ParanoiA

Yes, but you can apply the pressure more thoughtfully when you understand and RESPECT other's dispositions, views, cultures...whatever. To advocate prosecution of politicians who flat out don't believe in GW is militant, insulting, woefully dismissive and astonishingly intolerant. (Not to mention, somewhat suspicious). It's interesting to see the liberal side prioritize their belief system. Tolerance, unless it conflicts with GW, I guess. So when exactly does GW get sacrificed? Is there some other belief thingy that will override that one?

Hence, my take on the "drama" angle. And it might work, incidentally. Unfortunately, this also could polarize the debate even further. Kind of like the Japanese whalers that seem to keep at it as a matter of pride; an in-your-face response to the dramatic pressure by western interference, as Lucaspa has been pointing out. I could see the same thing here. Pressuring the conservatives with this drivel is not going to change their hearts and minds, never. Try a carrot...

You have no idea how to connect my rejection of your ascertion that politicians are criminally libel for their views and legislative practice towards GW on a thread about whether or not politicians are criminally libel for their views and legislative practice towards GW? It has absolutely everything to do with the ongoing discussion. There is also a huge problem with assigning blame to a politician that was elected BY THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN GW. Or, are we going to prosecute those people too? Since we are a republic, WE are to blame. Not the employees we hire to administer it. You're arguing from the perspective of a government ON the people, rather than BY the people. That may be good for Canada or Europe, but it isn't going to fly in the states.

Nope. I have no idea how you draw that conclusion. The government has never, not even ONCE, told me that fire will burn me. Never got a call from a senator, a representative, or even a lazy government employee. I've never seen a public service announcement on it either. Is it in the constitution? Do you have a particular medium you require for this "warning"? Ah, crap. I just stubbed by toe. The government didn't tell me that stubbing my toe will hurt. I've never received that warning from my government. Freaking criminals... I agree, you have nailed this one.

Exactly. Maybe a bit cheesy, but obstacles are challenges in disguise. Ok, ok, that's my last corny statement...

Indeed, weren't there a couple of states that actually endorsed religion before the 14th amendment was passed? And I don't believe anyone was too worried about it. The intent was aimed at federal endorsement because it was coercive and intrusive federalism that was feared, not religion.

From a purely partisan perspective, it's a good strategy. If I caught his point yesterday it was that basically McCain-Clinton-Obama - all the same; we're getting a democrat president this time, whether he sports the label or not. So, better to focus your efforts on all of the other offices up for grabs. Party, party, party. Party this and party that, all we can think of is the freaking party. Here we have war hero, that's all up for bombing weakling countries and making believe this is spreading democracy and securing our homeland - and that's right in line with the current conservative base. He's big on low taxes and etc. But oh, I forgot, he actually TALKS and WORKS with DEMOCRATS. Down the tubes you go McCain...we can't have any of this 'putting the country over your party' crap. That's interesting. Before reading about it, provoked by your post, I had no idea it was that rampant. I'm inclined to repeat myself, too much perhaps, that this is yet another spurious consequence to party motivation over politically philosophical rights and wrongs. Yep, and I've read some interesting bits about libertarians creating blockage on purpose - an appeal to divided government - "Divided we stand, united we fall".

They do for the interim while one jeopardizes the other. Is it out of the question to fix the technical problem rather than pretending it's politics and greedy rich people at it again? In other words, can we leave the unsubstantiated belief out of it? (Not necessarily directed at you, by the way)

I can't seem to find any evidence that Paul promoted or advocated gerrymandering of the 14th district, not that you said so, but it wasn't exactly clear. I'm glad his contituency is quite unhappy. That means they didn't get to rape our constitution with continued rationalizations and they're probably crying about it. Good for Paul. The only sane politician in office right now. And the only one who seems NOT to resent the constitution. Looks like you have a NASA guy running for that district. Should be a dream come true for you.

iNow do you hear yourself? You're actually advocating putting your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to ideas different from yours? This is poetically, exactly what Rush says liberals advocate. And here you are increasing his credibility while denouncing his "core". And your point is wrong since I actually started listening in lockstep with Rush's "core" and gravitated away, and continue to everyday I listen. Get it yet?

Yeah, I've heard him a few times and he's actually surprised me on a number of issues - once I heard him say he'd have no problem with marijuana being legalized. Jason Lewis is another interesting one. The few times I've heard him he was particularly good at the fundamentals of political philosophy, but just like a good lawyer he always puts the best spin on events, selectively and specifically ignores evidence, and seems to suffer from the party mentallity.

