This country

[Unit 5302]

There is very little difference between a democrat and republican in government, currently. They don't care about standing for what they believe. They simply hold the party line, which is to oppose the other party line.

The federal reserve controls the economy, with the government having a significant impact as well. While controlling inflation and interest rates, the federal reserve attempts to keep the economy in a state of controlled growth.

Job outsourcing is most certainly not all low paying positions. Most are middle class wage jobs that are going out the door. Low paying jobs remain, and are largely what our economy has been able to produce in replacement of the middle class jobs that have left. NAFTA has been a complete failure. Not only have millions of US jobs been outsourced since it's inception, but working conditions in Mexico have NOT improved. Illegal immigration from Mexico into the US is up dramatically, and the percentage of poor people in Mexico has actually increased with no positive impact on their wages. That is the result when you create a free trade policy without protecting the people of the target country or your own home country. Simply put, the United States government intentionally exploited the workers in Mexico in an effort to improve corporate profitability. The corporate profitability led to nothing more than a dramatic increase in executive level compensation. In many cases the executive compensation skyrockets because of stock incentive programs which gives even more power to the companies executives and presents a conflict of interest with shareholders. CAFTA will result in exactly the same scenario. It will make a few people in the US, and a few people in Central America very rich while most people suffer.

While lower-middle and true middle class families have deteriorated in buying power as a result of weak and corrupt unions along with a direct failure of the United States government to protect citizens from corporate policies which stand directly in the face of capitalism such as mergers that create monopolies. Exxon-Mobil ring a bell? Peoplesoft-Oracle? Compaq-Hewlitt Packard? Washington Mutual-Providian? JP Morgan-Bank One? Bank of America-MBNA? Wells Fargo-Norwest? AOL-Time Warner? Bell Atlantic-GTE to form Verizon? Verizon-MCI? Sprint-Nextel? One of the most important concepts to capitalism is competition. The anti-trust commissions have turned their back on dozens of dangerous mergers that will or have resulted in a negative impact on consumers. While industries like oil continue to report record profits after a huge merger between Exxon and Mobile, the US government decides to give them a few billion dollars as a subsidy! Companies like GE pay no taxes because they had "losses." Meanwhile our judical system is allowing bankrupt companies that screwed their investors to emerge from bankruptcy into industries so competitive they can't possibly compete, and while they're at it, why not ax all the pensions to help the "working class" people in America.

A conservative movement seems to be sweeping across this country pushing ever harder to grab control of the government and force their opinions and religion onto all citizens through the passage of laws and legislation that turn social norms into laws. We have a congress that stops work in order to debate creating laws to stop life support being removed from a dead woman with no brain. Maybe it's good that our government spends more time debating how to police the actions of private sport leagues than how to create a free trade agreement that not only protects US citizens but also helps the people in the region it's targeting.

Oh, and if we could oppress a few defenseless countries because they don't think the best way to live is our way, that'd be great. Hey Cuba, I know you haven't done anything to us in 50 years, but we really need to keep that embargo up because... umm... because you made rich people in the US angry 50 years ago, and they still run the government!

Anybody that has faith remaining in the executive, judicial or legislative branches of this country is simply blind or stupid. The American people need to spend a little time educating themselves and a lot less time letting the media educate them. Perhaps then we'll have the wisdom to rise up, go to the polls and force necessary changes in the government so we can keep our way of life.

As of today... right now? It doesn't look real good to me. US citizens are stupid. They believe the garbage they see on CNN and in the mainstream media. That's proof enough for me.

[Mr 5 0]

Ah, the Libertarian point of view has arrivived. Nice to see you, Kell.

Unit 5302's take on the Federal Reserve Bank and the government as controllers of the U.S. economy are broad enough to be fairly accurate and I won't dispute them. His view of the Republican and Democrat parties basically being two sides of the same coin, I will dispute because it is a very narrow view that ignores some realities.

