MR

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:54 am**

Are there so many Journey fans who are conservative and/or Republicans? I'm not trying to start a political battle (in fact I won't go there), but really, there are a WAY disproportionate number of Conservative Journey fans, or at least those who voice their opinions about politics. On the Duran Duran board that I post to, there are more liberals, but not so much so that the balance is so off.

So, my question is, does it have anything to do with the band or it's music? You'd have a very hard time convincing me that Neal, Steve A, or Steve P are conservatives, but I've been known to be wrong from time to time lol.

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:53 pm**

perrygirl02 wrote:Are there so many Journey fans who are conservative and/or Republicans? I'm not trying to start a political battle (in fact I won't go there), but really, there are a WAY disproportionate number of Conservative Journey fans, or at least those who voice their opinions about politics. On the Duran Duran board that I post to, there are more liberals, but not so much so that the balance is so off.

So, my question is, does it have anything to do with the band or it's music? You'd have a very hard time convincing me that Neal, Steve A, or Steve P are conservatives, but I've been known to be wrong from time to time lol.

How do you know there are more conservatives than dems?

I know for a fact Perry donated 1,000 bucks to Kerry for President.

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:20 am**

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:34 am**

perrygirl02 wrote:Are there so many Journey fans who are conservative and/or Republicans? I'm not trying to start a political battle (in fact I won't go there), but really, there are a WAY disproportionate number of Conservative Journey fans, or at least those who voice their opinions about politics. On the Duran Duran board that I post to, there are more liberals, but not so much so that the balance is so off.

So, my question is, does it have anything to do with the band or it's music? You'd have a very hard time convincing me that Neal, Steve A, or Steve P are conservatives, but I've been known to be wrong from time to time lol.

I don't know what any band member's political beliefs are, though I'm sure they lean to the left. Valory said in one interview that they all have differing views on Iraq (re Harm's Way), but Journey's done a good job of keeping their own beliefs to themselves.

As far as attracting more red-staters, I think that's the nature of Journey's demographic. The songs are about positive, non-contraversial things such as summer lovin', persisting against odds, and blue jean girls - Not the sort of thing that captures the imagination of the Michael Moore crowd.

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:02 am**

perrygirl02 wrote:Are there so many Journey fans who are conservative and/or Republicans? I'm not trying to start a political battle (in fact I won't go there), but really, there are a WAY disproportionate number of Conservative Journey fans, or at least those who voice their opinions about politics. On the Duran Duran board that I post to, there are more liberals, but not so much so that the balance is so off.

So, my question is, does it have anything to do with the band or it's music? You'd have a very hard time convincing me that Neal, Steve A, or Steve P are conservatives, but I've been known to be wrong from time to time lol.

Define liberalism. Define conservatism.

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:15 am**

Free wrote:
perrygirl02 wrote:Are there so many Journey fans who are conservative and/or Republicans? I'm not trying to start a political battle (in fact I won't go there), but really, there are a WAY disproportionate number of Conservative Journey fans, or at least those who voice their opinions about politics. On the Duran Duran board that I post to, there are more liberals, but not so much so that the balance is so off.

So, my question is, does it have anything to do with the band or it's music? You'd have a very hard time convincing me that Neal, Steve A, or Steve P are conservatives, but I've been known to be wrong from time to time lol.

Define liberalism. Define conservatism.

A liberal is somebody who believes in amending the constitution or adapting new laws or spending more money to make things right...For example : Amending the constitution to say life begins at concention, amending the Constitution to ban flag burning, or amending the Constitution to define marriage.

A conservative believes in either creating less government, spending less taxes, or removing laws that restrict a person's rights...Such as being against everything that I mentioned above for liberals, ending the Patriot act, ballancing the budget BEFORE cutting taxes or not spending more money on an unwinnable "war".

But, of course, in today's screwed up world, everything is about 'values'...So, a true political conservative now could be considered a liberal and a true political liberal could now be considered a conservative.

Sombody should come up with new labels...Such as "Religious bible thumpers " and the "We can do what we want, so fuck off'ers." That would make more sense...and is MUCH more appropriate. Or, maybe one is just a turd sandwich and the others is a giant douchebag . Whatever.

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:46 am**

A liberal is somebody who believes in amending the constitution or adapting new laws or spending more money to make things right...For example : Amending the constitution to say life begins at concention, amending the Constitution to ban flag burning, or amending the Constitution to define marriage.

Monker, do yourself a favour, and stick to music. Liberals don't want any of the Constitution touched...<shaking my head> Life beginning at conception? Dude, you are so far off it isn't funny.

A conservative believes in either creating less government, spending less taxes, or removing laws that restrict a person's rights...Such as being against everything that I mentioned above for liberals,

Again, generally thought to be true, but then how do explain that under Bush, AND his own party controlling BOTH houses, spending has never been higher, and the debt has never been larger?

ending the Patriot act, ballancing the budget BEFORE cutting taxes or not spending more money on an unwinnable "war".

This is the funniest yet. The GOP wants the Patriot Act..They need to be controlling, because they have to control the agenda, in order to push through threir agenda.

"Not spending more money on an unwinnable war?" WTF are we doing now?

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:50 am**

Rock'ndeano wrote: WTF are we doing now?

Pretending we have a conservative as the President when we really have someone with more in common with Jimmy Carter then Barry Goldwater.

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:56 am**

Pretending we have a conservative as the President when we really have someone with more in common with Jimmy Carter then Barry Goldwater.

Pretty easy to see Bush doesn't really know what he is...I seriously think dude is lost.

Carter would never have gone to Iraq...NEVER. I would like to think ANY president would have went to Afghanistan though.

Bush is nothing but a paper puppet, being pulled from the religeous right, the rich right(Cheney), and the "electable republicans."

He hasn't a clue..

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:27 am**

Monker wrote:
Rock'ndeano wrote: WTF are we doing now?

Pretending we have a conservative as the President when we really have someone with more in common with Jimmy Carter then Barry Goldwater.

YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought I was the only one that understood this. LOL.

Monker, you could not be more dead on if you tried.

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:31 am**

Rock'ndeano wrote:
Pretending we have a conservative as the President when we really have someone with more in common with Jimmy Carter then Barry Goldwater.

Pretty easy to see Bush doesn't really know what he is...I seriously think dude is lost.

Carter would never have gone to Iraq...NEVER. I would like to think ANY president would have went to Afghanistan though.

Bush is nothing but a paper puppet, being pulled from the religeous right, the rich right(Cheney), and the "electable republicans."

He hasn't a clue..

You are very close to being totally right on. I really do think Bush is a fake. Anybody that can think knows he's not a conservative at all. Government has grown more under him than Clinton.

If I had it to do over again, I would have voted for that guy running for the Constitution Party.

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:20 am**

Who said Gore was worse? Who said Kerry was worse? I guarantee you either man is smarter, and less corrupt.

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:23 am**

Free wrote:
You are very close to being totally right on. I really do think Bush is a fake. Anybody that can think knows he's not a conservative at all. Government has grown more under him than Clinton.

Oh Government grew big time under Clinton...it just grew in a way that it helped MANY people, not just 1% of the richest.

Sure we were all taxed more, but who gives a shit? The pile was still bigger after Clintons' taxes, than with what we have now.

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:52 am**

Rock'ndeano wrote:Who said Gore was worse? Who said Kerry was worse? I guarantee you either man is smarter, and less corrupt.

LOL. This is where I jump off your boat man. Gore and Kerry are not just liberal, they are absolute socialists.

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:39 am**

Free wrote:
Rock'ndeano wrote:Who said Gore was worse? Who said Kerry was worse? I guarantee you either man is smarter, and less corrupt.

LOL. This is where I jump off your boat man. Gore and Kerry are not just liberal, they are absolute socialists.

Jump off all you want.

I would rather have a sane socialist instead of a fucking retard in the White House.

Make sure you vote republican again, if you want to see America continue to circle the drain..

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:12 am**

Rock'ndeano wrote:
Free wrote:
Rock'ndeano wrote:Who said Gore was worse? Who said Kerry was worse? I guarantee you either man is smarter, and less corrupt.

LOL. This is where I jump off your boat man. Gore and Kerry are not just liberal, they are absolute socialists.

Jump off all you want.

I would rather have a sane socialist instead of a fucking retard in the White House.

Make sure you vote republican again, if you want to see America continue to circle the drain..

There are so many different ways I could respond to this. I think it's best that I tell you I have not been a republican for over 3 years. It's because of George Bush's big government spending on social programs and his refusal to protect our borders that I left the republicans.

Now, socialism is why our ancestors fought the British to form their own country. Socialism by definition is stealing from the productivity of people to give to those who are not productive.

The question is always asked after I say this to people, "what about people who can't take care of themselves?". Before 1913 when the 16th amendement to the Constitution (the federal income tax) was made federal law, Churches and charity groups gave to the needy and the handicapped.

The big difference between charity and government help to people is that one (governemt assistance) involves stealing from somebody to get the funds. The other (charity or church funds) involves the voluntary giving to aid somebody in need.

It used to be that most Americans would fight before they would allow anyone to steal from them - the government included. But now this country is indeed a socialist country. When you add up fed, state and local taxes, most people are handing over 50% of their incomes to the government. Add to this that a lot of people don't even pay taxes because of the level of their income and it's not difficult to understand that there are more people in the welfare wagon than there are pulling it.

When the above happens, it's just a matter of time before a country in this situation either has a revolution against this or continues to hand more of its individual liberty and freedoms away to the government.

Now I believe anything is possible. However, I really do think America is too far gone to ever be a truly free nation again.

Sorry for the rant. But you did hit my hot button here.

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:25 am**

W ow. Well it was thought out, Free.

Look, obviously it takes a mixture of the two; a compromise. To have it all the conservative way would be death to 3/4 of the country.

Look, churches are great, but religeon is as corrupt as E nron, so how can we trust organized religeon?

We need competence, because corruptiveness will always remain. Clinton got by on his brains and wit....Bush doesn't have brains or wit, and the guy should have surrounded himself with better folks...Heck, Colin Powell is gone...He couldn't stand the direction of the WH. Rumsfeld thinks he is playing tanks and soldiers..why? cus he never actually signed up to go to War, even when he thought it was a good idea to do so. Cheney? He's worse..5 , count em, 5 deferrments...but he likes war too! All of them are as corrupt as we will ever see.

As for your ideology on conservative vs. liberal, all I can say, are there is good and bad in both.

I would love to run as a moderate. NO more tax cuts, no more bullshit wars, less handouts, and less BS programs. Basically, I would look to the Jesse Jackson's of the left and tell him to fuck off. Then I would look to Newt Gingrich and the entire Fox news station, and tell them the very same thing..maybe more...LOL, you should see Fox right now..they are comparing W to Abe Lincoln..

Can 2008 come fast enough?

O yeah, my guess is you will see Bush impeached, not removed later next year.

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:40 am**

Free, I don't completely disagree withe everything you said, That said, let me say the the key to stopping a lot of the overtaxing is to stop so much of the "pork barrel" BS like the sex life of bumble bees(which are probably tax write offs for big corporations) and focus on the true needs of this country.

We need to take a hard look at welfare reform, but not at the expense of the children who have no other means of support. I don't know what the answer might be to that situation, but I know that people who limit their number of children based on their income should not have to support the children of those who only have children to increase their welfare checks. This actually happens folks. I had new employees in a manufacturing plant who couldn't(or wouldn't) cut it tell me they "weren't going to work this hard because they could have another baby and get more money".

I'm a Democrat. Reagan started turning me against the Rep party, the first Bush made me doubt the values of the party as a whole, and his offspring has solidified that.

All things considered, I'd rather have any president who looks after the well being of the Heart of America before the lining of his supporter's pockets. Bush's political friends(oil companies, insurance companies, health care conglomerates, gun manufacturers, drug companies, tobacco conglomerates, etc) bought the White House for him, and those are the only people he's looking out for. I'll go broke giving my money to the poor before I'll go broke just trying to live anyday.

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:03 pm**

Rock'ndeano wrote:W ow. Well it was thought out, Free.

Look, obviously it takes a mixture of the two; a compromise. To have it all the conservative way would be death to 3/4 of the country.

Look, churches are great, but religeon is as corrupt as E nron, so how can we trust organized religeon?

We need competence, because corruptiveness will always remain. Clinton got by on his brains and wit....Bush doesn't have brains or wit, and the guy should have surrounded himself with better folks...Heck, Colin Powell is gone...He couldn't stand the direction of the WH. Rumsfeld thinks he is playing tanks and soldiers..why? cus he never actually signed up to go to War, even when he thought it was a good idea to do so. Cheney? He's worse..5 , count em, 5 deferrments...but he likes war too! All of them are as corrupt as we will ever see.

As for your ideology on conservative vs. liberal, all I can say, are there is good and bad in both.

I would love to run as a moderate. NO more tax cuts, no more bullshit wars, less handouts, and less BS programs. Basically, I would look to the Jesse Jackson's of the left and tell him to fuck off. Then I would look to Newt Gingrich and the entire Fox news station, and tell them the very same thing..maybe more...LOL, you should see Fox right now..they are comparing W to Abe Lincoln..

Can 2008 come fast enough?

O yeah, my guess is you will see Bush impeached, not removed later next year.

1. What this all boils down to is, "Who has a legal claim to the money I make?"

Answer: My family and I do. Nobody else does. If government passes a law that says they can take a percentage of my money by force that is called THEFT. (By the way, this is what happens every time I pay my federal taxes. I don't want to pay them but if I don't I go to jail) The government calls that legal theft. If a man stole from me on the street that is theft as well. But he just can't call it legal theft.

Ultimately, the family is the safety net. For example, if my grandma can not live by herself any more then it is my family's responsibility to either have her move in with us so we can take care of her or we pay for her to live in an assisted living facility.

It is wrong if my family says the heck with it. Let's just bill somebody else for our grandma. By moving her into a public nursing home we are doing just that. This is not just or fair at all.

In previous generations there were no nursing homes. It was a no brainer that she is our responsibility not someone else's. But since many people have access to other people's money this can cause someone to do somethign they know is wrong - Bill someone else for my responsibility.

I know. I know. "What if the family can't pay for their responsibility?" This is where Church and Charity groups come into play. It worked this way until the 1960's.

As long as a country has a federal safety net, THEFT will be taking place. THEFT breaks a universal law. And this country has been paying the consequences of this ever since we started it.

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:12 pm**

I hate politics in music.

For the record, I am a former Democrat, registered Republican, but more of a Libertarian. Basically I hate politicians because they have to sell their souls to special interests groups to get elected. Also, the 2 party system is ridiculous. How can a nation of individuals with so many opinions be pigeonholed into either the left of the right?

Screw politics, Journey rocks!

:lol:

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:14 pm**

arrivalrules wrote:I hate politics in music.

For the record, I am a former Democrat, registered Republican, but more of a Libertarian. Basically I hate politicians because they have to sell their souls to special interests groups to get elected. Also, the 2 party system is ridiculous. How can a nation of individuals with so many opinions be pigeonholed into either the left of the right?

Screw politics, Journey rocks!

I agree. Screw politics. It is not a political discussion we are having though. It's a moral one.

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:00 pm**

Free wrote:
Rock'ndeano wrote:W ow. Well it was thought out, Free.

Look, obviously it takes a mixture of the two; a compromise. To have it all the conservative way would be death to 3/4 of the country.

Look, churches are great, but religeon is as corrupt as E nron, so how can we trust organized religeon?

We need competence, because corruptiveness will always remain. Clinton got by on his brains and wit....Bush doesn't have brains or wit, and the guy should have surrounded himself with better folks...Heck, Colin Powell is gone...He couldn't stand the direction of the WH. Rumsfeld thinks he is playing tanks and soldiers..why? cus he never actually signed up to go to War, even when he thought it was a good idea to do so. Cheney? He's worse..5 , count em, 5 deferrments...but he likes war too! All of them are as corrupt as we will ever see.

As for your ideology on conservative vs. liberal, all I can say, are there is good and bad in both.

I would love to run as a moderate. NO more tax cuts, no more bullshit wars, less handouts, and less BS programs. Basically, I would look to the Jesse Jackson's of the left and tell him to fuck off. Then I would look to Newt Gingrich and the entire Fox news station, and tell them the very same thing..maybe more...LOL, you should see Fox right now..they are comparing W to Abe Lincoln..

Can 2008 come fast enough?

O yeah, my guess is you will see Bush impeached, not removed later next year.

1. What this all boils down to is, "Who has a legal claim to the money I make?"

Answer: My family and I do. Nobody else does. If government passes a law that says they can take a percentage of my money by force that is called THEFT. (By the way, this is what happens every time I pay my federal taxes. I don't want to pay them but if I don't I go to jail) The government calls that legal theft. If a man stole from me on the street that is theft as well. But he just can't call it legal theft.

Ultimately, the family is the safety net. For example, if my grandma can not live by herself any more then it is my family's responsibility to either have her move in with us so we can take care of her or we pay for her to live in an assisted living facility.

It is wrong if my family says the heck with it. Let's just bill somebody else for our grandma. By moving her into a public nursing home we are doing just that. This is not just or fair at all.

In previous generations there were no nursing homes. It was a no brainer that she is our responsibility not someone else's. But since many people have access to other people's money this can cause someone to do somethign they know is wrong - Bill someone else for my responsibility.

I know. I know. "What if the family can't pay for their responsibility?" This is where Church and Charity groups come into play. It worked this way until the 1960's.

As long as a country has a federal safety net, THEFT will be taking place. THEFT breaks a universal law. And this country has been paying the consequences of this ever since we started it.

Tell ya what there Free...Next time you hop on that nice paved freeway(interstate), remember, taxes pay for it. next time you go to an airport, remember, takes make it possible. Hospitals, Fire, police, courts, mass transit, rail, enviroment, refuse, everything....

You cannot privatize everything. It just pisses me off when rich republicans bitch about taxation, yet they sure as hell go about using everything that is in existence due to tax dollars.

W ho the hell is paying for these services which I just threw out? We, the common good are. Why? Because we HAVE to.

Now, I do agree with certain tax dollars being thrown at problems which justmake the problems worse..You arent getting an argument from me on that one.

However, there are people, who are poor, who play by the rules, and don't have access to millions in a will....these people need a vehicle in which to go about seeking that better life. I am sure many millionaires used government to get where they are now..A nd some have no problem giving back to help others.

By your argument, sounds like the poor fuckers in the Gulf should pay for themselves..Tough shit.....After all, taxing you and me for them to eat is robbery or theft.

Taxation is not a bad thing..In fact it is necessary. The USA is the least taxed state in the world....

PS, Free, good conversation..I am not bitchin at you..that was good. feel free to continue it.

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:13 pm**

the intellect here surprises me. i would have guessed the conversation would totally be comprised of nothing but inflamatory statements and nonsensical comments with people throwing darts at each other and never getting to any point other than to say what a retard the other person is. you people astound me some of the times.

Posted: **Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:14 am**

Rock'ndeano wrote:
Free wrote:
Rock'ndeano wrote:W ow. Well it was thought out, Free.

Look, obviously it takes a mixture of the two; a compromise. To have it all the conservative way would be death to 3/4 of the country.

Look, churches are great, but religeon is as corrupt as E nron, so how can we trust organized religeon?

We need competence, because corruptiveness will always remain. Clinton got by on his brains and wit....Bush doesn't have brains or wit, and the guy should have surrounded himself with better folks...Heck, Colin Powell is gone...He couldn't stand the direction of the WH. Rumsfeld thinks he is playing tanks and soldiers..why? cus he never actually signed up to go to War, even when he thought it was a good idea to do so. Cheney? He's worse..5 , count em, 5 deferrments...but he likes war too! All of them are as corrupt as we will ever see.

As for your ideology on conservative vs. liberal, all I can say, are there is good and bad in both.

I would love to run as a moderate. NO more tax cuts, no more bullshit wars, less handouts, and less BS programs. Basically, I would look to the Jesse Jackson's of the left and tell him to fuck off. Then I would look to Newt Gingrich and the entire Fox news station, and tell them the very same thing..maybe more...LOL, you should see Fox right now..they are comparing W to Abe Lincoln..

Can 2008 come fast enough?

O yeah, my guess is you will see Bush impeached, not removed later next year.

1. What this all boils down to is, "Who has a legal claim to the money I make?"

Answer: My family and I do. Nobody else does. If government passes a law that says they can take a percentage of my money by force that is called THEFT. (By the way, this is what happens every time I pay my federal taxes. I don't want to pay them but if I don't I go to jail) The government calls that legal theft. If a man stole from me on the street that is theft as well. But he just can't call it legal theft.

Ultimately, the family is the safety net. For example, if my grandma can not live by herself any more then it is my family's responsibility to either have her move in with us so we can take care of her or we pay for her to live in an assisted living facility.

It is wrong if my family says the heck with it. Let's just bill somebody else for our grandma. By moving her into a public nursing home we are doing just that. This is not just or fair at all.

In previous generations there were no nursing homes. It was a no brainer that she is our responsibility not someone else's. But since many people have access to other people's money this can cause someone to do somethign they know is wrong - Bill someone else for my responsibility.

I know. I know. "What if the family can't pay for their responsibility?" This is where Church and Charity groups come into play. It worked this way until the 1960's.

As long as a country has a federal safety net, THEFT will be taking place. THEFT breaks a universal law. And this country has been paying the consequences of this ever since we started it.

Tell ya what there Free...Next time you hop on that nice paved freeway(interstate), remember, taxes pay for it. next time you go to an airport, remember, takes make it possible. Hospitals, Fire, police, courts, mass transit, rail, enviroment, refuse, everything....

You cannot privatize everything. It just pisses me off when rich republicans bitch about taxation, yet they sure as hell go about using everything that is in existence due to tax dollars.

W ho the hell is paying for these services which I just threw out? We, the common good are. Why? Because we HAVE to.

Now, I do agree with certain tax dollars being thrown at problems which justmake the problems worse..You arent getting an argument from me on that one.

However, there are people, who are poor, who play by the rules, and don't have access to millions in a will....these people need a vehicle in which to go about seeking that better life. I am sure many millionaires used government to get where they are now..A nd some have no problem giving back to help others.

By your argument, sounds like the poor fuckers in the Gulf should pay for themselves..Tough shit.....After all, taxing you and me for them to eat is robbery or theft.

Taxation is not a bad thing..In fact it is necessary. The USA is the least taxed state in the world....

PS, Free, good conversation..I am not bitchin at you..that was good. feel free to continue it.

I also am enjoying this conversation because it seems we are keeping this civil.

For the record, my statements have nothing to do with politics. WHAT? That's right. The discussion we are having is a moral one.

Is the Constitution against taxing citizens? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Within in the Constitiution it states that the Federal Government has VERY limited powers in which to tax. The defense of the country (Military) is one of a few.

You mentioned many services that are funded by tax dollars. Each time I buy gas I pay a tax on that. That is moral because that tax goes to building and reparing the roads that I use every day. Makes sense and is very moral. I am paying for something that I use.

However when the federal government says it has a claim to my income, THAT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERNT STORY indeed!

Let's take the gas tax again for example. I am making a choice on whether or not to be taxed. I don't have to buy gas. I could share a ride with someone, ride my bike, take the bus or walk.

But I have no choice as to whether or not to pay federal income taxes. HUGE DIFFERENCE HERE. I am being forced to do something I do not choose to do. This is called tyranny.

Just because a law is passed by elected officials does not mean that it is right or moral. I'll go back to THEFT for an example. Theft is always wrong no matter who is doing the stealing.

Posted: **Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:59 am**

You responded exactly as i would have, if i were on your side of the argument.

True, in fact, the ONLY duty in which the Federal Gov't is OBLIGATED to provide for the citizens of these United States is Defense(spelled the American way).

I get where you're coming from, Free, but I also know the Constitution was written 230 years ago, and although brilliantly constructed, it's far from easy to write about the future. Example, when the Constitiution was drafted, slavery had not yet ocurred, therefore Affirmative Action was NOT yet adoted, in hopes of aleviating racism for job and schooling purposes...(not taxeation argument, but I think I made my point). By the way, I dislike Affirmative Action entirely, but yet I am afraid I have to support it, because there are just too many people who employ an attitude of hiring only whites, and there needs to be a mechanism in place to ensure fairness. Whew, was that a swift departure away from the taxation conversation? Free, while I feel the need to support AA, I don't support those who manipulate it, ie, Jesse jackson and his gang.

MR

WHY?

WHY?

Re: WHY?

Re: WHY?

Re: WHY?

Re: WHY?

Re: WHY?

Re: WHY?

Re: WHY?

Re: WHY?

Re: WHY?

Re: WHY?

politics

Re: politics