read the whole thread

When you think that finding a solution solves the problem you are wrong. To solve a problem you have to implement the solution. Which is of course another problem entirely. When different agendas are advanced, there is potential for conflict. Politics again.

It is like saying that just because you understand the nature of a problem, that doesn't mean you can solve it.

I would rather be a conservative nut job than a liberal with no nuts and no job

As to what liberalism means, listen to Allan Combs for a bit on Fox News talk radio, as he seems to encompass the general mindset. I think he is a nut and I'm surprised that Fox gives him a forum. I do not listen to the guy ordinarily as I don't like ignorant idiots, but that's just me.

There are liberals as well as Democrats I respect. They earn my respect by having character and standing on principles which make sense. Some people genuinely feel that paying more taxes to support the less accomplished or less capable or less motivated is a good thing. They pay the taxes themselves and do not complain. I think they do not realize the burden on their lesser heeled compatriots, but their intention is fine.

Being against the war is not so terrible either, however if you go the the extent of living your life as an ostrich with your head in the sand, and then still insist on influencing policy, based on your own version of black and white, then you do nobody any favors, least of all yourself, considering you just look like a fool.

'Philosopher' wrote:

"... however if you go the the extent of living your life as an ostrich with your head in the sand, and then still insist on influencing policy, based on your own version of black and white, then you do nobody any favors, least of all yourself, considering you just look like a fool."

'philosopher', you sure are full of surprises !!!

Here I was, certain you would end your comment with a colorful 'jab' at 'liberals'?!?!?

But no!!! You opted to finish with a very accurate description of a typical, full gallon, conservative republican!!!

You, trixter you!!!

I tend to take pokes at both sides, depending on the issue. In this issue I must admit there is plenty to go around. I think Kerry pointed out the trouble with his earlier comment regarding the nature of politics.

I must admit however that my comment was directed at liberals primarily, not because they are so much more ignorant of the facts, but because many of their more ignorant proponents are vociferous, loud mouths and they are hard to avoid in the media.

Never fear though, you can find plenty conservatives who are relatively clueless regarding international issues. Personally I make my own choices based on the things I read and hear, but then I don't believe everything so my results may not be the same as yours.

Rambill, it's YOU who does'nt "see the big picture"-
Wall st. funded the communist revolution! Some of the elite troops were trained in N.J.! And you think we should have military men rule this nation - men who're trained to shut up and follow
other people's orders instead of thinking for themselves!
Only feeble minded fraidy cats fall for such transparent protection rackets.

..It's never been about left/right, liberal/conservative -
It's about the rights of the individual vs. the state -
-Guess who's winning?!
This past week in El Salvadore, people peacefully protesting
privatisation were arrested and charged as TERRORISTS. They're getting hefty prison sentences. I personally know a guy who's
on a "no-fly" list - His only crime was attending a peaceful
anti-Bush rally.
So - If you peacefully disagree, you're a "terrorist".
You must be terribly proud to live in such a beacon for "freedom".
By the way - do you realise the root of the word "liberal" is "freedom"?
Since when do you equate it with bullying?

i dont equate liberalism with bullying.. i equate it with communism. ive been around the block enough to know what im looking at. sorryaboutit. if you think military people are mindless idiots, your lost in the fog by the way. We have some of the most educated, intelligent people in the miliatary... youd be impressed if you were willing to look past your knee jerk reactions based on one internet search and look at the facts instead.

I'm amazed that people equate liberalism with communism. Liberalism is about free thoughts, progressive ideas, and independent thinking. Working together towards building the future.

Communism is about "the power" otherwise known as the Government that's considered all-mighty, and dictates all rules and policies. Begin to stray from this, and you'll be dealt with rather harshly. No room for independent thinkers here.

Might just be me, but the second paragraph comes a hell of a lot closer to describing the Bush Administration.

The art of conservatism is FAR closer to communism than the art of liberalism ever thought about being.

well thank goodness for government programs cause without subsidized rent,i'd be living in a Amana carton!!And yes i work full time.

Saw your profile, cutelildevilsmom. Sure wished you lived closer to me!

"Knee-jerk" reaction? - Communism, capitalism, socialism..
- They're all ant-hill societies, run by corporate finance gangsters, at the expense of the civilian population.
These are bloated, parasitic "governments" who serve the same masters in the end - and it's not you and me.
Most Americans can wave a flag like a monkey but would'nt
know true democracy if it jumped up and bit them on the ass!
They think patriotism is blind obedience to the state!
If we were'nt such a nation of cretins, we would'nt BE
in the position of most hated country now!

(Did you notice, Rambill, in my earlier posting, about communism
being CREATED BY WALL ST.?? - What do you make of that?)

..And F*CK the pledge of allegiance! - Your allegiance should be to your fellow man - not some rag with masonic designs on it!

The problem isn't liberals or conservatives. The problem is absolutism, extremism, and the herding and labeling of people into groups (whether they are herded by others or run after the first sheep in front of them is irrelevent).

Polarization destroys moderates. The great thing about true moderates is that there is no "moderate" party or group to which these folks belong. So, there is no set of responses to each issues that they have to agree to in order to not be "traitors" or disloyal to that group.