How many Democrats voted for the 2002 Bush tax rate cuts? Few. The usual Democrat position on economic issues is always more taxes and more government regulation seconded by lame attempts to micro-manage the economy, which almost always fail.

How many Democrats would have responded to 9/11 the way President Bush - a Republican - did? We can debate the wisdom and necessity of the Iraq invasion all day, but the invasion of Afghanistan was needed and necessarily swift, unlike what I can only guess would have been a tepid, 'lets-form-a committee' response by a 'President Gore'.

How many Democrats are against same-sex marriage and abortion-on-demand? Few. Meanwhile, these same hot-button social issues have served to galvanize the right and helped re-elect George W. Bush - a Republican - against the most concerted and furious attacks on one man I have ever seen in an election campaign, and I have seen more than a few. Yet, Bush still won by a margin that may not have been huge but was enought to thwart expected DNC attempts to call the election or Bush's victory 'Illegal' or unconvincing. It was neither - and the Democrats know it as they lost more seats in congress in the last election, and not by accident.

The point should be clear that while both political parties may love to dish out the 'pork' and expand government, as the Republicans have been doing, as well as being friendly to big business, which usually makes sense and is done by both parties, they are miles apart on significent issues such as economics, social policy and national defense. You may nort agree with either side in these debates but to dismiss the two major political parties in America as 'the same' is simply wrong, although many do just in order to appear politically sophisticated, so Unit 5302 is not alone in his misconceptions.

I also believe Unit 5302 overstates the alleged 'failure' of NAFTA and other free trade laws and ignores the fact that Mexico's corrupt government is a large part of the economic problem that drives poor Mexicans into the U.S. for a better living. The millions of U.S. dollars illegal Mexican immigrants send back to Mexico every year helps that nations economy while sucking dollars out of ours and that needs to be curtailed. Unfortunately, both major political parties refuse to address the porous Mexican border situation, to their shame. The lack of seriousness on the border issue is one of conservatives pet peeves with President Bush, for good reason. I believe it's a national security issue as well as an economic one that will bite us in our collective, national butt if allowed to fester much longer.

While I am no fan of some corporate mergers, I disagree that stockholders of major corporations, which includes almost half of all Americans these days, are hardly 'suffering' from them, as Unit 5302 indicated. I do not see the big negative effect on consumers, either. In fact, household income in the U.S. (adjusted for inflation, which is also minimal and a significent economic factor) has gone up noticably over the past few years as unemployment has gone down steadily and millions of new jobs have been created, which makes the old argument that 'all the good paying jobs are going to foreign countries' a bit hard to justify, at best. Not that it stops anyone from trying. The reality is that only about 2% of all 'U.S. jobs' have 'gone overseas'. Incidentally, home ownership is also at an all-time high (70%) - and you don't buy a home on Burger King or Wal-Mart pay, as any homeowner can tell you. I will agree with Unit 5302 that the recent Energy Bill was a disaster and the subsidies given to oil companies was simply unconscionable. Chalk up yet another conservative disagreement with President Bush.

The canard that political conservatives want to 'force' their 'religion' on America is - I'm sorry - just BS. Really. Liberal politicians managed to remove voluntary prayer in schools over 40 years ago. The leftist advocacy groups who are 'offended' at anything have made any 'religious' utterance in a public venue, especially a school, almost a crime and the left has made the inclusion of the words 'Under God' in the Pledge of Alligence, which stood for 50 years with no one being 'offended' a huge legal battle. Meanwhile, a liberal Supreme Court calls abortion and homosexual behavior constitutional 'rights' and generally run over the actual constitutional rights of citizens to determine these things for themselves, state by state. Yet folks like Unit 5302 claim the 'right' is 'forcing' their 'religion' and opinions on others? Hardly.

That the Ten Commandment monuments were vehemently objected to by some leftist/atheist groups after standing in place for years, is not because the 'conservatives forced them' on anyone, but because the left decided to make what had bothered no one a big issue based on the non-existent 'separation of church and state' concept that appears nowhere in the actual constitution of the United States of America. The insane idea from the left that if the government in any way simply recognizes the majority religion of the people with a few symbols of Christian thought, such as the Ten Commandments, it is somehow mandating a specific religion be foisted on helpless Americans who are unwilling to accept it, is simply ridiculous. These monuments stood for years with no problem until the leftist groups made an issue of them. When conservative groups fight back against this anti-religious bullying, they are accused of 'foisting their religion on the public'. What a crock! That kind of intellectual dishonesty frys me and I am sick of dealing with it, yet it never seems to abate. The Supreme Court delievered yet another muddled decision on that one, too. I am rooting for John Roberts, big-time, now.

Here's a NewsFlash: all political movements try to have their 'opinions' codified. All of them. That is what elections are about. We judge each candidate by his stated views on whatever matters to us: economics, cultural issues (like abortion), national security, etc and we vote for the candidate (and his political party) that we feel represents our views the best, understanding that no politician will ever mirror our personal views 100%. None. However, we all want our views - whatever they are - to predominate so we vote for politicians who we feel will help them do so in congress and of course, the White House. Pretending that one votes for anything less than that is simply disingenuous or else you're voting for a candidate that may perfectly match your stated political principles but has as much chance of actually winning an election as Michael Jackson has of being hired as your kid's babysitter. That gets no one anywhere. It also is a hallmark of the Libertarian Party, which sneers at both major political party's but can't get any of it's candidates elected dogcatcher. Well, maybe dogcatcher - but not governors, congressional representatives, senators or presidents. It's mostly a lot of posturing, finger-pointing and attempting a pretense of being more principled than thou. It is also futile and serves to massage Libertarian's egos - but not much else. But I digress.

As for the position Unit 5302 took on U.S. relations with Cuba: that reflects either a woeful lack of historical and political understanding or simple ignorance. I trust it is the former. I really do.

Cuba is a tropical gulag run by a brutal dictator with hundreds if not thousands of 'political prisoners' in it's jails, some for decades. Those are the ones Castro hasn't had killed. Cuba is a police state and has been the source of much of the unrest in Latin America over the decades. Most Americans are aware that as a U.S.S.R. client state in 1962, Cuba was used by the Soviets to house missiles aimed directly at the United States, only 90 miles away. That was an outrageous act of aggression by both the Soviet Union and Cuba. It also precipitated the Kennedy/Kruschev 'Cuban Missle Crisis' of October, 1962. Watch the movie for the shorthand version of that historical event. Long story short: we were actually on the brink of war for a short time, thanks to Castro and Krushchev and their underestimation of then-Preisent Kennedy - and American's resolve.

Cuba's communist dictator, Fidel Castro, almost 78 years old now and still fully in charge, has avowed his hatred of the United States many times and has always been friendly to any group or nation that is an enemy of ours. That has not changed in 45 years. Today, he continues to foment upheavals in other Latin American nations and is rumored to have allowed Cuba to be a way-station for terrorists, which is not hard to imagine. That we retain an embargo on Cuba and Unit 5302 believes we do so only because Fidel Castro 'made some rich people mad' 50 years ago is absurd and not verified by history. Not that the embargo has much effect on Cuba, anyway - every other country trades with Cuba so it's mostly symbolic at this point - but to attribute it to some class-envy libertarian nonsense about making 'rich people mad' is just ridiculous. Cuba is a totaltarian police state...Castro has attempted to use his pipsqueak nation as a launching pad to attack the United States and has never wavered in his intent to harm this nation in any way, big or small, that he can. With that reality in mind, our isolation of the U.S. from Castro's Cuban gulag is quite understandable.

Iraq and Afghanistan were hardly 'helpless' targets of American military power, Iraq, particularly, was in violation of it's own cease-fire agreement brokered by the U.N. to end the Gulf War in 1991. Saddam Hussein could have stopped the planned invasion cold had he surrendered his biological and chemical weapons immediately. He choose not to do so. I think they were spirited out of Iraq pre-war, probably to Syria. In any case, Saddam gambled and lost and the people of Iraq, won. While the security of Iraq is coming at a price in American blood, the cause is just. Iraq and the middle east will be a better place in time because of the overthrow of Saddam and his regime. While I expect Iraq to be a dangerous place for some time to come and it will no doubt have an Islamic-heavy government, Iraq will also be an ally of the U.S., not an enemy. I'll take it.

As for Kell's conclusion that 'Americans are stupid'...I disagree. Sometimes mislead by the liberal media, often apathetic and occasionally inattentive...after all, they have work to do, kids to raise and lives to lead aside from politics...Americans are some of the best educated, most generous people on the planet but with a diverse nation of almost 300 million people, it's difficult to please everyone. I advise most people who show a nascent interest in politics, as 'bmxmon' has here, to - as Unit 5302 recommended - educate yourself. Not by the TV news shows, which tell you what they want you to hear, or a biased website but by doing the hard work of reading recent American history, deciding what parties and politicians stand for and what you would like this nation to be in 20 years, then voting for the politician and/or party that comes anywhere close to that goal. That's democracy manifested by an informed electorate. Be one of the informed.

It will drive you crazy sometimes as you see Washington at work, wasting your money or ignoring big problems while grandstanding on petty ones and you'll be at odds with political and social points of view that will differ from your own, as you see in this thread - but at least you'll have a fairly informed opinion and more than a TV news soundbite or a politicians slick campaign ad to make a judgement on.

Best of all, like Kell and me...you'll know where you stand, and why.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Fat0eknee]

this is kind of off topic but ..mr 5 0 do you write for a living because i believe you could - nearly every post i see from you tears the thread down into little pieces and you write a book over it. im just amazed at that im sorry im stupid ill shut up now

[bmxmon]

When talking about the cuban missle crisis, there is one thing I feel has been left out. The United States had Nuclear missle silos in Turkey(im pretty sure that is where they were), aimed at the USSR. Yes, turkey is farther away from the USSR than Cuba is from the US, but the threat is still there to the USSR and they naturally wanted to counter that threat. I dont get how we justify Guantanamo Bay prison, as we are using it as a loophole for our own laws. I feel that if we want the terrorists to give in and agree to our way of thinking, we need to treat them they way our laws are written. Im not exactly sure though that Castro would exactly do anything to hurt us, because otherwise why would he let an American Naval base go on existing in Cuba without constant attack (not formally, more like terrorist things, to protect him from going to war with the US)
:Hoodstrype: "When I was a kid (I'm only 26 but I do live in the "Bible Belt") WalMart and everything except fast food closed on Sunday. No one mowed the law, or hunted or fished on Sunday either. These days people are becoming bored with the Bible and thanks to Television/Radio/Internet, we've seen a 120 year decline of Religion in general and are much more open to new possibilities and ideas- whether or not you think they are or are not correct. We see violence on a more localized scale such as schools and homes now. It used to be the divorced woman/man across town and now half of marraiges end in the same fate. I'd say to stick with the morals."
I do not see that people are open to new ideas other than christianity a bad thing. The only reason most people are christians is because that is what their parents were, and they have never questioned it. I feel that everybody should take a step back and take a look at their religion and other religions out there, and decide which one fits them or makes the most sense to them.
As for the political parties being almost the same, I partly agree. For most people who dont take a great deal of interest in politics, picking the major canidate from either party will probably not affect them. As for those who are interested in politics, they see the major differences in the parties and also notice the effects of each decision made by a politician more.
I dont know if it was brought up or not, but i dont believe that slavery is completely a racial "thing". Back when GB and the US were in the slave trade, there is absolutely no way they could have gotten slaves from africa without the permission of the Kings of the different African tribes. These kings didnt care what color the person they were selling into slavery was, just as long as they either got their money or got rid of an opposing tribe. Of course, after the boats left africa and headed to their destination, it was completely a racial "thing." People have always been after money, which I would say is a leading cause of slavery. The Childrens crusade, for example, was comprised of many europeans, and when they got down to the Mediterrian sea, they loaded boats to go to the middle east and fight their "holy war." Most of the boats didnt go their, instead they went other places(most) where the children were sold into slavery.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally Posted by Fat0eknee

this is kind of off topic but ..mr 5 0 do you write for a living because i believe you could

No, I don't write for a living but if I could find someone who would pay me to write, I would consider the offer, especially if they paid by the word.

nearly every post i see from you tears the thread down into little pieces and you write a book over it. im just amazed at that im sorry im stupid ill shut up now

In reality, what looks like a very long post in word-count usually takes less than five minutes to actually read. Please note too that I am usually addressing complex issues in a serious way that requires more than a text message-type response.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally Posted by bmxmon

When talking about the cuban missle crisis, there is one thing I feel has been left out. The United States had Nuclear missle silos in Turkey(im pretty sure that is where they were), aimed at the USSR. Yes, turkey is farther away from the USSR than Cuba is from the US, but the threat is still there to the USSR and they naturally wanted to counter that threat.

The missiles in Turkey were due to be removed anyway. They were simply a bargaining chip that the U.S. was able to use to end the crisis. To assume that the Soviet Union's placement of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba, aimed at the United States, was 'only countering the threat' is naive, in my opinion. It was a calculated, direct provocation.

Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev, a tough old communist, had met the youthful and urbane President John F. Kennedy and decided he was a lightweight, scared of a nuclear or any other kind of confrontation with the U.S.S.R. After the wimpy way that Kennedy had called off U.S. air support and effectively yanked the rug out from under the Cuban rebels that had massed at the Pay of Pigs to invade and hopefully, reclaim Cuba in the spring of 1961, Khrushchev was certain that JFK was a wimp and he could do what he pleased with only a tepid response from JFK. Khrushchev miscalculated. He was 'asked' to resign his post as Communist Party Secretary in 1964. He did, and left the Kremlin quietly. Many considered Khrushchev's miscalculation and the global perception that the U.S.S.R. had backed down in a confrontation with the United States to be his undoing and the cause of his subsequent fall from power.

I dont get how we justify Guantanamo Bay prison, as we are using it as a loophole for our own laws. I feel that if we want the terrorists to give in and agree to our way of thinking, we need to treat them they way our laws are written.

I hate to use the word 'naive' once again to describe your views on the Guantanamo Bay detention center but I have to, because that is what they are. However, you are still in the educational process and can learn. Guantanamo is used as a 'loophole for our own laws"? Hardly.

The terrorists that are captured and placed in the Gitmo facility in Cuba are not representing a nation and are not part of any national military force. They have no uniforms and no code of conduct. They do not qualify for status as POW's or rate Geneva Accord treatment. They are not common criminals that can be afforded the luxury of the U.S. Justice system with it's rights, lawyers and courts, a system they claim to despise. They are terrorists. They are held for whatever information we can glean from them (a lot, in some cases, little, in others) and to keep them out of circulation. Some terrorists who have been released from Gitmo have turned up back in the middle east, fighting American soldiers.

The touching but misguided view thatwe can we can: "get the terrorists to give in and agree to our way of thinking" is simply wrong. The radical Islamofascists that comprise the membership in terrorist groups spread out over the globe with intent to do harm to democratic interests, specifically the United States are implaccable and are not open to discussion, persuasion or negotiation. They will not 'give in to our way of thinking'. Ever. They have repeatedly stated in no uncertain terms that tolerance, diversity and especially, democracy are antithetical to Islam and their stated goal of a global caliphate under Muslim law. They will not be swayed by kid-gloves treatment when they are captured trying to kill Americans. While terrorist suspects are not 'tortured', as has been falsely claimed - with the definition of 'torture' being stretched to it's limit - they are not afforded the constitutional rights that Americans receive, for good reason. They are not Americans, POW's or soldiers of any kind. They are terrorists. They made that decision, not us.

Im not exactly sure though that Castro would exactly do anything to hurt us, because otherwise why would he let an American Naval base go on existing in Cuba without constant attack (not formally, more like terrorist things, to protect him from going to war with the US)

You really need to do a little more study on Casto's history as dictator of Cuba and how he has exported terrorism and fomented communist revolution throughout Latin America over the past 45 years. His support of anti-American guerrillas and terrorists in Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s, his military involvement with - and support for - anti-American regimes and groups in Africa and the Middle East in the 1970s and 1980s, and his constant denunciations of "U.S. imperialism," "capitalism," and "neo-liberalism" in international organizations and forums speak to his determination and consistency as an enemy of the United States of America

As for Guantanamo base, that has been a part of Cuba for 100 or more years and while it's legality has been in dispute almost as long, Castro receives rent from the U.S. (he has only cashed one check) and is not stupid enough to try any overt action against the well-armed base, which does not threaten him. In short: Casto leaves us alone on the base (it has it's own water and electrical supply, apart freom Cuba's) and we leave Castro alone. It's worked that way since 1959.

I do not see that people are open to new ideas other than christianity a bad thing. The only reason most people are christians is because that is what their parents were, and they have never questioned it. I feel that everybody should take a step back and take a look at their religion and other religions out there, and decide which one fits them or makes the most sense to them.

You are making huge and erroneous assumptions as to why a billion or more people, worldwide, are Christians.

However, I agree that everyone should 'stand back' and look at what they believe, spiritually, and why. I honestly believe that if you read and study the bible and then honestly compare both it and the founder and author of Christianity, Jesus Christ, to any of the worlds religions and their founders, you wiil see Christianity as the logical spiritual choice. However, if you refuse to do so or simply dismiss all 'religion' out of hand, as some do, then you will do that, instead. It's called 'atheism'.

Whatever spiritual path we follow in life - or if we follow none at all, is a very serious, personal choice. I am a Christian and have seen tons of counter-arguments against Christianity but have not been persuaded in the least, by any of them. However, while I value and cherish my spiritual faith I also respect the right of others to disagee and/or find another way. I just think those people are wrong.

As for the political parties being almost the same, I partly agree. For most people who dont take a great deal of interest in politics, picking the major canidate from either party will probably not affect them. As for those who are interested in politics, they see the major differences in the parties and also notice the effects of each decision made by a politician more.

That is correct - but the person who sits in the White House and the party in power in the congress will affect even those who don't vote or care. These people set tax rates, draw up regulations and make laws that we all have to live under, whether we voted for them or not. Apathy is not an option for me, but it seems to be for many Americans, to their ultimate loss.

I dont know if it was brought up or not, but i dont believe that slavery is completely a racial "thing". Back when GB and the US were in the slave trade, there is absolutely no way they could have gotten slaves from africa without the permission of the Kings of the different African tribes. These kings didnt care what color the person they were selling into slavery was, just as long as they either got their money or got rid of an opposing tribe. Of course, after the boats left africa and headed to their destination, it was completely a racial "thing." People have always been after money, which I would say is a leading cause of slavery. The Childrens crusade, for example, was comprised of many europeans, and when they got down to the Mediterrian sea, they loaded boats to go to the middle east and fight their "holy war." Most of the boats didnt go their, instead they went other places(most) where the children were sold into slavery.

Slavery is as old as man and is still practiced in a few forsaken places, such as the Sudan. It is still wrong - no matter who is the master and who is the slave. The only difference is in your perspective.

[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.

[nastyn8]

yeah man, most ppl our age take what "entertainers" say way serious.

[HoodStrype]

First of all, Mr. 5.0... Do you listen to Hannity? I love that dude- he keeps me informed and your stance sounds much like his from a general stand.

Second... What is this crap I keep reading here and elsewhere that states, "We are in the wrong, have been in the wrong and will be in the wrong; I don't blame ________________ (Fill in your country of choice) for acting the way they do."

In my simplistic way of thinking, that's like standing on a wooden raft in the middle of shark infested waters and complaining that the wood its made from is rough on your feet. Get over it! Who's side are you on anyway? If people like this get control of the government America will not stand too much longer as a Super Power. Like I tell my uncle (from Germany)...

"Go Back!!!!! Leave!!!!!!!! If you can't inform yourself, educate yourself and do nothing but throw sand and complain about this great country, by all means try out another country and leave mine alone!"

Now, please return all seats to their most full, upright posiition- and as always... Thank you for shopping at Kmart.

[scootro]

I agree!!!!!!!

[Mr 5 0]

Originally Posted by HoodStrype

First of all, Mr. 5.0... Do you listen to Hannity? I love that dude- he keeps me informed and your stance sounds much like his from a general stand.

I only catch Sean Hannity's radio show occasionally but I have always liked Rush Limbaugh, the Godfather of conservative talk radio. He is not always right on every issue but he is close to it - and he nails most of the leftist crap almost 100% of the time. Sean Hannity is good too as is Laura Ingram. I like them all - even if I don't hear them as often as I might wish.

Second... What is this crap I keep reading here and elsewhere that states, "We are in the wrong, have been in the wrong and will be in the wrong; I don't blame ________________ (Fill in your country of choice) for acting the way they do."

In my simplistic way of thinking, that's like standing on a wooden raft in the middle of shark infested waters and complaining that the wood its made from is rough on your feet. Get over it! Who's side are you on anyway? If people like this get control of the government America will not stand too much longer as a Super Power. Like I tell my uncle (from Germany)...

"Go Back!!!!! Leave!!!!!!!! If you can't inform yourself, educate yourself and do nothing but throw sand and complain about this great country, by all means try out another country and leave mine alone!"

Now, please return all seats to their most full, upright posiition- and as always... Thank you for shopping at Kmart.

That kind of leftist attitude comes from a combination of things, like 'liberal guilt', best described as being embarrassed for being a citizen of a successful county while others are not. It also is a mindset that some elitist Americans now adopt as they consider themselves 'citizens of the world' with no real alligence to this country, even as they enjoy it's freedoms and financial benefits, of course. In short, the 'Blame America First' crowd simply detest their own country and wish it to be brought down in any way possible, so they genuflect toward 'multiculturalism' and find endless excuses for terrorist thugs, in effect, blaming the victim...America and it's citizens. This is why I loath these people. They are a pox on America and I am sick of them. Other than that, I have no problems with them.

Foreigners like your uncle are simply afarid of America's strength and misunderstand our history and culture, for the most part. They are taught many inaccurate things about the U.S. in their schools and tend to have a simplistic and distorted view of us. If your uncle lives here, he should educate himself and learn the truth about America...not bash it, much less fear it.

America is one of the freest and most open nations to have ever existed. We are basically the front-line against murderous dictators and Islamic fascists who would re-make the world in their own, twisted image. We are generous and tolerant to all and of all. We have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of, much less apologize for to other countries. If liberals and others cannot see that, that is their loss. However, that they have so much influence in academa , the media as well as Hollywood is disturbing. That we also have talk radio, the internet and a few other outlets does help balance things a lot more than they used to be, when liberals like Walter Cronkite dominated the news media and few other voices were heard. No more.

Nice to hear from another conservative. keep up your opposition to anti-American sentiment and never lose your faith in our great country and it's people...well, most of them, anyway.