Sorry, it just sounds like a crazy idea for me :)…

The inability to reason through simple sentences, is one reason the battle is uphill and not downhill.

People don’t get it, and what is more enlightening, they don’t want to get it.

“if you look at some of the top guns in the GOP–Cheney, Frist, DeLay–how do represent the values of the little guy, or care about his interests?”

Local governments care for the little guy, bit federal representatives care about bigger issues than the Worker’s Socialist Party of Haven.

Another thing people don’t want to understand. There’s a reason and a rhyme to the chaos.

“if you look at some of the top guns in the GOP–Cheney, Frist, DeLay–how do represent the values of the little guy, or care about his interests?”

Pelosi is the richest person in Congress.

I’m no particular fan of Drist, DeLay, et al… but don’t make the mistake of thinking any politicians on either side are looking out for anyone’s interests but their own.

What in the name of Belzebub are you talking about?
Stalin? How did he get into this? What “plan” to remove religion?

Good night.

That’s like saying, “where did Stalin propose a plan to starve millions”. Stalin didn’t, nor did you propose a plan.

But that doesn’t change the consequences of the Five Year plan, millions starving, nor does it change the consequences to the plans to remove religion from American society.

The psychology of Republicans is rather too simple to summarize.

It’s basically an act of desperation, not of fancy.

I make an educated guess that hardcore Republicans have a stake in the Constitution and etc. Therefore they see people who pull the strings of the Democrats, out to destroy the Constitution, and they feel personally threatened. As any serf would when a noble walks around trailing a lot of dead serf bodies with him.

Therefore, they want to be represented, on the simple basis of survival.

Moderation, in this case, is seen as compromise and weakness, allowing the enemy (and I mean enemy, not opponent or loyal opposition) to redraw breath for another attack.

Republicans see Australia, Germany, France, and Ukraine, and they see the results of compromising American values for victory. Republicans, the hardcore ones, would rather vote Democrat just to kick the Republicans out of office so that the Republicans would get their principles right, then vote Republican and stay with the status quo.

These Republicans are patriots first, Republicans last.

Their interest is vested in the Constitution, in the freedom of speech, balance of powers, and Second Ammendment. Not the Republican political party.

The debate, in fact, is the uncertainty of whether compromise IS or IS NOT giving the enemy time to foment dissension and anarchy and overthrow.

I have not made a decision, yet, personally.

But some Republicans have. And they are the ones who clamor, not for victory or power, but just for simple traditional human rights.

The real human rights.

And they will do anything to achieve the preservation of human rights. Politics is not set in stone. Before it is, Republicans believe that they can change the course of American history before the end.

The choice with terrorism is clear cut. Never give them a breath of safety, never give them a moment of rest, never leave a body unburned.

But the choice concerning the ACLU, Democrats funded by the guilty rich and power, Democrats owned by Special Interest Lobbyists and Unions, and the erosion of Fundamental American Freedoms, well that choice is a lot more uncertain and unclear.

That is my conclusion, Neo.

I referred to Clinton as the womanizer because he was/is one. His church going was strictly for the sake of the peasants and we peasants knew it.

I referred to Bush as the Methodist, not only because he is one but because people associate him with and often fault him for his faith.

As for gay marriage I think that if people had waited another 20 years there might have been a change in pulic sentiment, but they chose to jump the gun.

But not all social conservatives are that religious, they are just strong believers in traditional values.

Where do I propose something like “elimination of religion?” Wouldn’t dream of it.
As Robert Benchley once said, when asked for his philosophy of life: “Live and let live, with special emphasis on live.”

True, a majority does not support gay marriage. But what does “support” mean here? Some states will grant licenses, others won’t. OK by me. But if you’re a CPA in Mobile, why should you be bothered if two guys get hitched in Framingham, MA?

Never would expect the USA to be like San Fran, nor would I wish it. I always want there to be towns like Wells, Maine and Hillsboro, NC, both very unlike SF. What made you think I’d want to impose SF mores or lifestyle on all of America?

It is interesting that identified Clinton as a “womanizer” and Bush as a Methodist. Doesn’t Bill belong to a church? Why not identify Bush as an ex-alcoholic, if past vices of both are the key identifiers?