#12: Where have all the cowboys gone?

THREAD BEGAN: October 20th, 2004

BOB: Are the Conservative MinuteMen out of gas?!
---Dan has input 42 words in the last four threads.
---Pete was in like a lion, out like a lamb.
---Maney has dropped out.
---Sanford never showed up.
---Abromovich made one brief appearance.
---Nugent, even big strong Nugent is nowhere to be found. (He told me he was going to respond to my ridiculous email noting: “Since you'll be gallivanting through the country side for ten days, Ill take my time to write it.” Well your ten days are up, dog.) It’s gotten so bad at the Blog, that Jay is leading in the MVC Poll!!! For the love of God, there are only 13 days until election! After that you can hang up your glory gloves for another 4 years. But for 13 more days, George W. needs your sorry asses.

JAY: look at all the recent posts by the liberals. it's all a bunch of whining and blaming, "why is bush moving up?, wah wah wah." i have better time than responding to a bunch of whining. do you honestly consider what you libs have been whining about is worth a response? if you want a response to your whining question, then here it goes. maybe public speaking doesn't define good leadership. maybe people see through kerry's bullshit. maybe people see kerry's horrible record and realize they don't want a leader that ducks out of his responsibility. i don't know why. but keep whining guys. it's kind of amusing.

DAN: I think John Podhoretz, NY Post, answers your questionperfectly. http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/32163.htmThis article agrees with my thinking of most of youDems and your your take on the issues...in short, muchnegativity. Like I have said before, most Dems areall bitch and no resolve. Dems are quick to point thefinger, they have no problem letting you know yourfaults and how it is affecting them. If you look atthe blog you will notice a pattern from the Dems, inwhich case, most of the comments are bitch-fests. Whydon't you Dems spend time arguing FOR issues ratherthan bitching about Bush and what you think hisadministration did wrong (which clearly iseverything)? Another thing, I am tired of the, "It'snot fair, the Reps get this and we get that,"bullshit. Quit your fucking bitching!! There is nosuch thing as a fair fight, and that definitely goesfor politics.To answer the question, "Has the world gone mad?" No,I believe people are just sick of the bitching. Stopbitching and start resolving.

ZELIN: Vicscione, Can’t let republicans off the hook so easy. Seriously, you can say that the Reps have not been attacking/bitching just as much. Go back, and re-read those same email trails you talk about, and see what dems have read. Shit, even your own leader, Bush has gone on a massive assault, spending most of the time attacking and bitching about this opponent without mentioning his own accomplishments.
Interesting thing happening here in Hong Kong. Many people I know have not received their absentee ballets in the mail. Last night I went to a democratic voter drive in the city to pick up a federal write in ballet, so I can vote. Spoke with a few people who stated that their republican friends abroad had received their absentee ballet already.
Interesting? Florida all over again. Republicans will figure out a way to win, even if it involves cheating. Now call that bitching, but I call it pretty sad.

CHUCK: Am I the only one that laughs at Jay really funny when he calls us "libs" as its an insult. Jay claims to be left wing on almost all social issues.
So if you agree w/ all of our social issues, then you are a "lib" too, no?
(no need to respond, jay, if answer just rambles on about our differences in iraq.....if you are pro-stem cell, pro-abortion, pro-gay......you are a "lib" in the mold of Arnold, or even Bill Clinton (a fiscal conservative, and social "lib")

NUGENT: I can’t actually believe that you people buy into these campaigns. You are not watching Kerry and Bush go at each other, you are watching a highly calculated dog fight between two business organizations vying for power and money. I have a friend high up in the Bush campaign, and he tells me how precisely they can tweak percentages by leaning on any given issue in any place at any time. When I worked at Pepsi, the marketing team could predict, with scary accuracy, how the slightest moves would effect percentage shares in any given market, and it is the exact same deal with politics. The debates haven’t mattered because, with the extreme marketing blitz, the polls are already systematically saturated. People as a whole are extremely predictable.There is only one thing your vote means, and that is your individual say on whether you believe in moving the country forward with a conservative or a liberal attitude. I think we would all agree that individual idealism, with this current system, is a non option- for better or worse.
That said, I don’t respond to this blog because I cannot for the life of me understand how you pansy-ass moon maidens can actually believe in the benefit of a society that is designed to suppress the talented, productive people in order to justify and reward those who, for whatever reason, do not rise to the top. For every social program you enact, (medicare, social security etc.) you take away one more reason to work hard and achieve. Furthermore, you spoil people to the point that they can not stand to see the slightest suffering. This decline in our threshold for pain of any kind is a growing weakness. Remember this country is successful because it offers “life liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.” Give us the basic protection services and anything else needed to just sustain a productive society, and then let us be.The entire rise of this species has been based on survival of the fittest. Greed in all forms, and the ensuing competition, have marked the upward surge of mankind for the past 7 million years. To study human history is to study conflict sprinkled with individual achievement. You want the world to evolve into this global, peaceful, socialist society...... noble, and all together foolish. If you all had the sense to view mankind for what it is, you would realize that your liberal mind set is nothing more than a deterrent based on fictional idealism.
---Mike Maney... dont give in so easily
---Viscione... good point STOP BITCHING you fucking liberals
---Jay... way to keep these hoes on their toes
---Pete... of course your a conservative- your intelligent
---Keeler... i'd like to order one "that look" mouse pad
sam kut hew zel san hon koz... stop dragging us down!

JAY: Chuck, i'm not making fun. it's merely shorter to type. and thank you for acknowledging that

CHUCK: Nug, if your argument is productivity of the best (the rich, according to you), then how do you justify tax breaks on investments and tax cuts on inheritances. These benefits to the rich do not cause them to work. it causes them to sit on their wealth. its a fact.
What a joke.
Additionally, if your raw belief in survival of the fittest was so true, then why is Bush president. No one would claim him the smartest or most productive man....or really anywhere close. half of or parents were more successful businessmen, and were more productive. So why does Bush have a huge advantage....because of his dad.....not because of some super-human drive and determination.
Additionally, some of us really do have emotions. and w/ them, we dont want to live in a country where the elderly are left to die homeless, poor and w/out dignity (which is what happens when you remove the horrible program called social security). And that's not bleeding heart liberal.....that is having any heart. (by the way, most americans like social security)

BOB: After reading Nugent’s last email, I realize one of the biggest problems facing sworn Conservatives. That is the inability to separate the party from the administration.
I think the Republican Party has a great platform:
---Smaller Federal Government
---More power at the State level
---Less overall government intervention
---Less redistribution of wealth through social programs
---Less government restriction on trade / interference in business
Despite Nugent’s description of us, we are not communists. Personally, I agree with every plank listed above. I think that both of the parties have a positive side and a negative side and will be the first to say that, in general, the Republican Platform’s Economic Policy is better for America. But that is the Traditional Party Platform. This administration is another thing altogether. Bush is not lowering government spending and returning us to fiscal responsibility. He turned a $200 billion dollar federal surplus into a $500 billion deficit, shattering the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history!!! Whether the REPs want to admit it or not, Bush does not represent the party’s sound Economic Policy.
Bush does, however, represent the party’s negative aspects: The intolerance (constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage) and the religious backwardness (stem-cell research).
And survival of the fittest? The man you are voting for:
---Graduated from college with a low C average.
---Was a cheerleader.
---Joined the National Guard to stay out of Vietnam.
---Ran for U.S. Congress and lost.
---Failed in the oil industry (despite help from his Daddy).
---Ran a baseball team that was handed to him for awhile.
---Got elected Governor thanks to a lot of help from his Daddy.
He is about as much of a survivor as Paris Hilton.
If you hate Kerry, fine. Vote for Bush. But please don’t tell me you are voting for Bush because of your Darwinist beliefs or your respect for sound economics. It’s ridiculous.

SAMMY: Nugent, Why don't you take your message and stick it up your god damn anarchist ass. If you where to take your thoughts just one more step further you would be preaching anarchy. I for the other hand like government. I don't know what is going on in California. Maybe you were playing arena football with your helmet off, I don't know. But Chris, Its time to stop living off daddy's tree farm money, and open your eyes. People aren't given the luxuries that you and bush have been handed. All of the rest of us are working for ourselves and paying the bills. You on the other hand are probably on your first book of starter checks. So when you start paying taxes, you can chime in. Until then you can leave your anarchist views to yourself.

