"Tammy" <BuffyToU@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c7bd5687.0407150628.5688eabc@posting.google.com...
Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> wrote in message
news:<1hocf0tdq8lib3olm78vrohedktb4mp64a@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:53:48 -0700, "Shrinking Violence" <xyz@123.com>
wrote:
"SteveR" <texxdriver@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:texxdriver-DEF2C5.20423407072004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <ocudnYoRkvhu7HbdRVn2gA@harbornet.com>,
"Shrinking Violence" <xyz@123.com> wrote:
"SteveR" <texxdriver@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:texxdriver-5B37C5.19400006072004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <R7adnbScIo8Jo3bdRVn2jQ@harbornet.com>,
"Shrinking Violence" <xyz@123.com> wrote:
The fact is that the ticket of Bush/Go ***** Yourself hasn't
been in
front of
a truly neutral audience for many, many months. They can't let
people
without a GOP axe to grind into the discussion. They are the
best
damned
dividers the country has had since Aaron Burr and Alexander
Hamilton.
"Divided" = "Liberals are angry"
Liberals are as angry and horrified as liberals have ever been. I
for
one
will never "get over it", the election of 2000. I remember it as if
it
were
this morning. In fact, the Bush/Go ***** Yourself administration has
forever
soured me on the GOP. I will never trust a Republican about
government
again.
Angry and horrified at the steady erosion of the democrat party, or
is
it radical Islam that has your knickers in a whirl?
Fundamentalist religion of any kind, mono-, poly- and/or pan theistic,
to
the degree it has a "dogma", which is to say "delivered truth", and
faith in
the supernatural intrusion of a deity into the real world, represents a
potential danger to the rest of the people in the world, as well as its
own
members, obviously.
Fundamentalists are too susceptible to the logical fallacy of argument
from
authority, whereas instead they should be wary, due to the existence of
all
of the mutually exclusive religious documents and myths of the many
human
religions. (B'hai faith is mutually inclusive of mutually exclusive
religions, which might be why they aren't blowing up buildings
anywhere as
far as I know.) Knowing what we know about people, each of us ought to
recognize fundamentalism as an unsatisfactory response to the data.
Fundamentalists are entire class of people that often base decisions
primarily on emotion, on what they want to be the truth.
Fundamentalists recuse themselves from rational thought by imagining
that
they are being told what to do by an unimpeachable authority. Because
they
have blind faith, they accept what authority declares through holy
means and
dispenses through holy men to the mere blind followers.
Yes, part of the problem with the world is fundamentalist religion,
Islam,
Christianity, Hinduism, Judism. I think the propensity we seem to have
for
religious belief is due to human evolution over 40,000 generations,
which is
even before the History Channel was on basic cable. The capacity to
accept
a leader's dictates, and to assimilate a successful set of social
skills,
and to vest oneself of interest in a social group have led to
evolutionary
responses in brain function that lead to a tendency in some people to
perpetuate that old time religion.
There is obvious tension between the local myths and the need of our
species
to correctly figure things out, and therefore you won't find a
*****-load of
fundamentalist scientists.
The religious smart people that you do find are willing and able to
view
their dogma as perhaps a trifle allegorical rather than literal.
Overall, I
think success in the best of human endeavors correlates to the degree
that
people have internal separation of reason and perception from literal
belief
in religion and myth.
In fundamentalists, the place in the brain that responds to authority
is
just bigger or better, in comparison to most people. It's easier for
them to
respond to the siren call of blind faith because it was important that
early
hominid groups worked together. Therefore, we evolved towards making
the
brain accept social precepts as delivered truth in order to preserve
social
integrity. We should transcend this blind faith evolutionary alley
through
knowledge and judgement, and most of us do to some degree. But
fundamentalists don't.
They remind me of the way people responded to "It", the central guiding
brain on the planet where Meg and Charles Wallace rescued their father
in "A
Wrinkle In Time". Pulsing like an endorphine generator, pulsing like a
warm
protecting mother, fundamentalists sing the body and the group,
volition
muted
It is partly for this reason that I take an opportunity to vote against
fundamentalists whenever I can.
Fundamentalists of all kinds want Bush to be president. Christians like
the
spiel, Muslims use him as a recruiting device. Bush is a fundamentalist
himself, a damaged little man who needs treatment and instead was cast
as
the most improbable president. Bush wants creationism taught in
schools;
don't believe me, ask him.
Therefore, I will for this and countless other reasons (but none more
important) vote for John Kerry who is not a fundamentalist.
I mention the word divider only because the little man claimed he
was a
uniter.
He has a tendency to inflame certain groups - now radical Islamists
want
to kill us and people are again marching with stilts and giant puppet
heads.
He was mistaken or lying; either way, he bears responsibility and
must be removed.
His responsibility will be judged by history, as will his
accomplishments, try and take a long-range view, because this is not
about Bush, this is about Islam - and Bush is but one world leader
who
shares the same concerns.
I wear my Kerry button everywhere I can; my boss, a top GOP
supporter
and
hob-nob with billionaires, even gave me explicit permission to
wear
it
on
the job. He thinks Bush/Go ***** Yourself have hurt the country.
His
main
issues are economic, therefore he opposes these irreponsible
financial
deficits and what he thinks of as out of control spending, he
also
opposes
tax cuts for the top richest 1%, bankrupting the country.
Pssst: The country isn't bankrupt, and the discretionary spending
is
to
politically appease the left.
The left is not appeased. There is only one way to satisfaction,
and
that is
to make a change in the government.
And if that doesn't occur in the election, what then?
There is only one good thing that could possibly come from Bush's
election,
and that would be if he would win it fair and square this time, instead
of
stealing it that way. For example, I cannot at this time support the
advise
and consent role of my US Senators in confirming certain judicial
nominations unless they fillibuster or otherwise defeat the nominees.
This
is because of the way the Bush administration was born of Rhenquist.
I would at least reconsider my position if Bush wins.
Presidents come and go and parties change; even if Bush is elected, he
can
only last 4 additional years.
By that time, the country would hit bottom and you might see the junior
senator from New York in the White House. If Bush is elected, we would
deserve far worse than such a good person as she as president.
I just don't think it's going to be that close; as the election nears,
Kerry
will prove himself to the electorate and start us back on the right
path
with a resounding win. He ought to be envied, anything good he is or
does
will be an improvement.
Maybe your boss ought to compare dem vs. repub spending
proposals.
Ouch.
Not bankrupt yet, however this worst of all presidents has taken a
balanced
budget on its way to paying off the debt to enormous deficits,
expanding
debts.
That's a bit simplistic and ignores the obvious economic growth.
Tax cuts that benefit the rich too much ought to be eliminated, not
made
permanent; as the gap between rich and poor grows to pre-Depression
rates,
Bush wants those benefiting most from so-called economic growth to pay
less
progressively, as opposed to Kerry, who demands shared sacrifice from
the
rich.
We should no longer ignore obvious economic growth. The rich have grown
richer, they can afford to pay more in taxes.
That's just one problem with running the United States as a
corporation:
corporations can go bankrupt and go out of business.
Didn't we "go out of business" in the Reagan years?
Reagan was a giant compared to this cretin. Reagan spent a lifetime
developing his political philosophy. I disagreed with many of his
policies
but I respected him as a person. Reagan actually raised taxes when
faced
with the same reality that makes Bush clamour for more tax cuts.
Reagan raised taxes because the previous tenant messed things up.
Then
he instituted the largest tax cut. And, BTW, who controlled spending
in
the Reagan years?
I already said I respect Reagan as a man and a president with whom I
disagreed more than agreed. If you want me to say that it was wrong
for
some Democrats to approve some of his folly, I might be so willing, for
money. Contact my people.
Let alone what the world respects, I want a president I can respect
again, a
curious bright skeptical literate creative experienced measured sober
musical secular reasoned open-minded passionate poetic respectful
personally-secure John Kerry will do nicely.
So... You are for the Effete, Ultra-rich, New England Liberal.....
Why am I not surprised.....
Mike Smith
The poster requests a competent president and you assume that he is
from the New England. Interesting.
New England has had that reputation ever since a bunch of Yankee
Liberals started this nation going on April 19, 1775. But your
assumption is interesting considering that the majority of Americans,
from pretty much everywhere in the country, agree with the poster.
Most people agree with me on the desire for a higher standard for US
presidents, but I doubt more than a comparitive handful agrees about
fundamentalism; my ideas make it hard to distinguish between fundamentalists
and anyone else who calls himself a believer. This is not attractive to
people who feel compelled to defend ancient religious myth.
March 21, 2004 -- "John Kerry, defending 'gay rights' before a black
audience,
explained that when 'Mr. King gets dragged behind a truck down [in]
Texas by chains
and his body is mutilated only because he's gay,
When did Kerry say that the body would be "mutilated only because he's
gay". Don't you get tired of being another GOP liar? What is it about
you GOPs? Something in the water in Texas?
And why the mention of a "black" audience? What relevence does that
have unless you think that there is something wrong with talking to
blacks? I guess you are just trying to mobilize the Republican base.
The Bush/Rove/"Go-*****-Yourself" administration plan: divide the country
harshly along religious lines. Ignore pledges to unite, not divide. Promote
fear and reap votes of the aggressive and fearful.
They want power so badly, they are willing to destroy opposition necessary
to rational governance.
Shrinking Violence
.