If people are not adherents of a dogmatic political code they might be more inclined to take the time and effort to examine the issues that are important to them and make a decision based on what they believe would be most beneficial, not what is consistent with a groups ideals.

But we don't seem to have that in our current society. We seem to have a lot of antagonists who are too busy coming up with names and dirt on their opponents to come up with workable solutions to our country problems. Too bad isn't it?

And yes, I am a liberal (as my profile makes clear) because I believe very strongly in personal freedom and responsibility. I have faith in my own ability to make decisions for myself- I don't need a "big daddy bush" (or Regan) to tell me what is right or wrong- that is/was the function of my religion, family, friends and teachers.

But I am also a moderate because I don't just follow a "party line" (allowing others to decide for me because I am to lazy to examine the issue and decide for myself). I believe that's the problem with extremism- it leads to intellectual laziness because all the decisions are made for you without regard to reality or the need to actually solve problems.

Anoasis, a well thought out and well written post!
I agree.

Thanks kid!! I'm pretty sure not everyone will agree so I appreciate the support! : )

Cbx, regarding your post starting with knee-jerk, I am encouraged that you recognize that the trouble is not just with the large moneyed interests within the United States and within our own form of government. Ordinarily when I see anti-American commentary, which is frequently couched in liberalist dogma claiming the high moral ground, I do not see any glimmer or recognition that money is a driving force over the world. Nobody has given much thought to many of the movements in the world that influence our society now. And nobody can seem to recognize the motives that supported these movements.

So I'll just mention a minor issue for contemplation. At one point before Chavez was elected to hear Venezuela he attempted a coup and failed. He followed up with some strong arm activities supported by local loyalists to his cause. Gradually he managed to swing a portion of the populace to see his side of things, and then rumor and innuendo have it that some underhanded activities in the voting booths helped him manage to swing the election, giving him the power he wanted with the coup. Now as a result he has managed to take a country that was a great ally of the United States and turn it into a considerably problem. As a bonus for himself he managed to seize control of one of the world's richest oil countries and channel its resources and revenues to his own ends. The value of this is quite high in terms of dollars. Their oil exports are around 2.1 million barrels per day, worth about 65 billion per year. Now the amount of graft spread around to secure the election with strong-arm support would certainly be expected to be considerably less that one year's worth of oil revenue. Presumably you might consider such a coup to cost perhaps a few million dollars. 250 Million dollars would give 100 dollars to 10% of the entire population of Venezuela, so you can see how inexpensive it might be to subvert things with cash. But that would cost a lot less if with proper force in the right hands. Return on investment could be estimated to be many thousand to one based on a one year return. Certainly worth funding if you are interested in such activities.

Who gains in this scenario? Certainly Chavez, obviously Iran, less obviously Russia and China. One item gained by Russia is local influence in South America. Another is increased access to Venezuelan oil resources, and influence over their distribution. Also gained is a new market for Russian advanced weapons systems.

Interestingly since his election he has purchased an American company which manufactures election equipment used in the United States. They produce now for elections in Venezuela and they maintain the market for American voting machines. Because the internal software is a trade secret and can not be viewed by outsiders, there can be no guarantee that the machine's integrity has not been compromised. This voting machine company was purchased for around 25 million dollars, a small price to pay for considerable influence in the American voting system and more firm control over Venezuelan voting.

This purchase was completed over a year before the Democratic takeover of the House and Senate.

My expectation is that such activities, having a high likelihood of success and such huge returns will continue to be orchestrated in various parts of the world. There may be such activity coming to a country near you, if people are not taking the suspicious and critical look at the world around them.

Which brings me to an important point involving the current temperament of the Democratic party. True or not you can be the judge and I'll just mention my thought on the matter. Over the last 20 years, at least, the democratic party has taken steps to limit the activities of CIA, NSA and such groups, bringing their budgets under tighter and tighter scrutiny and control and opening their activities to the public in the interest of the people.

Now it is my belief that there are groups in the CIA for example, who should have had the foresight to see this situation developing with Chavez. Similarly when Iran was hoisted from the control of the Shah, there should have been some inkling of what was occurring within the realm.

The fact that this should be rather obvious raises the question as to whether there might be some nefarious effort to permit such activities to flourish. If not support or tacit acceptance of the events, then surely it is ineptness in the evaluation of foreign relations.

I'll go a step further here and remind the reader that nothing was done in the US government to thwart Chavez, and nothing was done to alert the American people that such activity was taking place. I propose to suggest that the media concentrating on Monica and such stories may have been correct, but they missed the point entirely. Furthermore the congress, senate and president, who presumably were privy to international intelligence issues took no steps to alert the people nor to head off the event.

Therefore it seems to me that there are issues which need addressing within our own government. I suggest that a strong covert branch of the government is needed to circumvent covert activities by other government's covert activities. Without that in skilled hands you are a sheep in the teeth of wolves. That is enough writing for now. I leave you to ponder these matters and draw what conclusions you will.

One more thing about sheep and wolves. Democracy is two wolves eating a sheep.

http://www.wreckbeach.ca