What do the "non-partisans" stand FOR?!??

[danefan]

Same thing with me DF. I am exactly with him on the abortion thing. I am torn on that one more than anything and can't find a way to feel good about any stance on it so I have to side with the individual choice thing and since I am certain that a law against it would do no good I can't support the thing. I can absolutely listen to the other side of the argument and see the point there also.

Just in case you missed it, I concur. I am deeply torn because some of the idiots who would be forced not to have an abortion if abortion were legally banned would be unimaginably abusive parents. It's just that you have to stand somewhere.

I don't understand the notion that "you have to stand somewhere." How does that equate to a political stance?

I get taking a stand on issues, but to me that means taking a stand in your personal life. Not conforming to someone elses agenda.

[native]

Just in case you missed it, I concur. I am deeply torn because some of the idiots who would be forced not to have an abortion, if abortion were legally banned, would be unimaginably abusive parents. It's just that you have to stand somewhere.

I don't understand the notion that "you have to stand somewhere." How does that equate to a political stance?

I get taking a stand on issues, but to me that means taking a stand in your personal life. Not conforming to someone elses agenda.

Danefan, I do not understand your confusion, but will try to elaborate on my position.

I am essentialy libertarian at heart, but the older and more experienced I get, the more I realize that every personal decision you take or do not take affects other people.

There is no liberty unless there is liberty for all. Therefore, an honest libertarian must be concerned about liberty not only for the fool, but also the fool's victims. Thus, since there is no perfect libertarianism, the libertarian is forced to make difficult public policy choices. This is the crux of difficult public policy decisions such as abortion "rights." In this case, the more we learn about the science of human life, the more convinced I am that human life begins before birth.

I am not trying to be obtuse. Did I answer your question, Danefan?

[danefan]

I don't understand the notion that "you have to stand somewhere." How does that equate to a political stance?

I get taking a stand on issues, but to me that means taking a stand in your personal life. Not conforming to someone elses agenda.

Danefan, I do not understand your confusion, but will try to elaborate on my position.

I am essentialy libertarian at heart, but the older and more experienced I get, the more I realize that every personal decision you take or do not take affects other people.

There is no liberty unless there is liberty for all. Therefore, an honest libertarian must be concerned about liberty not only for the fool, but also the fool's victims. Thus, since there is no perfect libertarianism, the libertarian is forced to make difficult public policy choices. This is the crux of difficult public policy decisions such as abortion "rights." In this case, the more we learn about the science of human life, the more convinced I am that human life begins before birth.

I am not trying to be obtuse. Did I answer your question, Danefan?

I understand what you are saying.
I tend to just worry about myself and my loved ones and what effects them. Perhaps this makes me selfish or naive or what have you, but I don't understand the need for people (not saying you in particular) to broadcast the stances they have taken to the rest of society.

This is the issue I have with current politics (or perhaps politics in general). Both parties seem to be in a never ending struggle to conform the other to certain beliefs.

I look at this in the same light that I look at the Christian edict to "spread the word of god." I never quite bought into that. I feel what I feel about certain things. I don't think its my place to convince someone else they should feel the same way as me or that I am right and they are wrong.

Am I rambling, or am I making some kind of sense?

[AZGrizFan]

Danefan, I do not understand your confusion, but will try to elaborate on my position.

I am essentialy libertarian at heart, but the older and more experienced I get, the more I realize that every personal decision you take or do not take affects other people.

There is no liberty unless there is liberty for all. Therefore, an honest libertarian must be concerned about liberty not only for the fool, but also the fool's victims. Thus, since there is no perfect libertarianism, the libertarian is forced to make difficult public policy choices. This is the crux of difficult public policy decisions such as abortion "rights." In this case, the more we learn about the science of human life, the more convinced I am that human life begins before birth.

I am not trying to be obtuse. Did I answer your question, Danefan?

I understand what you are saying.
I tend to just worry about myself and my loved ones and what effects them. Perhaps this makes me selfish or naive or what have you, but I don't understand the need for people (not saying you in particular) to broadcast the stances they have taken to the rest of society.

This is the issue I have with current politics (or perhaps politics in general). Both parties seem to be in a never ending struggle to conform the other to certain beliefs.

I look at this in the same light that I look at the Christian edict to "spread the word of god." I never quite bought into that. I feel what I feel about certain things. I don't think its my place to convince someone else they should feel the same way as me or that I am right and they are wrong.

Am I rambling, or am I making some kind of sense?

