Kind Sir (Tim), please calm down.

I wouldn't want your blood pressure to bump. Now I'd like to work with you on this; perhaps, as you say, we are on different sides. If such is the case, pretend then that I'm from another planet. Explain to me, what defines the differences in your political affiliation vis-a-vie these 'liberals'? Let me learn to respect you, and your party, through your own words. And I will test it.

Signed

E. G. Goldmund,
American youth.

Calm down? Who's upset? I simply delete or block people who ignore the comment rules, and sometimes give them the courtesy of an explanation.

To address your question: I am not a member of any political party, nor do I always support one particular one. Though I am generally of a "conservative" outlook on policy matters.

Certainly there are differences between "liberal" and "conservative" -- you could point to wonkish issues like tax policy, desire for fiscal responsibility (not that either political party enacts such with any degree of discipline), etc. It's always tempting to think the difference comes down to one of mere policy preferences. I wish that were the case.

But look at the dialog above. I've never seen a group of conservatives get together and, for example, publicly (or even privately for that matter) speculate on the intimate sex life of a political opponent, or accuse them of unsubstantiated private sexual sins. Or simultaneously claim that nobody can judge who belongs to a religion, while doing precisely that. Or claim a small group of their opponents control the nation of Norway.

That's just bizzaro-behavior, which cannot be explained by some mere debate over policy differences. To answer such questions, you have to get into the area of motivations, and even, in a very broad sense, psychology.

I used to hold a lot of liberal views. But, in debating those views, I discovered something odd: I'd have a discussion with a non-liberal (conservative or libertarian) who would give me some good reason that my (liberal) belief was wrong. Hmmm, good point! I'd think.

So then I'd find someone from the other (liberal) side, and ask them the same question. Initially, they'd try to give a logical answer. But when I'd point out the problem or rebuttal I'd just discovered, rather than explain why that argument was mistaken, or provide supporting evidence to the contrary, I'd get an emotional reaction: anger, weeping, topic change, accusations of bad motivation, etc. This happened over and over. Since name-calling and weeping are not good rebuttals to arguments, gradually, conservative views won each contest, leaving me with many questions as to what was causing the emotional reactions in my left-leaning friends and associates.

Consider Howard Dean, for example. As president of the DNC, he is the leader of, and represents the Democratic Party today (though not necessarily the views of all Democrats!). So what does it tell us, when he says, as he did recently:

You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote? Well Republicans, I guess can do that. Because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.

Certainly, this statement makes no logical sense: If a person is working an eight-hour day, how can you accuse them of not making an "honest living"? And, if 51% of the country voted against his party, is he really saying a huge chunk of those people have never even worked hard in an ethical profession? And certainly this is no way to win over voters who didn't support his party in the last election, by accusing huge numbers of them of being unethical people.

Since Dean is presumably smart enough to figure these things out, if he wanted to, we have to look to his motives for saying such things. Becuase they're clearly not said because they're true, or because they'll win him new voters.

For example, Dean is a multi-millionaire, living on inherited wealth. Could that play into his accusations of others not making an honest living? Could it be that he's accusing other people of things he really worries about himself, inside, or feels guilty about, deep down?

Who knows! I don't see a problem with having inherited wealth, but it certainly doesn't put one in a position to publicly condemn other people for not earning their living in an honest fashion.

So I think my opponents are composed of two kinds of people: (1) Those who are simply misinformed about various things, but don't know any better yet, and (2) those who don't want to know better, but instead hold views that make them feel good, and simply don't care whether their views actually hurt or kill people.

I realize I haven't given you any specifics, above, so I'll leave you with one, if you feel like having a bit of a debate.

I generally favor cutting taxes. My reason for doing so is that I believe the economy grows by more than the amount refunded -- that is, the lower rate of taxation provides a stimulus for economic growth. Explained the other way: look at countries with high rates of taxation, and you'll see countries with high unemployement rates.

Further, when Reagan and JFK cut tax rates the government actually ended up collecting MORE tax money. The reason, again, is that the economy grew by more than the cut in taxes. And this is happening now: Bush cut taxes a year or more ago, and this year, and the government is now collecting more tax money than before.

Yet liberals will say that conservatives cut taxes because they "love the rich", or "hate the poor." Nonsense. It's because they think they personally can manage their money better than the government will (including in matters of charity), and/or because they understand what I'm saying above, economically.

So why don't liberals address those arguments, instead of just accusing their enemies of being evil, hateful people? It's either because they don't know economics -- and it never occurred to them that people might just distrust how the government spends money -- or because they have considered these things, but simply don't care: It's politically expedient to base their arguments in hating someone, rather than addressing policy issues, so they do so. Who cares if those listening end up full of hate, deceived economically, and supporting a policy which will put a lot of people out of work, increase poverty, and mortgage our children's future? Such details are just not important to some people when compared to the need to win votes, or feel superior by judging others.

Kind Sir,
Tell me, please, what reasons form your own political motivations? Also, I'm curious, what actually do the 'liberals' stand for? That is, as related to the foundation of their party; and what overall good have they contributed to America?

Thank you for you knowledge,
E. G. Goldmund
American Youth

Tell me, please, what reasons form your own political motivations?

Generally, I don't want to see people hurt, and I don't like to see people lied to. Everything else is just details that flow from that.

Also, I'm curious, what actually do the 'liberals' stand for?

You can ask them yourself, you know. Most programs tend to focus on trying to eliminate differences between people: rich/poor, black/white, etc. I think we can all agree it's sad to see some people have much while others have few. But the question, really, is whether the answers such people demand even work, or whether they do more harm than good.

As with any political belief system, there are many people with many different motives. Some mean well. Some don't. Same as with conservatives.

That is, as related to the foundation of their party...

"Their" party? You mean the Democrats, your own party? The history is readily available, you know.

Kind Sir,

The last posting was very informative; intoxicated with calculated bias, but energetic, nevertheless. In fact, I'm interested (because you pride yourself on being neither liberal nor conservative) if you're equally informed on the Republican history. Of course, I hope you follow the question: Will you present a history tantamount in historical sludge (as with your Democrat note)? Rather then sexing up our contending, comparison? I'm curious what will be; and moreover, what you reveal of yourself as a reflection of this exercise. We shall let your polemic decide. Otherwise, I’d be most grateful if you could list your top five, most politically, significant events occurring throughout your life.

Look forward to the developments…

E. G. Goldmund,
American Youth.

Does not Rush Limbaugh comment quite frequently on a certain ex-presidents sexual dalliances? He's not a group, more of an army.And to the point of religious intolerance, watch John Hagee Ministries.

The last posting was very informative; intoxicated with calculated bias, but energetic, nevertheless.

You should ask yourself whether it's true. Or isn't that something you dabble in?

In fact, I'm interested (because you pride yourself on being neither liberal nor conservative)...

You're not paying attention here: I've already told you I'm generally "conservative" on matters of political policy. I just don't have any particular long-term allegiance to any party, and have voted for many individuals of different parties.

And who says I "pride" myself on my stances -- in this case, a stance I don't even hold? What an odd assertion. As I said, not everyone shares your motivations. Please stop projecting your own ego onto others.

... if you're equally informed on the Republican history. Of course, I hope you follow the question: Will you present a history tantamount in historical sludge (as with your Democrat note)?

History, while certainly subject to spin, is not infinitely malleable. If I say something like "Democrats worked hand in hand with the KKK for nearly a century" the question for you should be whether it's true. We don't start out by assuming both parties must be equally good, and then working our way back to a narrative that confirms that. No: Instead, we look at the evidence, where-ever it takes, us, and then draw conclusions about goodness or badness.

Doing it any other way is intellectual dishonesty.

