castledoom.com

[Che]

It's hard to pin me down... politically.

I jump move from one end of the spectrum... to the other on issues :? .

IMO, people who vote based strictly on "their party"... should not be allowed to vote :twisted:

Each issue should be examined individually and then form an opinion.

It amazes me how people can still support the current administration... knowing how they have been lied to and manipulated.

This admin has only one interest... their own :x .

Carl Rove is Himmler and Goebbels... rolled into one :evil:

They do not care how much harm... they do to the country and its citizens :roll: .

[Brf]

I agree that anyone who votes for a party, rather than a candidate, is using his Right to vote, but wasting his Privilege to vote.... Anyone who votes for a party, rather than a candidate is a moron. Personally I havent voted since 1984, when I made a single punch, and I was done.

As far as the current Administration... I dont think it is worse than any other.... Clinton had it easy because of timing. The economy was roaring from the Information Revolution. Think back to what the Internet was back before then -- a few servers in Universities. The Information Explosion happened all in the Clinton years, pumping up the economy the whole time.

[Batchman]

The problem here, of course, is that there is very little chance that we will ever know for sure if this administration has lied to us, or if it just made a judgement call which a percentage of the population disagrees with.

To each their own.

I'd still far rather see Bush as president than anybody I have seen yet from the democrats ... but I'd like to see a libertarian who is willing to strongly enforce the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (including repealing 90% of the laws enacted over the last 225 or so years that conflict with the Bill of Rights) more than either one.

Too bad we'll probably never see it. I fear America will never again be what it once was.

[Morticcia]

I'm so ignorant of what's in the constitution and bill of rights individually. However, going back 225 years would mean eliminating rights granted to women and persons of color. I don't see how that would be progress.

[Brf]

He said laws that "conflict with the Bill of Rights".... not everything

[Che]

If we really wanted to get the country back on track... politicos would be shot by roster :twisted:

[Morticcia]

Brf wrote: He said laws that "conflict with the Bill of Rights".... not everything

Some may interpret the amendments as in conflict. Never underestimate peoples ability to twist things to their own desired end.

[Brf]

Well... there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that limits those rights by Race or Gender. Therefore the women or race sufferage laws would not be in conflict.

[Batchman]

Perhaps a simple acknowledgement that 'man' actually means all human beings in the constitution ... then those rights are properly retained for women and blacks.

The constitution spelled it out perfectly.

The problem was the entire social interpretation of 'man.'

All people are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights ... among these, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Should all citizens be allowed to vote? Whether white or black, straight or gay, male or female, whole or handicapped, of whatever religious or political bent? Yes.

On the other hand, should discrimination for any group of people be forced upon us? I have to say I disapprove of this.

If my religion disapproves of homosexuality, do I have any right to go out and beat up, kill or attack homosexuals? No. That infringes on their rights to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have no right to go out and do harm to anybody else.

But if I disapprove of homosexuality, I should not be required to hire somebody who is homosexual. It should be my choice who I hire to work for me, if I own a company. And the slightly lower quality of workers I have due to my limiting of the job pool and the small drop in patronage from people who disagree with my stance are properly the results I have to bear for standing up for what I believe in.

If I just don't like black people (and don't misunderstand, this is for the sake of argument. I have no problem with black folks, and skin color would likely never have anything to do with whether I would hire somebody for a job or not), it should be my choice whether or not I hire them. And the slightly lower quality of workers I have due to my limiting of the job pool and the small drop in patronage from people who disagree with my stance are properly the results I have to bear for standing up for what I believe in.

I've already said a lot to likely cause rage in some who disagree with me, so I may as well go one step further, and possibly anger even more people! So here are my attacks on two commonly held beliefs:

Abraham Lincoln was a great friend to the blacks, and that is why he abolished slavery! I don't think so. I can't verify this, and I don't remember exactly where I heard it, but if anybody else has further information on it, chime in ... I'd be glad for either collaboration or well-backed refutation ... but I've been told that Lincoln actually made a statement something along the lines of "I'd require blacks in all the states to be placed in slavery if that would help to force the south to remain in the union." It was not done due to personal belief, but only as a politically expedient way of causing trouble for the south.

Slavery was already on its way out. Year by year it became less and less economically feasible, and soon would have ended on its own. And if it ended on its own, perhaps there would have been less animosity between the North and the South, and perhaps there would have been less animosity between whites and blacks in the south.

And (again, if I have this wrong, correct me) why is it that it is the Republicans ... the folks who are supposed to be so against the minorities, and such a hotbed of discrimination ... are the ones who have started giving blacks major positions in the presidential branch of the government? Perhaps because these days most Republicans are not discriminatory, and just want the best person they can find for the job.

Have I annoyed enough people now? Let the flaming begin!

[Eddy]

I actually agree with you batch.

