Evangelicals, Catholics, and other strict disciplinarians across the nation will be shitting themselves so much that the "last garment to be removed before the fun begins" could be an unusually scarce commodity. Pseudo-Christians around the country will be screaming at the top of their lungs about how "their" Jesus Christ is being attacked...as if Christ was owned personally by them...Personally, I can't wait to see all the hubbub and brouhaha that is going to unfold in the next week. Protesters, malcontents, and strict religious fervents will all be lining up to blast the film and the book as being sacriledge, hogwash, and full of lies. I mean, the very thought, that Jesus could have been married and been a father as the result of (gasp!) relations with a woman. A WOMAN! What heresy! Everyone knows that all women are evil and should eternally be subordinate to men, right?
I know it's horrible to think that son of God could in anyway be normal, loving, caring or devoted. And you really can't blame Dan Brown. After all, his book is just a spy thriller. No...no the problem really lies within our own culture and our inability to accept that a woman was actually held in the highest esteem by the Son of God.
Most of the citizens of our great society, for all of its forward thinking, still believe that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, a belief that was finally set right by the Catholic Church in the 1960s. She was, in fact, not a prostitute, but, in my opinion, the OD....Original Disciple. And I think, until recently, the lost voice of True Christianity.
What do I mean by True Christianity? Well, it's hard to find people like that in this country, that's for sure, what with all the folks here who are against abortion and yet have no problem with 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians.....many of them children.
True Christianity can be found in the New Testament (the parts about of loving each other, be tolerant, abhorring war, not judging people, respecting the earth) and the so called Gnostic gospels which detail another sort of history of the earliest followers of Jesus. These people believed in sacred feminine power, the divine goddess, and it's relation to the the natural energy our earth gives us. They believed in ancient healing techniques, Tantric sex, and the harmony of man's aggression with women's compassion.Sadly, these people were at first ostracized and then executed by evil, gluttonous men who hijacked Christianity in the 4th century. These men knew that they could consolidate their power by using "their" version of the story of Christ to control and manipulate people....people who were better off, in their mind, NOT knowing about this ancient wisdom because after all, an ignorant population is easier to control.
Hmm...sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Well, it should because that is who is running all three branches of our government right now. Conservative lobbyists and right wing talk show hosts disseminate their propaganda to "educate" the public on what it means to be a Christian. There are a few people, thanks to Dan Brown, who are getting out the truth. One of them has carried the message of the sacred feminine to the 21st Century, inspired much of the Da Vinci Code, and become my favorite author in the last two years. Her name is Margaret Starbird.
Margaret Starbird (left) holds BA and MA degrees from the University of Maryland where she concentrated in comparative literature, medieval studies and German language, studies she pursued on a Fulbright Student Grant at the Christian Albrechts Universitat in Kiel, Germany. She later studied at Vanderbilt Divinity School in Nashville, TN.Ms. Starbird's theological beliefs were profoundly shaken when she first encountered the suggestion that Jesus Christ was married and that his bloodline survived in Western Europe. Shocked by such heresy, this Roman Catholic scholar and former University instructor set out to refute it, but instead found compelling evidence in support of the forgotten Bride of Jesus.
She has lived and traveled extensively in Europe including pilgrimages to Black Madonna and Mary Magdalene shrines and Cathar citadels in Provence. Starbird and her husband of 37 years now reside in the Pacific Northwest. They have five grown children and two grand- children. Starbird conductnationwidede seminars and retreats honoring the Sacred Union at the heart of Christianity.
She has written several books on the subject including The Woman with the Alabaster Jar, Magdalene's Lost Legacy, The Goddess in the Gospels, The Feminine Face of Christianity, and the most recent Mary Magdalene: Bride in Exile. I urge all of you to read these books as I believe they represent the most courageous pieces of literature to be released in our times.Ms. Starbird illustrates, through historical documents and evidence in the scriptures, the importance of Mary Magdalene in Christian history. If she was the Bride of the Jesus, than the history that we have been taught our entire lives is a half truth...a fabrication and distortion made to minimalize the role of the female in the last 2000 years.
In effect, Ms. Starbird illustrates how many of the world's ills could have been avoided if we had embraced the sacred feminine and restored the balance that should exist between man and woman.
Currently, we are out of this balance. Our society, and the world in general, is run by violent men who have lost touch with their feminine side and need to be reminded where it is. Or educated on how to find it. Now, I am not saying that Ms. Starbird would make a good president necessarily. But how abou Secretary of Education. Or Secretary General of the UN? She has been undeniably courageous in asserting what she profoundly believes. We NEED a voice like this in our leadership!!
Her ideas and beliefs need to be spread, particularly in this country. She has said
The "sacred union" of Christ and Magdalene which, I believe, was always at the heart of the Christian story, is only a model for this much deeper "partnership" of "God" and "man/woman"--the "divine" and the created vessel (each individual as well as the entire 'human family') in which it is incarnated.
These beliefs are not in contrary to many of the basic teachings of Jesus. In fact, I believe that if Christ was married, embraced the goddess power, fathered a child, and believed in harmony between and man and a woman that makes him MORE appealing as my savior. All of these idiots that are protesting this movie are missing this point completely.
For the record, I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the King of Kings and is the most wonderful being to ever grace this planet. As with many of us, he had a partner who was with him every step of the way. She was his equal, his teacher, and his pupil.
She was Mary. She was his beloved. And, in these troubled times, we need to hear that sacred voice again.
22 comments:
Bravo, Markadelphia! You have just said precisely what I have thought about Dan Brown's book since I first read it some 2-3 years ago now.
As a woman, I have felt ostracized from organized religion because of the inequities in how the sexes are portrayed and treated. As a feminist, I completely agree with the lack of balance and harmony our planet has because of the subjugation of women worldwide. You touched on this in your last post, but we can only hope to have a more perfect world if, and only if, the equality of women in leadership roles throughout society is some day reached. And we are nowhere near that even in this country or in MN. