Pixiq

Thank you for making this easy to write. I don’t actually consider myself a republican.

We agree more then we disagree.

I see blunders by all the Presidents regardless of the party they belong to. I also see big screw ups by both parties.

So I figured I would explain my reasons for considering myself more conservative then liberal.

I call myself a conservative because I believe in freedom, if it’s good for one it’s good for the other. I believe in liberty and justice for all. Everyone gets the same chance when they are born and you do with it what YOU will. It’s worked for me.

I don’t believe that health care is a basic right guaranteed by birth. Health care is rationed in every society and country in the world. What should be the method of determining the rationing of care? For this I don’t currently have an answer. I will say that I liked McCain’s plan to move the tax benefit from the employer to the user. One of the problems I currently see with health care is the disconnect of the consumers from the paying for it.

I believe marijuana should be legalized. I believed prostitution should be legalized. I believe the drug war has been a complete failure. I don’t think these totally define civil liberties however. These are attempts to regulate morality. This is something the state needs to stay out of for the most part. The fact that these things are criminalized makes for more crime surrounding them. It was alcohol prohibition that produced the powerful organized crime families of that time. It is drug prohibition that is producing the gangs of today.

I also believe in the Second Amendment. I am not a gun owner at this time however, it’s just a pia in NJ. I don’t think removing guns from the citizens makes everyone safer; it only makes the criminals safer. I know we need more deer and bear hunting in NJ.

I am concerned that Obama may take away guns. I don’t have evidence other than this is an issue that Reid and Pelosi want to address. They may force him into it.

What I do see is a constant erosion of our First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, regardless of who is in office. It started long ago and it continues today. I think that the events of 911 scared people enough to think we might be better off and safer if we gave up some of our rights. I believe this is beginning to change and people are realizing the mistake it is to give up any of their rights.

I’m not gay and not married. I think that marriage is a religious sacrament, needs to remain so and if you want to get married you need to do so in a church or other religious setting. The government should not provide for marriage but should provide for civil union only. Be it a man and a woman, two men or two womyn or some other mixture.

I’ve been an entrepreneur of some strip for a long time. Most people in this country are employed by small business. Taxes and large government stifle the ability of small business to operate. There will always be a gap between the rich and the poor. During my life I worked for a man that couldn’t read, yet by trying he ended up making lots of money. I’ve worked for someone that didn’t finish high school, yet he ended up running a large contracting company. I have friends that didn’t finish high school yet ended up running many successful businesses. It’s about education, application and preparedness. People just need the ability to nurture the seeds they plant without the intervention of the government to make things equal. The playing field was never level; there is no need to level it.

Our new president could be the poster boy for equal opportunity. Raised for the most part by a single mother with no father. Grew up poor and of a minority race

Why do you believe that only two people should be allowed to marry?

Marriage is a religious institution. Why is the government involved in it at all?

Simon,

Because there are government implications regarding tax breaks and hospital visits and insurance benefits.

Also, I’m a libertarian (lowercase; Libertarians are too much like Republicans that want to smoke pot for me) for a few reasons.

One is health care. For example, I come from a family that only came to this country a few decades ago. Thus, I have relatives in Canada and Britain.

The main difference is that in the American health care system, when you get out of the hospital, you are presented with a huge bill that if you don’t have insurance will take you years and years to pay for, and which will most like cripple you financially. These high costs are largely attributable to frivolous lawsuits and shark lawyers.

In a country with socialized health care, everything is paid for. So, when you get out of the hospital, they will tell your surviving relatives that will even pay for your funeral.

I’m a liberal when asked. But i fall more along the lines of anarcho-socialism in ideals. Note, it’s ideals. that sort of structure of society never could occur while greed is so rampant in the world.

I believe the entire constitution is a worthwhile set of rules for a government to abide by. I also believe that Taxation is necessary, and that there should be more oversight on where that tax money goes.

I believe in personal and social freedoms (abortion, gay marriage, marijuana, &c)

It’s been shown time and time again that national healthcare works (even in cuba!) – and therefore i fully support it. I, like carlos agree that we are only as rich as our poorest citizen.

The problem i have with “conservatives” in general is there’s a huge correlation with religiosity and conservatism. Religion doesn’t mesh well with a free society. It also seems to rail against social-”ism” and caring for those less fortunate, which is ironic considering the teachings of Jesus Christ. The religious are expecting/hoping for eternal life and salvation in heaven, yet they cling desperately for some reason to material wealth. Something they constantly accuse and insult Humanists and Hedonists for.

The entirety of the “right wing” in this country consistently panders to the religious and the non-secular in this country. They also stand for “personal responsibility” – yet they never will take responsibility or hold other “conservatives” accountable for their actions.

Since i only define myself as liberal to casual conversations; i could go on for days about the muck ups of the “liburls” and the “demicraps” too.

I used to think big L Libertarianism was a good idea, if only to get a third party into our elections, but after reading what they believe in and desire for our country i can’t back them anymore.

In 2004 i voted for Badnarick. In 2000 i voted for Nader. In ’08, i reserve my privacy on my vote

Oh and on marriage:

I think that marriage should convey no secular benefits, regardless of who wants to get married.

This will stop both the relgious from complaining (because then they can decide who gets married rather than the government) – and the people who want equal treatment under the law.

Of course, the religious will assert that it’s always been that way, that secular benefits should be conveyed under the pretense of marriage. But that’s mostly because anyone who isn’t like them is automatically branded as “unworthy” or whatever.

It’s kind of sickening. Two people who want to only hump each other need only say so. Marriage is a stupid institution and should only be afforded to people that think it means something.

If the religious insist that they should remain able to get benefits for being married in the biblical definition, then i suggest that we start taxing all churches as if they were a secular institution. You know, fair is fair. (good for the goose is good for the gander!)

No group of people in the united states are so unashamed of being hypocrites than them. “we want both the tax breaks afforded us by our religion, and the ability to say who and who cannot also be afforded those tax breaks”

You can’t have your cake and eat it too, not while there are millions of starving people in the world drooling at the thought of cake.

I’ll keep this short:

You say that because of one single reason (socialized healthcare), that’s why you call yourself a liberal and not a libertarian. However, pretty much all of the other ideals you espouse are libertarian ideals. Carlos, I’m afraid you really are a libertarian, who happens to disagree with most other libertarians on one key issue. But hey – we all disagree with the rest of our party on one thing or another.

I am a libertarian. However, I’m with genewitch when it comes to big L Libertarianism. There are key issues that the Libertarian Party and I differ on that are far too important to allow me to support that party.

In 2004 I voted for an idiot, because I was an idiot at the time. In 2008 I didn’t vote – not because I didn’t care, but because I went straight from work to an accident scene and didn’t get home til an hour after the polls closed. Anybody who follows my blog or has seen my truck knows who I would’ve voted for, though

It’s funny, I was thinking about posting something similar, but ultimately decided against it.

For all intents and purposes, especially in regards to my efforts to find ways to address police misconduct, I consider myself a political agnostic, in that I don’t know that any ideological slant is better than any other.

There are some things that I side with liberals on, some things I side with conservatives with, some things I agree with libertarians with… etc… all sides bring positives and negatives to the table, at least in my opinion.

But, it’s always perplexed me why it’s so hard for people to set aside the ideology and just focus on what’s the best approach to deal with each issue on an issue-by-issue basis instead of putting on partisan blinders no matter what the issue at hand may be.

So, I generally try to look at each issue as they come and think about what might best address each problem in a way that causes the least harm and benefits the most people.

I guess I’m just not a political creature…

I think that you actually summed up my beliefs, as well. Almost to the letter.

I believe that national health care is INSANE because I DO NOT want MY MONEY going to smokers, bums, drug addicts, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and more… People I WOULD give my money to in a health crisis, parents, extended relatives, girlfriend, close friends.

I would rather not spend my hard earned money on someone who does not deserve a single penny of it. And…. Done.

Marriage… Ehh… Don’t really have a stance on this subject. I guess what I would rather see is either all benefits become null and void for married couples, or government become null and void… More so the last one.

Marijuana, legalize it.
Hardcore drugs, keep illegal.
Prostitution, illegal (to walk the streets) but legal within “designated buildings”

I want all of our rights under the Constitution to be kept damn well the way they are. I do not see it as a living breathing document, and I believe that it should NEVER be reversed or destroyed.

Guns… Let me know when the zombies are coming. I’ll be waiting (very well armed) in my home.

And to top it off. The reason I want government OUT, is more so the reason I want the PRIVATE Federal Reserve Bank to be removed so as to live OUT OF DEBT and for the entire nation to start taking accountability for OUR OWN actions.

I’m tired of people believing that everyone is equal. No one is EQUAL. We are all different. If I make more money than you because I was more successful than you were, does not mean that my money should be taken away from me. If I scammed people, that is a different story. But if I held a legitimate business or operation and became wealthy, none of my money should be taken away (taxed).

A lot of women are not as strong as a lot of men are. Does that mean that we should discriminate based on sex, NO. But if you can’t do the job, say, lifting heavy objects 24/7, then HELL NO am I going to be FORCED to hire a PERSON that CANNOT do the JOB.

I don’t want to start a rant on anything so I’m done. Hopefully this shares a little bit to the rest of you.

Note to any interested parties: This is an off-topic post. However, it’s brief and I believe that it’ll provide some balance that’s called for.

The musician Cat Stevens has been referred to recently as “Mr. Islam”. He did, of course, choose the name himself. I don’t personally know or care about “Mr. Islam”. From my point of view, Cat Stevens and “Mr. Islam” are two different parts of the life in question. When I was much younger, I liked Cat Stevens’ music, and I thought I’d say that people of all ages might enjoy some of the songs that I mentioned in post 95.

My personal favorites are:

Morning Has Broken. This is literally a Christian hymn. A quick web search shows that it’s “especially popular in children’s services”.

Moonshadow. It’s hard to describe this song. There are rumors to the effect that Moonshadow is about Cancer, Multiple Sclerosis, finding hope in any situation, optimism, faith, or drug trips. Cat Stevens himself has said that the song was inspired by a literal moonshadow. John Landis wanted to use this song in the film An American Werewolf in London, but Mr. Stevens declined the request.

Peace Train. This was a popular “hippie anthem”. Cat Stevens has described this song as a “show stopper”.

Into White. This is a simple but effective mood piece that describes a pastoral scene.

But I Might Die Tonight. Careers versus what’s important. I should have paid closer attention to this one.

You’ll find some of these songs on the album Teaser and the Firecat. The album was released nearly 40 years ago, before music videos were common, but there was actually a music video for this one at the time. The music video is on YouTube. It’s the one that features the song Moonshadow and a psychedelic cartoon starring the eponymous characters Teaser and the Firecat. The cartoon’s style, by the way, is similar to that of the Beatles film Yellow Submarine and similar works from the era in question.

I consider a particular matter closed, but I should explain something to address concerns related to Free Speech. Some years back, I tried to enter a store and a beggar positioned himself at the main entrance in such a way that people would be forced to interact with him. He told me that this was a free country, and that he had a right to say what he wanted to. I responded that he was correct, and that this works both ways. I’m free to decide what I’d like to listen to.

I’m now reading a version of the site that omits some material. I simply won’t see the material in question. It’s not much different than skipping the sports section of a newspaper to get to the business section, which might be of greater interest and relevance.

Out of a sense of fairness, I’ll point out that anybody can create versions of this type, and that anybody who finds my contributions uninteresting can remove me from their field of view. This is a straightforward procedure.

I’m referring to content filters. It’s completely appropriate to create content filters that match your personal interests. I’d be appalled if anybody promoted this kind of thing with the intent of “banning” users that they, personally, were uncomfortable with. Additionally, I disapprove of the use of content filters at the ISP, institutional, or group level. However, I support the right of individuals to use them.

On a technical note, content filters can be useful as a way to deal with posters who cycle through sockpuppets. For example, if you encounter sockpuppets who focus on diamond mines in Nigeria, and server-side measures prove to be ineffective due to the sockpuppets’ shifting identities, you can filter out material related to Nigerian diamond mines on the client side.

LuisR,

I can see now why you are an independent.

I am a liberal, many of my readers are not.

Should that stop me from stating my political opinions at times?

No, because I have never stopped anybody else from expressing their political opinions on this site.

Many partisan sites will ban you if you are not drinking the right type of Kool-Aid.

I welcome people who drink all brands of Kool-Aid, including republicans and cops for that matter.

And I welcome their opinions.

I believe this helps us discuss our differences while recognizing our similarities.

When I worked for newspaper, we were always supposed to give the impression that we were apolitical.

But now that I am independent journalist, I would rather shed that facade of being apolitical in the name of honesty.

Besides, I don’t believe I allow my partisan politics to interfere with stories on the First Amendment.

I provided several other reasons why I disagreed with whatever his name was at USC.

Now if you believe I am allowing my politics to influence my coverage, then I encourage you to call me out on it.

This is the New Media. It’s no longer where a journalist dictates and a reader absorbs. It is that but more interactive.

One of the reasons I am able to provide so many stories on this site is because my readers never fail to inform me of stories they come across.

So while I don’t have the privilege of having a full newsroom on hand, I do have readers in all corners of the United States and many other parts of the world who immediately think of me when coming across one of these stories.

So the relationship between journalist and reader is much more personal in the New Media. And it’s much more open.

So while I may never be as objective about politics as you would like me to be, I am honest about where I stand.

And just remember you also have a voice in this community.

And when it comes down to it, that’s the principles I’ve been fighting for. That we are able to speak our minds freely.

From the article “Desperation in Pakistani hospitals, refugee camps” by AP; Associated Press writer Ishtiaq Mahsud in Dera Ismail Khan and an AP reporter in Mingora who was not identified for security reasons contributed to this report. May 9, 2009

“The militants are using civilian population as a human shield and they have dug trenches in civilian areas,” Hussain said at a news conference in Peshawar. He said the militants were firmly in control of Mingora.

Hey, that’s against the Geneva Conventions. What can we do to make the Taliban stop violating the conventions and keep us all safe?

Disregard this message.

Note to Packratt: You said, it’s always perplexed me why it’s so hard for people to set aside the ideology and just focus on what’s the best approach to deal with each issue on an issue-by-issue basis instead of putting on partisan blinders no matter what the issue at hand may be.

The answer is straightforward. This is a biological issue. It’s hardwired. Depending on individual neurology, it’s not voluntary. If you’re genuinely able to approach issues on a case-by-case basis, you’re unusual from a neurological perspective. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

You might find it worthwhile to review postings by Bad Apple (a LEO critic) and Little Lebowski Urban Achiever (a LEO) over at the Pennsylvania Intimidation Tactics thread.

You’ll definitely find two books discussed on the thread interesting: The Lucifer Principle by Bloom and The Lucifer Effect by Zimbardo. Additionally, you should read up on an experiment named The Third Wave that I’ve linked to there. Note that The Lucifer Principle and The Lucifer Effect are separate books. The posts don’t state this clearly.

The Lucifer Principle by Bloom is the book that most directly answers your question. The Lucifer Effect and The Third Wave are essentially experimental verifications of The Lucifer Principle. The first book in is controversial, and shouldn’t be taken as hard science. It is fascinating, however.

Note to Carlos Miller: You said, I call myself a liberal rather than a democrat because a liberal is a principle and a democrat is some jackass in office whose principles may mirror mine but usually mirror his own self-indulgent desires.

Well said, sir. Don’t forget: Christ was a liberal.

Note to Carlos Miller: You said, In these instances, we end up debating among party lines, not necessarily about the issues, but about subjective things such as whose president is worse and which party blundered most in recent history.

You wouldn’t be happen to be thinking about how Michael Moore stole the point that you actually cared about and ran away with it, would you?

Note to Carlos Miller: I have no “affiliation” at all. However, at first glance, you and I appear to be in complete agreement, and this does include the Second Amendment. We appear to be unusual in this respect. I’m rather attached to the other Amendments as well. I don’t quite understand why the two major political parties are supposed to favor different Amendments.

Carlos Miller said, I call myself a liberal because I believe in freedom. Duane Kerzic said, I call myself a conservative because I believe in freedom.

This clarifies the situation. The two of you agree about the single most important issue, so naturally you’ll never see eye to eye.  

What got me involved in the photo rights and other similar issues is the erosion of rights and freedoms that we have been experiencing in recent years. I would say the photo rights issue hit home when NYC proposed its draconian rules that would have required permits for two or more people taking pictures for more than a half hour. Since I go out with photo clubs and work with models the rules would have shut us down since the cost of insurance would have made these amateur photo shoots prohibitively expensive.

I oppose the Nanny State and all of its rules including mandatory seat belts, bans on certain pets (I would love to be able to own an Iguana but can’t in NYC), bans on trans-fats (I hate the taste of french fries after the formula changed), prohibition for 18-20 year olds, etc… As far as I am concerned both parties are equally responsible for these laws. They are symptoms of an increasingly restrictive society. We had more freedom in the 1960′s and 1970′s than we do today.

I do believe in private vs. public ownership and tend to be somewhat more libertarian when it comes to business. Government needs to get out of the sports, entertainment and real estate development businesses for one thing. I even make a case for private operation of rapid transit. On the other hand I am not opposed to reasonable regulations on these private businesses.

Unlike other libertarians I do not oppose Social Security or other similar programs. I am keeping an open mind on the healthcare issue…

In reality neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party represent what I believe in. The middle class is being squeezed by both parties. I would like to take the fiscal conservatism of the Republicans and combine it with the social liberalism of the Democrats – perhaps that might be something I would support.

Well, my political phillosohpy is going to sound strange to pretty much everybody, but I am a theoretical Anarchist, and a practicing Moderate. The true theory of Anarchy, not those idiots who call themselves that and blow things up poinlessly, is closest I suppose to Libertarianism, but goes farther than that.
I suppose I lean slightly to the left on my moderateness.
I am for universal health care and legalization of marijuana.
I figure the most modernized country who got through the last depression the best was Sweden, the most socialized of the time as well.
People are gonna jump on me for this, I just know it, but I am against the second amendment, not really for any reason other than my pacifism.
Prostitution, so long as everybody’s willing and healthy and such, what do I care.
Gay marriage. You guys know that denying somebody marriage like that is kinda an obvious violation of the 14th amendment, right? I figure they deserve it as much as anyone else does.
I also don’t believe in abortion, except in some extreme circumstances. I figure if you really don’t want the baby, you can always give it up to be adopted. Give the child a chance to live.
I don’t mind higher taxes, so long as I know they’re going to something good, that people need. Taxes for orphans, good. Taxes for war, bad.
All in all, I really dislike the 2 party system. We would do much better in a multi-party system, because everybody’s views would be represented fairly.
So, yeah I guess. That’s me in a nutshell.

Oh, and Andrew,
“Guns… Let me know when the zombies are coming. I’ll be waiting (very well armed) in my home.”
ROFL!!!

Looks to me like no matter what label you want to use there is more agreement than disagreement.

The one issue that stood out to me is health care. The health care issue is a question of how to ration the care and who makes the rationing decision.

Note to Duane Kerzic: I’ve addressed two site-related issues of interest to you on the Legitimate Journalistic Arrests thread.

Post 113 on that thread discusses the search issue that you raised previously. Post 109 demonstrates a better way to explain markup to people.

Note to Duane Kerzic: You said, The one issue that stood out to me is health care. The health care issue is a question of how to ration the care and who makes the rationing decision.

There are decisions to be made and potential problems to be resolved that go beyond those two issues. It’s a significant change.

Duane Kerzic: England debated about how it wanted to do national healthcare in the 40s right after they started rebuilding their country from the german bombings.

They decided that all situations should be covered without regard to the person’s status, or any other criteria.

It’s been working great for 60+ years now.

The United states is the only Western culture without National Healthcare.

The funny thing is, no one says anything about Medicare… that’s nationalized healthcare for seniors! (ok and disabled / mentis incompis people.)

My dad users medicare to get diabetic medicine, that he wouldn’t be able to afford otherwise. He’s a good guy, and a pillar of the community where he lives. I’d like everyone to have that same benefit. remove the fatty waste from the current healthcare system, protect doctors from malpractice lawsuits through reviews and vetting and pay adjustments, and the cost of healthcare will plummet. Do that and it no longer looks as daunting anymore. Only under the current situation (insurance companies and plenty of fraud by consumers) does the cost rise so much that it’s untenable.

No one is saying “well, take our current system, and let the taxpayers pay for everyone” – that would be freaking retarded and the only people making that argument are conservative talk show hosts trying to rile up their listeners against the COMMUNIST AGENDA!!!!111111eleven

I’m a conservative because I am pro-life and believe that abortion is murder. Liberals are in favor of abortion and it seems ridiculous to me that whether something is murder can depend on whether the baby is 1 second after birth, or 1 second before birth.

That’s one of many reasons why I’m conservative.

Note to Sydney Carton: You said, “Liberals are in favor of abortion… That’s one of many reasons why I’m conservative”.

Are you quite sure of this? Is it possible that you might be confusing a philosophy that’s thousands of years old, the philosophy that emphasizes altruism and compassion as opposed to greed and mockery, and, in fact, Christ’s own philosophy, with a particular political party that may or may not be fully aligned with the philosophy? Perhaps you meant to say that you’re not a Democrat.

As someone who has studied the Bible, I’ve often wondered how anti-abortion people react to Psalm 137…

“8 O Babylon, you will be destroyed.
Happy is the one who pays you back
for what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who takes your babies
and smashes them against the rocks!

Yes, I’m sure of it. I’m speaking generally. Modern liberalism means abortion. The exceptions prove the rule. I’m also not too sure that liberalism rejects mockery, as the libs seemed to enjoy mocking Bush during his presidency, among others. They mocked Reagan too. No one party or philosopher or philosophical ideology has a monopoly on being nice.

As such, I also think that it’s a mistake to assert that one political or cultural philosophy embodies or emphasizes Christianity or Christ’s teachings particularly. In particular, Liberalism has more of its modern day roots in marxism, which views people according to specified classes and characterizes people as “oppressed” or “oppressors.” As such, I think that liberalism is particularly greedy since it promotes class envy against the rich. Modern conservative philosophy is derived from an Enlightenement focus on individual rights and is less apt to view people as “classes” of the oppressed. That’s also why it’s less statist than liberalism, because it has a focus on individuals instead of groups.

Note to Simon Jester: You asked about an Old Testament passage. I’d be pleased to discuss the Bible with you. I’m familiar with the book. In fact, I went to some effort to earn my own copy as a child. However, I should advise you that I’m an atheist. Depending on the issues involved, this may or may not be relevant.

WRT the specific question that you’ve raised, IMHO the question only makes sense if you’re referring to Fundamentalists. I have some experience related to Fundamentalists and issues of this type. The short answer is that Fundamentalists will work backwards from the assumption that the Bible must be correct. Therefore, the passage has nothing to do with abortion, because then something in the Bible might conflict with something else in the Bible. From the Fundamentalist point of view, no inconsistency of this type could possibly exist. If you find an inconsistency, it must be something else.

In some cases, the response is to focus on the person who is asking the question. The person who raises issues of this type is simply a “Communist”, a “Democrat”, a “liberal”, a “secular humanist”, or somebody who “has an agenda”. He can be dismissed, and all is well.

I’m a market/individualist Anarchist. I tend to piss off both liberals and conservatives with my views.

Being an Anarchist I’m against all state intervention, and I mean all.

Obviously then, I’m for abortion, drugs, and all the other things that make soccer moms scared.

I used to be a libertarian, but could never reconcile the “government is bad but we need a little or it’s chaos” beliefs. It just seems contradictory. I spent about a year reading all kinds of anarchist literature and basically ‘switched over’.

I think without government intervention, things like healthcare, abortion, etc, will all balance out to the most efficient levels.-

I don’t vote, or write politicians. Not only do I think it’s wrong, it’s pointless. I do follow various political trends so that I can adjust my life accordingly. I own firearms. I carry firearms. I don’t think Obama is going to take my firearms, and all the people running around like headless chickens buying firearms and jacking up prices are annoying.

@Scott:
I wouldn’t consider owning firearms to not be pacifist. I’m a pacifist (or, more specifically, non-aggressionist). I’m against wars (and they can’t exist without states, which is a large reason I’m an anarchist), but self-defence doesn’t really make someone violent… I mean, the state itself breeds violence, partly because it needs criminals to justify a large police force. I doubt I would carry a firearm in a true anarchist society.

Note to Sydney Carton: You raised some interesting points, particularly the point that it’s a mistake to assert that one political or cultural philosophy embodies or emphasizes Christianity or Christ’s teachings.

For the past few decades, there’s been a political party that’s sometimes behaved as though it’s been appointed as the official representative of the Divine Presence in this country. In recent years, people have started to question the validity of this perspective. In my opinion, from a practical point of view, the party in question would do well to heed your advice.

With respect to one of the other points that you raised, I agree that liberalism doesn’t reject mockery, and I don’t believe that it should reject mockery. The question is, when is compassion appropriate, and when is mockery appropriate? I believe that a man’s answer to this question provides the careful observer with a glimpse of his very soul.

Actually, every one of the points that you’ve made is interesting and worth thinking about, except for one issue that I’ll describe with apologies as a tired old saw. You said that liberalism promotes class envy against the rich. Rubbish. The correct term would be class warface.

VoR.

I appreciate the offer, but I bring up the subject with something of a gleam in my eye. I refer to myself as an Apostate Agnostic Apologist. I say that my beliefs are that ‘I don’t know’. Others have described me as being a deeply religious person in that in that I am always seeking, neither firm in my beliefs, or dis beliefs.

I’ve studied religions for many years with my strongest background in the Judeo-Christian writings. As one who has studied apologetics, I can argue either side of any theological argument. Indeed, my girlfriend’s Bible-thumping mother hates mentioning her beliefs around me as I can often quote chapter and verse as to why her stated beliefs go against the Biblical teachings.

In any argument, I like to be heavily armed.

Note to Simon Jester: You said, Indeed, my girlfriend’s Bible-thumping mother hates mentioning her beliefs around me as I can often quote chapter and verse as to why her stated beliefs go against the Biblical teachings.

I modified my post while you were working on yours, so you may not have seen the final version. Refresh the page. I’m curious as to whether one of the things that I said in the final version applies to you. If you point out an inconsistency, does the woman in question focus on your “agenda” as opposed to the inconsistency?

Just a clarification on my earlier post, my theory of anarchy is theoretical, because there is no way it could happen or work now. Humans are still not mature enough. That’s why I do vote. So long as the best thing for this world isn’t going to happen, I might as well have some say in what happens. Not voting doesn’t really do any good to the cause of Anarchy.

Kurt,
a non-aggressionist is far separated from a pacifist. If someone was to come at me and start hitting me, I wouldn’t fight them. I would either run like hell, or stand there and take it. “Self Defense” is just violence responding to violence, and isn’t really the way to solve anything.
The state breeds large scale violence, but it is also inherit in all humans. Part of the survival mechanism.

I’m a cop (retired). I’m here to RAIN on your “Party!” …just kidding, that’s left-over cop humor which generally is not funny to non-LEOs.

Now to the serious stuff… Carlos, it was good of you to start this thread. It is sort of a digital “Can we all get along?” Rodney King 1992.

There goes more of that sarcaustic cop humor…sorry. It must be flashbacks.

I can’t claim a particular party “label.” As already alluded to in this thread, and as directly stated in some comments, people don’t always fit nicely in specific categories. I don’t believe I do either. It is kind of like a big family. I have a big family… you know, my wife and me, and lots of kids. We are all Mansoors but we are all unique with individually nuanced opinions, likes, and dislikes, and sometimes with significant differences…but we’re still a family.

(I can’t believe I’m talking like this, and me a retired cop – and a firearms instructor and defensive tactics instructor no less)

So I think people in general are like that also. There are many “labels” but in reality we all have many of the same needs, wants, and desires. We just have different ways of going about getting those things.

Some of those needs, wants, and desires can be good things and some can be bad. We all have different ideas on what is good and bad but sometimes there are a few generally commonly held beliefs on what is “bad.”

Even before I was a cop, I generally felt it was a “bad” thing to hurt other people without some really necessary justification such as self-defense. Even in self-defense, I believed it should be limited to only that which was absolutely necessary.

When I saw some cops going far beyond what was really necessary, it was extremely upsetting. It was even more upsetting when I saw that the police culture significantly frowned upon addressing issues that were of the dirty laundry type.

So whichever party has similar feelings about that, then I am there at least on those issues.

Also as a cop, I saw many dead people who lost their lives, often through very violent and gruesome means. That increased my belief in the value of human life no matter who it is although I placed a high value on all human life even before becoming a cop.

I also think it is a “bad” thing for the government to become too involved in people’s lives. Even when I was a cop I felt that. (I don’t know what it is about having been a cop, but if one has done it long enough it seems to have some lasting impression one way or another – I can’t seem to get away from referring to having been a cop … maybe because of too many donuts)

When talking about illegal drug use, I don’t like to use the term “legalize” as in we should “legalize” marijuana or any other drug. I prefer to think maybe we should “decriminalize” certain aspects of drug use. Some may say, “What is the difference, the net effect would be the same?”

Perhaps, but it is too simplistic to say let’s “legalize” various drugs which currently happen to be unlawful. There has to be more too it than that. If too many things which are indeed harmful to people become suddenly “legalized,” more personal responsibility must come into play. For example, if marijuana or other more serious drugs are legalized, will the rest of society’s taxes then be used at least partially to fund public health care for those who continue to abuse those drugs to the point their health is adversely affected. Would that be fair?

And if a person under the influence of drugs causes harm to another person – and it would happen on occasion just like it does with the drug alcohol – who will cover the cost of damages if the drug user has no insurance and no means of paying? Would the government step in? Would that be fair to those who behave more responsibly?

With those thoughts and others in mind, I don’t see easy answers to the significant problem of drug abuse, but the way our government and law enforcement is going about it definitely is not working and it does appear to be one of the significant blood flows for our country.

This is turning out to be one of those “War and Peace length posts” (quote from Carlos via an email) so I need to end soon.

Certainly there are many other issues which are important to many people but I’ll end on the issue which is most important to me. Some may attach a label to me for this but I claim no particular label.

Others have brought up Biblical issues and Jesus. My understanding and firmly held belief of Jesus is that He was here as an example for us and as a Savior because none of us humans have it all together. In Biblical terms that would be described as all people are sinners. That term is not acceptable to the palate of many… come to think of it, I don’t care to think of myself in that light either but I do know that all people –myself absolutely included – at one point or another have a tendency to trespass upon others. That has been my experience. I also know that Jesus didn’t force himself, his commands, or directives on others. He just said he was here to be a Savior, that there is only his way to be saved, that you can believe it or not, and if you want to believe it here is how you go about it. At least that is the way I see it. I believe what He taught.

Carlos, thanks for the opportunity to post. I enjoy your worthwhile blog. I wish I could stop by more often.

Later.

Hey Karl,

When I made that War and Peace comment, I didn’t mean I didn’t want people to make long comments.

That was just my journalistic humor shining through. We can be a sarcastic bunch as well. And just as cynical as cops.

The one thing I recommend for anybody leaving long comments is to use paragraphs, which you did.

But some people have trouble using paragraphs and it just makes it so much harder to read.

Note to Karl Mansoor: You said, “I can’t seem to get away from referring to having been a cop”.

It’s not as though you’re talking about a summer job painting houses. The statistics say that a LEO career is nowhere near as dangerous as people make it out to be. However, life-threatening and life-changing are two different things. Depending on exactly what happens, a LEO career is likely to become a permanent part of your identity.

Note to Carlos Miller: You said, “But some people have trouble using paragraphs and it just makes it so much harder to read”.

Why do they have trouble using paragraphs? The system inserts paragraph breaks automatically, doesn’t it? Don’t they simply need to press the Enter key twice?

I believe in liberty and justice for all-so I must be Superman…JK.

Pro-life and pro-contraception.

I don’t see how we can legalize abortion and criminalize prostitution; what’s so magical about which side of the cervix a service is rendered? (Sodomy aside). Pro-consenting adults.

Pro-guns. The Second Ammendment is not mandatory, keep that in mind.
I’d like to keep my options open.
Millions of guns were turned in and destroyed in England and Australia. Crime rates went up and gun crimes continued. I bet 10 years ago they didn’t think someone would take their guns.

I don’t see how government can ban plants. What’s next-heirloom corn to make way for Monsanto Roundup-Ready? Make the price of harming people while intoxicated high.

I don’t think the government has the right to force me into their health care system.

This country has ignored two important warnings from two of its founding fathers/presidents:

Avoid foreign entanglements and beware the banking interests. I know a lot of people don’t like Andrew Jackson but he paid off the national debt and crushed the 2nd national bank and I admire that greatly.

Pro get rid of the Federal Reserve. Congress needs to take back their coining and war powers, even the Congress of Nancy and Harry-God help us all.

Speaking of that, I believe Yeshua Bar Joseph was the Son of God and died for my sins. I don’t like religion though. I think mega-churches are an abomination. I don’t go to church and I’m having a bit of a problem with that “Submit” button under my post here. I guess you could say I’m kicking against the pricks, so if you are a prick then consider yourself warned.

I think voting on the local level is probably the most important thing. Pick up the book “Molon Labe” by Boston T Party if you want to see interesting theorizing in that regard.

I think the Presidential elections are more or less rigged-but not in the same way VOR does.

Note to Pinandpuller: You said, What’s next – heirloom corn to make way for Monsanto Roundup Ready?

Actually, yes. If this was intended to be a joke, it isn’t a joke at all. Aren’t they planning to do something very similar to this in Iraq? Isn’t Monsanto gearing up to create the modern-day equivalent of serfs? Farmers will no longer be permitted to save their seeds. Instead, they’ll be required to purchase them from Monsanto each and every season. As I understand it, the rule will be “Pay Monsanto, or starve”. I’m pleased to learn that I’m not the only one who’s concerned about the Monsanto issue.

You said, I don’t think the government has the right to force me into their health care system.

This is one of the problems that I’ve alluded to elsewhere. The health-care plans that are presently on the table don’t appear to include make any provision at all for opt-out. Health care is important, and handling it correctly is important. Don’t accept proposals based on blind faith.

You said, I don’t go to church and I’m having a bit of a problem with that “Submit” button under my post here.

See the questions that I asked you on the old thread related to rope reasoning. Or is it an online persona? Incidentally, I thought the Sisphyus thing was clever, but not a good match. Bush isn’t a figure of mythic stature.

You said, I think the Presidential elections are more or less rigged – but not in the same way VOR does.

I’ve only alluded to the situation in general terms. As of yet, I haven’t provided any details. Therefore, I don’t quite understand this remark. FWIW if there’s any interest, I’ll mention some points that might be of interest in an upcoming response to points that Mr. Kerzic made on the old thread.

BTW Pinandpuller I’ve addressed a technical question that you asked me. The answer is in post 107 on the old thread. I’ve attempted to address some of your other points on that thread as well.

Pinandpuller said, Pick up the book “Molon Labe” by Boston T Party if you want to see interesting theorizing in that regard.

I’m not familiar with the book. However, it’s apparently intended for libertarians. The title is a call to battle that’s related to Sparta (as in the movie 300). The libertarian heroes are strong and unwavering. They’re modern Spartans. The following blurb makes the tone fairly clear:

After a decade of retaking their stolen freedoms, the people of Wyoming… are forced to finally confront their jealous masters in the U.S. Government. Can a lone, courageous state successfully resist federal tyranny, or has the Bill of Rights been reduced to a myth?

Spoiler: The libertarians in the novel apparently use murder on an individual scale and nuclear terrorism on a national scale to win their freedom. I agree with one reviewer who believes that libertarians shouldn’t be enthusiastic about this sort of portrayal.

Speaking of stolen elections …

http://carlosmiller.com/2008/01/06/democracy-in-the-21st-century/

Note to Carlos Miller: You posted a link to an article you’d written, the subject being electronic voting issues. Thank you. This simplifies things. I’d like to mention a few related points that might be of interest. These points aren’t intended to “prove” anything. It’s difficult to “prove” things if people don’t want to hear them. This is a biological issue.

I am trying to accomplish one thing. I’d like to encourage people to take the possibility of election theft seriously. I’ll say something important now, and I’ll repeat it at the end of the post: Whether or not you believe that your guy would ever do such a thing, do you trust the other guy?

It’s quite possible that the points I’m about to mention include factual errors. If this is the case, I welcome posts that shine a light on the errors in question. It’s usually best to move towards the truth. However, I’m not interested in responses of the following types:

CLINTON SEX PAULA JONES
9/11 TERROR 9/11 TERROR
BUSH GOOD OBAMA BAD
OBAMA ACORN OBAMA ACORN

etc. I’d prefer responses that don’t miss the point. Yes, I actually received one of these responses recently. The first one. I’ve worded it a bit differently here.

Additionally, I’m not impressed by text that’s taken directly from Wikipedia articles. I’ll cite Wikipedia myself in this post, but I’ll provide some context.

Some issues are just thoughts or observations that I won’t attempt to back up at this time. People are free to disregard issues of this type.

Clint Curtis is the programmer I’ve referred to elsewhere. Tom Feeney, Jeb Bush’s right-hand man, allegedly offered Mr. Curtis part of the vote-switching contract in 2000 while Mr. Curtis was employed at Yang Enterprises, a Bush-affiliated company in Florida. Mr. Curtis wasn’t involved with the 2004 extension of the project. He states that he was asked to work on the prototype prior to the previous election cycle.

You’ve written about Mr. Curtis and linked to one or more related articles. I haven’t checked to see if you’ve mentioned the murder of Ray Lemme, an investigator from the Florida Inspector General’s office who’d been gathering evidence against Yang Enterprises, and who’d started speaking with Mr. Curtis before his (Lemme’s) death. As I’ll note at a later point, there’s one or more reasons to doubt Mr. Curtis’s credibility. However, in my opinion, the circumstances surrounding Mr. Lemme’s death tend to support Mr. Curtis’s story. In fact, the circumstances in question are probably the strongest evidence that the story is accurate.

Mr. Lemme apparently believed that Yang Enterprises had been laundering money for the Bush family. As I understand it, Mr. Lemme’s investigation brought him into contact with Mr. Curtis. It appears that discussions between the two men might have raised concerns at higher levels. Mr. Lemme died shortly after a noteworthy conversation with Mr. Curtis. Mr. Curtis states that Mr. Lemme said he’d solved the case that he was working on, that he’d tracked corruption “all the way to the top”, and that the story was going to go public in the immediate future.

There’s some interesting points related to Mr. Lemme’s death that readers might wish to look into for themselves. I’ll mention one point here, because it echoes themes that I’ve seen in various stories on this site. The police stated that death-scene photos didn’t exist, due to the supposed malfunction of a digital camera’s flash card. However, this wasn’t the case. In fact, the photos in question are now available on the Web. It’s been said that somebody Photoshopped the pictures in question before they were finally released. I’m not qualified to address the Photoshop issue. However, I assume that some of the people reading this are Photoshop experts. Perhaps they’d be able to comment.

My personal opinion is that Ray Lemme was murdered. Both the murder and the coverup were handled ineptly. In fact, the murder and the coverup were carried out in so clumsy a manner that if a real person hadn’t been killed, we’d need to call the case a black comedy.

As I understand it, Tom Feeney has joked about the suggestion that he personally ordered the death of Ray Lemme to protect Jeb Bush (in connection with the Yang Enterprises case) or George W. Bush (in connection with the alleged 2000 vote-switch project). I won’t comment on the possibility at this time. However, I’ll say that people should examine Mr. Feeney at least as closely as they examine Mr. Curtis.

I’ll note that I’m personally familiar with some of the technical issues involved in the Clint Curtis case, both with certain types of electronic voting issues and with certain issues related to the design of Tom Feeney’s alleged prototype. I’ve never been involved directly with projects of the Clint Curtis type. Nor has anybody that I’ve ever worked with countenanced that sort of thing. But I do know about it from more than a theoretical perspective. For example, specific steps are taken at the software level to exclude ballots cast by voters who fall into certain categories. If it matters, this kind of thing didn’t start in 2000.

As I understand it, based on the 2000 design, Tom Feeney’s prototype wouldn’t have been suitable for real-world use. It would have been a working model, but for technical reasons there’s no way that they’d have been able to deploy it. This was the kind of thing that you’d use for demos, or you’d place it next to the whiteboard during brainstorming sessions. Therefore, the Clint Curtis case isn’t a “smoking gun”.

I see that the Wikipedia page that covers this case discusses the point that I’ve just mentioned in greater detail. In particular, Adam Stubblefield, a CS grad student, confirms that the 2000 code “would not have been used in any voting machine”. The Wikipedia article suggests that this contradicts Mr. Curtis’s story. This isn’t necessarily true.

The Wikipedia article also implies that Mr. Curtis’s story can’t be verified and is therefore suspect because “The Department of Transportation investigator is dead”. The current version of the article doesn’t mention Mr. Lemme by name, and it doesn’t talk about how he died. This strikes me as chutzpah in the classical sense. Has everybody heard the story about the man who killed his parents, then pleaded for mercy because he was an orphan?

I am concerned that Mr. Curtis didn’t tell a reporter, Laura Zuckerman, about the vote-switching project when he allegedly had a chance to do so. This decreases his credibility. Wikipedia mentions other points that raise doubts, but most of them aren’t significant. Ms. Zuckerman’s story seems relevant. I’d like to find out if Mr. Curtis has ever explained why he didn’t go public sooner than he did.

If people research this case, they should take the Wikipedia points into account, but they should seek out other sources of information as well. As a side note, it’s highly inadvisable to rely solely on Wikipedia for information about any issue where there’s a dispute.

According to Wikipedia, Tom Feeney is presently saying that he has “no recollection” of dealing with Mr. Curtis. This will be sufficient reason, in the minds of most Bush supporters, to dismiss Mr. Curtis’s story entirely. However, in my opinion, Mr. Lemme’s death does lend credence to the story.

For what it’s worth, the original explanation for the 2000 project, which Mr. Feeney is unlikely to discuss or confirm at this point, was allegedly something to the effect that the Republicans needed to study vote-switching software so that they could prepare for Democrat vote-switching efforts.

The following point is speculation, and nothing more. I believe that Mr. Curtis might eventually find it necessary to recant part or all of his story, whether or not the recantation is appropriate. This feeling is related to the odd way that the case has been handled by both “sides” since day one. Neither “side” has behaved entirely as I’d have expected them to, regardless of the facts of the case.

I see that you’ve mentioned Diebold CEO Walden O’Dell’s letter, which stated that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president”. Given the man’s position (head of a voting-machine company), this was a remarkably foolish thing to say. However, O’Dell has plausible deniability here. There’s more than one way to interpret the letter. The two “sides” will never agree about what Mr. O’Dell was actually saying.

At first glance, I don’t see references to another occurrence that strikes me as more significant, the time that Peter King got drunk while discussing the upcoming 2004 election and said, “It’s already over. We won… It’s all over but the counting and we’ll take care of the counting”. It’s hard not to interpret Mr. King’s statement as a possible sign that he was aware of the Florida project.

The Curtis-Feeney story was about activities in Florida. Therefore, I assume that you haven’t written about the non-existent “terror alert” in Ohio. That incident was startling. After all, they didn’t even try to achieve plausible deniability. During the 2004 election, Warren County stated that a “terror alert” was in effect. They even said that it was a “10 on a scale of 1 to 10″. The supposed “terror alert” was used to justify the exclusion of reporters and photographers from ballot-counting areas. Officials then proceeded to handle the ballots as they saw fit. Warren County cited the FBI as the source for the “terror alert”. However, both state and federal homeland security officials stated subsequently that the “terror alert” had never existed. It wasn’t real.

I’ll pause for a moment to wonder about something out loud. How would the photographers who frequent this site have felt if they’d been present at the time, and if they’d been excluded due to a non-existent “terror alert” ?

And, of course, there’s the elephant in the henhouse, though it appears that you need to be an engineer or a mathematician to see the elephant. The Republicans offered several explanations for the discrepancies between polls and votes that occurred in 2004. The explanations were taken as gospel, and are taken as gospel to this day. I’ve seen very little discussion of the analyses that were done subsequently. Persons on either “side” who are familiar with mathematics at a BA level or above are invited to look into this issue and to draw their own conclusions.

I’ll add that I take some comfort in the fact that numbers don’t respond to arguments such as CLINTON SEX PAULA JONES or 9/11 TERROR 9/11 TERROR or OBAMA BLACK MUSLIM or SCARY BLACK PASTOR. It just doesn’t work that way.

This is simply a forum post. There’s no way to do justice to the subject in a message of this length. Therefore, I haven’t even attempted to summarize everything that’s come to light. I’ve only mentioned a small number of points that your article reminded me of.

I may or may not address this subject further at a later date. I believe that you should take it seriously, and that readers on both “sides” should take it seriously, for two reasons. I’d be surprised if anybody contested the two reasons, though I suppose that it might be inevitable:

1. Whether or not you believe that your guy would ever do such a thing, do you trust the other guy?

2. Are you able to articulate a clear and specific reason as to why you’d object to vote-processing safeguards, most importantly, to transparency wherever possible?

I worked on the preceding post for a while after submitting it. If you read the post early on Friday, refresh the page to see the final version.

I have no party affiliation. I am an independent.

I do not need to be a part of the ridiculous partisan political system that has destroyed this country.

I have my own brain and do not need to “borrow” Michael Moore’s or Bill O’Reily’s. I did not vote in the latest election. When there is a politician worth voting for maybe i will head to the polls.

I was not and will not be dumb enough to vote for Obama just because he is black. Nor vote for McCain just because he has more “experience”.

I have yet to meet or find an honest politician. So far i have seen nothing but corruption and lies from both parties.

I believe, because of their corruption, all politicians should be removed from their post by concerned Americans and we should reboot the united states.

I believe we need a new constitution with clear specific do’s and dont’s. Thanks to immoral legalists and un-elected judges, we have such a broad interpretation of the constitution that it’s difficult for the average citizen to even understand what rights they have.

I believe the media is fundamentally biased.

I do not believe in same sex Marriage. Marriage is a religious, spiritual and personal institution that the government should have no hand in.

I do not believe any drugs should be legalized.

I also do not believe money from the drug war should be used for health care. That’s just plain stupid. Let’s just give free health care to crack and Heroine addicts that steal and kill hard working non drug using citizens to support their newly legalized addiction. Whoever posted that clearly isn’t thinking.

I do not believe in Abortion. If you are adult enough to have sex (be it male or female) then you should be adult enough to carry the child and give them the chance at life that your parents gave you. No matter how you twist this, abortion is murder unless its for medical reasons.

I believe that terrorist are not a small minority of fundamentalists. They are religious fanatics that preach a religion of hate and war that grow larger every day. I believe the media downplays terrorists as “insurgents” or “freedom fighters”. There are literally hundreds verses in the quran regarding war and the treatment of non believers.

I believe torture of terrorists. Terrorist clearly have zero regard for the lives of innocent people. Hell, they don’t even have a high regard for the lives of their fellow muslims. Why should we have any regard for theirs?

I believe America will suffer from another terrorist attack. This is thanks to the current naive administration and the lack of support from the republicans and their reluctance to work with them.

I believe we have the right to bear arms. This world has already turned into a kill or be killed society. Clearly, the cops won’t protect you. If somebody tries to mug me on the street, I believe i should have the right to beat them to an inch of their life. Maybe then they will learn their lesson about committing crimes.

I believe that most people’s partisan political views make them hypocrites. Clearly, there is plenty of evidence right in the responses to this blog post with the twisting of facts.

I believe this site is a great resource for policing the police. Unfortunately, partisan politics hurts it.

I wonder if all the people who are against national healthcare are going to throw away their medicare checks and just die when they get old.

If not, then realize you will ultimately be proven a hypocrite.

Note to LuisR: You said, “Thanks to immoral legalists and un-elected judges, we have such a broad interpretation of the constitution that it’s difficult for the average citizen to even understand what rights they have.”

Yes, you are entirely correct. The situation is out of control. You are, of course, referring to people on both “sides”. Over the past decade, starting in late 2000, more to the “side” in power than to the other “side”. By the way, SCOTUS consists entirely of “un-elected judges”. These “un-elected judges” certainly contributed to the situation that you’re speaking of. The period immediately after the 2000 election comes to mind.

You also said, “I do not believe in same sex Marriage. Marriage is a religious, spiritual and personal institution that the government should have no hand in.”

The first statement expresses a personal belief. You’re certainly entitled to personal beliefs. The second statement is a general principle that I’d be hard-pressed to find fault with. The principle that you’ve stated makes perfect sense. I’ll use it myself in future debates.

I don’t quite understand why you, personally, have combined the two statements. You’ve essentially “come out”, as they say, against the government taking a stand on gay marriage. You’re able to put aside personal feelings and to support peoples’ inherent rights based on general principles. That’s noble of you, sir. You’re to be commended. You’re obviously a follower of John Locke, the important one, not the TV character.

Additionally, you said, “I believe that most people’s partisan political views make them hypocrites. Clearly, there is plenty of evidence right in the responses to this blog post with the twisting of facts.”

There’s no doubt of this. You’ve made two important points here. They’re not precisely the same point. However, I agree with both points.

You also said, “I believe the media is fundamentally biased.”

Again, you’re correct. The Jeff Gannon situation was remarkable, but it was far from an isolated occurrence. Additionally, the Mainstream Media’s refusal to cover the Downing Street Minutes (also known as the Downing Street Memo) until considerable pressure was brought to bear made its fundamental bias quite clear.

Finally, you said, “I believe this site is a great resource for policing the police. Unfortunately, partisan politics hurts it.”

This site isn’t about “policing the police”, exactly. However, I understand your point. I agree completely with your closing statement, the one about “partisan politics”. In my opinion, “partisan politics” are a natural part of things. The problem is that, if they’re not kept under control, they attract individuals who aren’t able to focus on specific points and to debate them rationally.

You and I seem to be in agreement on quite a few points. I enjoyed your post.

LuisR,

You say you are independent, but you sound very republican. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

The reason I started this thread was because I wanted to find the reasons people vote how they do rather than just get into a shouting match as sports fans do.

I wanted to find out the issues that drive people to vote the way they do, if there are any issues.

I really don’t believe anybody voted for Obama just because he is black. On the contrary. It was very impressive that he could win despite being black.

While many Americans claim not to be racist, I was expecting many to have an issue with his race once they were cloaked behind the voter’s curtain.

Obama won because he was clearly the better candidate. His blackness was actually a handicap that he overcame because he was that strong of a candidate.

To say that he won simply because he is black shows a lot of blindness from your part.

It is true that corruption and lies come from both parties. But the last eight years of the Bush Administration took that corruption and lies to another level.

Many republicans were ashamed.

I don’t believe we need a new Constitution. We just need to abide by the one we have.

The Constitution should be interpreted broadly rather than narrowly because that was the point of it. To ensure that we were all treated equally.

The media is biased. Everybody is biased. That is why the Internet has been the greatest invention ever because it has democratized journalism more than anything has before.

So you can find the truth if you search hard enough. And if you don’t find it, you can take it upon yourself to write the truth.

Your statement on marriage is contradictory because it is government that is denying same sex marriage, something that is extremely personal for the gay couple.

I’m not saying that all churches should be required to marry gays but if a church so desires, then that marriage should be recognized by our government.

I specifically said marijuana should be legalized. I never mentioned cocaine and heroin. I don’t see many marijuana smokers robbing and killing people to support their habit.

I see marijuana smokers getting thrown in jail and getting shot by cops because of their harmless habit. Anybody who supports that is a fucking totalitarian.

Also, regarding crack and heroin addicts. How much money does it cost us to incarcerate them?

Would it really cost us more to help them with their addiction?

You believe in torturing terrorists but wouldn’t that make us terrorists?

There is the Geneva Convention after all. Do you believe the U.S. should not abide by that?

Also, these “terrorists” that have been tortured were never convicted terrorists. They were just Muslims who were arrested who may or may not be terrorists.

They never had their due process. They never had their day in court.

How different is that from these photographers who get arrested simply because the cops don’t like their pictures taken?

I’m not a religious scholar but if you want to dig into the Quran, I know there are hundreds of verses in the Bible that are not necessarily very peaceful.

And if you really believe that “partisan politics” hurts my site, then please provide examples.

I’ve been blogging for two years so hopefully you can come up with something other than that dickwad getting arrested at USC.