[Batchman]

Eddy, please do not take this the wrong way. I like you, and I respect a lot of things about you. But you were the last person that I expected to be agreeing with me on this particular post.

I knew I don't know you all that well, but now I know I really don't know you all that well!

Anyway, hopefully I was quite clear in what I was trying to say ... this is one of those rare serious and involved posts where I really want to get my message across clearly!

[Che]

Quote: are the ones who have started giving blacks major positions in the presidential branch of the government?

As long as said Blacks kiss the bosses white fundios.

What doesit matter if a Black is appointed to a Cabinet position... if he/she is not allowed to be effective.

Colin Powell was just eye-candy and as soon as he did not tow the line... he had his legs chopped off.

A few Blacks in fancy jobs means nothing... when millions of Blacks are pushed further into poverty.

[Brf]

History is full of hypocrites.... and full of history writers who interpret the events to fit the current majority's viewpoint.....

[Batchman]

Che wrote: Colin Powell was just eye-candy and as soon as he did not tow the line... he had his legs chopped off.

Che, understand ... I expect you and I agree on very little. And I suspect from all I have seen that you are a knee-jerk Democratic apologist ... this is somewhat fair, for this conversation, as I suspect I am probably largely a knee-jerk Republican apologist. I say this in the hopes of understanding clearly where we're starting from.

That said, I like George Bush, but I don't think he is either perfect or infalable. Tell me, if you will, what has happened to make you think Powell had his 'legs chopped off.' Educate me, as I do want to learn. I mention the things I mention because they are what I believe. If there are other things I ought to take into account in connection with that belief, I want to know about it. I may not change my beliefs, but I promise to at least consider what you say a bit.

But since I do want a balanced view, I'd also love to see another viewpoint from somebody on the other side of the argument for whatever things Che is talking about. More input is welcomed ... even requested.

Che wrote: A few Blacks in fancy jobs means nothing... when millions of Blacks are pushed further into poverty.

But why are they pushed further into poverty? And by who?

There are blacks who have made it. Who have worked hard, and been sucessful, and had good marriages, and raised good kids.

And there are a whole lot of blacks who have bought into the entire welfare thing, and don't want to work, and run around doing drugs and abusing each others, and creating civil unrest, and abandoning their families, and wasting their entire lives.

Now there are some people in every race who have done most of these things, but it sure seems to me there are more blacks (especially proportionate to their segment of the population) who are doing more of these things than in any other race. Why is this?

Personally, I can think of three possible reasons. (There may be more, but three come to mind right now.)

(1) Blacks actually are less capable than the other races. They actually are lesser human beings, and except in rare cases, this is the most they are capable of. (Please continue reading. Don't stop here.)

(2) Blacks were held down so long, and are still held down to such an extent that they cannot get ahead anymore no matter how much we try to help them. The remnants of their ancestors lives in this country are a weight they cannot recover from.

or

(3) Too many blacks are held back by systems that were mistakingly put into place to try and help them. Almost any other racial group that has come to this country seems to have blended in better than blacks. The Italians were hated and despised in their time, and called names. But as far as I know, there is a lot less of this than there used to be. Same for the Jews. Same for the Irish. Same for the Germans. Same for the Oriental races. In fact, in many cases, the Orientals are even more successful than the WASPs.

Personally, I discount number one. I don't think inherant racial ability has anything to do with it. I will acknowledge that things may be made a little more difficult by number 2. This is unfortunate, but it simply means they must work a little harder to overcome that unfortunate handicap. The problem is, due to number 3, instead of working harder, many of them do less and take it easier, increasing the problem, rather than removing it.

I only see two other racial groups that have anywhere near the problems the blacks do ... those of Indian descent and the Hispanics. The Indians are currently overly unpopular due to 9/11. It is a little unfair to the ones who have nothing to do with terrorism, whatsoever, but I still think it is quite understandable.

Which leaves us with the blacks and hispanics. And I find some very stong similarities between both groups that I personally think ties in to the reasons why these groups can succeed in America, but have a harder time doing so.

1) These two groups, as a whole, seem to do the least to try to fit in to American society. In the early days, when this country was booming ... the American hey-day if you like ... people learned English pretty darn quickly, and taught it to their families pretty darn quickly. And while most of the kids probably knew the original family language, they also knew English, and had learned to speak it pretty well, and blended in.

As far as I can see, these days, immigrants from almost any other part of the world still make sure they learn English as well as they can, as quickly as they can. But as far as I can see (judging from what I see on the streets here in Florida, and what I saw in CA), the Spanish do this less than anybody else. And the blacks ought to know the language better than almost anybody, but they almost work at creating their own sub-language to try and draw further away from America as a country.

2) Work ethics. There are natural bums in any race. I know ... I am one, myself. But most of us have two choices ... we can fall be the wayside, or we can apply ourselves, work hard, and try to make at least a small success of our lives.