JAY: in edwards own words, "a resume does not reflect good judgment." so if kerry and edwards think a resume is irrelevant, why do you place so much emphasis on george w's? i disagree w/ that. just wanted to point out the illogical thinking of the people you are voting for. if you want to compare resume's look at your candidates voting record. it's inexcusable. that record really reflects strong leadership? forget about the records(that argument is getting just as old as "bush is stupid"). prior to kerry, george w. hadn't lost a debate. pretty stupid eh? (kerry even backs that up). i'm not endorsing his backround, but don't leave out kerry's and edwards' daddies. i'm sure there parents had nothing to do with where they ended up. why don't you emphasize cheney's daddy? that's what i thought. he already made edwards look like a jack ass. i'm not going to argue this point b/c that's a fact of life. kerry's stance on gay marraige is the same, he just wants to play both sides. he says let them reap the same benefits and rights as a married couple, BUT let's not give them the title. pick a side pussy. this reflects kerry's tendency to base his decisions on political appeal (similar to iraq). what has kerry said on economics that has won all your hearts. he always says he is going to fix the deficit, but his explanations make no sense. i'm going to reiteratewhat i said before. he has proposed additional spending that some analysts have estimated could cost as much as $226.1 billion annually ($2.261 trillion over ten years). this was stated by George Borjas of Harvard and George borts of boston U and 44 other top economists. now, i could listen to what you guys say on economics or what these top economists say. hmmm?

DAN: Here are some random thoughts from someone I ran across...
http://forums.justsaywow.com/messageview.cfm?catid=63&threadid=107781
...I'm sure this will stir up some arguments.

PETE: Chuck: it's simple, if you dont take people's money away from them, they work to make more of it, and the more people work, the more stuff gets done, and the more stuff that gets done, the more good stuff gets done. Economics is not a zero sum game...the economy is improved when people are motivated to work, and people are motivated to workwhen they get to keep their money. Tax breaks on investment and inheritences encourage more work, more work leads to more innovation, more innovation leads to a better life for everyone. It's not about slicing up pieces of a finite pie; the whole pie grows. John...I would say that you've been handed quite a bit by your parents as well, I would say that relatively speaking, we all have. It's nice to be able to decide who you hand your money to, as opposed to beingforced to hand it to a government bureaucrat. (My father, who as an immigrant, started his business from scratch, would have never gottenoff the ground if Reagan were not elected in 80 and overhauled the tax code.) The problem is that people that don't understand conservatism think that it's all about greed, when any intelligent conservative knows that the herd only moves as fast as it's slowest member. It'sfoolish to enrich onesself at the expense of the community, and if all you're concerned about is your own bank account regardless of what's going on around you, you're going to be left with a lot of paper without a better life to exchange it for and that's not worth a damn.The successful people are the ones that understand that, and they take care of their families, friends, and communities, and give to the charities that THEY THINK make their world a better place, and market forces ensure that the ones who REALLY DO make the world a betterplace are rewarded for it. Some of you would argue that most people do not do this, that they are greedy but you shouldn't be concerned with these people because the wealth of the truly greedy collapses in on itself and gets distributed to the masses, one way or another,either through bankruptcy or their douchebag children wasting it sometime down the line. By trying to control this greed, which actually takes care of itself, you take away the self determination of intelligent people who have proven they know how to make good use of money and who furthermore earned the right to do so. To take thatdecision away from the one who earned it, and give it to some bureaucrat is not only insulting, it discourages the earners from earning.There's no more powerful force than man acting in his own self interest, and there is no more beneficial force than a man who knows that it's in his self interest to look out for his fellow man, and that force should be protected and nurtured more than anything else.

ZELIN: Can't help but agree with Sammy's sentiments. Nugent, if I can remember correctly, you were able to pursue your professional wrestling career because of unemployment. You, the fittest of the bunch, was able to pursue happiness due to the system paying your rent. If you are going to preach, please don't preach hypocrisy.

