American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 416653]"Consumer Beware", so which came first, the chicken or the egg? If you do not think that American consumer is in the clutches of Big Business, you are very naive. From the lack of viable public transportation, to the people who depend on 7-11s for their culinary delights, the easy availability to leasing rather than buying cars, you can go on and on. Is it true that "instant gratification" and "attention deficit to be of American cultural origin? Maybe, that can be debated. So we had a damn good run, and now, we have to clean up after a night of debauchery. Still don't understand that if you make $300, 000 that you are not consider rich.

[/QUOTE]Say the city fathers fail to construct or maintain levees. Then a flood comes and wipes out the town. It's the rain's fault, right?

One of the reasons that capitalism works so well is because businesses compete to make money. That makes the economic system more efficient and productive and creates wealth for all. Government sets the rules. If a government does that wisely, society will benefit. If it doesn't, if politicians are corrupt or stupid or obsessed with obtaining votes instead of doing what's right, it won't.

Politicians shouldn't allow people to borrow to buy houses with no money down. They shouldn't offer guarantees for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages. They shouldn't offer homeowners deductions on interest expense. They shouldn't give businesses deductions for interest expense while charging tax on dividends (thus encouraging them to raise capital by borrowing instead of issuing equity). They shouldn't allow banks to charge interest rates that, after late fees, are effectively 30% per year on credit card debt. They shouldn't put people in charge of the Federal Reserve that are going to keep interest rates at or below the inflation rate year after year after year.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, they shouldn't encourage people to believe in massive Ponzi schemes like Medicare and Social Security. Why work hard and save your money for retirement or a rainy day? The government will be there for you, even when Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security account for 25% of GDP, and the proportion of retirees to workers is much higher than it is now.

Black Shirt, What you're describing is the biggest problem facing America. But the root cause is politicians, not businessmen. Or, actually, the individuals who elect politicians and who make stupid spending decisions.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;416663]The little guy in the US has it better than the little guy in every other country in the world, which is why they're all trying to figure out how to get here. [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416647]The reality is, as pointed out numerous times by folks other than myself, that the poor in America are rich relative to much of the world's population. [/QUOTE]Well lookee here. This lame talking point trotted out twice in two days.

In other words, it's OK to pay American workers low wages with few benefits, and allow most of the prosperity to go to the wealthy, as long as those workers are better off than their counterparts in other countries.

How laughable, and shameless, for the rich elite (and their followers) to use the Third World as a benchmark for American workers.

Pathetic.

Hi Jackson. Long time no see.

With all due respect, look at the freaking mess Obama inherited after 8 years of Bush imperialism.

I just don't agree with wars for profit (i. e. defense contractors (e.g.Halliburton, Blackwater, Carlyle), oil companies, etc.) Our dependence on foreign oil is not by necessity but by design. I could go on for days with examples, but it's already widely known and recognized. We don't go around "liberating" every other f-up country in the world, and there's a reason for that. But you've got the degree in Political Science, so you already know all this. And BTW, I care as much as you do bud, but from a different perspective.

PS The Hurricane Katrina "clean-up" was a national embarrassment.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 416662]HappyGoLucky,

Within his first 30 days in office, Obama borrowed more money than the combined [u]TOTAL[/u] Cost of liberating Iraq and Afghanistan, [u]AND[/u] The Hurricane Katrina cleanup.

I know, let me guess: You don't care.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 416664]Say the city fathers fail to construct or maintain levees. Then a flood comes and wipes out the town. It's the rain's fault, right?

One of the reasons that capitalism works so well is because businesses compete to make money. That makes the economic system more efficient and productive and creates wealth for all. Government sets the rules. If a government does that wisely, society will benefit. If it doesn't, if politicians are corrupt or stupid or obsessed with obtaining votes instead of doing what's right, it won't.

Politicians shouldn't allow people to borrow to buy houses with no money down. They shouldn't offer guarantees for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages. They shouldn't offer homeowners deductions on interest expense. They shouldn't give businesses deductions for interest expense while charging tax on dividends (thus encouraging them to raise capital by borrowing instead of issuing equity). They shouldn't allow banks to charge interest rates that, after late fees, are effectively 30% per year on credit card debt. They shouldn't put people in charge of the Federal Reserve that are going to keep interest rates at or below the inflation rate year after year after year.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, they shouldn't encourage people to believe in massive Ponzi schemes like Medicare and Social Security. Why work hard and save your money for retirement or a rainy day? The government will be there for you, even when Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security account for 25% of GDP, and the proportion of retirees to workers is much higher than it is now.