Nope. Makes perfect sense. Live and let live....I don't give a flying vertical fuck what others think/do/say/eat/watch, etc. Stay out of my life and I'll stay out of yours. Pushing YOUR social values into MY life is why I also hate politics so much.

[native]

Danefan, I do not understand your confusion, but will try to elaborate on my position.

I am essentialy libertarian at heart, but the older and more experienced I get, the more I realize that every personal decision you take or do not take affects other people.

There is no liberty unless there is liberty for all. Therefore, an honest libertarian must be concerned about liberty not only for the fool, but also the fool's victims. Thus, since there is no perfect libertarianism, the libertarian is forced to make difficult public policy choices. This is the crux of difficult public policy decisions such as abortion "rights." In this case, the more we learn about the science of human life, the more convinced I am that human life begins before birth.

I am not trying to be obtuse. Did I answer your question, Danefan?

I understand what you are saying.
I tend to just worry about myself and my loved ones and what effects them. Perhaps this makes me selfish or naive or what have you, but I don't understand the need for people (not saying you in particular) to broadcast the stances they have taken to the rest of society.

This is the issue I have with current politics (or perhaps politics in general). Both parties seem to be in a never ending struggle to conform the other to certain beliefs.

I look at this in the same light that I look at the Christian edict to "spread the word of god." I never quite bought into that. I feel what I feel about certain things. I don't think its my place to convince someone else they should feel the same way as me or that I am right and they are wrong.

Am I rambling, or am I making some kind of sense?

You make perfect sense. I understand and share your sentiment to avoid trying to convince someone else how to feel.

To your point, it's one thing for Christians to scold others for bad behavior. However, it is quite another thing for government to impose laws, regulations, wars and taxes beyond what is absolutely necessary to protect liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Libertarians who fear Judeo-Christian values and traditions have infinitely more to fear from "progressives."

The problem is that our society is breaking apart because of the rapidly diminishing shared American culture. Civil liberties depend not only on the law, but also on a civil society, which requires a common understanding of right and wrong. We are rejecting a past in a fit of petulance without truly understanding either the past or the way forward.

Libertarians may rightly criticize some Judeo-Christians for living an overly-examined life. Meanwhile, they plunge themselves and our nation into the abyss by rushing headlong into the unexamined life.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

See Native you had running shoulder to shoulder with you right up until the last part. I don't know why you say what you did there.

The values you are speaking of came from man in the first place. They did not come from a diety for me to worship. I don't care that yours come from someplace else but I want you to realize that we both operate under the same umbrella we just get them at different stores.

I, and the others mentioned surely don't lead an unexamined life. Our examinations are simply from a different instructor. I just don't like others making policies and telling me that their instructor knows best and that I need to follow his curriculum when there are as many holes in his teachings and his students as anyone else's.

[houndawg]

Same thing with me DF. I am exactly with him on the abortion thing. I am torn on that one more than anything and can't find a way to feel good about any stance on it so I have to side with the individual choice thing and since I am certain that a law against it would do no good I can't support the thing. I can absolutely listen to the other side of the argument and see the point there also.

Just in case you missed it, I concur. I am deeply torn because some of the idiots who would be forced not to have an abortion if abortion were legally banned would be unimaginably abusive parents. It's just that you have to stand somewhere.

You may find some interesting reading in Freakonomics about the link between crime stats and abortion....

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Just in case you missed it, I concur. I am deeply torn because some of the idiots who would be forced not to have an abortion if abortion were legally banned would be unimaginably abusive parents. It's just that you have to stand somewhere.

You may find some interesting reading in Freakonomics about the link between crime stats and abortion....

not sure i agree with his conclusion... could be a case of correlation is not causation... or it could be accurate... hard to say...

[Gil Dobie]

I agree with most of the non-partisans on this board. Mostly fiscal conservative, spend money on military, services and infrastructure. Socially left, don't like abortion or capital punishment but also think it's the woman's choice during early pregnancy. Equal rights for any culture, any sex, any human sexual orientation.

[native]

See Native you had running shoulder to shoulder with you right up until the last part. I don't know why you say what you did there.

The values you are speaking of came from man in the first place. They did not come from a diety for me to worship. I don't care that yours come from someplace else but I want you to realize that we both operate under the same umbrella we just get them at different stores.

I, and the others mentioned surely don't lead an unexamined life. Our examinations are simply from a different instructor. I just don't like others making policies and telling me that their instructor knows best and that I need to follow his curriculum when there are as many holes in his teachings and his students as anyone else's.

I take your point(s), and I think that you and about half of the middle-of-the-roaders here have thought well past that tingly feeling in the tips of their dicks.

I especialy take your point about the different instructor, but the fact of the matter is that the different umbrellas come from stores so different that the umbrellas sometimes don't even perform the same functions anymore.

I am a doubting Thomas and don't claim to "know that I know that I know" like my cracker Baptist cousins. I also acknowledge that religious values could come from man and not from God - which is the essence of my doubts about human religion. But I also acknowledge the infinity and order of the universe and the possibility of the existence of God, which is enough for me. The idea of God is no more absurd than the idea that we understand the meaning of life. So it boils down to a choice.

I look at our religion more as a historian, in a fashion similar to how Socrates looked at the religion of his time. That's where the reference to the "unexamined life" comes from. When I say the examined life, I mean examined not just in terms of personal values, but also in terms of society and posterity.

People criticize Judeo-Christian values and behaviors, and sometimes rightly so, but the alternatives are worse. Whenever we have abandoned God in the past century or so, and replaced Him with the idea that man knows best, it has inevitably led to either extremely violent and suffocating fascism or extremely violent and suffocating communism and the deaths of millions of human beings.

Go ahead and laugh your ass off at me, but that is honestly what I see happening to America today under Bush-Obama.

[native]

Just in case you missed it, I concur. I am deeply torn because some of the idiots who would be forced not to have an abortion if abortion were legally banned would be unimaginably abusive parents. It's just that you have to stand somewhere.

You may find some interesting reading in Freakonomics about the link between crime stats and abortion....

Been there. Done that. Makes more sense to execute violent criminals instead of releasing them from prison, but I wouldn't do that, any more than I would advocate unrestricted abortion rights.

I do take the point, however. It just pisses me off even more at the idiots and their partners who get themselves into the position of wanting an abortion.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

See Native you had running shoulder to shoulder with you right up until the last part. I don't know why you say what you did there.

The values you are speaking of came from man in the first place. They did not come from a diety for me to worship. I don't care that yours come from someplace else but I want you to realize that we both operate under the same umbrella we just get them at different stores.

I, and the others mentioned surely don't lead an unexamined life. Our examinations are simply from a different instructor. I just don't like others making policies and telling me that their instructor knows best and that I need to follow his curriculum when there are as many holes in his teachings and his students as anyone else's.

I take your point(s), and I think that you and about half of the middle-of-the-roaders here have thought well past that tingly feeling in the tips of their dicks.

I especialy take your point about the different instructor, but the fact of the matter is that the different umbrellas come from stores so different that the umbrellas sometimes don't even perform the same functions anymore.

I am a doubting Thomas and don't claim to "know that I know that I know" like my cracker Baptist cousins. I also acknowledge that religious values could come from man and not from God - which is the essence of my doubts about human religion. But I also acknowledge the infinity and order of the universe and the possibility of the existence of God, which is enough for me. The idea of God is no more absurd than the idea that we understand the meaning of life. So it boils down to a choice.

I look at our religion more as a historian, in a fashion similar to how Socrates looked at the religion of his time. That's where the reference to the "unexamined life" comes from. When I say the examined life, I mean examined not just in terms of personal values, but also in terms of society and posterity.

People criticize Judeo-Christian values and behaviors, and sometimes rightly so, but the alternatives are worse. Whenever we have abandoned God in the past century or so, and replaced Him with the idea that man knows best, it has inevitably led to either extremely violent and suffocating fascism or extremely violent and suffocating communism and the deaths of millions of human beings.

Go ahead and laugh your ass off at me, but that is honestly what I see happening to America today under Bush-Obama.

Fair enough but don't think that the country has changed it's core values under Bush/Obama I think that people's perceptions of what others are doing may have changed since times have gotten tougher for much of the country lately. Nobody worries nearly as much about 5 or 6 fumbles in a game that they win but they go apeshit over the same thing when they lose.

For me, I don't believe in organized religion. God or whatever we personally percieve or think God in our own minds still seems viable to me.

As far as the umbrella thing goes I absolutely agree with you. In fact I'll go one step further, I made my own umbrella and have had some help along the way in building it. I have a little self satisfaction in that it's something I have created and didn't have it ready made for me by a certain source. I can customize mine with new features as the information and material becomes available.

Wow that umbrella analogy is getting pretty thin now.

[UNI88]

You may find some interesting reading in Freakonomics about the link between crime stats and abortion....

not sure i agree with his conclusion... could be a case of correlation is not causation... or it could be accurate... hard to say...

When you're dealing with economics/sociology/psychology it can difficult to prove a point with any degree of certainty. I found the criminal theories/connections in Freakanomics much more believable than the ones in Tipping Point.

[native]

... Nobody worries nearly as much about 5 or 6 fumbles in a game that they win but they go apeshit over the same thing when they lose...
...Wow that umbrella analogy is getting pretty thin now.

Ursus, your football analogy is outstanding! Maybe the best I have yet seen in the political blogs!

Cheers!
Native

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

... Nobody worries nearly as much about 5 or 6 fumbles in a game that they win but they go apeshit over the same thing when they lose...
...Wow that umbrella analogy is getting pretty thin now.

Ursus, your football analogy is outstanding! Maybe the best I have yet seen in the political blogs!

Cheers!
Native

Thanks you ol' Wildcat and back at you.

[native]

not sure i agree with his conclusion... could be a case of correlation is not causation... or it could be accurate... hard to say...

When you're dealing with economics/sociology/psychology it can difficult to prove a point with any degree of certainty. I found the criminal theories/connections in Freakanomics much more believable than the ones in Tipping Point.

I have read Freakonomics and the anti-Freakonomics someone published, but I have not yet read Tipping Point.

Could you please summarize the main ideas, UNI88?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

When you're dealing with economics/sociology/psychology it can difficult to prove a point with any degree of certainty. I found the criminal theories/connections in Freakanomics much more believable than the ones in Tipping Point.

I have read Freakonomics and the anti-Freakonomics someone published, but I have not yet read Tipping Point.

Could you please summarize the main ideas, UNI88?

dime story version:

crime was "spiraling out of control" through the late 80's and in to the early 90's... then it leveled off and plunged thereafter. the author points out that poverty tends to be a forerunner of crime, so too are broken homes, (both accurate) the author points out that starting in 1973, many impoverished women began having abortions... long about 1991, those children would have been 18... the peak criminal years are 15-30... and in the time between when a child born in 1973 would have gone from 15 to 30 the crime rate plunged. the author contends that this is owing to the fact that those criminals were never born.

there are flaws... especially when you consider that from 1991-2000 the economy got a hell of a lot stronger, economic opportunity expanded, and the percentage of people in poverty reached historic lows, which is (as described above) a huge indicator of crime rates... i walked away from the book intrigued but conflicted... and still not sure how accurate the guys claims are

[UNI88]

I have read Freakonomics and the anti-Freakonomics someone published, but I have not yet read Tipping Point.

Could you please summarize the main ideas, UNI88?

dime story version:

crime was "spiraling out of control" through the late 80's and in to the early 90's... then it leveled off and plunged thereafter. the author points out that poverty tends to be a forerunner of crime, so too are broken homes, (both accurate) the author points out that starting in 1973, many impoverished women began having abortions... long about 1991, those children would have been 18... the peak criminal years are 15-30... and in the time between when a child born in 1973 would have gone from 15 to 30 the crime rate plunged. the author contends that this is owing to the fact that those criminals were never born.

there are flaws... especially when you consider that from 1991-2000 the economy got a hell of a lot stronger, economic opportunity expanded, and the percentage of people in poverty reached historic lows, which is (as described above) a huge indicator of crime rates... i walked away from the book intrigued but conflicted... and still not sure how accurate the guys claims are

That is a pretty good summary of Freakanomics but I believe he is looking for a summary of The Tipping Point by Malcom Gladwell. It's been a long time since I've read Tipping Point (I read it before Freakanomics) so I don't think I can provide a good summary off the top of my head. I read it before Freakanomics and can distinctly remember thinking after reading Freakanomics that it's theories were more plausible than Tipping Point's. I walked away from Freakanomics thinking that there is (unfortunately) a relationship between abortion and crime. I'll see if I can find my copy of Tipping Point and get a quick refresher to provide a summary.

[ASUMountaineer]

I understand what you are saying.
I tend to just worry about myself and my loved ones and what effects them. Perhaps this makes me selfish or naive or what have you, but I don't understand the need for people (not saying you in particular) to broadcast the stances they have taken to the rest of society.

This is the issue I have with current politics (or perhaps politics in general). Both parties seem to be in a never ending struggle to conform the other to certain beliefs.

I look at this in the same light that I look at the Christian edict to "spread the word of god." I never quite bought into that. I feel what I feel about certain things. I don't think its my place to convince someone else they should feel the same way as me or that I am right and they are wrong.

Am I rambling, or am I making some kind of sense?