PETE: Bob, There is no more dangerous force than a man who has never known what self-interest is because the fruits of their labor go to build palaces for their dictator and any hot girl that they score is guaranteed to get raped by their dictator and his family and pals. (It would be a hell of a lot easier to convince me to fly a plane intoa building to get to 40 virgins in heaven if I couldn't get ONE on earth) The Middle East is full of these men who don't know what self-interest is, and taking action to rid the world of governments where self-determination is prohibited is the soundest economic policy I can think of....like I said about deficits in my initial email, theycan be awfully temporary....remember where we were when Carter was President. Take a longer view...and take a global view...worrying about deficits at home without considering the long-term benefit to the global economy that the administration's current foreign policy will have is disingenuous.Chuck, It takes awhile to do what we're doing in Iraq...Japan and Germany weren't rebuilt in a year, or even 2, but are now 2 of the strongest countries in the world, because they had a chance to rebuild from a base of individual liberty. Maybe you don't think anything good is going on in Iraq because THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA DOESN'T WANT YOU TO. Here's a link to a whole mess of good news from Iraq, I don't have time to summarize it for you, but check it out, since you say nothing good is going on over there. There's quite a lot for you to read. (I worry that you don't really want to know that good things are going on over there, but I hold out hope for you pal.)http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/09/good-news-from-iraq-part-10.htmlLike I said, I'm sorry I can't join this thread more often than I do, but it takes some time to read all of the emails and write a decent response and the first year of law school is a tremendous amount of discourse in and of itself that I try to get a break from as often as possible. I hope my efforts are well placed however, so that I can put myself in a position where I can do more to change these things that cause us to get at each other's throats like this because while having these discussions is necessary and beneficial, it doesn't mean anything in and of itself if you don't take action to back up your beliefs."If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap)."

ABROMOVICH: Chainsaw:? your arguement about tax breaks and benefits causing the wealthy to "sit on their wealth" is incorrect. We all know the more money we have at our disposal the more likely we are to spend that money. Ultimately, on a larger scale stimulating our economy. That dumb bitch Theresa Heinz has killed any hopes of her husband being elected. Could you imagine some of the things she would say if she were the first lady. I am back now - those emails were getting too long for a while. Thanks for shortening them.
Sammartano, you talk of paying taxes, as if we dont pay enough taxes already. Under Mr. Kerry we will be paying even more taxes. To quote Sammartano, "People aren't given the luxuries that you and bush have been handed," - this country gives more luxuries and opportunities to individuals than any other country in the world. And you are right, people are not GIVEN any luxuries, it is up to each individual to work hard and earn his or her luxuries. Not to speak for Chris, but I am sure at age 26 he is paying his own bills. No one can expect to be handed a six figure salary (except the GM of the Red Sox) you have to earn it, which starts with getting an education.

ZELIN: Abromovich, You said the following: "this country gives more luxuries and opportunities to individuals than any other country in the world" Actually, European countries (especially Scandinavian ones) offer more luxuries/benefits than the US. Socialized healthcare, education, etc. Not promoting socialism. They pay a hell of a lot more taxes than Americans do. Just check around a bit before you make claims.

KYLE: Peter, Well written piece and I agree with a lot of what you said. You said that "The problem is that people that don't understand conservatism think that it's all about greed, when any intelligent conservative knows that the herd only moves as fast as it's slowest member." I agree. Your analogy works the other way too: The problem is that people that don't understand liberalism think that it's all about slowing down the pack, when any intelligent liberal knows that the heard only moves as fast as it's fastest member.
I always like to explain why I'm a Democrat using a slightly different analogy: I'm a Democrat because I believe our society needs to have a floor, not a ceiling. There needs to be a minimum standard of living and a system that encourages people to suceed as much as they can. People in our country need access to a minimum equal education, a liveable wage, and seniors and children deserve healthcare. Liberals don't support handouts. If you want handouts you can look at the subsidy, contracting, and corporate welfare policies of the Bush administration. You may note that Welfare Reform was signed by William Jefferson Clinton.
The positive result of our democracy is that you conservatives fight for the front of the pack and we democrats fight for the middle and back of the pack, which is where most people end up. I always find it funny how some guy who drives a delivery truck for Wonder Bread will argue angrily about how the rich pay too much in taxes. I know it is because everyone believes that they can someday be rich too. Same reason people play the lottery. I give Republicans credit for getting all those working poor people to vote for them by putting the ten commandments in city hall and keeping evolution and birth control out of the classroom.

