I'd like to offer my 1/50th of a dollar here. First off, I'm new to the board, and an old friend of Pat's. He introduced me to this board yesterday, and I just thought I would chime in. I have just recently become re-interested in politics, after a several year lull brought on by the Clinton presidency where I could have cared less. The issue of Roy Moore and the 10-Commandments along with the Texas Democrat Runaways got this "right-winger" fired up and back in the game.

From what I have read so far, I like the civility of the members. I a very opinionated person, but I like to listen to the other side. And unlike many people, my views have actually changed through the process. Well, I guess I'll just get to the point.

I don't feel that liberals hate this country, on the contrary, I think they love America. Likewise conservatives love America equally as much. The difference is that liberals love an idea of what America can become if the changes they seek are implemented, whereas conservatives love America for the way it is, or in some cases the way it was before the liberals began assimilating it. We are both patriotic, though in our own ways, and sometimes, our patriotism is misread by the other side. I truly feel that we both want the best for this country, however, our differences in opinion over what's best is where our ideals clash. It all boils down to opinion, and opinion only. In this thread, someone wisely said "there is no absolute right or wrong". However, each side has just as strong convictions that their views are indeed, the absolute right view.

With that said, I will now begin to inform you as to what I feel is the absolute right view. You have every right to disagree with me...because everyone has the right to be wrong now and then. hehe.

PatBrown wrote...
>1. Patriotism - carrying flags singing songs is something I feel
>sickens them. Have you ever seen right wingers desecrate the
>flag??

and EEE Responded...
>ON PAT'S CLAIM OF OUR DISLIKE OF FLAGS, SONGS ET AL.......
>
>For example, most liberals I know do not dislike when people
>carry the flag or sing songs. Nor does it sicken us. What
>sickens us is how the right has hijacked the flag, mostly for
>militaristic issues. The flag is supposed to transcend ALL
>issues of patriotism, not just militaristic "we're number one"
>kick ass power. Liberals I know want what the flag it is
>SUPPOSED to represent (freedom and liberty) back.

I have never felt that most liberals hate the flag, but some seem to send the message that they do. For instance burning the flag, it is as offensive to me as the burning of a cross, which is punishable by imprisonment.

I also disagree with the notion that the right has "hijacked the flag". What do you feel has been done by the right to "hijack" it? Is it the fact that it is seen more in time of war than in time of peace? To me, the flag is a symbol of unity in troubled times. Remember 9/11? One of the most inspiring photos I have ever seen is of "Old Glory" flying on the tattered flagpole of the fallen trade center amongst all that rubble. The flag appears everywhere when the nation is united. It just so happens that one of the most uniting events is tragedy and war. So I guess I can see how you feel that the flag has been equated with such ideals. But when you see a flag on someone's home, conservative, liberal, or otherwise, ask yourself why that person put it there. It is probably because they support our country, its ideals, or (in time of war) our troops, not because of arrogant pride.

EEE continued...
>And frankly, I think the right desecrates the spirit of the
>flag in many ways, such as their craven and cynical uses of the
>flag for purely political reasons.

I am not sure what uses you are talking about, but in general, the flag is the ultimate symbol of our country and it's political system. So it will be displayed everywhere politics are found, good politics and bad politics. It's no different that the logo of a corporation. Everywhere they have meetings, or whatnot, you will see that logo. If they are in a lawsuit, the logo is placed in a bad light, if they are distributing bonuses, the logo on that check is a beacon of goodness. Every time our country has done something, whether it be good or bad, the flag is there. Depending on what was happening at the time, opinions of its symbolism will sway.

EEE again said...
>And if I want to respond such as Pat did, I would say, liberals
>care more about the US Constitution than the right does. It
>appears the Constitution is to us, what the flag is to the
>right. And to us, all other things that represent America come
>from and under the US Constitution and Declaration of
>Independence.

Interesting analogy. I feel that both liberals and conservatives hold the constitution as sacred. The difference being that the left feels the constitution is a living document whose interpretation changes with the times. The right feels the principals laid out within its text are set in stone, not open to interpretation. As hard and fast as the 10 commandments.

PatBrown also said:
>2. Taking God out of the equation - The country was built on
>Judeo Christian principles and we have the ACLU (Anti Christian
>League United) striking at every turn. Where the ACLU strikes
>moral decay will follow. I feel like this group is trying to
>tear down the building blocks that made this country great

EEE Replied:
>PAT'S COMMENTS ON THE ACLU AND RELIGION......
>
>As for religion and the ACLU, I believe what the ACLU wants is
>a true separation of Church and State more than anything. I get
>so tired of hearing conservatives whine that their "religion"
>is under attack. Pat, I ask you, how would you like it if you
>went to governmental organizations and had some other faith
>such as Judaism or Islam jammed down your throat? And I dispute
>that this country was specifically founded on "Judeo Christian
>principles" and instead believe it is more accurate that this
>country was founded with religious and market freedoms in mind
>and that Christianity just happened to be the most prevalent
>religion at the time.

First, contrary to popular belief, nowhere in the constitution will you find the words "separation of church and state." Those words were invented by writing between the lines of the constitution (which occurs way too often these days). The Establishment clause clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Its intent is simple, to prohibit a national church, and allow the people to choose their religion with no legal restriction.

If a public display of a religious symbol that can simply be ignored ignore can be interpreted as religion "jammed down your throat," contemplate pre-9/11 Afghanistan where this occurs in the literal sense. There, you can choose either between THEIR religion, or the barrel of a gun...either way, something is going to be jammed down your throat, one just might not hurt as much as the other. That is what our the founders of the Constitution sought to avoid, forced religion. Displays of religious symbols and voluntary prayer is not an "establishment of religion", and none of these thing have ever been mandated by any law made by Congress. Instead, mandating the removal of such things "prohibits the free exercise thereof." Lately, it seems as if we are moving towards a "don't ask don't tell" policy for religion.

As for the Judeo Christian foundations of our country, I think that is undeniable. Anyone doubting with the religious beliefs of our founding fathers need only study history. In fact, at the time of the signing of the constitution, many states had already established a state churches. The establishment clause was meant to ensure that the federal government did not choose one and override the choice of the states. Only the federal government is bound by the establishment clause, not states. This is the crux of the Roy Moore 10 commandments issue. The federal government (read federal judge) stepped in to require that the monument be removed from a state institution.

>EEE Said:
>Pick up the new copy of Vanity Fair. It has an excellent
>article on the judges the democrats just filibustered. It
>gives all sorts of background on why these judges were extreme
>to democrats and why the democrats had to stop them.
>
>I don't have it in front of me anymore because I passed it
>along to a feminist friend of mine, but one of them had a
>background of ALWAYS ruling in favor of corporations (a review
>of her rulings and writings did not reveal a single ruling
>favorable towards people) and another one was quoted as saying
>a woman seeking abortion should have to express contrition for
>the abortions of other women as well.

I have rather strong convictions on this issue (Judicial Nominations) as I feel the courts have asserted unconstitutionally excessive power in the political system, but that's entire post in itself, and I will save that for sometime in the future. As far as the two examples you have provided here, I am not aware of either of these cases, or which judge they pertain to. I can say, however, that Miguel Estrada was filibustered, yet there was no complaint over any of his past cases. The only complaint they had about him was that he would not release confidential memos he wrote while working as an assistant solicitor general under the Bush and Clinton administrations. However, all seven living former Solicitor Generals have signed a letter opposing such a release -- saying to do so would harm the legal process. Yet on that basis, the filibuster continued.

This is also a man who received the American Bar Association's absolute highest rating. Not only that, but he received that rating UNANIMOUSLY! The ABA rating is what Democrats have in the past called the "gold standard" by which judges should be rated. This is probably one of the best judges to be nominated for the position, and he was treated with a blatant disregard to the respect or dignity he no doubt deserved.

>In all truthfulness, would you expect Republicans to allow a
>vote on people you consider radical, such as Maxine Waters or
>Ted Kennedy, if circumstances were reversed?

Actually, no, I would not expect Republicans to allow a vote on Ted Kennedy or Maxine Waters for judicial nominations. But ideology is not the only issue here. (However, if your examples from the Vanity Fair article are proven factual, I would tend to agree that the candidates you speak of may not be deserving of the appointment.)

The major issue here is not the number of nominees blocked, extremist ideology, or even the color of their skin (though I feel the last two have some bearing on who the Democrats choose to filibuster). The major issue is the level to which they are nominated: the appellate courts. Every one of the filibustered nominees has been for appellate court positions. This is the last line of defense before an issue reaches the supreme court. And with the high caseload of the supreme court requiring scrutiny over which cases are heard, the appellate courts' decisions are often final. It is nominations to these courts, and these courts alone that are denied confirmation. The Democrats have allowed confirmation of every one of the lower court nominees that have come up so far, regardless of ideology, with the supposition they would suffer less backlash for opposing the judges that matter. This is why the Democrats keep beating on the 168-4 drum (which, by the way, only includes judges that have been through committee, not those that are still waiting).

Granted, its a great strategy, and I credit the Democrats with that: Give the Republicans more than they expect in the lower courts then block the higher courts. The total numbers confirmed come out in the Democrat's favor, but the breakdowns don't. Let me explain. 63% of Bush's appellate judges have been confirmed this term whereas the norm for the last three presidents was 91%. I feel that the level of nomination is the major deciding factor for who the Democrats will filibuster. After that, they decide based on ideology / race.

Yes, ideology does play some factor in this as they have developed a new "litmus test" as to who can be an appellate judge or not. Both Ted Kennedy and John Kerry have promised to filibuster any nominee who does not support abortion. This rules out any and all judges who subscribe to the Christian faith. Which, by the way, all the filibustered judges do.

EEE continues...
>(Add oddly, several years ago when Orrin Hatch and the
>Republicans were in the minority, he praised the tool of
>filibusters in blocking judges, whereas now he has become
>openly hostile to this practice and says it should now be
>changed).

Likewise on that exact issue back in 1995, Senator Harkin, a Democrat, said: "There comes a time when tradition has to meet the realities of the modern age. The minority's rights must be protected. The majority should not be able to roughslod over them, but neither should a vexatious minority be able to thwart the will of the majority and not even permit legislation to come up to a meaningful vote."

Senator Tom Daschle echoed his feelings stating, "The Constitution is straightforward about the few instances in which more than a majority of the congress must vote. A veto override, a treaty, and a finding of guilt in an impeachment proceeding. Every other action by the Congress is taken by majority vote." He continued, "The founding fathers debated the idea of requiring more than a majority. They concluded that putting such immense power into the hands of a minority ran squarely against the democratic principle. Democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock."

Of course, today, both of their positions have reversed, and neither support abolition of the filibuster. The hypocrisy lies on both sides of the aisle...but this is not new. What is quite ironic however is that the exact amendment to the senate rules that Harkin and Leiberman proposed in 1995 to amend the cloture rules to stop filibusters is being reintroduced by Zell Miller and Bill Frist (Senate Resolution 85), but now, Harkin and Leiberman vehemently oppose it...and they sponsored the exact proposal 8 years ago!

The difference was that back then, the obstruction by the Republicans was done via administrative holds, not filibusters. The nominees never made it out of the judicial committee, and thus, never had a hearing. The judges now, have passed through committee, and have had hearings, just no vote. And also, now, all the obstruction is on appellate judges since the Democrats do not want to allow any more conservatives to occupy seats where they could be promoted to the supreme court...which is due to have a vacancy soon. If you think partisan politics are bad now, just wait till that seat is vacant...all hell is going to break loose. In my opinion, both parties are wrong to obstruct, in any manner. what the Republicans did in 1995 was wrong, and what the Democrats are doing now is too.

I suggest removing the filibuster, or at least making it a real filibuster. These days, a signature, and one person on standby is all that is required to filibuster. You do not have to speak, you only need to be present to object if the other side calls for a vote. If an objection is heard, it requires 3/5 of the senate, 60 votes (not just 3/5 of those present) to override the objection and move to a vote. What I find odd is that now, it is harder for the majority to overcome a filibuster than it is for the minority to keep it going. Today's "filibuster-lite" just aint cutting it. If you had to talk for hours as you did in the days of Strom Thurmond's record 28 or so hour filibuster over civil rights, the abuse we are seeing now would not occur. The filibuster would regain its integrity and once again be reserved only for those issues where the minority believes so strongly in the issue at hand that they are willing to make that effort. Anyhow, I could go on and on...so I'll move on.

EEE Continues...
>THE REAGAN FANTASY MOVIE THAT WASN'T.....
>
>As for the Reagan movie, what about the so-called free market
>system you conservatives crow about? What about the flick JFK
>that portrayed Johnson as planning the death of JFK? Where were
>you on the right then? And what about that fiction SHOWTIME had
>on about Shrub after 9/11? You all weren't too concerned about
>lies then, where you?

The free-market system is indeed important in the conservative viewpoint, however slander is slander, no matter who is doing it, free-market media moguls included. This was to be a miniseries aired on the same public TV airwaves that people receive their daily news. This is drastically different from any  a pay cable station where this type of propaganda is expected and commonplace. JFK, Nixon, and even the Showtime's Post-9/11 George Bush Special, were all either aired on cable, or at the box office. It is worthwhile to note now that the Reagan miniseries is slated for Showtime, the opposition has backed down. So now that it is treated the same as Nixon, JFK, and 9/11, we aren't too concerned about the lies.

>Peter T. Wrote
>I'm not in favor of taxing the shit out of the rich but I do
>unapologetically  favor a progressive tax system. We have some
>profound problems in our country (lack of health coverage being
>#1 for me) that require a lot of money to fix. The national
>debt is a pretty damn close #2. I am not one to throw money at
>every problem in hopes that it will be remedied but I have no
>problem having the affluent pay more, and sometimes a lot more,
>to bring relief to a person who needs medical coverage. I know
>Pat will call me a socialist or worse, but frankly I don't
>care.

Flat tax spreads tax base fairly. The flat tax gives our country the most diverse tax base possible. Rather than tie it solely to the richest people in the country, which have the most volatile incomes dependant on the market and economy. A more diverse tax base increases the stability of the country's tax revenue by spreading it more evenly. Plus, such a simple system eliminates the loopholes that currently allow the richest to escape paying their fair share. The progressive tax system gives incentives to underreport income. The richest people save 60 cents for every dollar they underreport, while the poor would only save 20 cents (hypothetical numbers conjured up to prove the point) should the rich be taxed at 60% and the poor at 20%. Plus, if the underreported income lands the rich individual into a lower tax bracket (which is usually the goal of the fraud) they save even more. I say, eliminate the incentives for tax fraud, and the collected revenues will increase.

I read a report last month, sorry I can't cite the source or country affected, I forget, but this country moved to a flat tax system and actually saw a major increase in tax revenue. The reason? The rich who were not paying taxes, all of a sudden were. I'm not a financial analyst, but it seems to concur with common sense to me.

>Dale said:
>Peter, it really bothers me that there are millions of other
>"Lisa's" out there. I do not want to see anyone  be forced to
>pay taxes in order to support people who choose not to work.
>And to ask those who've succeeded in life (i.e. gotten rich) to
>pay even more is, IMHO, counter productive. This type of system
>only encourages the "Lisa's" and discourages the top 2% who pay
>95% of all the taxes. Why should we work harder, earn more, yet
>take home less?

Dale, I think when you used the words "choose not to work," you touched on something that a lot of liberals misunderstand about the conservative stance on welfare. I feel many conservatives don't have too big of a problem with the theory of welfare, its intent is noble. It's the implementation and subsequent inevitable abuse of welfare that disenchants us. It's those individuals who are on welfare by choice rather than necessity that drive our opposition to social programs in general. When the word "welfare" comes up, the liberal conjures images of a desperate mother with children getting much needed health care, the conservative visualizes a lazy couch potato with no incentive to work buying another lottery ticket. This may explain the recent conservative viewpoints on welfare distribution via services, rather than cash handouts. It reduces the abuse by fulfilling the need directly.

Well, that's my viewpoints for topics in this thread. Damn, looking back, did I really type this much? Wow...I guess I got on a rant. Sorry for the length of this post, but I do look forward to all of your responses.

-=CE=-