Certainly, there have been things individual Republican leaders have done wrong. Absolutely. Eisenhower's misguided Bolivian coup, for example. But Democrats (Wilson, Kennedy) pursued the same policies -- that wasn't some sort of one-party issue. Likewise, there have been corrupt Republicans (Nixon) and corrupt Democrats (Clinton), ineffectual but well-meaning Democrats (Carter) and ineffectual but well-meaning Republicans (Ford), as well as some strong leaders from both parties (JFK, Reagan).

But recall your question was one of party history, of party ideas, and how they influenced the US. As such, I only chose individuals who represented the broader trend of the party. I took as my scope the last century, and felt the two top issues (since I don't have time to write a book) were racial segreation and the struggle against socialism.

I can't just achieve some sort of faux-"balance" by saying the same things about Republican policy -- that they worked with the KKK for nearly a century (or were in favor of socialism, if you prefer the other topic) -- because it's demonstrably untrue. Since you ask, the Republican party formed as an abolitionist party, put blacks into powerful positions a century ago, and attempted for nearly a century to pass civil rights legislation to stop what was happening in the south. They only succeeded when prominent Democrats noticed popular sentiment was turning against them and relented, eventually reversing the party's stance.

Hey, if my facts are wrong, or you can think of something much worse that I've missed, then you're welcomed to point that out. But otherwise, it simply sounds like you just learned something you weren't ever told before, and aren't liking the taste of it.

Otherwise, I’d be most grateful if you could list your top five, most politically, significant events occurring throughout your life.

Already told you: on issue after issue, most where I started out with "liberals" views, I went to both sides and asked..., etc. Go re-read it. That didn't happen just five times, it happened over and over and over.

And it's even happening now: You chose a question. I gave the evidence which shaped my view of that topic, as best as I know it. In response you could offer better evidence for the other position, or point out I've overlooked something which had a greater impact.

So do you? As usual in such conversations, no. Instead, as I described, you call me a liar and accusing me of having bad motivations: while responding, I am, you assert, "intoxicated" (i.e. poisoned) with "calculated" (premeditated, knowing, deliberate) "bias" (meaning prejudice) -- meaning, of course, that I chose my conclusion in advance and worked backwards towards justifying it, and did so knowingly. And it's actually a double accusation of dishonesty, since I claimed I started out with many liberal ideas (indeed, I was raised as a Democrat, and had a very favorable impression about the party's history) and claim the evidence I just offered you is part of what changed my mind, rather than vise-versa (as you imply).

Next, you want to give me a test: Unless I say the same things about Republicans (apparently whether that's historically true or not), it will show I'm a bad person. But can't you see, by doing so, you've trapped yourself in a logical loop, with no possibility of disproving your own beliefs?

You seem to assume there can be no evidence that Democrats were worse than Republicans (henceforth "A" for brevity). If I agree, and give evidence that confirms A, then you can continue to hold your position.

Yet if I disagree, and fail to give evidence that confirms A, then that proves I'm "biased", thus you can ignore my evidence to the contrary ("B"), thus, what that evidence neutralized, you may again safely continue to hold position A.

This is wrong for three reasons:

(1) It's an example of circular reasoning: A is apparently what you want to prove, but it's also the assumption behind your test for bias. It's easy to prove things by assuming them in your arguments -- it's also a logical fallacy.

(2) B is an example of the ad hominem fallacy, in which we prove arguments false by arguing they came from a bad person. Instead, bad people -- even with bad motives -- can offer true, sound arguments; likewise good people, even meaning well, can make false statements. You can't assess the truth or importance of a statement by trying to accuse the one offering of being a bad, dishonest person, as you seem to be doing.

(3) You have set up a system where you can confirm your beliefs no matter how I answer. In science, a statement must be "disprovable" by some means for it to be useful or testable. Yet you have now set up a system where you ensure you will not have to abandon your belief no matter what your opponent answers.

If you're still having trouble understanding why these things are wrong, note that the same technique could be used to prove any position -- plug in any statement you want for "A" and you can show it to be "true" the argument you are using here.

Of course the final problem for me here is that though I feel I know a similar amount about their history, I honestly don't know of anything Republicans have done, or of a view they've held, as a party, over the last 100 years, which comes anywhere close to be as bad as serving as the political wing of the KKK for nearly a century, and promoting eugenics. If I did, I'd undoubtedly view both parties as having an equally awful history.

Again, your job isn't to complain I'm an awful person for not knowing about whatever data it is I'm purportedly overlooking -- or deliberately suppressing, as you imply. No, it's your job to point out that missing data. If not, well, then it might be respectable to admit I have a valid point here. And possibly even consider changing your mind.

Does not Rush Limbaugh comment quite frequently on a certain ex-presidents sexual dalliances?

Yes, indeed he does. (I don't like Rush at all.) But you're changing my statement: My complaint was about unproven allegations. There's really little question about Bill's sex life.

It's one thing to publicly say that Bill Clinton had sex with his intern. Tacky, perhaps, but also a matter of public record. It's quite another to assert George Bush is a closet homosexual or has sex with animals or children, lacking strong evidence to support such statements. The word here is "slander". (One is a true statement, and one has no factual evidence at all. Shouldn't that make a difference to you?)

And, when it comes from a group who constantly claims it's wrong to draw moral judgements about such things, it's blatant hypocrisy, to boot.

And to the point of religious intolerance, watch John Hagee Ministries.

Again, you're missing the point: Hypocrisy. While I don't know much about the individual you mention, Christians hold that belief in Jesus's death is necessary for salvation. Thus, they would also maintain that those who reject that offer are not "saved". You may not like that -- and might try to call it "intolerance" (though it is not) -- but it's certainly not a hypocritical position. It's simply what they believe.

But when a group of people who loudly claims it's wrong to say others are wrong -- walks around loudly saying others are wrong, you again have a case of blatant hypocrisy. The same for a group of people who claims it's wrong to believe in absolutist notions of right and wrong, but calls people they don't like "evil."

Every person believes in right and wrong. They believe if they are right, their opponents are wrong. Only the left has taken to calling that "intolerant", and then applying the label only to someone else, while they do the same thing to a similar or greater degree.

Tim -- next time you call someone "nuts" you may want to do a little research first. I don't imagine you're a Norwegian reader, but if you can find someone to help you you'll discover that the Fellowship Foundation's previously undisclosed influence over Norway's current Christian conservative administration was front page news there, particularly in Dagbladet, which frontpaged it December 7-13, I believe.

Their team of reporters discovered that the group I mentioned -- founded in 1935 by a Norwegian immigrant to the U.S. named Abraham Vereide -- began working to build a Norwegian Christian conservative power about 20 years ago. More recently, Norway's prime minister, Kjell Bondevik, traveled extensively, funded by the state, without disclosure, to meet members of the Fellowship. Norway's prime minister to the U.S. held semi-regular policy meetings with John Ashcroft at the Fellowship's headquarters, a mansion in Arlington called the Cedars.

As a result of this coverage, at least one Norwegian Christian conservative politician looks like he'll be leaving, and the whole party is on the ropes. Not because they're Christian or conservative, but because they failed to respect the basic principles of sovereignty and democratic transparency.

Last I checked, those weren't liberal or conservative values.

Also, if you'd like more background on the Fellowship, I refer you to Lisa Getter's extensive report in the L.A. Times. No less a conservative icon than Richard John Neuhaus has expressed unease with the group's secrecy and influence. And Time magazine recently included the group's leader, Doug Coe, on its list of 25 most influential evangelicals, noting that Coe's own friends call him "The Shadow Billy Graham." In an article written for Beliefnet, Presbyterian pastor Ben Daniel, a former member of the Fellowship, recalls the group's fondness for calling itself the "Christian mafia." And in documents I was given when I lived with the group, we were told that our "Family" was an "invisible" organization.