PETE: Zelin, before you go scolding Abromovich to check around about the claims he makes, think about the subjective meaning of the words you use to refute him...while those countries you list may provide social benefits, you can't say for a second that that equals luxury, or opportunity. Those countries are for the most part sorely lacking in diversity, creativity, productivity, and intellectual discourse that we enjoy in this country, and as for opportunity, it's not even close. Try starting a business in any one of those countries...you won'thave an easy time.

ZELIN: Pete, agreed. I guess my point was under a different context. All of us are quite good at making simple generalizations about nations and often let it rule our arguments, myself included. But, I do think it is worthy to point out the social benefits in countries, ones that have successfully implemented programs such as healthcare and education. Two things which many Americans cannot afford.

BOB: PETE- Stop lecturing us about the wonders of free-market capitalism. Nugent already did it and every sane Democrat agrees. You are preaching to the choir, friend. Try defending the Bush administration, as apposed to the party platform, it’s more difficult. (PS there is a 500 max on consecutive words at the Blog. Next time I will cut you off.)
JAY-DAN- This is my favorite conservative defense mechanism: I say, “Bush turned a $200 billion dollar federal surplus into a $500 billion deficit.” You say, “Stop whining.” What a perfect defense for the undefendable. What else could you say?
I'm excited though, after Kerry wins and spends 100 trillion dollars on government programs, abandons Iraq, makes gay marriage legal and does a lot of other “pansy-ass” things, I won't hear a peep out of you (Jay, Dan or Nugent.) If I do, I'll just disregard your concerns with a simple...“Stop whining.”
NUGENT- You seem to love the idea of Survival of the Fittest. You must know what happens to handicap and sick animals in the wild. They are left to fend for themselves, even though they can’t. They die alone. Is this really the kind of society that you want? I can't fathom it...How can someone with both a handicap and a sick person in their immediate family be so utterly heartless?
PS Is it true? Chris, have you collected unemployment?!

JAY: my "stop whining" response was directed towards your comments on "why is bush moving up? i don't get it, bush is stupid." you state, "what else can you say?" i further responded with a quote from dozens of reputable economists stating how kerry's plan won't get the results he preaches, but you failed to respond to that. keep on taking my shit out of context. i am confident that everyone else on the blog realizes that is what you have done w/ my whining comment. just to clear up, you said we were out of gas for not replying to your statements. all the statement that were posted were whining questions on why bush has moved up after the debates.you then state, "This is my favorite conservative defense mechanism." just to reiterate, i did quote the economists. avoidance seems to be a great defense mechanism of the liberal party. kerry's record illustrates that (there in no argument against that).and by the way, kerry's not legalizing gay marraige (look into the issue before you preach). he is merely giving them the same rights and benefits as married couples. he refuses to give them the title b/c he is a pussy trying to play both sides. at least bush takes a strong stance. i disagree w/ bush's stance, but at least he can make a decision. you must of missed that in my last e-mail

PETE: Sorry about breaking the max...I wasn't aware. Forgive me if it wasn't clear from Chuck and Sammartano's emails thatthey had the slightest clue about the benefits of free-marketcapitalism...and I question your understanding of it if you can't seehow the negative effects of the current administration's domesticpolicy are entirely insignificant in light of the benefits that willbe realized due to the administration's foreign policy. Check out this email from my pal Aram....some of you have methim...but either way, I'll say that he doesn't speak out much aboutthese matters, so when he does, I pay a little extra attention...andhe points out something that I probably wouldn't have batted aneyelash at...read on... "Shockingly, the ny times endorsed John Kerry on monday. I would feelmore comfortable with the selection of the second-most read paper inthe country if their website hadn't been taking ads from john kerry(on its main page, right below the main picture, and often timesaccompanying articles) for at least the past four months. i've been reading newspapers every day for almost my entire life. I'venever seen an ad for a canditate, ever. not even in the post. well,actually, there were once ads for abe hirschfeld's senate campaign,but that's a different story entirely. what's one reason why there areno campaign ads in newspapers but there are on television stations?because television news shows don't endorse candidates, whilenewspapers long have. and sure, many papers are owned by massive mediacompanies that take campaign money (but from both parties), but again,not on the pages of the paper. sure it's the times' online edition, and not the actual gray ladytaking the ads from john kerry, but it's the TIMES. why would theytake any action that reeks of partiality? i was stunned when i firstsaw the ads. and now they've endorsed him, and sure, they most likelyreached that decision through thoughtful analysis, but then there isthe spectre of the fact that the times took money from the john kerrycampaign, and now the paper of record is telling its millions ofreaders to vote that way. -aram"

NUGENT: A different, more moderate approach- I believe that the end result of any individual person is to enhance mankind’s perpetuation. All of our inherent desires are directed at this goal. And as the years pass, perpetuation will only succeed as long as we continue to evolve so that we may meet and overcome any and all obstacle that will inevitably face us. I am for survival of the fittest because it is the most effective way to route human tendencies toward productive living. However, survival of the fittest alone is, of course, not a solution. Man has always grouped himself into societies because it helps to cultivate a lifestyle that moves toward the aforementioned goal. We are all given a certain amount of compassion that does not allow us to function properly under circumstances of duress. Old people rotting in the street, people with illness or disability dying on the corner- this is not the vision of a productive environment. As Kyle said- “you need a floor,” to fulfill our own need not to see the suffering. Unfortunately, Kyle also said he believes in a floor without a ceiling which is nice....but impossible. You don’t tax the needy to save the needy. You tax the top which is the creation of a ceiling. Now the problem becomes where does the floor / ceiling ratio go from being at the level of necessity for productivity, to the level of detraction from open competition. I believe that programs to help people in the position of my mom and brother are necessary. I believe that programs which help children reach their full potential are necessary. I believe any luxury afforded to people who have failed due to their own poor choices is not necessary. I could go on all day, so Ill just state the formula I use to define what this line should be. It is simply to take objective, decisive aim at the ideology described in the first line of this paragraph. Programs which help- stay, those that don’t- go. Any divergence from there becomes counterproductive to the system. I imagine that, at least subconsciously, most people run through a thought process similar to this. The gap in our vision of how the country should be run probably comes from a gap in the meaning of our existence. Is it good enough to just make it through life, or is it necessary to create positive input? Sammartano.... Im not sure if your response was alcohol induced, but it certainly shows your true colors- firing off a bunch of errant insults without making a point in any direction... If you don’t like my comments, try to refute them with something of substance - other than “I like government” wrapped in personal attacks. As for my collecting unemployment.......It was simply an abuse of the system for an added advantage in pursuing football. That is it, it wasn’t based on need, it wasn’t based on laziness. Remember, I don’t respect unemployment, and therefore have no qualms with taking advantage of the program. I decided to pursue the NFL, and realize the difficulty involved- so, any and all opportunity I have, must be taken advantage of. Any problems you may have with this are really not a concern of mine.

CHUCK: There are several things I want to respond to, but I have to wait until the weekend. I have so many problems w/ so many things Pete has said, I dont know where to start, so I'll start here:
In reference to Zelin contemplating other European nations and their superior benefits Pete Says:Those countries are for the most part sorely lacking in diversity, creativity, productivity, and intellectual discourse that we enjoy in this country
Well, if that were close to true, it would be a good point.
PRODUCTIVITY: The beloved FRENCH are more productive. Norway, Belgium, Ireland, and the Netherlands all have higher productivity then the US. As a whole, the EU is just slightly behind. And what is more scary, is the rate they have caught up. The US is going down, and EU is up. So simply put, false point.
CREATIVITY: Come on. Europe blows us away in artistic output. Architecture: Yeah the cookie cutter homes that dominate american landscapes now....that's creative. Scientific: We are falling. Europeans are leaping ahead, especially when fucking idiots dont want to do stem cell research. Where do you think the next innovations in this world will come from that change the world....stem cell and alternative fuels, is my bet. And guess who's winning: The Euros.
INTELLECTUAL DISCOURSE: Our civic involvement is a joke, with 40% voter turnout, once every 4 years. Our education level falls behind most all western cultures. We have a president which will not give press conferences, or answer questions that are not pre-approved by oath-taking drones. We have a press core that didnt even investigate the case for WMD in iraq. We have a media which blacklists artists who speak out about the president (dixie chicks). If you run against a republican for senate, you are compared to Osama Bin Laden, even if you are a triple amputee from serving your country (max cleland). MAN, that is discourse.....intellectual....not so much.
DIVERSITY: We are the most diverse nation, despite our ongoing segregation. However, our people ab out the least respect for diversity and foreign cultures. So what good is diversity, when it goes unvalued. (exception: french dont seem to value much aside from themselves.....but republicans dont seem to value much besides white men...and alan keyes)
So in summary....Pete: you're wrong.....we dont blow others out of the water....and if we head down this same path.....we will lose.