Entirely too many blacks and hispanics instead just try to get on the dole, and pump out the babies and collect the checks. Some of these people may be too sunk into their own feces to ever make it back out, but I'll bet you, if the welfare system was closed down, within a generation, there would be a much larger percentage of successful blacks ... and the poor ones who refused to adapt would be a bit more unhappy, but for the most part, they wouldn't be that much worse of a blot on society, because they are the ones who already are. They are the crack heads, wastrels, drunks, abusers, theives, and murderers already.

Aside number 1: You can find these same kinds of people in the white race, as well ... though in smaller percentages. They are usually referred to as 'white trash.' We have no respect for them, and we shouldn't have any. And since we know we shouldn't, we feel no guilt over it.

3) Love and respect for life, and for family. Again, these are problems which are suffered by all races, but it seems to a higher extent by the blacks and hispanics. There seem to be more murders, more rapes, more abuse, and more 'deadbeat' parents in these groups than in the others.

In contrast, the orientals who seem to be doing so well in succeeding in the US come over, work incredibly hard, sacrifice a lot for years, educate their children, stick together and help each other, and become successful even more quickly than we American-born Americans do.

The system of capitalism and free enterprise that this country was founded on works. The welfare system that has been touted as being such an important, wonderful thing to protect and advance people doesn't. It just drags them deeper into the pit it is supposed to help them out of.

I have more to say, but I am tired of typing, so I'm going to move on ... I can write another chapter or two tomorrow!

[Che]

Quote: I have seen that you are a knee-jerk Democratic apologist

It is obvious that you do not know me at all.

I despise Dems... only slightly less than I do Reps.

I also suspect that I know more about what minorities have to deal with than you do.

[Eddy]

Batch, the reason I agree with your post is because affirmative action programs and quotas actually hurt the minorities involved. Instead of having people get in on their own merits, quotas set an artifically lowered standard and this has a negative effect on a workplace. Instead of holding everyone to one standard, there are lowered standards which are bad for all. The other drawback is one that I myself experienced in college. When I saw black people in school, especially if they dressed "ethnic", my immediate response upon seeing them was a snarky thought about quotas AND more telling was how I immediately placed them under me. I would point out that I never did this with whites. Maybe it isn't nice or fair, but if I had these thoughts, how many other people did?

As for Lincoln, you may have heard the quote from me. I'm paraphrasing, but he said "If I can save the union by freeing all of the slaves, I would do it. If I can save the union by freeing some of the slaves, I would do it. If I can save the union by freeing none of the slaces, I would do it." Basically Lincoln was concerned not with slavery, but with federal government having say over the people at the expense of states' rights. I'll really shock people by saying that Lincoln wasn't our worst president, but he is definitely mediocre.

[Batchman]

I don't know you terribly well. How could I ... I only know you on forums, and even there, there are limits to how much contact I have had with you.

I was not trying to insult you. I made an assumption, and you corrected me.

All I can say in defense of myself is that the constant attacks I have seen from you on the republicans and republican ideals are of the sort that I have usually seen from rabid democrats. Hence, as I mentioned, I made an erroneous assumption.

If I may ask, in what direction(s) do you lean, politically. From what I've seen, I've assumed a bit of a liberal bent, and in this country, that usually means one is a democrat. You've established you aren't, and I realize it isn't going to be a simple label by any means, but so I have a better 'point of reference' for our conversations, will you mention a bit about the directions you lean in?

[Batchman]

Eddy, it very well may be you that I heard that from.

I have to say, as I have started 'growing' politically, my opinion of Lincoln has gone very steadily downhill.

[Eddy]

It's ok batch, I'm actually pretty hard to figure out since many of my view cross various lines. If you look at the voting thread, you'll get a partial overview of my opinions that is not nearly complete.

Politically I am registered as an independent, although I have a preference for many of the policies of the libertarians and some of the green party.

Basically though, I'd like to see a lot more personal responsibility in the country instead of blaming everyone else for everything.

I think I can be summed up as "a thinker" who refuses to be placed in a narrow category like "democrat" or "liberal" because my views have been thought out and in some ways I don't like the idea of a label.

Economically I tend to be liberal, with almost socialist leanings at times, but then you'll see me advocate trade restrictions and tariffs on foreign goods, plus protections for American jobs. At the same time, I feel minimum wage is very important and should be indexed to inflation, but at the same time I think CEO salaries should have limits. How can you categorize this? This is only one example, but I hope it gets my point across.

The only way to get my view is to simply ask.

[Che]

I cannot think of a political "label" that fits me.

I'm right-wing on some issues, middle-of-the-road on others and liberal on some things.

I deplore extremists... no matter what political ideology they express.

I do not support the current administration because they represent greed, corruption, and evil.