MFA?

Way ta go, Frankie! You know I have no respect for you at all
photographically, but politically you're OK in my book!

John wrote:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 22:25:02 -0700, Tom Phillips
wrote:

Completely open primaries where everyone can vote
on any candidate would solve this. Course both Dems
and Repubs are against any such political openness
and fairness.

Three words that strike fear into every partizan politico's
heart :

Campaign Finance Reform

Pull the plug on their funding and see how fast a half-dozen
little parties are formed.

And what? Actually _practice_ democracy instead of
pay lip service to it? :^)

It would be interesting wouldn't it ? A government by the
people and for the people ? Gads ! Anarchy !

You might get accused of being anti-american.

And I admit that in her current state I am.

Money is "free speech," you know. Scalia says so.

Yep. He's something. I'm not sure what. Supposed to be a
conservative.

Dubya's hunting buddy and corporate lackey?

John wrote:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 22:25:02 -0700, Tom Phillips
wrote:

Completely open primaries where everyone can vote
on any candidate would solve this. Course both Dems
and Repubs are against any such political openness
and fairness.

Three words that strike fear into every partizan politico's
heart :

Campaign Finance Reform

Pull the plug on their funding and see how fast a half-dozen
little parties are formed.

And what? Actually _practice_ democracy instead of
pay lip service to it? :^)

It would be interesting wouldn't it ? A government by the
people and for the people ? Gads ! Anarchy !

You might get accused of being anti-american.

And I admit that in her current state I am.

Money is "free speech," you know. Scalia says so.

Yep. He's something. I'm not sure what. Supposed to be a
conservative.

Dubya's hunting buddy and corporate lackey?

John wrote:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 22:25:02 -0700, Tom Phillips
wrote:

Completely open primaries where everyone can vote
on any candidate would solve this. Course both Dems
and Repubs are against any such political openness
and fairness.

Three words that strike fear into every partizan politico's
heart :

Campaign Finance Reform

Pull the plug on their funding and see how fast a half-dozen
little parties are formed.

And what? Actually _practice_ democracy instead of
pay lip service to it? :^)

It would be interesting wouldn't it ? A government by the
people and for the people ? Gads ! Anarchy !

You might get accused of being anti-american.

And I admit that in her current state I am.

Money is "free speech," you know. Scalia says so.

Yep. He's something. I'm not sure what. Supposed to be a
conservative.

Dubya's hunting buddy and corporate lackey?

Frank Pittel wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: Tom Phillips wrote:
:
: : David Nebenzahl wrote:
: : I may be many things, but a Bush-supporting Republican ain't one of them.
:
: : oh now, let's not define a schmo by his politics, even if it fits
:
: : I happen to like _some_ republicans.
:
: Do you like me? :-)

: Oh sure frank, but don't expect me not to admonish you

That's fine. You may have noticed that I don't mind a good
debate. :-)

: Let me qualify that. The republican party is wildly out
: of balance. It's become a partisan hate factory churing
: out self rightous moralists bent on governmental and
: constitutional iconoclasm. A faux religous state is their
: preference. I happen to believe in our government, they
: believe in the supremecy of right wing talk radio.

You're confusing the Republicans with the democrats. You've also
confused right wing talk radio with mainstream old media.

Hardly. I rarely egt those differences confused.

: It isn't a matter of liking someone personally; one of my
: best friends is the republican party chair in his county.
: It's a matter of an elected official's political standards
: (i.e., difference between true conservatives and overzealous
: right wing buffoons.) There's a movement in my state by
: moderate republicans to "take back our party" from the
: extremists who think right wing political views are the
: same thing as their religious views.

It's good to be a member of a party that allows dissention by its
members. The dems would do better if they did the same.

In the current version of the republican party, it's
tow the party line on social conservative issue or
you're not on God's side. Just look how they attack
and ridicule (_especially_ RW talk radio) any moderate
republican like Arlen Specter who dares admit the plurality
of our nation should be taken into consideration by the
republican party...

Since this is way off topic here you can have the last word in this
since it's my last post.

mine also.

Frank Pittel wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: Tom Phillips wrote:
:
: : David Nebenzahl wrote:
: : I may be many things, but a Bush-supporting Republican ain't one of them.
:
: : oh now, let's not define a schmo by his politics, even if it fits
:
: : I happen to like _some_ republicans.
:
: Do you like me? :-)

: Oh sure frank, but don't expect me not to admonish you

That's fine. You may have noticed that I don't mind a good
debate. :-)

: Let me qualify that. The republican party is wildly out
: of balance. It's become a partisan hate factory churing
: out self rightous moralists bent on governmental and
: constitutional iconoclasm. A faux religous state is their
: preference. I happen to believe in our government, they
: believe in the supremecy of right wing talk radio.

You're confusing the Republicans with the democrats. You've also
confused right wing talk radio with mainstream old media.

Hardly. I rarely egt those differences confused.

: It isn't a matter of liking someone personally; one of my
: best friends is the republican party chair in his county.
: It's a matter of an elected official's political standards
: (i.e., difference between true conservatives and overzealous
: right wing buffoons.) There's a movement in my state by
: moderate republicans to "take back our party" from the
: extremists who think right wing political views are the
: same thing as their religious views.

It's good to be a member of a party that allows dissention by its
members. The dems would do better if they did the same.

In the current version of the republican party, it's
tow the party line on social conservative issue or
you're not on God's side. Just look how they attack
and ridicule (_especially_ RW talk radio) any moderate
republican like Arlen Specter who dares admit the plurality
of our nation should be taken into consideration by the
republican party...

Since this is way off topic here you can have the last word in this
since it's my last post.

mine also.

Frank Pittel wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: Tom Phillips wrote:
:
: : David Nebenzahl wrote:
: : I may be many things, but a Bush-supporting Republican ain't one of them.
:
: : oh now, let's not define a schmo by his politics, even if it fits
:
: : I happen to like _some_ republicans.
:
: Do you like me? :-)

: Oh sure frank, but don't expect me not to admonish you

That's fine. You may have noticed that I don't mind a good
debate. :-)

: Let me qualify that. The republican party is wildly out
: of balance. It's become a partisan hate factory churing
: out self rightous moralists bent on governmental and
: constitutional iconoclasm. A faux religous state is their
: preference. I happen to believe in our government, they
: believe in the supremecy of right wing talk radio.

You're confusing the Republicans with the democrats. You've also
confused right wing talk radio with mainstream old media.

Hardly. I rarely egt those differences confused.

: It isn't a matter of liking someone personally; one of my
: best friends is the republican party chair in his county.
: It's a matter of an elected official's political standards
: (i.e., difference between true conservatives and overzealous
: right wing buffoons.) There's a movement in my state by
: moderate republicans to "take back our party" from the
: extremists who think right wing political views are the
: same thing as their religious views.

It's good to be a member of a party that allows dissention by its
members. The dems would do better if they did the same.

In the current version of the republican party, it's
tow the party line on social conservative issue or
you're not on God's side. Just look how they attack
and ridicule (_especially_ RW talk radio) any moderate
republican like Arlen Specter who dares admit the plurality
of our nation should be taken into consideration by the
republican party...

Since this is way off topic here you can have the last word in this
since it's my last post.

mine also.

"Frank Pittel" wrote in message
...

It's good to be a member of a party that allows dissention by its
members. The dems would do better if they did the same.

It is a fine line between ultra-liberal politics and facisim. Hard-core
Republicans are right up front with their declarations of belief, while an
ultra-liberal will hide his agenda (if he even knows what the hell it is) in
rules and expects the same of others so that they all live in denial.

"Frank Pittel" wrote in message
...

It's good to be a member of a party that allows dissention by its
members. The dems would do better if they did the same.

It is a fine line between ultra-liberal politics and facisim. Hard-core
Republicans are right up front with their declarations of belief, while an
ultra-liberal will hide his agenda (if he even knows what the hell it is) in
rules and expects the same of others so that they all live in denial.