[Mr 5 0]

Originally Posted by Unit 5302

Quite frankly, I think the Libertarians are nuts. According to their website, I'm more liberal than conservative and "Centrist." According to my political compass, I'm just about dead center. -0.75, 0.31 (liberal/conservative), (liberatarian/authoritarian), respectively. I'm apparently neutral-good in my alignment.

I must have confused you with another Unit 5302. Sorry.

The fact that democrats vote against republican bills or republicans vote against democrat bills has nothing to do with having different values or ideas. It simply confirms my ascertations. Democrats and republicans alike approved the invasion into Afghanistan. Gore would have done the same because the American people demanded it. It's nearly polictical suicide to go against such a movement.

Granted, but that's one issue and it hardly makes your case for shared values anf goals between the two major parties.

I agree, democrats would not have invaded Iraq because their leadership would not have wanted to invade. That's just it, though. Republican and democrat policies are simply handed down by a few in the leadership position, and the rest of the lackies get in line. I submit Norm Coleman MN, Ralph Hall TX, Rodney Alexander LA, Michael Decker NC, and Brad Ghormley TX. They're all representatives that have switched sides in the past few years. Most noting that they expected greater cooperation for doing so, and they're all party line followers. So they followed the democrat party lines one day, and the republican party lines the next.

That Democrats follow Democrat leaders and Republican follow Republican leaders is a no-brainer and certainly does not make your point. Political parties have defined agendas and an elected official follows the party position because he or she agrees with that agenda. Not because they are some sort of slaves to the party leader, as you claim.

That a few congressional represenatives switch parties is not indicitive of anything but a change in political values and beliefs. Some Republicans are 'moderate' to the point of being Democrats in all but name. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, a lifelong Republican who went 'Independent' in 2001, is a perfect example of that. Conversely, some Democrats are conservative to the point of being Republicans in all but name. Georgia's former Senator Zell Miller comes to mind. Republican President Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat. He went on to be a valued spokesman for the Republicans, California Governor for two terms and eventually, a successful and revered president. Well, to conservatives, anyway. Reagan always claimed that he didn't change, the Democrat party changed. He was probably right.

So while I indicated there is little difference between the two, it's more of at an individual level, but somewhat the same at a high level as well. Interestingly enough, abortion rights and homosexual issues do not concern me so they're mute points. Regarding economic issues, it's basically 2+3 = 5 vs 3+2 = 5. The republicans have a reputation for being staunch spenders, thrifty by comparision to their democrat counterparts. The republicans favor smaller government and lower taxes while democrats favor larger goverment and higher taxes (currently bordering on socialism). This administration has dramatically increased the size of government along with pushing through every spending bill they could. It's like a kid with a credit card, literally, as borrowing and increasing the national debt has hurt the value of our currency in the world. So, unfortunately, the differences between the parties seem very much to be religious issues.

Well, you're half right. While the Bush administration has thrown govermental fiscal responsibility out the proverbial window, to conservatives consernation, the Republicans are far and away more solid on national defense and have economic differences with Democrats beyond taxation, which include free trade. On cultural differences the Republicans and Democrats are, as you claimed, poles apart.

That being said, I'm not attacking any party any more or less than the others. There is no need to defend Bush, a particular party or any other cantidate to me. It doesn't matter anymore, anyway. What matters is next time. Like anything in life, you just do the best with what you have.

I'm a conservative first, a Republican second and I do not totally endorse the Bush administration with a blind eye. However, I do defend them as I see the need to do so. Here and elsewhere, as you know.

My comments about the conservative right doing all it can to seize power politically to further their religion onto others are correct. While Mr 5.0 may indicate there is a less sinister reason behind the growing movement (everybody pushing for what they want being natural), it does not lessen the impact on non-Christians. It may be worth noting that Christianity is not doing as well as some other religions in the US in regard to recruitment of new members, and I have to wonder if that's why it feels a little more like a Chinese finger trap. As power slips away, the tighter and more extreme the hold gets. One point. The churches and not the federal government need to determine who gets married as marriage is most definitely a religious ceremony. I think the God of Abraham made his position abundantly clear in the Holy Bible. If the church is truly following that word, then it shouldn't allow gay marriage. Quite frankly, I think the government should pull the tax emempt status of any "Christian" church that does allow it, unless that church comes up with a new religion they practice because it's obviously not Christianity. That's pretty much a different topic altogether, though.

