Jump to content

This is VERY interesting


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

sorry guys I didn't know it was like that here you go:


Looming fight


Battles in the culture wars have flared over the past 40 years. Now, with a key Supreme Court seat open, some analysts fear a level of bitter conflict that could turn the country inside out.


It's going to be a bruiser.


If you thought election 2004 and Terri Schiavo's last days were nasty confrontations in the so-called culture wars, just wait for the fight over who will fill Sandra Day O'Connor's U.S. Supreme Court seat.


Ruptures over gay marriage, flag burning or displaying the Ten Commandments will feel like mere tremors compared with the cultural quake sure to erupt when the nation's differences become the weapons with which the Supreme Court's future is determined, political analysts say. Expect the "red" and the "blue" to go at it fiercely enough to leave the nation purple, or at least with some long-lingering bitter feelings.


"It's likely to be the political equivalent of the war of the worlds," said Marshall Wittman - once legislative director for the Christian Coalition, now a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. "Unless the president completely surprises everyone and picks a moderate, he will likely trigger an end-of-all-times cultural battle over this nomination."


The White House said Bush won't announce a nominee until at least July 8, after he returns from a trip to Europe, but the fight over that nominee is looking to be bloody.


Soon after word of O'Connor's retirement surfaced, Planned Parenthood announced a series of rallies and sent a message to supporters saying, "We cannot remain idle in the face of such a threat."


David Corn, Washington editor of the left-leaning periodical The Nation, quickly posted a column saying, "It should be ugly."


"There will be much at stake. But ugly is ugly," he wrote, adding, "A titanic fight over a Supreme Court nomination can really ruin a summer in Washington."


"The supply lines are being formed," Wittman said Friday, hours after O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court and a swing vote on abortion, announced her retirement.


"Everyone is canceling their weekend vacations to hunker down. People are being deluged with political spam. Everyone's sharpening their sound bites. It's lock-and-load time in Washington."


Those who believe in the concept of culture wars - the idea that the nation is increasingly divided into increasingly entrenched camps that are increasingly at odds over whether the government should legislate moral values - agree that this could be the mother of all of them.


Even before the 2004 election, which seemed to turn on the relatively new political theme of "moral values," the country's fractured conscience had grown apparent.


Disagreements over the balance of church and state have played out in debates over creationism in public schools or display of the Ten Commandments on public property, for instance. A rift over the definition of life and death, kept open by issues related to abortion, has been widened by debates in Congress and elsewhere about things like embryonic stem cell research and Schiavo's right to live or die.


The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have provided more fuel, not only by spawning political opposition, but also by sparking disagreements over such matters as the treatment and rights of political prisoners, or whether individual rights should be sacrificed in the name of security.


Some see these culture wars as a concoction of the news media, think tank talking heads and TV producers who like everything to be, if not black and white, at least red and blue.


But even the cynics agree that O'Connor's resignation creates a prism through which the disagreements are likely to be concentrated, amplified and perhaps distorted, leading to the political skirmish of the fledgling century. No matter whom Bush nominates, Democrats are likely to put up a fight and, based on the high stakes and their losing record of late, it's likely to be an all-out one.


Some say another big, prolonged, values-laden battle in Washington will do little more than increase alienation and apathy among the masses, and even widen the rift between the right and left - that, when it comes to the national fabric, we might want to consider switching to Kevlar.


'A firestorm'


"The Democrats will see no downside to attacking this nominee mercilessly," said Richard Shenkman, editor of George Mason University's History News Network. "I don't see any way around it, really. It will be a firestorm."


The president could, of course, defuse the fireworks by appointing a moderate nominee, though few consider that likely. With his poll numbers down and his conservative core in need of a good soothing, he is more apt to rally supporters with a candidate of their ilk. And besides, the conservatives have been burned by the so-called moderates in the past.




courtesy Baltimore Sun


By John Woestendiek and Robert Little


Sun National Staff


Originally published July 3, 2005


sorry again guys



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is very interesting, I work for the Parent company of the Baltimore Sun. I see a lot happening in the next few months. The cultural issues are that there are 2 clear lines draw, Conservatives and Liberals. Unfortunately, neither represents the mass of the people. Like didn't only 40% of the populous that could vote did so in the last Presidential elections? That leaves a lot of people that are not happy with either choice. In the past some have said that they were just too lazy to get out and vote, but I have talked to several that didn't and nearly all are intelligent, informed, and motivated NOT to vote. They saw no difference in the outcome of this last election, Rep. Dem. Conservative or Liberal, Bush or Kerry; they are the ultra on each side. If you look at the election results Kerry won states with large cities that take up most of the populous. Illinois went Kerry, but the breakdown of this state showed that only the Chicago land area voted for him, but there are more electoral votes there than the rest of the state. Even though the rest of the state was overwhelmingly Bush supporters. New York State was similar, many states were. So you have what Titor predicted, the City and the Rural would come into conflict.


My brother had something interesting to say the other day, he told me that he was not a redneck but he seems to be siding with them more and more often, and they tend to embrace the more conservative lifestyle. I think there is the problem, if 20% of the people are hardcore Conservatives and 20% are hardcore Liberals then 60% tend to be more Moderate, but they are not represented by any major party. Titor was/is right there will be a culture war and the 60% will get stuck in the middle.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, this is not interesting but disturbing, and this quote highlights why:


Like didn't only 40% of the populous that could vote did so in the last Presidential elections? That leaves a lot of people that are not happy with either choice. In the past some have said that they were just too lazy to get out and vote, but I have talked to several that didn't and nearly all are intelligent, informed, and motivated NOT to vote.

Not voting is essentially an abdication of your participation in representative democracy. Do you know that in some countries (Australia, for one) it is against the law to NOT vote? Technically, they could fine you or throw you in jail, and I think that is good.By not voting you are giving up your right to complain about WHATEVER result comes to pass in an election. You say these people are "intelligent" and "informed", but I would disagree with these because they appear to not be informed about what happens when you abstain from voting: You are willfully giving-up your voice to someone else (with values you likely do not agree with).

Are you, or the people you have talked to, aware of how much both the DEMS and REPUBS worry about "vote dilution"? This worry encourages BOTH of these parties in power to not want those middle-of-the-road people to show up for election day... for the simple reason that these people may likely cast their votes to a candidate who is neither DEM nor REPUB. Yet, this is EXACTLY the result we need to break the stranglehold on power that our two party system has crafted for itself!


Personally, I think people who willfully abstain from voting are ignorant of how their inaction makes the situations they abhor even worse. If that 60% voting block actually does represent the mediating values between REPUBS and DEMS, then these are the people who have the power to change things... if only they WOULD vote, and vote their conscience. To say something like "my vote doesn't matter because I would not vote for either DEM or REPUB, therefore I am not going to vote" is one of the most dangerous afflictions that can infect a representative democracy: apathy towards self-government.


Titor was/is right there will be a culture war and the 60% will get stuck in the middle.

And would you "blame" either the DEMs or REPUBs if this occurs? I wouldn't, because at least those people are actively participating in the process, as it was designed to happen. No, I would blame all those people who sat-out the vote, as they seem to be types that just "let things happen to them".Inaction can have worse consequences than taking an action that appears "wrong".




Link to comment
Share on other sites

90% voted in the last election or so, or over 100 million people!


Perhaps, Churchhill's statement still stands. One of Churchhill's speeches included the immortal line:


"We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."


Try and get facts correct and ------- Grow a Brain!



Link to comment
Share on other sites

By not voting you are giving up your right to complain about WHATEVER result comes to pass in an election. You say these people are "intelligent" and "informed", but I would disagree with these because they appear to not be informed about what happens when you abstain from voting: You are willfully giving-up your voice to someone else (with values you likely do not agree with).


Okay, this statement is an old argument that at one time might have held up but no longer. Even though I voted, I have to agree with the group that did not. By the way 90% of registered votes did vote, which is only 40% of eligible voters. What they are trying to say is that there is no difference between Dem or Rep, and there is not. Both are run by big business and lobby groups and frankly don't care about Joe and Jane USA. By voting one thinks he could change things, sorry, they aren't about to, neither Dem or Rep, they like it just the way it is. This is what so many are trying to say, a choice of a rock and a hard place is not choice. There is no way to voice any opinion other than Dem or Rep, not a lot of choice really. I agree that it is the duty of every American to vote and we should have a law to vote, but we need to have more than 2 parties in National elections.


My father lobbied for many years for a right to have the right on the ballot to abstain from vote if no candidate was in his opinion right for the job. He had some political clout locally but could never even get the local elections to make it a law. And you are right the 2 major parties don't want the 60% to vote or there would be more than 2 parties or a abstention vote on ballot.


My father's law was, put simply, all eligible voters must vote, there are exceptions but few, all candidates for national elections do not have to go through State law to be placed on a ballot. IE someone that wants to run for Pres. need only meet federal law concerning eligibility and he must be put on all ballots for all states and territories. All ballots will have a place to abstain from all candidates. Abstention votes are counted as if it were a candidate, if no candidate in an election is able to fulfill the needed amount to be elected the holder of the office stays in office and in a 9 week period another election must be run with new candidates, until a candidate can fulfill the required amount of votes. No candidate can run again in the same election in the same election year or during the same ballot process.


Some people told my father this would be anarchy, but he always felt the Jefferson was right when he said 'The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.' And 'When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.'


What my dad wanted was a fair and just government he saw what it was going to and has become and feared it for me and my children, we must change our government, but thinking that the voting of some person that is just a puppet can't do it anymore. That is what Titor was letting us know that if we do nothing the class war will happen, and it might already be too late now.


But we got way off the subject with this track. It is about the Rural folk and the Urban folk that is where the war is to be fought.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

In these United States of America I am free to choose whether or not I wish to vote. Some say, "You must vote, even if you must choose between the lesser of two evils." To these folks I say: "I'll decide what I wish to do with my voting power, thank you."


You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.


If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.


You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill


I will choose a path that's clear


I will choose free will.........~Rush



Link to comment
Share on other sites

To these folks I say: "I'll decide what I wish to do with my voting power, thank you."

That is true, you have this right. But if you exercise this right, then you have no place complaining about how anything in our society results from the actions of government, for you are willfully giving up your participation.This is the issue I am trying to make, because I am sick and tired of hearing people whine about the state of government....and then when I ask them who they voted for, they tell me they didn't vote. THEN SHUT UP IF YOU DIDN'T VOTE! :mad:




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray tries on plaid slacks.


Creedo takes Ray to an expensive plaid slacks and clothing shop, in Hollywood.


Ray says, "Gee Dan' this will never work. I mean I can't even hoot'man. I'm not sure the guys at work will buy it, if I show how up in these"?


Ray enters the booth.Removes the slacks that is is currently wearing.Then dons a pair of bold plaid slacks, with a set of cuffs, coming out of the changing room.


Creedo looks at Ray in the plaid slacks, and says, "Mmmm' I think there's promise there, I mean I think you wear them well".


Ray says. "Ya' think, I mean they wont gawk at work, will they"?


Creedo says "No"? and the purchase the plaid slacks.



Link to comment
Share on other sites


Yea at least write someone in. Even yourself. Show the elite who choses the leaders you vote for that you are not afraid, that their game is over.


I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone and then I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you, a world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries, a world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing is for sure though, and that is there are more than two political parties in the USA.


If you do not vote for any party, then perhaps, one should look into it. It may not be possible depending on where you live, but there are more than two political parties in the USA.


In fact at the one website showing the political parties in the USA, the last time I looked, there were over 21 political parties in the USA. Most do not fit me, and are a tad too religious, but there is one called the U.S. Patriotic Party, although it is not in all States yet!


As for anything else, the Declaration of Independence states that there are inalienable Rights granted to all people, and I doubt if a religious debate is really needed. What is needed in the USA is that other people quit using excuses for giving off their flak about what they think is in the U.S. Constitution, with the quest that everyone has those certain inalienable Rights.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is intiresting, but the country wont split up over an abortion issue.

I certainly wouldn't call it impossible
Not only that, but if it did split up over any sort of political issue it would be the midwest against the coasts... which sounds a bit different from what was predicted.

It's not that different really, where are most of the major cities? Answer: The coasts.Yes, by the way I am Cryomaniac, using a different username, you didn't honestly think there were two people from Newark on here did you :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. (AP) -- Scientists are puzzled by a mysterious Los Padres National Forest hot spot where 400-degree ground ignited a wildfire.


The hot spot was discovered by fire crews putting out a three-acre fire last summer in the forest's Dick Smith Wilderness.


"They saw fissures in the ground where they could feel a lot of heat coming out," Los Padres geologist Allen King said. "It was not characteristic of a normal fire."


Fire investigators went back to the canyon days later and stuck a candy thermometer into the ground. It hit the top of the scale, at 400 degrees.


A dozen scientists, including University of California, Santa Barbara, mineralogist Jim Boles, have been looking for answers since August. Robert Mariner, a U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist who studies volcanic gas vents at Mt. Shasta, Mt. Hood and Mt. Rainier was also called in.


"When I heard about the candy thermometer, I was amazed," Mariner said, noting that the temperature of the volcanic vents he studies is typically 200 degrees, around the boiling point of water. "I thought these guys were pulling my leg."


With the help of an air reconnaissance flight and thermal infrared imaging, scientists found that the hot spot covers about three acres. The hottest spot was 11 feet underground, at 584 degrees.


They found no oil and gas deposits or vents nearby and no significant deposits of coal. The Geiger counter readings were normal for radioactivity, and there was no evidence of explosions or volcanic activity.


One possible explanation still under study is that an earthquake fault may be the source of the heat.


"We can't rule out anything definitely yet," King said.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off there are more than 2 parties but in my state there were only 2 for Pres and VP Dem and Rep. That was no choice… Also, everyone has ignored the right to abstain in nearly every quarter of the government our Reps are allowed to abstain from vote and it is recorded but we can't officially abstain from vote and it be recorded other than being told we are lazy or stupid for not voting. My Father's idea is a valid one and would let our Government understand that we are in control and don't like it and are going to do something about it.


As far as getting the other parties in an election I am all for it, but the way the funding laws and election laws are written the Dems and Reps are not going to share the wealth, if you know what I mean.


Let's face it, Titor might be right and yes it is from what I read from him a Midwest and coast thing to a greater degree. It is the city vs. country conflict, one is Liberal and the other Conservative, and they are getting farther apart each day…


And yes, the Constitution has been twisted to mean things that it does not say or imply. Look at the 1st Amendment, Journalists think it means they have the right to conceal sources from a judge. How is that the freedom of the press? Separation of Church and State does not appear there, but just after WWII a former Klansman who just so happened to be on the Supreme Court used this, at that point, obscure Jefferson quote in a Judgment and because people try to read into the Constitution it has become law. The funniest thing is that Jefferson had little or more like nothing to do with the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, he was in France at the time. The quote comes from a letter to a church group that in his opinion that is what it meant.


I have a quote for you all.


They say that life's a carousel


Spinning fast, you've got to ride it well


The world is full of Kings and Queens


Who blind your eyes and steal your dreams


It's Heaven and Hell, oh well


And they'll tell you black is really white


The moon is just the sun at night


And when you walk in golden halls


You get to keep the gold that falls


It's Heaven and Hell, oh no!


Fool, fool!





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Nemesvs,


My Father's idea is a valid one and would let our Government understand that we are in control and don't like it and are going to do something about it.

IMHO, his idea is incomplete and not well-thought-out. For instance, your brief desription of his idea gives absolutely no indication of how the electoral votes are impacted on a per-state basis. His idea seems to be endorsing a wholesale upheavel of existing election laws without clear identification of ONLY those parts that are currently flawed, nor identifying impacts to existing election laws. That is a recipe for disaster, and as some of his critics rightly identified, anarchy. Now, I am sure you will come back with the tired adage that so many use about how "the electoral process is outdated and no longer useful." To which not only myself, but many election scholars have always said this view is incorrect. In fact, the "winner take all" electoral process could very well be one of the pieces of legislation that has kept us together as a nation of states which have very different views because of our vast, expansive geography. It ensures that the strongest candidate in any state wins that state, which is a means to pacify the electorate of THAT sovereign state. Without it, you would have the dense population states on the eastern seaboard deciding every, single president, and those of us out west would get ticked off pretty damn quick. Furthermore, his idea could also, quite easily, result in ad nauseum elections without a clear point at which a winner is decided. This would cause huge uncertainty ni our nation and its economy, and you don't need to look far back in history to see how the markets react to uncertainty. Look at all the ballot challenges and recounts of the past two presidential elections, and then ask yourself how much worse it would be if now we had to do recounts just to see if those citizens abstaining actually were a larger number than those who selected a viable candidate? No end in sight to those appeals, I am afraid.And while I am at it, you did not provide any supporting evidence for this statement you made in response to my statement about how abstaining from the vote is giving up your willful participation in our democracy:


Okay, this statement is an old argument that at one time might have held up but no longer.

Would you like to explain this and provide supporting data for this? I really don't think you can, because how can you make any statement about why each INDIVIDUAL decides not to vote? And clearly, our vote is the SOLE action we possess as citizens that is legally protected and can never be taken away for how the people affect and install the government they wish. Please support this statement so I can understand its veracity, because right now it amounts to nothing more than weak handwaving.RMT
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...