On 2002-07-11 15:03, justmom wrote:

BTW... Did *anybody* say "Yes, decriminalize cocaine?"

Yes.

And if you did say yes, have you ever lived with, or, been the victim of someone elses cocain use?

No.

Idiologically, I understand why as a libertarian you would say yes.

Practically though....

I think my late husband said it best when he affectionately called it, "sucking the devils dick". He should know.

BTW... Did *anybody* say "Yes, decriminalize cocaine?"

Yes. I'd add to that list heroin, PCP, ecstasy, mescaline, LSD, elephant tranquilizers, methamphetamines, toad sweat, and basically whatever else people feel the need to eat/drink/sniff/inject/smoke/absorb into their bodies.

And if you did say yes, have you ever lived with, or, been the victim of someone elses cocain use?

Well, since I've used it myself and been around others who have, I guess the answer is 'yes'. I've also lived with raging alcoholics and other people who were just basic cruel assholes. Give me the coke freaks any day.


Also, I wonder what you mean by 'victim of someone else's cocaine use'. The only victim of cocaine use qua use is an unborn child born physically addicted. That's a bad deal, and a generally shitty thing to do to a kid. That said, boozing pregnant is pretty damn bad for a kid, too, yet somehow French women have managed to have normal, healthy kids while not completely abstaining from alcohol during pregnancy for centuries. I don't see why moderate amphetamine usage need be any different, and have neither seen nor heard of any studies to the contrary.

On 2002-07-11 15:03, justmom wrote:


BTW... Did *anybody* say "Yes, decriminalize cocaine?" And if you did say yes, have you ever lived with, or, been the victim of someone elses cocain use?

Yes, don't think of it as a devastating drug but as a "revenue enhancer" such as the wicked bubbles in sparkling Chandon wines that are taxed more heavily than still wine.


Not cocaine; but heroin, alcohol, gambling, chocolate, coffee, methamphetamine have harmed those in NE Minnesota.

On 2002-07-11 16:41, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

Not cocaine; but heroin, alcohol, gambling, chocolate, coffee, methamphetamine have harmed those in NE Minnesota.

You let bovine-americans drink, eat chocolate, and gamble? You MONSTER! :grin:

On 2002-07-11 15:03, justmom wrote:
Fantastic analysis Stonewall. I would hold hands with a Libertarian anyday. I will NEVER see eye to eye with a far left Liberal.

BTW... Did *anybody* say "Yes, decriminalize cocaine?" And if you did say yes, have you ever lived with, or, been the victim of someone elses cocain use?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: justmom on 2002-07-11 15:04 ]</font>

yes to the first and no to the second; I believe that the War on Drugs is a total waste - FWIW the politicians I hate the most are the Authoritarian Right!

On 2002-07-11 16:44, Justin '77 wrote:



You let bovine-americans drink, eat chocolate, and gamble? You MONSTER! :grin:

It is "free choice" feeding in the bovine world. I fear the USDA will come down with zero-tolerance schedules soon.


How do you think Carnation produced product from Contented Cows for so many years? Were they perhaps stoners?

<font size=-6>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-07-11 16:59 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-07-11 17:02 ]</font>

I would hold hands with a Libertarian anyday. I will NEVER see eye to eye with a far left Liberal.

Your statements so far "justmom" have been little except slogans and caricatures of right-wing lunacy. Are these actual views of yours, or are you pulling our collective legs? If the former, I suggest you reflect that you DO have the potential for rational and considered thought, in addition to stubborn and narrow-minded prejudice; and therefore you should give yourself more credit. Once you honestly reflect on things, you may see eye to eye with far left liberals on more than one occasion.

BTW... Did *anybody* say "Yes, decriminalize cocaine?" And if you did say yes, have you ever lived with, or, been the victim of someone elses cocain use?

Yes on both counts.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-07-11 17:12 ]</font>

On 2002-07-11 16:47, Agent 24601984 wrote:

FWIW the politicians I hate the most are the Authoritarian Right!

Hey, hey! That is where Justmom and Alex turned up. :wink: Your lowest quadrant was close to being a toss up but the Libertarian Right edged out the Authoritarian Right. Ask yourself this: which group do you hate more:

1) Junior, John McCain, and Bill (buuurrrp) Bennett

2) Thomas Jefferson, Harry Browne, and Pat Buchanan




BTW, CBailey, you almost pulled off a Neisha! You cleaned up the Authoritarian Left quadrant before leaving it at which point you cleaned up the Libertarian Left quadrant. Only upon entering the right side of the board did you diverge from Neisha as you jumped back and forth between the Authoritarian Right and the Libertarian Right. But you are yet another poster with the secondary Libertarian Left "Delta."