I consider Rush a *lawyer* for the republican/conservative party cause. There is much to learn from this disposition if you absorb it within that context. And honestly, he's interesting to listen to. It's fun to hear him jab "the libs" with his uber-confident tone, smug style and self anointment - I like the whole act.

I don't think it's any of that, or at least not for the most part. I think it's a combo of two things: 1) Most people are quite libertarian and don't know it. Don't believe me? Try making your own little quiz and just ask people their real thoughts on each issue, without polarizing the query with partisan or ideological overtones. 2) The ole, I can do it, but those other "poor people" can't. This idea that WE can handle all the shit life dishes us, but OTHER people can't, so... Just my take on it. And now work is calling...got to go

Damnit I missed it!! I didn't see this post until today. Nice job, by the way. All this attention to facts....weird... Yeah I'd have to agree with that too.

Blind eye? What is so hard to understand about non-interventionism? Why is it that if we don't favor military occupation of the world, that we're turning a blind eye? One extreme or the other. Thanks for misrepresenting our intentions...yet again. We favor dealing with terrorism by not invading their land. We favor dealing with terrorism by actually securing our borders and investment in defense - homeland defense (as opposed to rationalizing military domination of the world). We favor dealing with terrorism by promoting freedom and liberty and our goodwill by leading-by-example. That's not a blind eye, that's a tactical difference. It's hard to understand when you're presuming military action = dealing with terrorism. That's how the voters are uninformed.

Hell yeah, I like it.

I'm personally enjoying listening to the conservative pundits cry and whine "we don't have a candidate" - just after making fun of Ron Paulites for being weirdos. Well, at least we have a candidate. If their brand of conservatism is so "mainstream" then where's their guy? What? Can't even field a candidate? I guess their marginalizing is actually just envy. Sorry, this is a worthless post. I think I just wanted to type it out...to vent.

Ahem...I think Paul/Obama sounds better.

Yes, I'm quite happy about Obama's position so far. The conservatives are scared of him, not Hillary. I want to see the republican party splinter some more. There's talk of a McCain-Huckabee ticket, the two most hated by the conservative base....awesome. Now if we could just get the dems to fall apart...

This is one of the funniest threads I've read. Why don't you guys go work for the military? I mean, obviously they're soooooo stupid and you guys have more than proven that they're incompetent, over complicating things. It reminds me of how conservatives deny global warming without having done any research or critical thinking on the subject...

Not to mention is was the most calm and sensible "knee jerk" response I've ever read...

Asking out of ignorance here...does it really take that much longer for "yes-bid" contracts? I think he's as popular as he is because he's presidential - confident yet humble, solid charisma and he does seem to own the high ground on political conduct. I do believe he would enrich the dignity of the office, no doubt. But we are talking about disposition to other's beliefs. "virulent and rabid" might well be appropriate at times, as you've noted. But it's not the political attacking as much as it is the two party driver. There's always been bashing and self interest in american politics, and there certainly has been a coarsening of the culture, and I guess for that matter there's also been parties, but there are also roles to be played here. We need people to duke it out to get the best ideas to float to the top. But, when these people get organized and establish a label and "group up" - then it becomes about the party, and not the citizenry. Let them group up for a particular bill - that's driven by the need of citizenry, but not these permanent good ole boy clubs. So, I'm not interested in flowerly repeats on "coming together" anymore, I want fundamental destruction of the parties. What do you mean by "Infrastructural" economic change? The only one even referencing that scale is Dr Paul.

No our country is NOT trying to transcend this. Any quick scan of your posts on the subject of religion makes you somewhat hypocritical on this I might add. Now time to support this platitude. Tell me what domain we're behind in because of this. Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I'm getting this weird "let's all just get along" vibe coming from you. As if there shouldn't be divisiveness in government.

Unsubstantiated belief has is roots in everything, including science. How they cross from "suspicion" to "belief" without any evidence is beyond me, but then again I've never understood when religion did it either. Not that anybody has necessarily done that, as I think most have been careful to label their opinions as suspicion. And since they seem to suspect the same thing, I'd look the other direction. It's a bit convenient for me...

Yeah, that would seem remarkably appropriate. And if it's really a defense hazzard, then I'd have to agree. The logical conclusion being that focus should now be on solving whatever technical problem radar has with windmills that creates a hazzard.