KYLE: Chris, Could you site just one example of a government program that is a "luxury afforded to people who have failed due to their own poor choices?" Again, just one.
You say that a floor without a ceiling is impossible. Well, that is our current system. Paying your fair share of taxes doesn't mean a ceiling. It means that people at the top need to invest a larger share in the foundation and upkeep of the house so that they can live on the top floors.
I agree with you conservatives and your critique of European systems because Europe can do what it does in a socialist sense because it has the United States as the defender of the world. If Europe had to invest their budget in the defense of the world the way we do they couldn't afford to have the social programs that pay for healthcare, education, infrastructure and a happy ending everyday.
It is nice that Bush has cut taxes and claimed that he wants smaller government and fiscal responsibility. The fact is he has made government bigger (homeland security department, no child left behind if he actually funded it, and perscription drugs), taken us to war$$$, and cut taxes. We elect Presidents to set spending priorities and Bush has absolutely failed to do so. He spent money on everything and cut nothing.
Today he cut taxes again for corporations. I can't help but shake my head.
Bush quietly signs corporate tax cuts
May mend trade row with EU; Bi-partisian critics say it's filled with special interest give-aways.October 22, 2004: 2:11 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Without fanfare, President George W. Bush signed into law Friday a nearly $140 billion corporate tax cut bill derided by both Democratic presidential rival John Kerry and Republican Sen. John McCain as a giveaway to special interests.

BOB: I must have hit a nerve...somebody has softened their tone. Despite considerable backpeddling, Nugent is still talking about ‘evolution’ though: "I believe that the end result of any individual person is to enhance mankind’s perpetuation. All of our inherent desires are directed at this goal. And as the years pass, perpetuation will only succeed as long as we continue to evolve so that we may meet and overcome any and all obstacle that will inevitably face us."
Chris, for the love of God, what are you talking about? Growing gills so that we can live underwater!? Perfecting our night vision?! Personally, I think that evolving means working towards a more tolerant society with better education, less crime and poverty and more social equality and individual freedom. What does your evolution look like? A world full of more effecient, heartless people who walk all over each other in a dog-eat-dog, every-man-for-himself feeding frenzy. You seemed to say that in order to evolve, we need to act more like cavemen! To what end?
In regards to social programs, Chris now says: "I believe that programs to help people in the position of my mom and brother are necessary." (As well as any government handout which allows him to pursue his childhood fantasy, apparently.) Chris's formula is simple: "For every social program you enact,...you spoil people to the point that they can not stand to see the slightest suffering. "[Unless, of course, you're talking about my family]
My favorite thing about Chris, is that he looks down on people who didn’t have the same opportunities that we had and who take government handouts for things they need. At the same time, he is taking handouts for something he simply wants: to chase a childhood fantasy. But if Chris succeeds in his aspirations…Oh, won’t society benefit! Imagine how he will enhance mankind’s perpetuation once he is a…tight-end. Why in the world would society want to invest precious tax dollars in Chris’s dreams of grandeur? Hey Chris, that societal dead-weight that you’re always talking about…take a good long look in the mirror, my friend.
To wrap up, we have this gem: "Remember, I don’t respect unemployment, and therefore have no qualms with taking advantage of the program." So let me get this straight:
---Chris complains that government handouts are ruining society.
---Chris unneedingly takes government handouts.
---Chris justifies this by ‘not respecting’ government handouts.
Chris, please come to your senses. (I mean that sincerely)