You make perfect sense. I understand and share your sentiment to avoid trying to convince someone else how to feel.

To your point, it's one thing for Christians to scold others for bad behavior. However, it is quite another thing for government to impose laws, regulations, wars and taxes beyond what is absolutely necessary to protect liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Libertarians who fear Judeo-Christian values and traditions have infinitely more to fear from "progressives."

The problem is that our society is breaking apart because of the rapidly diminishing shared American culture. Civil liberties depend not only on the law, but also on a civil society, which requires a common understanding of right and wrong. We are rejecting a past in a fit of petulance without truly understanding either the past or the way forward.

Libertarians may rightly criticize some Judeo-Christians for living an overly-examined life. Meanwhile, they plunge themselves and our nation into the abyss by rushing headlong into the unexamined life.

I agree with Ursus. Don't make the easy mistake of thinking libertarians are not religious, or don't adhere to Christian values. I'm a devout Christian and a devout libertarian. The two go easily together in my opinion.

Native, you're thinking of things on a much deeper level than I have time to address now as I'm about to head to Costco. Any who, it sucks you won't have the time to post as before, but great to get a job...congrats. I'd personally like to really discuss these things further as I have a tie to them, and really enjoy differing views (one reason TTBF is one of my favorite posters). Maybe I'll start a thread for a discussion on the libertarian views and current adherence to Judeo-Christian morality in America today. I do find it fascinating as I try to live it.

[native]

You make perfect sense. I understand and share your sentiment to avoid trying to convince someone else how to feel.

To your point, it's one thing for Christians to scold others for bad behavior. However, it is quite another thing for government to impose laws, regulations, wars and taxes beyond what is absolutely necessary to protect liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Libertarians who fear Judeo-Christian values and traditions have infinitely more to fear from "progressives."

The problem is that our society is breaking apart because of the rapidly diminishing shared American culture. Civil liberties depend not only on the law, but also on a civil society, which requires a common understanding of right and wrong. We are rejecting a past in a fit of petulance without truly understanding either the past or the way forward.

Libertarians may rightly criticize some Judeo-Christians for living an overly-examined life. Meanwhile, they plunge themselves and our nation into the abyss by rushing headlong into the unexamined life.

I agree with Ursus. Don't make the easy mistake of thinking libertarians are not religious, or don't adhere to Christian values. I'm a devout Christian and a devout libertarian. The two go easily together in my opinion.

Native, you're thinking of things on a much deeper level than I have time to address now as I'm about to head to Costco. Any who, it sucks you won't have the time to post as before, but great to get a job...congrats. I'd personally like to really discuss these things further as I have a tie to them, and really enjoy differing views (one reason TTBF is one of my favorite posters). Maybe I'll start a thread for a discussion on the libertarian views and current adherence to Judeo-Christian morality in America today. I do find it fascinating as I try to live it.

Points taken. I don't think libertarians are all Godless heathens, and Ron Paul is an excellent case in point.

Ron Paul himself is a classy and admirable stateman. The problem is that, in the last election, many Pauliacs were raving one-way idiots on steroids with speakerphones. All transmit and no receive. I don't judge people so much by what they say they believe in, but I DO judge people by their actions and behavior.

I also think that some libertarians get caught up in the excitement of the libertine aspects of libertarianism without thinking through the consequences, and it shows in their public policy positions. When we reject traditional Judeo-Christian values out of hand we throw out the baby with the bathwater. I am all for change and innovation if we have a well considered target architecture, but in my view the ONLY well considered target architecture is to go "back to the future" of the original intent U.S. Constitution, less the evil stain of slavery.

Thanks for all the kind words, everyone. You know I won't be able to stay away from the blogs all the time. I
just have to stay away during the week, so I don't lose my job.

[wkuhillhound]

Danefan, I do not understand your confusion, but will try to elaborate on my position.

I am essentialy libertarian at heart, but the older and more experienced I get, the more I realize that every personal decision you take or do not take affects other people.

There is no liberty unless there is liberty for all. Therefore, an honest libertarian must be concerned about liberty not only for the fool, but also the fool's victims. Thus, since there is no perfect libertarianism, the libertarian is forced to make difficult public policy choices. This is the crux of difficult public policy decisions such as abortion "rights." In this case, the more we learn about the science of human life, the more convinced I am that human life begins before birth.

I am not trying to be obtuse. Did I answer your question, Danefan?

I understand what you are saying.
I tend to just worry about myself and my loved ones and what effects them. Perhaps this makes me selfish or naive or what have you, but I don't understand the need for people (not saying you in particular) to broadcast the stances they have taken to the rest of society.

This is the issue I have with current politics (or perhaps politics in general). Both parties seem to be in a never ending struggle to conform the other to certain beliefs.

I look at this in the same light that I look at the Christian edict to "spread the word of god." I never quite bought into that. I feel what I feel about certain things. I don't think its my place to convince someone else they should feel the same way as me or that I am right and they are wrong.

Am I rambling, or am I making some kind of sense?

I said the same thing but must stronger conviction and people flamed me for being a borderline "atheist". Said something along the lines of. "I don't proclaim that I'm christian in public to score brownie points with Jesus."

[UNI88]

dime story version:

crime was "spiraling out of control" through the late 80's and in to the early 90's... then it leveled off and plunged thereafter. the author points out that poverty tends to be a forerunner of crime, so too are broken homes, (both accurate) the author points out that starting in 1973, many impoverished women began having abortions... long about 1991, those children would have been 18... the peak criminal years are 15-30... and in the time between when a child born in 1973 would have gone from 15 to 30 the crime rate plunged. the author contends that this is owing to the fact that those criminals were never born.

there are flaws... especially when you consider that from 1991-2000 the economy got a hell of a lot stronger, economic opportunity expanded, and the percentage of people in poverty reached historic lows, which is (as described above) a huge indicator of crime rates... i walked away from the book intrigued but conflicted... and still not sure how accurate the guys claims are

That is a pretty good summary of Freakanomics but I believe he is looking for a summary of The Tipping Point by Malcom Gladwell. It's been a long time since I've read Tipping Point (I read it before Freakanomics) so I don't think I can provide a good summary off the top of my head. I read it before Freakanomics and can distinctly remember thinking after reading Freakanomics that it's theories were more plausible than Tipping Point's. I walked away from Freakanomics thinking that there is (unfortunately) a relationship between abortion and crime. I'll see if I can find my copy of Tipping Point and get a quick refresher to provide a summary.

I couldn't find my copy of The Tipping Point. I think I loaned it to someone and they never gave it back. It's a very dry but very interesting book. If I remember correctly, the basic premise is that everything has a tipping point and that change is almost inevitable after you've reached that point. Regarding crime, the author makes a connection between the physical environment and crime rates and concludes that New York's crime rate dropped when they made a conscious effort to clean up the city (i.e. cracking down on graphiti artists and cleaning up). While the connection is logical, I didn't think it was as strongly linked as Freakanomics' connection between the legalization of abortion and the drop in crime 18 years later. I could be wrong but that is what I remember. The book also included some fascinating discussion about types of people (mavens, etc.) and their roles in changing things.

TTBF has a very good point about the role of the economic boom in the 90's. There are a lot of things that helped result in the drop in crime and economics and sociology are unable to prove with certainty how significant or insignificant any of them actually played.

On a separate note, I could make an extremely reasonable argument that the 90's boom was more a result of the Reagan tax cuts than they were of anything that Clinton did (but Clinton was smart enough to reduce the deficit rather than spending all of the increased government revenues).

[Gil Dobie]

One thing I notice about the Non-partisans on this messageboard, is that they are less likely to accept the divisive issues projected by the 2 major political parties. I would go as far to say they look for the common beliefs in fellow Americans.

[native]

One thing I notice about the Non-partisans on this messageboard, is that they are less likely to accept the divisive issues projected by the 2 major political parties. I would go as far to say they look for the common beliefs in fellow Americans.

I WISH!

[Cleets Part 2]

The problem is that our society is breaking apart because of the rapidly diminishing shared American culture. Civil liberties depend not only on the law, but also on a civil society, which requires a common understanding of right and wrong. We are rejecting a past in a fit of petulance without truly understanding either the past or the way forward.

Libertarians may rightly criticize some Judeo-Christians for living an overly-examined life. Meanwhile, they plunge themselves and our nation into the abyss by rushing headlong into the unexamined life.

Hmmm...
Police and FBI report: Crime is down - across the board in all categories
American personal freedoms are essentially in tact
and all sorts of evidence that life in America is better than ever is popping up...

But the Christian control machine fears personal freedoms and fears personal choice and hates individual thought

The Christian notion of the examined life is beyond hysterical (please tell me your joking) when 0ver 85% have yet to read the very book they claim is divine - and the same exact percentage of crimes committed (pro capite) involves christians in North America as much as non...

your point is myopic and self indulgent (at best) and completely false and dangerous (at worst)