Black Shirt, What you're describing is the biggest problem facing America. But the root cause is politicians, not businessmen. Or, actually, the individuals who elect politicians and who make stupid spending decisions. [/QUOTE]Thank you for your very intelligent post. The crux of the matter is that Politics and Big Business are like Siamese Twins. The electoral process demands massive funding and so the coupling is often made with the public's interests being compromised.

Singapore has show the world the meaning of responsible government in a global economy. Government public housing, healthcare, retirement funds work there. Neither Capitalism nor Socialism is a dirty work, they can co-exist. Our frontier days are long gone, it is a more complex urban enviroment that we exist in today.

[QUOTE=Esten; 416667]Well lookee here. This lame talking point trotted out twice in two days.

In other words, it's OK to pay American workers low wages with few benefits, and allow most of the prosperity to go to the wealthy, as long as those workers are better off than their counterparts in other countries.

How laughable, and shameless, for the rich elite (and their followers) to use the Third World as a benchmark for American workers.

Pathetic. [/QUOTE]I believe Stan posted his comment prior to mine and that a similar statement has been made herein in the past, which is precisely why I referenced the prior statements. I apologize if the succinct and abundantly clear reference confused you.

Simply because two people, out of 6. 8 billion human beings on this planet, state the same fact, doesn't make it a talking point. Both Obama and Hitler remarked, separately, that the sun rises in the east. Am I to conclude that this is a talking point of fanatical fascist dictators? Or is it possible that the sun does rise in the east? At the risk of further confusing you, I'll let you in on a little-known secret. The sun doesn't actually 'rise' in the east, it only appears to rise in the east. You see, the sun doesn't revolve around the earth. We can discuss Obama and Hitler's joint efforts to perpetuate the same myth later.

Further, neither Stan nor myself has, to my knowledge, proffered that the poor should stay poor or that being poor is good or that American poor should live in conditions similar to those in developing countries (learned folks have come to view 'Third World' as a pejorative term). Quite to the contrary, we are both on the side of helping the poor via opportunity. You on the other hand seem more interested in enslaving the poor, via dependence upon the government for everything from food to shelter to healthcare, as a means to permanently install leftists in the three branches of our government.

Which seems more cynical to you?

It seems that the super rich are getting even a greater share of the country's wealth. So far, Reagan style tricklenomics has failed to provide a fair and stable social structure. These quotes are from the Boston Globe:

"The only people being saved are the wealthy.

While unemployment remains at close to 9 percent, the average salaries for CEOs at 200 of America's largest companies rose 20 percent, to $11. 7 million, according to the New York Times. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that CEO bonuses at 50 major corporations rose 30. 5 percent last year, the biggest gain in three years, to an average bonus of $2. 5 million.

The rich have recovered so fast that their share of America's income is on track to break the all-time record. According to Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, the top 10 percent of Americans hoarded 46. 3 percent of the nation's income in 1932. That fell to around 31 percent in the 1950s and held steady into the early 1970s, due to a combination of World War II fiscal shocks, more progressive income and corporate tax policies, unions, and social programs. The top 1 percent had 19. 6 percent of the nation's income in 1928 and that fell to 7. 7 percent by 1973.

Then income for the wealthy roared back full circle. The share for the top 10 percent was back up to 45. 6 percent in 2008. For the top 1 percent, it was back up to 18. 3 percent in 2007.

If we had just ended the Bush-era tax cuts and returned to the Clinton years — which were booming ones for the economy — the Treasury said it would get back $3. 7 trillion over the next decade.

Meanwhile, the US Census last year said the rich-poor income gap reached record levels, nearly doubling gaps of the late 1960s. The United States is the richest nation on earth, yet we rank 97th in family-income equality, according to the CIA Factbook. Our inequality is so profound that we rank behind nations we associate with corruption, poverty, oppression, or collapsed governments — Nigeria, China, India, Ivory Coast, Tunisia, Egypt, Burundi, Nicaragua, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Greece. The most economically equal country in the world is Sweden.

Even the CIA says the United States is now a nation where 'those at the bottom lack the education and the professional / technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20 percent of households. '

For all of those 'gains, ' we are sliding backward with each announcement of CEO pay. The gain for a few has become the great American loss."

[url]http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/04/12/surprise_surprise_rich_get_richer/[/url]

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 416677]as a means to permanently install leftists in the three branches of our government.

Which seems more cynical to you? [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky; 416678]It seems that the super rich are getting even a greater share of the country's wealth. So far, Reagan style tricklenomics has failed to provide a fair and stable social structure. These quotes are from the Boston Globe:

Blah, blah, blah[/QUOTE]It must be true. This is typical of globe reporting, as is this:

Two boys are playing hockey on the Boston Common pond when one is attacked by a vicious rottweiler. Thinking quickly, the other boy takes his hockey stick and scares the dog off, stopping the attack. A reporter who is strolling by sees the incident and rushes over to interview the boy.

"Young Bruins fan saves friend from vicious animal." he starts writing in his notebook.

"But I'm not a Bruins fan," the little boy replies.

"Sorry. Since we're in Boston, I just assumed you were," says the reporter and starts again."Red Sox fan rescues friend from horrific attack. ' he continues writing in his notebook.

"I'm not a Red Sox fan either!" the boy says.

"So, what team do you root for?" the reporter asks.

"I'm a Yankees fan!" the child beams.

The reporter starts a new sheet in his notebook and writes: "Little brat from New York kills beloved family pet."

Typical liberal rag and a true example of the use of talking points, as opposed to Esten's misguided attack.

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky; 416678]It seems that the super rich are getting even a greater share of the country's wealth. So far, Reagan style tricklenomics has failed to provide a fair and stable social structure. These quotes are from the Boston Globe:

"The only people being saved are the wealthy.

While unemployment remains at close to 9 percent, the average salaries for CEOs at 200 of America's largest companies rose 20 percent, to $11. 7 million, according to the New York Times. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that CEO bonuses at 50 major corporations rose 30. 5 percent last year, the biggest gain in three years, to an average bonus of $2. 5 million.

The rich have recovered so fast that their share of America's income is on track to break the all-time record. According to Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, the top 10 percent of Americans hoarded 46. 3 percent of the nation's income in 1932. That fell to around 31 percent in the 1950s and held steady into the early 1970s, due to a combination of World War II fiscal shocks, more progressive income and corporate tax policies, unions, and social programs. The top 1 percent had 19. 6 percent of the nation's income in 1928 and that fell to 7. 7 percent by 1973.

Then income for the wealthy roared back full circle. The share for the top 10 percent was back up to 45. 6 percent in 2008. For the top 1 percent, it was back up to 18. 3 percent in 2007.

If we had just ended the Bush-era tax cuts and returned to the Clinton years — which were booming ones for the economy — the Treasury said it would get back $3. 7 trillion over the next decade.

Meanwhile, the US Census last year said the rich-poor income gap reached record levels, nearly doubling gaps of the late 1960s. The United States is the richest nation on earth, yet we rank 97th in family-income equality, according to the CIA Factbook. Our inequality is so profound that we rank behind nations we associate with corruption, poverty, oppression, or collapsed governments — Nigeria, China, India, Ivory Coast, Tunisia, Egypt, Burundi, Nicaragua, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Greece. The most economically equal country in the world is Sweden.

Even the CIA says the United States is now a nation where 'those at the bottom lack the education and the professional / technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20 percent of households. '

For all of those 'gains, ' we are sliding backward with each announcement of CEO pay. The gain for a few has become the great American loss."

[url]http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/04/12/surprise_surprise_rich_get_richer/[/url]

[/QUOTE]There is nothing Un-american about making money dude! So I am the CEO of a large public company and make killer results, enhancing shareholder value, and I don't deserve a BIG BONUS? This concept is what separates the US from socialist countries like Argentina. VIVA America baby. As the lawyers say "you eat what you kill"! Since when is there some rule that the wealth should be equally divided by the masses. THAT'S UN-American buddy. Guessing you never worked for yourself dude. Give it a try. You might like it or crash in flames. To the victor goes the spoils. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

I had my own business for 12 years, and did quite well. How we define the lines and limits of social responsibility and everyone contributing a fair share will determine the overall health of our nation.

The list of the biggest corporate freeloaders contains many of the largest energy / oil conglomerates. What a surprise.

[url]http://front.moveon.org/3-which-corporations-are-the-biggest-freeloaders/?rc=recirctest[/url]

[QUOTE=Toymann;416681]There is nothing Un-american about making money dude! So I am the CEO of a large public company and make killer results, enhancing shareholder value, and I don't deserve a BIG BONUS? This concept is what separates the US from socialist countries like Argentina. VIVA America baby. As the lawyers say "you eat what you kill"! Since when is there some rule that the wealth should be equally divided by the masses. THAT'S UN-American buddy. Guessing you never worked for yourself dude. Give it a try. You might like it or crash in flames. To the victor goes the spoils. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten; 416667]Well lookee here. This lame talking point trotted out twice in two days.

In other words, it's OK to pay American workers low wages with few benefits, and allow most of the prosperity to go to the wealthy, as long as those workers are better off than their counterparts in other countries.

How laughable, and shameless, for the rich elite (and their followers) to use the Third World as a benchmark for American workers.

Pathetic. [/QUOTE]This perfectly illustrates, yet again, the difference between socialists and capitalists. Esten is a socialist. He is akin to the closet homosexual who has not yet made peace with himself, so he'll issue public denials about what he likes and believes. But, all the evidence is points in a different direction.

Esten doesn't quibble with the notion that our "poor" are better off than folks in other countries. He tries to suggest that these are third world comparisons, but no one mentioned the third world except him. My statement was that the poor are better off here than anywhere else. But, for Esten, that's not good enough if the rich are doing really well. It's not enough to take care of your poor better than anywhere else if Esten can look at the rich and say "they're making too much." That's the socialist in him. Again, he can issue as many denials as he wants, but someday he'll look in the mirror and have the spine to have that talk with mom and dad.

The difference between the socialist and capitalist mindset is best illustrated by an old joke:

An American capitalist, a French parliamentarian and a Russian socialist found an old bottle on the beach, opened it up, and saw a genie fly out. The genie was so grateful that he granted them each one wish.

The capitalist always admired his high school chum, who had accumulated great wealth. So, he wished for a mansion on the ocean, lots of money, cars, women, and all the other aspects of a wealthy lifestyle.

The parliamentarian wanted something similar. His cousin inherited a fortune, and he was always envious. So, he wished for a villa on the Mediterranean and limitless money and luxury.

When the socialist took his turn, he remembered his neighbor who was better off. He said,"My neighbor has a goat, and I don't have one. Kill my neighbor's goat!"

Esten can't be happy if others are doing better. He'd rather see the government force everyone to be equal, or "more equal" and that's the basic difference here. He will never be happy. That's because poverty, like wealth, is relative. It's meaningless if you simply say someone is poor. The only way to make sense of it is in relation to others. So, for Esten, it doesn't matter that our "poor" are doing better than the "poor" everywhere else, and it doesn't matter if today's "poor" are "rich" in comparison to the "poor" of 100 years ago. We need to compare them to the wealthy and then let the government try to equalize things.

I reject this view. In terms of economics, my view is that the government is responsible for providing a bare bones safety net, and to ensure that opportunities are available. Beyond that, government needs to get out of the way. The government should not be in the business of looking at how many cows or goats someone has. Whether people capitalize on opportunities is up to them, and it's not the government's business to try to even out the odds. Once a bare bones safety net is in place, and opportunities exist, the rest is up to the individual.

[QUOTE=Esten; 416667]it's OK to pay American workers low wages with few benefits, and allow most of the prosperity to go to the wealthy, as long as those workers are better off than their counterparts in other countries.[/QUOTE]So, to answer your question: Yes.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;416684]Whether people capitalize on opportunities is up to them, and it's not the government's business to try to even out the odds. Once a bare bones safety net is in place, and opportunities exist, the rest is up to the individual.[/QUOTE]This is sort of what I meant by a "True believer." In concept, I agree, it just isn't working in the EEUU. Witness the Wall Street f-up.

Meanwhile prisons are exploding at an unprecedented rate in the USA because the social fabric is unraveling. The "right" wants to build more prisons and privatize the "business" but warehousing never works and is a terrible burden to the taxpayers.

I find it interesting that there are so many of the "right" mindset here. Who pressures the local PD to spend taxpayer money raiding the local AMP while gangs are gaining more control of the streets? I know a lot of guys in LE, and they just do what they're told, generally by the "right" who are always trying to legislate how we live our lives. Hence we are here, in beautiful wonderful Argentina with all its flaws and freedoms.

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky;416685]Meanwhile prisons are exploding at an unprecedented rate in the USA because the social fabric is unraveling. The "right" wants to build more prisons and privatize the "business" but warehousing never works and is a terrible burden to the taxpayers.[/quote]LOL! The reason that our "[i]prisons are exploding[/i]" is our idiotic drug laws, not because "[i]the social fabric is unraveling[/i]".

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky;416685]I find it interesting that there are so many of the "right" mindset here. Who pressures the local PD to spend taxpayer money raiding the local AMP while gangs are gaining more control of the streets? I know a lot of guys in LE, and they just do what they're told, generally by the "right" who are always trying to legislate how we live our lives. Hence we are here, in beautiful wonderful Argentina with all its flaws and freedoms.[/QUOTE]HappyGoLucky,

Look around you. I don't believe you're going to find too many of [i]those[/i] kinds of guys on this website.

I know that its standard leftist strategy to demagogue everyone who doesn't subscribe their unique brand of logic, and specifically to lump persons with different perspectives together and malign them as a group. However, it is completely inaccurate, not to mention manifestly unfair, for you to brand everyone who is fiscally conservative as right wing bible thumpers.

Kind of reminds me of the anti-commercial sex bigots who always try to aggregate consensual prostitution with slavery and child abuse.

==============================================

For the record, I am [u]NOT[/u] a Republican, and I am [u]NOT[/u] a conservative.

- I am [u]against[/u] the death penalty.
- I am [u]against[/u] [u]any[/u] government support of religious organizations.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am [u]for[/u] a woman's right to choose.
- I am [u]for[/u] comprehensive sex education.
- I am [u]for[/u] a foreign guest worker program.
- I am [u]for[/u] a universal flat tax on [u]EVERYONE'S[/u] income.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]INSURANCE[/u] reform.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]JUSTICE[/u] reform.

I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky;416685]This is sort of what I meant by a "True believer." In concept, I agree, it just isn't working in the EEUU. Witness the Wall Street f-up.[/quote]The Wall St. F-up didn't just come out of nowhere and appear on the corner of Wall & Broad one morning.

[quote=]Meanwhile prisons are exploding at an unprecedented rate in the USA because the social fabric is unraveling. The "right" wants to build more prisons and privatize the "business" but warehousing never works and is a terrible burden to the taxpayers.[/quote]Only a true believer (one that believes in bull shit) would make such a statement.

This is another misguided liberal rant. "Boo hoo, look at all the people in jail. It's obvious that they shouldn't be there because the crime rate is so low"

Check out the statistics over at the FBI. The incidence of violent crime (per 100k people) has dropped roughly 41% from 1990, a lovely time in the US when urban decay was in full swing, complemented by the crack cocaine epidemic. During that same period, the incidences of murder, rape and armed robbery have dropped 46.8, 30% and 48, respectively.

While both the nominal number of people incarcerated (not a good measure because it skews high because it doesn't account for population growth) and the real incarceration rate (adjusted for population growth) have gone up, those people weren't put there by the Tea Party, Glenn Beck or Wall Street. They were put there by their own criminal behavior. The fact that they were incarcerated and thus prevented from committing more crimes against innocent people resulted in lower crime rates. If you read those statistics the same way I do, it looks like the authorities have put an awful lot of the bad guys in jail, where most of them belong.

So exactly what is it that is causing the unraveling? Do you prefer the days of lower incarceration rates and higher crime rates?

[quote=]I find it interesting that there are so many of the "right" mindset here. Who pressures the local PD to spend taxpayer money raiding the local AMP while gangs are gaining more control of the streets? I know a lot of guys in LE, and they just do what they're told, generally by the "right" who are always trying to legislate how we live our lives. Hence we are here, in beautiful wonderful Argentina with all its flaws and freedoms.[/QUOTE]Look at who has been running most of America's cities over the last 30 years and tell me how it is that the "right" is telling them to do anything. Politicians looking to curry favor with voters often crack down on things like prostitution purely for their own political gain.

Further, you should look at who is really trying to legislate and dictate every little part of your life. Who is saying what light bulbs you can use? Forcing you to use low-flow toilets? Driving little cars? Preventing you from sending your kid to school with a homemade lunch? Banning chocolate milk from school? Making happy meals illegal? Telling you what you can and can't do with your own property?

Like I said, there mustn't be too many reflective objects in your general vicinity.

[QUOTE=HappyGoLucky;416685]I find it interesting that there are so many of the "right" mindset here. [/QUOTE]I won't bother responding to your prisons argument. You've already been cut to shreds on that one.

The reason there are so many people from the "right" here is that reason generally wins out. There have been many, many people with a leftish perspective drop in now and again. They make their "points" and, generally, they are shown either to be wrong, fools, or both. Usually both. Then, most shuffle off, bleating like sheep.

Don't get me wrong, we have our village idiots who stick around no matter what: Esten, Moreon and a couple more. But, there are dozens of others from the left wing persuasion who have come and gone.

Looks like we've got another village idiot to me. Welcome aboard!

[QUOTE=Jackson;416688]LOL! The reason that our "[i]prisons are exploding[/i]" is our idiotic drug laws, not because "[i]the social fabric is unraveling[/i]".[/QUOTE]That is certainly true, but not the only reason. Public education is at an all time low, and constantly under attack, i.e. losing funding.

[QUOTE=Jackson;416688]HappyGoLucky,

Look around you. I don't believe you're going to find too many of [i]those[/i] Kinds of guys on this website. [/QUOTE]Well, who wants to be called names? I don't mind debate; sometimes we learn something.

[QUOTE=Jackson;416688]I know that its standard leftist strategy to demagogue everyone who doesn't subscribe their unique brand of logic, and specifically to lump persons with different perspectives together and malign them as a group. However, it is completely inaccurate, not to mention manifestly unfair, for you to brand everyone who is fiscally conservative as right wing bible thumpers. [/QUOTE]That was not my intent. My previous comments were in response to an assumption that the last election indicated a mandate for the Republican agenda. Clearly, the voters who elected Republicans had a variety of agendas, some of which were fiscal, but many of which relate to issues such as abortion, gay rights, immigration, etc. The ultra ultra rich have coopted votes by pretending to care about the "Bible thumper" issues, and are quick to enact laws which further restrict our personal freedoms (tougher drug laws, etc.), to garner support. To do justice to your point, there is probably no one on this board (the upper elite 3% of the mega rich, or even the upper 10% for that matter). I am in fact "fiscally conservative" but I also believe in taking care of our social infrastructure, as opposed to funding wars for oil.

[QUOTE=Jackson;416688]Kind of reminds me of the anti-commercial sex bigots who always try to aggregate consensual prostitution with slavery and child abuse. [/QUOTE]I'm with ya on that one!

[QUOTE=Jackson;416688]==============================================

For the record, I am [u]NOT[/u] A Republican, and I am [u]NOT[/u] A conservative.

- I am [u]against[/u] The death penalty.

- I am [u]against[/u] [u]any[/u] Government support of religious organizations.

- I am [u]for[/u] The legalization of recreational drugs.

- I am [u]for[/u] The legalization of commercial sex.

- I am [u]for[/u] A woman's right to choose.

- I am [u]for[/u] Comprehensive sex education.

- I am [u]for[/u] A foreign guest worker program.

- I am [u]for[/u] A universal flat tax on [u]EVERYONE'S[/u] Income.

- I am [u]for[/u] Health [u]INSURANCE[/u] Reform.

- I am [u]for[/u] Health [u]JUSTICE[/u] Reform.

I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent. [/QUOTE]There's nothing here I disagree with.