perrier water when I'm feeling pretentious and hoity-toity. ;)
I heard it's not bottled in France.

[Medellia]

I heard it's not bottled in France.
:eek:

You're gonna kill the poor boy with that bombshell!