[Mr 5 0]

84_GT350:

After wading through your last lengthy, and frankly, tedious message to me I've decided that this exchange is getting far too long-winded and has lost most of it's meaning as it has devolved into personal bickering, as most political arguments eventually and unfortunately do. If you won't stop it, I will, as it takes two to argue and I don't have the time.

I'll throw out a few of the more salient points I've made (that you've managed to ignore up until now) and beyond that, you can post to your heart's content if you wish but I'm done here. Life is too short ot spend this much time trying to educate those who already believe they know everything, even when they only grasp the barest edges of what they are pontificating about; in this case, politics and foreign policy. Despite what some folks think, I don't 'know it all' by a long shot - but you, my friend, have a lot to learn.

You made reference to the fact that I'm older than you, which is true. My school days are far behind me. You believe I'm not 'open to new ideas', which, if you knew me personally, you would know was laughable. I hate to deflate your assumptions but (outside of personal information) nothing you've posted here is new. Nothing. It's all been said before, many times many ways. Same goes for my posts to you, lest you think I'm being unfair. Conservative and liberal politics have been around long before either one of us was born. As you said: the two major parties are similar but where you are greatly mistaken is that their phiolsophy is anywhere near similar. It is not. Republicans are far more wary of taxes that burden the middle class and far more alert to the need for defense than any Democrat. It's n old debate and you appear to have taken - whether you realize or admit it - the liberal side. Your statements on the Iraq war and the ongoing war on terrorism are quite indicative of that mindset; the one you insist you don't have.

You're furious that I keep referring to you as a 'liberal' and I respond to that in this way: I call them as I see them; you know: if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's probably a duck. Same with those who insist they are independent, then spout the same ideas, same lines and attack the same people as admitted liberals do. I understand that you don't like Clinton and probably share some agreement with conservatives on some issues but it's my judgement, based on what you posted here - not what you claim to be - that you are, at heart (as it were) a liberal. I've been around politics for a long time and believe me, I know liberalism when I see it. Don't run from it, it's who you are, at least politically. Examine the tenents of the Democrat party and I think you'll find much you agree with, once you understand them.

Your agnosticism is common and I find it a bit sad but you're young enough to grow out of it some day...or maybe not. That's not my business, really. I have little interest in debating 'religion' with you as I stand firm in my Christian beliefs and don't need to defend them to anyone, especially anonymous strangers far away from me. Your resentment at the fact that America is, demonstrably, a religious country and that Christianity, especially, underlines much of our collective attitudes and does seep into politics is understandable, as you have no religion. That's your choice to make, for whatever reason, but it has little bearing on the 90+% of Americans that believe in God and more importantly, have a religious faith - often, Christianity in some form (Protestant or Catholic). That you believe that religious belief doesn't matter to people and has no play in politics is simply, well, naive.

Frankly, much of your commentary in this thread has been naive, starting with your shallow denouncations of California Governor-elect Arnold Schwartzenegger based - as far as I can tell from your posts - on the fact that he's a Hollywood actor who made violent movies and has an accent. This brings us full circle. This thread originally was about the election of Arnold Schwartzenegger as California Governor. We've managed to veer off in various directions, as is common on political threads, but I would contend once more that Schwarzenegger's election was not only a good thing for California but a sea-change in politics that allowed the people, via the ballot, using their power to decide who governs them and to me, that is the essence of democracy, even for those who didn't like the outcome.

With that observation I close our dialogue as it's clear that you will keep repeating the same things - I'll keep opposing them with facts you'll ignore - and no purpose is served. I try to discuss politics on a serious basis with those whom I consider at least serious enough to use up my time on. We had some interesting exchanges but frankly I've stated all the points I have to make here. I only came back to the thread to challenge 'Snakeman's' claims but you decided to take it personally and continued the exchange, which I responded to. Now, I see you're becoming strident and bordering on insulting - and so am I, which elevates neither of us so I think a respite is in order. That said, I close my part of the exchange as other sites, other issues, call. I wish you well in your studies and your life and I hope that some day you'll see at least a little of the truth of some of what I've given you. If not: oh well. It was an interesting exercise.