On 2002-07-11 17:18, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-07-11 16:47, Agent 24601984 wrote:

FWIW the politicians I hate the most are the Authoritarian Right!

Hey, hey! That is where Justmom and Alex turned up. :wink: Your lowest quadrant was close to being a toss up but the Libertarian Right edged out the Authoritarian Right. Ask yourself this: which group do you hate more:

1) Junior, John McCain, and Bill (buuurrrp) Bennett

2) Thomas Jefferson, Harry Browne, and Pat Buchanan




BTW, CBailey, you almost pulled off a Neisha! You cleaned up the Authoritarian Left quadrant before leaving it at which point you cleaned up the Libertarian Left quadrant. Only upon entering the right side of the board did you diverge from Neisha as you jumped back and forth between the Authoritarian Right and the Libertarian Right. But you are yet another poster with the secondary Libertarian Left "Delta."

hmm... I'm a big Jefferson fan, I respect Browne and Buchanan for being honest and having principles (tho I hate a few of Buchanan's), I like McCain somewhat and I hate the politics of the other two, so I'd have to say Group 1

On 2002-07-11 15:45, justmom wrote:

Idiologically, I understand why as a libertarian you would say yes.

Practically though....

I think my late husband said it best when he affectionately called it, "sucking the devils dick". He should know.

Out of curiosity, would you have Mr. Saari's Museum of Bovine-American Art shut down even if he were not receiving federal funding?

On 2002-07-11 16:28, Justin '77 wrote:

BTW... Did *anybody* say "Yes, decriminalize cocaine?"

Yes. I'd add to that list heroin, PCP, ecstasy, mescaline, LSD, elephant tranquilizers, methamphetamines, toad sweat, and basically whatever else people feel the need to eat/drink/sniff/inject/smoke/absorb into their bodies.

And if you did say yes, have you ever lived with, or, been the victim of someone elses cocain use?

Well, since I've used it myself and been around others who have, I guess the answer is 'yes'. I've also lived with raging alcoholics and other people who were just basic cruel assholes. Give me the coke freaks any day.


Also, I wonder what you mean by 'victim of someone else's cocaine use'. The only victim of cocaine use qua use is an unborn child born physically addicted. That's a bad deal, and a generally shitty thing to do to a kid. That said, boozing pregnant is pretty damn bad for a kid, too, yet somehow French women have managed to have normal, healthy kids while not completely abstaining from alcohol during pregnancy for centuries. I don't see why moderate amphetamine usage need be any different, and have neither seen nor heard of any studies to the contrary.

The *only* victims are those of the unborn?
Surely, you've momentarily forgotten, the homes broken into. The store owners who've had their property broken into and stolen, because someone wanted to get more money for their next high. The sports teams who've lost their championships because someone on their team was using?

On 2002-07-11 14:45, Stonewall Patton wrote:

There is possibly a pattern developing here among T4T posters. Thus far, I am not sure that anybody discussed has been in the Libertarian Left as their primary quadrant (although I know that some posters here are). However the vast majority of those considered show the Libertarian Left as their second (i.e. melding) quadrant, regardless of whether their primary quadrant is the Authoritarian Left or Libertarian Right.

I think of the Libertarian Left quadrant as a big Delta sign because it represents the catalyst for change, especially in 4Ts. The results suggest to me that each of us generally has a somewhat unique vision for the future, but most importantly that we are all enormously interested in finding ways to realize our dreams for this nation and/or the world. We are all looking for ways to "make it happen" rather than sitting back and watching the world go by. The commonality of the secondary Libertarian Left Delta is what enables those of us in opposing quadrants to get along despite our differences when the majority of people in the outside world who fall in those same quadrants can never see past those differences for the lack of a secondary Libertarian Left Delta. I'll bet that future posted results generally reinforce this secondary Libertarian Left Delta. It is pretty interesting really.

Stonewall, I think you've hit on something here. I wish we were all sitting in a room so you could show us a PowerPoint presentation of how all of us fall along these quadrants (even an old-fashioned chalk talk would work, too :wink.

This "latent Libertarian Left" is really an interesting concept. Those of us who stick around for any length of time at T4T enjoy exchanging ideas, exploring possibilities, and delving deeply into the past, the present, and the future. Authoritarianism doesn't fit in well with that kind of thinking.

It could also be the preponderance of INTP's here, though. I'm sure there's a correlation there. :smile:

On 2002-07-11 17:23, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-07-11 15:45, justmom wrote:

Idiologically, I understand why as a libertarian you would say yes.

Practically though....

I think my late husband said it best when he affectionately called it, "sucking the devils dick". He should know.

Out of curiosity, would you have Mr. Saari's Museum of Bovine-American Art shut down even if he were not receiving federal funding?

WoW, you all know so much about each other.
I would have to say," Yes" on the grounds that it is in a sense a business. If your product isn't selling or drawing intrest from consumers then it's not up to the Federal Govt. to support it.

All joking aside, I'm glad that Alex and justmom have recently joined us. I think it's healthy for this forum to have some fresh perspectives. Adding two conservative thinkers has balanced this place out a little. :smile:

On 2002-07-11 17:43, justmom wrote:

WoW, you all know so much about each other.

Stick around here long enough, and you will too. :smile:
There are stories here that would knock your socks off.

Kiff, Thank you.
Eric, I just don't know what to say to you.
I was under the impression that I was giving examples of, and reasons for, my beliefs.
If you think I am a liar and am pulling your collective leg than shouldn't it also be said of you, you can't see eye to eye with me? Is there nothing I've said, that you can agree with me on?

On 2002-07-11 17:37, justmom wrote:
The *only* victims are those of the unborn?

First off, I said the only victims of using qua using. Others may be injured by users, but only unborn children are hurt by others' using.


That said, I'll take you examples one at a time:

Surely, you've momentarily forgotten, the homes broken into.

There are two main reasons why drugs and crime are related. The first is simply this: the use of drugs has been made a crime. Their very illegalization has forced them to be tied to crime. Why are so many drug addicts criminals? Because, by law, using drugs <u>makes</u> you a criminal. Second, and generally taken to be the most important consideration is the fact that the vast majority of drug-related theft happens because users can't afford their drugs with the money they already have. Of course, you can see that this is directly related to the price of drugs. Let me tell you; cocaine costs very, very little to produce (think pennies to the ounce). It's a fairly hardy plant, and refining can be done with water, a cheese grater, and time. The reason its street value (as of a few years ago, at least; I have no reason to believe it's gone anywhere but up) is closer to $200-300 an ounce is because that is the profit margin necessary to make the risks of smuggling it into the country and distributing it (without, I should add, the benefit of a court system to protect the merchants from fraud). All factors introduced by the legislated illegality of it. Let Prohibition be your template. The exact same forces are in effect here.

The store owners who've had their property broken into and stolen, because someone wanted to get more money for their next high.

See above response.

The sports teams who've lost their championships because someone on their team was using?

Either you are referring to poor game performance due to being wasted, in which case I'd say the blame for the loss lies on teh coach or manager who allowed an intoxicated player (again, think alcohol as well) to be on the team/in the game.
On the other hand, you may be referring to the heartache caused by the star player getting arrested for drugs and being absent from the big game (something we Portlanders are quite familiar with, btw). In that case, clearly if puffing your crack pipe on your own time wasn't illegal, the problem would vanish.



Again, I see no worse consequences to use of drugs (<u>any</u> drugs) than I do with alcohol. Either we are all adults, responsible for our own lives and choices -- a sentiment with which I'm sure you agree -- or we need nanny-gov to take care of us and try to keep the nasty stuff on a high shelf out of our reach. There really is no middle ground.

On 2002-07-11 17:11, Eric A Meece wrote:

Your statements so far "justmom" have been little except slogans and caricatures of right-wing lunacy. Are these actual views of yours, or are you pulling our collective legs? If the former, I suggest you reflect that you DO have the potential for rational and considered thought, in addition to stubborn and narrow-minded prejudice; and therefore you should give yourself more credit. Once you honestly reflect on things, you may see eye to eye with far left liberals on more than one occasion.

Eric, all this verbiage and you did not even work in the word "shibboleth." What's up with that?

BTW, I still want to see how you come out on that political quiz. Let me know if you are still having trouble opening it and I'll get you in.

Justin, I appreciate your views as they are well thought out and stated.
Let me give you an alternative view;

Alcohol at this point is legal. But it is not a victimless persuit.
Many people are killed and hurt every year because people choose to
excercize their right to drink. They are then punished for their crimes.

Some go through rehab and make the
choice not to drink again. I would argue that the number who quit is
less than the number who die of, or continue to drink. If they continue to drink and
cause harm they are continued to be punished. The more alcohol related crimes the
harsher the next punishment. The more crimes committed the more cost to society.

I don?t know , but, it would be intresting to see the numbers for the cost of
the legal system and jail expenses vs. the cost of mandated rehab. Essentially when the
offender is released from either he is in the same place. In a free world with
the choice to use or not to. In jail the user is forced to go through withdraw and
is not given the choice to use (mostly). In rehab the user is free to come and go
and use if he ?doesn?t get caught?. Regardless either way the no real change happens from
court mandated abstinence. Change only happens when the person is determined to change.
What guarentee can you give me that the user wont commit these crimes again?
Just because they were caught and punished or rehabbed doesn?t preclude the desire to change.


Cocaine is a far more addictive and potentially harmful drug. How many chances do we
give cocaine related crimes to go unpunished or mandated rehab? If it?s a disease and
the offender is truly not at fault can you ever punish for a crime committed while high?
What if the offender is unprepared to stop? Then rehab will never work. If you know users their excuses run a mile long, and they are never at fault.

Like many of you I am all for less gov. and more freedoms. However I also have a resonable expectation that I will be protected though just laws and enforcement of those laws.
Ones rights only extend as far as the beginning of the next persons rights.
And I have the right to be protected from harm when reasonable protection is in place.
I don't think you can safely guarantee less
crime and more personal saftey through the legalization of cocaine, or any other hard drug for that matter.
________________
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." - J.F.K


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: justmom on 2002-07-11 19:52 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: justmom on 2002-07-11 20:56 ]</font>

Here's the whole outlay of my politics.

On 2002-07-11 14:45, Stonewall Patton wrote:

Chris Loyd has about the funkiest pattern imaginable. He is truly all over the map! How on earth did you get that, Chris? My guess is that Chris is not quite a centrist, but he is probably less ideological than most here. In fact he may be concerned with a few specific issues and not really care about others. Is this about right, Chris?

The only way I can interpret this is that he is marginally off the center in the Libertarian Right quadrant. And then he demonstrates a marginal preference for partnership with the Libertarian Left over the Authoritarian Right. Perhaps the best way to state it is that he is more concerned with freedom than with order but he is unusually pragmatic about it. I would simply call him a pragmatic libertarian which may in fact be more of a populist than anything else. Does that sound about right, Chris? If not, you might reevaluate your answers and see if you come up with a more consistent spread.

Wow. I'm almost speechless. It is hard to believe that this simple 24-question test is really that indicative. Alternatively, you, Mr Patton, may have a striking intuition about people. Have you ever taken the MBTI or one of its clones?

How did I get those results? The obvious answer is "based on my answers". Let me re-take the test, and analyze question by question. (long post alert)

1) Support NAFTA? No. Historically, perhaps one of the only methods of revenue collection that the Constitution permitted were import tarriffs. Tax imported gasoline, but not incomes, etc.

2) Reduce Immigration? Not sure. On one hand, people have a right to live anywhere they want to. Of course, they shouldn't trespass on private property. On the other hand, mass immigrations often fail to solve the problem(s) that those people's existance was part of anyway. One has the case of mass Islamic migration to Europe, were nations like The Netherlands could become majority Islamic. Essentially, I don't want to be personally restricted to live in a given nation as long as I conform to that nation's norms. I like my western appearance, tastes, language, etc. I don't want to live in a place where that would be restricted, because it's not fair to me, nor to the people who feel that it is necessary that I drop my western appearance, tastes, language, etc. People who move to a foreign country and explicitly decide to NOT conform to the mainstream with the intent of OVERTHROWING the mainstream and replacing with their own tastes is invasion. If I move to Germany, I will adopt German clothing styles, tastes in contemporary music and movies, and speak German. Ditto if I go to Brazil or Spain or Costa Rica or Thailand. To use the example of Germany, they have very restrictive immigration laws. While I don't like it, I understand that Germany is so desirable for many people and many of those same people wouldn't adopt German appearance, taste, and language out of religious. That is why "not sure".

3) State Lotteries? Yes. Great scam. People actually giving their money to the government voluntarily for a game that is rigged. Can you believe it? The State preying on gambling weaknesses in the masses. It's perfect.

4) Abolish Estate Tax? Yes. I want my parents' stuff handed over to the survivors (me and others) untaxed.

5) Handgun registration? Not sure. Cars are registered, so why not guns? Because it violates the 2nd amendment...but Switzerland has a armed populace and their guns are government issued and thus registered in some format...but it's mandatory that every male be armed whether they want to or not, so it's like the draft, homestyle version. Not sure.

6) Abortion legal in my state? Not sure. Part of me says that an unwanted child is as good as dead if it was born to a mother who really, really doesn't want it. On the other hand...I'm so happy Mom kept me. My emotions get in the way, and thus cant't think rationally. Not sure.

7) Punish Napster? No. That out-of-print music still be copyrighted and but not available conventionally is wrong. This thus invalidates the profit argument.

8) No-Fly Zone over Iraq? No. Who benefits from this no-fly zone? It's not like Hussein is dumb enough to move military aircraft in and out of Iraq. On the other hand, it probably does prevent covert military build-up, but that's not stopping him is it?

9) Local Regulation of Obscenity? Not sure. What is "local"? What is "obscene"? Cannot decide.

10) Trade with China linked to its Human Rights Record? Yes, BUT this country had better make sure we're not as bad as they are.

11) Remove Confederate Flag from Current State Flag? Yes. The Confederate Flag was ugly, and a bad knock-off of the Union Jack to boot. Please, be more creative.

12) Cocaine Legal? Yes. You bet. See above about gambling. If addiction rises to what smoking was circa 1960, here's a plan: Allow the Newly Legal Drug Companies to advertist their wares as aggressively as other companies. Continue for at least 10 years, but allow 20 years for good measure. Oh yeah, don't regulate the drug contents. Let them pour antifreeze and arsenic into the heroine. After 20 years, there should be people dying everywhere. Then, allow lawyers to sue these companies. By then, these companies should have regular CEOs, who act like CEOs when sued. These companies will be painted as evil purveyors that destroy people's lives. Turn the nation against these companies aka BIG DRUG. When they are as unpopular as Big Tobacco and Big HMO, taking drugs will be as cool as smoking. Drugs will go from being permissable in the daycare center to being banned virtually everywhere, due to their innate "evil capitalist exploitation of unwitting citizens, er, consumers". The lawyers will win (of course), the State(s) get billions and billions. Cocaine's coolness is reduced to that of smoking. Long-range State exploitation of weaknesses. Like lottos, it is perfect.

13) US Aid to Israel? No. Israel is rich (because of the US Aid?). Fend for themselves.

14) Is the Religious Right a Threat to Civil Liberties? No. They aren't that strong.

15) School Vouchers? Yes. I shouldn't be compelled to go to school where bullying is chronic problem and the school staff and administration considers assault a right of passage for 11-year-olds. Anything to dispose of compulsory attendance of x-school.

16) State Regulation of Gambling. Not sure. How do they mean regulate? I support gambling whose funds go to the State's coffers. Is that regulation? Mandating minimum wins/play? No. But, accurate statistics in terms of what percentage of players actually win is necessary. Hence, not sure.

17) Abolish the EPA? Yes, pending that damage to my property, including the air space above it and the water beneath it, can be compensating by the parties responsible.

18) National Healthcare Service? No. I'm also against private national healthcare plans, insurance companies, HMOs, etc. Bigger isn't better regardless of who is running the show.

19) Abolish Fed Aid to Students? Yes. If my parents didn't pay income taxes, there would be no problem for paying for school. College education shouldn't be mandatory for many jobs. Job skills training should begin at 14, and incorporated into most high school programs.

20) Abolish Death Penalty? Yes. People can be set free from prison if their guilt was later found to be incorrect. No one can reverse death.

21) Tariffs for Revenue, etc. Yes. See above.

22) Race-based hiring/service-provision.? No. Race is illogical. While businesses can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, race is illogical. How to enforce it? Obviously, laws shouldn't make it easy to discriminate based on race. I.e., there should be no law saying that x-race must sit in a certain spot at an eating/movie/whatever establishment.

23) Save Social Security?No. I plan to work for the rest of my life, and if I can't work, I'll...commit suicide? No point in life if I can't work. Disclaimer, I'm unemployed right now due to lack of local hiring. Depressing, but this situation is rectifiable in the short-to-medium term. If I couldn't work due to old age...why live?

24) Can Homosexuals serve in the military? Yes. Anyone can serve, provided that they meet the physical requirements. I do reserve the right to say "bug off" to any guy who makes a pass at me.

There you have it Stonewall. My political philosophy. I'm not up on "left-libertarian" or the other phrases, so if the above matches [political label], cool.

Pragmatic libertarian with populist ideal/morals/outlook? Maybe. That's not the first time someone called my views as such. John Milens once called me a "Fascist Libertarian". If you can tell me what that is, please do. I have somewhat conservative views. I don't care for homosexuality, but then all public forms of passion (kissing, hugging) is something I find distasteful. Public expressions of, well, most emotions are silly and unnecessary. Please, keep your happiness/sadness/anger to yourself. My views on gambling and drug use should be pretty obvious. As for casual sex, well, again, if it's behind closed, locked, hidden-from-public-view doors, cool. SUVs are for the most part bought by (people in this city) people who have an irresponsible outlook on safety, and have misguided views on moving people/cargo, not to mention small egos.

For what it's worth, here are my results based on the answers I provided above.

#1 Libertarian

#2 Paleoconservative

#3 Radical

#4 Paleo-libertarian

#5 Left-libertarian

#6 Liberal

#7 Neoconservative

#8 Centrist

#9 Conservative

#10 Third Way

By the way, if I owned and managed for my own private National Highway System, I'd put cameras on every stretch. 45 mph speed limits are most effecient.

On 2002-07-11 21:00, Chris Loyd '82 wrote:
I don't care for homosexuality, but then all public forms of passion (kissing, hugging) is something I find distasteful. Public expressions of, well, most emotions are silly and unnecessary. Please, keep your happiness/sadness/anger to yourself.

Onward comes the mood of the 1T.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-07-11 21:31 ]</font>

On 2002-07-11 17:11, Eric A Meece wrote:

I would hold hands with a Libertarian anyday. I will NEVER see eye to eye with a far left Liberal.

Your statements so far "justmom" have been little except slogans and caricatures of right-wing lunacy. Are these actual views of yours, or are you pulling our collective legs? If the former, I suggest you reflect that you DO have the potential for rational and considered thought, in addition to stubborn and narrow-minded prejudice; and therefore you should give yourself more credit. Once you honestly reflect on things, you may see eye to eye with far left liberals on more than one occasion.

BTW... Did *anybody* say "Yes, decriminalize cocaine?" And if you did say yes, have you ever lived with, or, been the victim of someone elses cocain use?

Yes on both counts.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-07-11 17:12 ]</font>

Hi Eric after thinking about what you said, I do know what to say to you.

My statement of " I will NEVER see eye to eye with a far left Liberal. " comes not from a tight fist, foot stomping, self righteous refusal to share ideas. What it
does come from is a self actualization of knowing the 2 views can never be married.

Your statement, "Your statements so far "justmom" have been little except slogans and caricatures of right-wing lunacy. " is simply not true. I have thoughfully and purposefully given my opinions used illustrations and clarified ideas when asked to. These can hardly be classified as 'slogans and caricatures'.

You said, "If the former, I suggest you reflect that you DO have the potential for rational and considered thought, in addition to stubborn and narrow-minded prejudice; and therefore you should give yourself more credit. " You accuse me of irrational thought, and narrow minded prejudice on what basis? That I don't agree with you. Are you the basis for rational thought? Please elaborate.

And finally the Left Wing Liberal coup de grais. "Once you honestly reflect on things, you may see eye to eye with far left liberals on more than one occasion."

You pulled out the moral high ground card, inviting me to be more thoughtful, more generous, more open. * JUST LIKE YOU*
You know Eric ,as patently as I do, that we will indeed never see eye to eye. The difference is I am unafraid to admit it. In this lies your strength. Because now you are free to point your finger and say, "see you are unwilling to bend." The liberal prides himself on being "open" and willing to exchange a variety of ideas and expression.
{Only as long as they don't represent the "tired old oppressive patriarchal ideas of your un-enlightend parents" Other than those ideas we can talk freely.} But, when I bring an opposing view to the table I am mocked, called a 'fibber', and accused of non-thinking. And finally invited to join, but, never joined to.

The selector and my results.

#1 Third Way
#2 Centrist
#3 Radical
#4 Liberal
#5 Left-libertarian
#6 Neoconservative
#7 Libertarian
#8 Conservative
#9 Paleo-libertarian
#10 Paleoconservative


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2002-07-11 21:45 ]</font>

The aesthetics of GATTACA were quite nice. Bring on the fashion, architecture, and cars.