I hope this is sufficient context for you. I don't see the Fellowship as a liberal or conservative issue. Rather, people of good faith across the political spectrum should be concerned when ANY organization -- left or right -- makes an end run around electoral democracy, here or abroad.

One more thing -- the Christian conservative politicians involved, when confronted with the facts, did not deny them. Rather, they pledged to excise foreign Fellowship influence from their government, a promise many Norwegians now have a hard time trusting, given their dishonesty in the past. And the reporter who broke this story was not some left wing nut; he knows the prime minister personally and reasonably well.

Jeff,

First, welcome to my obscure, insignificant blog. With your visit, I suspect the total number of readers has approached the two-dozen mark. ;-)

Please note I didn't call you nuts. I said the idea, or allegation, was nuts. "Some of it is... nuts." Given some of the characters you have met, and the way you tend to portray them, I'm sure you could agree that some ideas can sound rather, well, nutty, without needing to agree that those holding them are personally insane.

Recall your public allegation, as paraphrased, was that the government of Norway was "controlled 'through and through'" by International Fellowship (Fellowship Foundation). Not that some government members had been associated with them, or had gone to meetings with them, and some felt they were a shady group (hint, hint), but that the relationship was known to be one of direct, pervasive political control over the government of Norway.

Now, one possibility is that we have an incorrect paraphrase of what you said. In that case, we can both agree: "controlled 'through and through'" isn't what you meant. Perhaps a number of associations, instead? Great, then you and I both agree that Coe/FF isn't controlling the Norwegian government "though and through." The fault then lies with the paraphrase, and you have my apology for repeating Lomperis's misquote.

On the other hand...

I certainly didn't assume you were wrong in implying there was a connection, a proven one. Instead, I assumed you were telling the truth when you implied that, and granted as much. But to allege extensive, direct political control, not mere spiritual influence? That's another matter entirely.

Before going further, I want to be clear, since you say FF need not be a liberal or conservative issue: I agree completely. (Of course, offering such remarks in a forum entitled "Examining the Real Agenda of the Religious Far Right" sort of undermines that angle.) But this isn't about defending said group. Yes, Coe says some rather strange things. And they don't appear to even want to be thought of as Christian. Rather, I found your charge of known, extensive political control overinflated and improbable, and said so. Looked instead like someone going a bit further than they otherwise might have in print, in front of an obviously receptive audience of extremist partisans.

Mr. Random Observations,

I’m retiring from this comedy we’ve put on. Inasmuch as discretion allows, I’ll take this moment to repay you for your endless yards of monotonous verbiage. Sir, I believe you go by the name, Tim? Your rantings are simply the last outcry of a disenchanted, computer archivist. Each of the questions I asked you were answered empty, lacking a soul. Tha fact that you sincerely weigh out your life philosophies upon tripe, KKK history speaks volumes. What do I mean by this? I mean do your homework before your serotonin conducts any further essays. You’re historical interpolations are, simply, irresponsible—that of a very immature mind. The fact that your mind actually neglects any credit to the Democrats speaks volumes. You should get out more, and elect a few classes at your local university. You’re dealing with men, Mr. Bubbles; that means what? It means you’re projecting your ideas of good and evil, god and devil, on men spread across decades and centuries. It means the world is not flat. It means that over a billion people live in China, another billion live in India, and both countries dwarf this American Reality. What do you know of India? What do you know of China? Sure…tell me about the injustices…But what of their histories? Histories which go back several thousands of years; full of enlightenment and technology. What does the KKK mean to the history of China and of India? Who is good and who is evil?
Listen to me, you old, forsaken troll, reevaluate your life before you realize how empty you truly are. How fearful you truly are. And that all those neurotic nights meant nothing in the end.

Evress G. Goldmund
American Youth.

P.S. I’m a Republican!

Hi "Everess"!

Consider yourself banned, though with a latency. Basicly, the reasons are the invective, the off-topic post, and your earlier attempt to simulate a defamatory conversation on my blog.

But your rant is so fascinating, I'd hate to remove it before having a bit more enjoyment with it...

Each of the questions I asked you were answered empty, lacking a soul.

Wow, and who said conservatives were judgemental? Goodness, boy, you can peer through that computer into people's SOULS!

Tha fact that you sincerely weigh out your life philosophies upon tripe, KKK history speaks volumes.

That wasn't my life history, goofball: that was the history you requested of the Democratic Party. As far as I can see, the history is moot, as it's long past, but it was you who asked.

But you seem to imagine I "build my life" upon it. Probably because you did something similar. No: I assure you, I do almost nothing based on the history of the Democratic party. Except annoy liberals who place a lot of stock in that, apparently.

At this point, I'd like to actually apologize, seriously: You asked what moments changed my life, politically, and I answered -- rather honestly -- that I found liberals generally went non-linear when confronted with contrary evidence. (Sadly, you're hardly providing a counter-example here.)

But before that, there were lots of small realizations that the liberal philosophies I had formerly adoped were wrong: that tax cuts hurt people rather than helping them, that gun control killed people, that affirmation action hurt blacks and minorities and denied countless promising young people careers they could have had -- policy after policy turned out to be wrong when I did serious research into them.

Of course, at that point, I'd ask liberal friends for pointers as to what I was missing and if they had counter-evidence. And then we got the going-nonlinear reaction. Like yours.

I should have included that.

But, again, that's hardly my life philosophy -- just politics, as you'd requested. Politics is just a practical matter for me, and sometime hobby and source of amusement.

But, since you asked about "politics" and then said it was a "life philosophy", I suspect your own "life philosophy" really is all about politics. If so, that really is sad.

You’re historical interpolations are, simply, irresponsible—that of a very immature mind.

The word is "your". And if my "interpolations" are wrong, you're more than welcomed to post counter-evidence. Your failure to do so suggests you haven't got any and are simply fuming impotently. Your insults help solidify this impression.

The fact that your mind actually neglects any credit to the Democrats speaks volumes.

I was basicly raised as a Democrat. I've concluded most Democratic policies, post-1960s, are simply in error. You're welcomed to debate that proposition, if you're interested in the truth. (I'm not holding my breath.) Given that, I credited the Democrats with what I could. The fact that you can't point to anything I've missed, while fuming endlessly and name-calling, "speaks volumes", as you'd say. :-)

You should get out more, and elect a few classes at your local university.

I'm pretty sure I know where you went to college, boy, and I'd be glad to stack my education against yours any day. :-)

Again, not that it means anything to me: such things are dirt, in my eyes. But clearly, you think you're superior on that basis, so it's kind of fun to point out you probably aren't.

It means you’re projecting your ideas of good and evil, god and devil, on men spread across decades and centuries.

"Everess", there's more to using the word "projection" than just throwing it into sentences randomly.

It means the world is not flat. It means that over a billion people live in China, another billion live in India, and both countries dwarf this American Reality.

Look, bright boy: You asked a question about the history of Democratic Party. Don't be surprised if the answer you get doesn't touch on the Sung Dynasty, or the Tao Te Ching. But as it is, since you think these topics are exotic, it probably means you've never studied them yourself.

Oh, and just FYI: I've taken several years of studies in Chinese and Asian history. I'd be more than willing to have a discussion about these topics any time you'd like. Want to discuss the role of Confusianism in justifying Chinese government? Or the role of booze and heaven in early Taoist poetry?

Oh, but right. Nobody knows as much as you. Even though you were utterly ignorant of the history of your own party, and are now angry I explained it to you. Of course, your rage is further fueled by the fact you know these statements are true.

What do you know of India?

Why do you ask?

I'm familliar with the philosophy of the Vedic scriptures, and a small subsection of the Hindu pantheon; I can tell you about the major distinctions between Hinduism and Buddism and how they came about. I can reel off a list of the Hindu castes. I've read a number of original accounts written by the first visitors to India, can tell you quite a bit about the Hindutatva philosophy and how the VJP leverages it to win national elections. I can give you a brief history of Sikhism, it's beliefs, and interaction with the modern world, as well as factions within. I know a smattering about Jainism. Etc. As I implied, I've studied Indian history and religion formally for a semester or two, and spent countless months doing the same informally.

In short, I don't know much at all about India compared to an Indian, but probably a heck of a lot more than most Americans, and almost certainly you.

And this is relevant why?

Histories which go back several thousands of years; full of enlightenment and technology.

Ummm... I'd disagree with that second point. Call me biased, but I don't find the practice of satee very enlightened: it's rather good the British banned it. Likewise, the caste system was (and still is, often) even worse than American slavery. Or are you prepared to defend that, too?

There's a reason most technology came from the west, "Everess": not because Westerners were any better, but because it was the very philosophies which dominated these poor countries which held them back. You apparently worship these philosophies, though it appears you know next to nothing about them. But you think I'm similarly ignorant, which is why you bring them up: you're guessing they'd be something I clearly wouldn't know much about, because you don't. (Whoops!)

Who invented the printing press, "Evress"? Gutenberg? No, the Chinese. Who invented the clock? Europeans? No, again, the Chinese. But when Europeans first arrived, the Chinese had no collective memory of having invented these marvels -- they never caught on. Why? And why was India mired in poverty while the West pulled so far ahead?

One of the primary differences between Western and Eastern religions, "Everess", is the idea and role of cycles. In both Buddhism and Hinduism, we are trapped (it's not a good thing) on an endless Karmic wheel -- destined never to get off. Round and round we go: Brahma creates, Vishnu sustains, Shiva destroys -- and it starts all over again. Likewise, with karma, one is trapped in a given caste for one's entire life: only in the next life can one expect something better (or worse).

This outlook meant there was little reason to improve things: since the cycle always came back to where we started, what was the point of doing anything? Likewise, the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita is that you fulfill your caste role. Even the wisest outcaste could never be promoted, even the stupid Brahmin would never lose his status as a ruler.

Many Americans act like technology just fell from heaven: it did not. It was the result of Western philophies you apparently denigrate. Likewise, it was no accident that other countries were mired in suffering and poverty for so long: it was the logical result of the philosophies that held them captive.

What does the KKK mean to the history of China and of India?

The KKK has very little to do with the history of China and India. But your question was about the Democratic Party. The KKK had quite a lot to do with that. But apparently you're shocked out of your mind to learn that.

Who is good and who is evil?

I'm sure you'll be happy to dispense such!

In my world, the one who wants to know the truth will end up being good, even if he is not, and the one who does not want to know the truth will end up evil, even if he is not.

How fearful you truly are.

Let's see: You're the one freaked out about learning the history of the Democratic Party, and seems intent on not admitting that into your mindset. You're the one who wants to run away now. Yes, of course, I'm fearful. Thanks for explaining that!

:-)

P.S. I’m Republican!

A Republican who is endlessly annoyed that I mentioned the link between the Democrats and the KKK? A Republican who rants incoherantly about "American Reality"?

Yes, and I'm Sean Penn. :-)

Mr. O,

What a breath of fresh air!Truly. Your writing's much more effective when you blush.

E. G. Goldmund
American Youth

Tim, I thought I'd mention something quite providential. Should Mrs. Clinton get the bid for the Democrat Nomination, 2008; providing her opponent isn't the anathematized, Senator Bill First, it would appear we’d be fighting for a similar cause. I genuinely dislike her, though I’m still lost for a soul-searching-reason why. Hopefully, for the sake of the broken yella-dog, Hillary will take a second seat to the good man from Delaware.
What do you think? Or are you too depressed with the ‘Imminent Domain’ ruling?

E.G. Goldmund

Evress,

Technically, you're banned, so by all rights I should just be deleting your post. But I have this ridiculous temptation to think well of people at every turn, and it looks like you're actually trying to be sincere here, so I'm willing to possibly play the fool again for you.

