Transformation of the Grumpy Old Party

With the closing of this week it is becoming fairly obvious who will be become the next President of the United States: the candidate who is willing to give America back to its people. States Rights, folks. That's where it's at. Ordinary people have greater access to state government and at less of an expense. Conversely it is more expensive for a rich interest to lobby in every state. Starting to get the picture? I have no doubt that the companies that put up the millions of dollars this year for the tickertape and filet minion are expecting something for their money. This is a battle, I'm happy to see, that the newly awakened minds of America, are gearing up to fight. First, let's look at what the previous corporate mindset did to our tax system. Hmm, federal income tax seems just a Bit regressive folks. Democrats don't seem to care. Seems to me leading cause of poverty and lack of funds for schools and libraries is all that money that states never see unless they spend more money to try and get it back from washington. I'm not trying to rile anyone up here. Just airing the facts as I see them because I'd like to see this country treat women and children better. In the past century, the national republican party transformed itself into the party of the rich and the tetotalers. I blame progressives. By typecasting the Republican Party, they became Democratic Party Truebelievers, Do or Die. Consequently a void was left in the Republican party that in the nineties was taken up by the religious right. Not Good. Now the way I see it, the religious right has the right to run a couple of states. They don't have the right to run the whole d#mn country. Diversity of Opinion is what makes this country so Beautiful. When we try to stifle opinions things start to get really ugly, really quick. Taxation=Control I'd rather hand over control to body I can directly influence, my state government, rather than a larger body, the United States, who barely has time to listen. Now if I'm a billionare, the situation is different. I have to lobby the big folks all the time so they don't specificly target me out of malice and take all my money. That's fair. Just make it a system I can opt out of if I'm not making more than $100,000($200,000 for families). Estate Tax. Don't repeal it, just make it fair. Bump up the trigger amount to $10,000,000 with adjustments for inflation and I think most Americans would feel it was just and fulfilling its original intent. Like the South Park movie so cleverly exposed: maybe Satan isn't so bad of a guy after all, and we'd better think twice before we hand over all responsability to people who think they know what's best for us. :0) __________________ Please reply if somebody actually took the time to read that long message. I do give credit to renots, he does post long (I'd say uninteresting stuff, but thats just me) messages. Horray for renots! __________________ I read it. And I'm still not quite sure which side he's on. Well thought out though. Maggei __________________ http://www.apbnews.com/newscenter/br...na0804_01.html Feds continue to Threaten California Doctors ... Dept of Justice lawyer Joseph W Lobue told U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup that the government doesn't care whether California voters approved the Compassionate Use Act, which allows patients to grow and possess marijuana[cannabis] for medical use with a doctor's recommendation. "It doesn't matter what California says." Lobue argued. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has urged United States Attorney General Janet Reno to ease the federal government's resistance to California's attempts to implement its initiative. "The voters in my state have endorsed the medicinal use of marijuana." Lockyer wrote to Reno in October. ... Not a very good attitude on Mr Lobue's part, but then he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected. :0) __________________ http://www.sightings.com/general3/repub.htm __________________ And to make things even... http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=9510 :0) __________________ Seems to me some parties have no problem locking millions of people up if they think it'll get them re-elected. :0) __________________ I don't understand what the beef is. Is it that Clinton-Gore are subversively racist in their policies? Or is it that they've toughened policies in a racially-blind way, despite the fact that these policies are enforced in an inherently racist manner? As sad as it may be, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Let's be realistic: Nader has a snowball's chance in traditional hell of getting into office. That is simply the sad reality of democracy, that voting for Ralph Nader, as competant as he might be, is wasting a vote. We are looking at perhaps the least qualified candidate in history up against perhaps the least charismatic in a long time. If things had worked out correctly, we'd have a true academic (Bradley) matching wits with the magnetic personality of McCain. But that's not reality; nor are any hopes for Nader. __________________ It's that some people have totally forgotten about the ends while recklessly abusing the means. __________________ There is also the not so small matter of qualifying for federal election dollars, which requires that at least a certain amount of people in the country voted for a party's candidate in the last election to get money for the current election. This will be important in 2004 when we have greater choice in the spectrum of candidates than we do today. :0) __________________ quote: Originally posted by renots: It's that some people have totally forgotten about the ends while recklessly abusing the means. Abstract and arbitrary in a smarmy, self-clever way. Give me something more substantive than silly quips. However, point well taken that qualification for various federal aid requires a certain level of support. The only problem is, the ends may be more costly than the means (to turn your phrase back upon you); that is, and not to stir up a firestorm of my party's better, but let's admit that George W. is a wholly underqualified candidate, and that Gore, while totally without charisma, is the man that has the experience and intelligence to get most of the job done (i.e., not totally f-up the country, which is a decided possibility with Dubya). __________________ I guess that's why GW's running on the Faith platform; some people seem to have lost theirs somewhere along the way. Any vote against a culture of victimization is an unwasted vote to me. :0) __________________ quote: Originally posted by renots: [b] Any vote against a culture of victimization is an unwasted vote to me. B] Please show me statistically significant evidence that Bad Ole' Mas'a Clinton has imprisoned a disproportionate number of minorities in comparison to historical levels. Again, your argument would be monumentally more pursuasive if it consisted of more than one cryptic sentence. I certainly can't endorse any political candidate wholeheartedly, but I certainly am not going to blame for blame's sake. __________________ from: http://www.mond.at/opus.dei/opus.dei.uo.faq.html Hallmarks of Fascism ... Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission; Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit; Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate; Cult of personality around a charismatic leader; Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism; Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission - often metaphysical and romanticized in character; Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy - seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them; The self image of belonging to a superior form of social organisation beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy; Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society. Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power ... Hmm, know any politicians who have been following this model lately? ;0) __________________ Tee-hee. Love politics. I don't feel like re-typing my response in the Green Party posting, but it summarizes my views. Jennifer __________________ quote: Originally posted by pennypinch: [quote]Abstract and arbitrary in a smarmy, self-clever way. Give me something more substantive than silly quips. There is also the matter of Janet Reno :0) __________________ Dianne Feinstein has not had too much respect for the Bill of Rights either. __________________ She favors Internet censorship, limits on habeas corpus protections, expansion of the drug war, and the so-called Prison Litigation Reform Act, which, in the words of the ACLU, "stripped the federal courts of much of their power to correct even the most egregious prison conditions." __________________ In her 1994 campaign, Feinstein went out of her way to distance herself from liberal positions--even running a television commercial in which she celebrated the fact that she was booed at the California Democratic Convention for her enthusiasm for the death penalty. In the Senate, she has established a record as a Clintonesque "New Democrat", supporting anti free-speech legislation such as the Flag Desecration Amendment and the development of a national I.D. card program. A lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key member of the Judiciary Committee, she has earned wildly erratic ratings from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), dipping as low as thirty-five on a 100 scale in some years--a figure far below that of several Republican Senators. End the jackbootism; vote for an alternative. __________________ from: http://www.progressive.org/zinn0800.htm I recall that in junior high school, a teacher asked our class: "What is the difference between a totalitarian state and a democratic state?" The correct answer: "A totalitarian state, unlike ours, believes in using any means to achieve its end." __________________ http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/Full_C...xas_Executions Now would be a good time for GW to show us wether he bullsh!ting us or not about being a "compassionate" conservative. __________________ "The execution of persons who are mentally retarded serves no principled purpose and demeans our system of justice," Martha Barnett, president of the American Bar Association said in her letter to Mr Bush on Monday. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...000/872508.stm __________________ Most US death sentences 'flawed' ... The study of 4,578 appeals between 1973 and 1995 showed that most cases "are so seriously flawed that they have to be done over again". In one controversial case, death row inmate Calvin Burdine is fighting to overturn his 1983 conviction on the grounds that his court-appointed lawyer slept through much of his two-day trial. Texas governor and presidential candidate George W Bush, who claims that no one has been wrongly executed during his period as Texas governor, risks his campaign being undermined by the report and growing criticism of the death penalty. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...000/787416.stm __________________ but only if he ditches DC