Like many, you oppose what you perceive as unwanted Christian influence on society that you think is somehow dangerous to your rights...or something. That is a common but mistaken perception. Christian values and traditions are under assault and Christians are fighting back, making them much more visible. However, Christiany has no more chance of 'taking over' government or society than it ever had. No one wants a theocracy in America and we are about as far away from ever having one as it is possible for a nation to be. The 'concern' of some is simply unfounded and based on little more than the prevalence of vocal and visible Christians in the mainstream, like President Bush, and their subsequent demonization from the left, which some, unfortunately, buy into.

As for Christian church 'recruitment': the Christian fundamentalist churches are booming in membership growth while the old, 'mainline' churches such as Congregational, Methodist, etc are failing to attact new members. Most Christian observers lay that shrinkage to those churches decisions to adopt non-bibical positions and worry more about putting on a show Sunday mornings than preaching the 'meat' of the bible to a hungry audience.

It's probably unfair to single out the right wing nut jobs or the liberal pinkos as being the direct cause of the problems in the US as groups. I feel a large part of the problem is people not caring enough about what is important, and too much about what isn't important.

I agree, but the extremists always get the media attention.

It certainly seems as though people are a LOT more concerned about what other people are doing, than what they are doing themselves. I'm sure Mr 5 0 will agree there is a dangerous nanny-government movement that is very popular in the younger generations, very much influenced by the liberal teachers union and educational circles. It's not the federal government's job to regulate hobbies because they might be dangerous to the hobbist. It's not the federal government's job to control the dispursement wealth or services. I don't need a ordinance telling me what color I can paint my house or how many stalls need to be in my garage or a law saying I can't jump the wake of another personal watercraft for that matter. It's nobody else's business. Even though I like the fact that our government does look out for people across the globe a little, if I want to feed the black hole for money in Africa to combat AIDS, I can do so with my own money. I don't need the federal government to increase their contributions on my behalf.

Amen.

In the case of Cuba, you'll get no disagreement from me that Fidel Castro is an oppressive and generally evil dictator. Cuba's no worse than China for that matter. The fact they pointed nuclear weapons at the US apparently only concerns us because they were nearby. Tough rocks. China and Russia, probably even North Korea have nuclear weapons pointed at us too. John F. Kennedy was the worst US president in the last 100 years, if not the worst this country has ever seen. The reason I state that is his blatent disrespect for other countries nearly got us into a giant nuclear war, and the US invasion of Cuba by the CIA was irresponsible, and nothing more than flexing US muscle at a small island country to our south. I will concede that the Castro regime basically stole technology factories and land from US companies refusing to give it back, but a 50 year embargo? Quite frankly, it would seem as though Castro was well advised to point nuclear weapons at us since we tried to invade his country.

I disagree with that analysis but one of the stipulations that ended the Cuban missile crisis was an agreement from the U.S. that we would not invade Cuba. That agreement has held firm for 43 years and we are simply waiting for Castro (now 79) to die and see what kind of government takes his place. I'm not optimistic.

Mr 5 0, you point out that our embargo of Cuba is nearly meaningless because everybody else trades with them. I think that speaks volumes in itself. Cuba is a global leader in pharmeceutical and other biotechnology. That biotechnology IS a threat to US pharmeceutical companies, and combined with the money US companies and wealthy political figures were out back in 1959 is 95% of the reason any US embargo. Neither am I grossly ignorant, nor am I lacking political understanding. There is definitely a mutual distain between the Cuban and US governments as there has been for over 45 years now.

Cuba's communist stance, taken by Fidel Castro days after his overthrow of the corrupt Battista regime and in the middle of the Cold War is what has driven the 'mutual disdain' between the two nations. Whatever money U.S. interests lost 45 years ago is a dead issue, now. Cuba's pharmaceutical industry took off when they introduced Interferon to the global market and Cuba's advances and discoveries in pharmaceuticals are well known - but I disagree that this is the chief reason for the 45-year U.S. embargo. Castro is a hardline communist dictator who has been instrumental in bringing misery to his island and exporting terrorism around the world, specifically in Latin America. He has set himself up as an enemy of the United States and he relishes that position as he uses it to excuse his failures. For us to - through trade - help Castro increase his power and help his goals of revolution and chaos would be crazy as well as counter-productive. Dismissing the embargo as existing just because Castro "made some rich guys mad' 45 years ago is sophomoric reasoning, at best, and I regret that you resorted to it. The pharmaceutical argument is much better, if not convincing.

We just apparently have a very different view of why things turned out they way they did.

Yes, we certainly do, and I believe you and I have stated our respective opinions and positions clearly and cogently. I'll leave it at that.