So I'll revert to the Dread Pirate Roberts strategy: "Good work, Wesley. I'll most likely kill you in the morning." ("You're banned Evress. I'll make that real if you break one more rule.")

Until then, I credit you with more unearned goodwill. :-)

I genuinely dislike her, though I’m still lost for a soul-searching-reason why.

I find Hillary a sympathetic figure, but that's partially based on accounts of how she was in law school -- she was quite nice.

I hate getting personal, but my own view is that she struck a Faustian bargain: in the 1990s, she knew Bill had personality traits that could very well interfere with his ability to be effective, and was on the verge of dumping him. But she decided to put herself on the line, cover for him, assure us it was no problem, no problem at all. In hopes that would put her in a position she could not have achieved otherwise.

Which it did.

So that's one thing. The other is that I think her sense of things is generally wrong. Look at the one thing she's ever really been allowed to run: the health care thingy.

I'm a conservative, who thinks government tends to end up hurting people, being inefficient, and needlessly wasting much money, so when I saw her sphaghetti-string mess of new departments, I about fainted. Even Canada's system was much simpler.

But the larger point is that she didn't sell it to the public. And that's a critical failure for a politician. In fact, looking back, the only two things I can remember her ever selling people on were (a) Bill, and (b) herself, to New Yorkers.

So I don't know why specifically you shouldn't like her. Perhaps it's something above, perhaps something completely different. I have nothing against her personally in the slightest -- I'd bend over backwards to help her out as a fellow human being. But that doesn't mean I trust her judgements.

Or are you too depressed with the ‘Imminent Domain’ ruling?

I think there are only five people in the whole country who don't think that was a terrible ruling, and they're all sitting on the Supreme Court. :-)

Tim,

You're really cute. I appreciate you keeping me in mind. All of us in "Fruitcake" salute your efforts in unocovering the Democratic Conspiracy!
You're the real deal, the New Deal, and a great American. Keep up the work!

"Fruitcake" and Friends.
ciao

Tim,

With all the time that's passed, what can you say for your conservative movement? Still got your agenda in beta I see? On a personal note, I’m greatly satisfied with an idle Frist; and although your old pal has been scooping monies along the coasts, she’s not got a snowballs chance in hell. I’ve been telling the right people about your website, the realpolitik of yours. Your what the Green party was to the Democrats (so I'm told), only your so to the Republicans. So after your next sip of green tea, you might care to write a few lines about our friend from Arizona. Your next President.

Evress Goldmund.
American Youth.

At least get the numbers and percentages correct when you argue your point...

2000 PRESIDENTIAL POPULAR VOTE SUMMARY FOR ALL CANDIDATES LISTED ON AT LEAST ONE STATE BALLOT
(Updated 12/2001)

Candidate (Party Label) Popular Vote Total
Percent of Popular Vote


Al Gore (Democrat) 50,999,897
48.38

George W. Bush (Republican) 50,456,002
47.87

Ralph Nader (Green) 2,882,955
2.74

Patrick J. Buchanan (Reform/Independent) 448,895
.42

Harry Browne (Libertarian) 384,431
.36

Howard Phillips (Constitution) 98,020
.09

John S. Hagelin (Natural Law/Reform/Independent) 83,714
.08

Write-In (Miscellaneous) 20,767*
.02

James E. Harris, Jr. (Socialist Workers) 7,378
.01

L. Neil Smith (Libertarian) 5,775
.00

David McReynolds (Socialist) 5,602
.00

Monica Moorehead (Workers World) 4,795
.00

None of These Candidates (Nevada) 3,315
.00

Cathy Gordon Brown (Independent) 1,606 .00

Denny Lane (Vermont Grassroots) 1,044 .00

Randall Venson (Independent) 535
.00

Earl F. Dodge (Prohibition) 208
.00

Louie G. Youngkeit (Independent) 161
.00

Total: 105,405,100*

Voting Age Population (Census Bureau Population Survey for November 2000): 205,815,000

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm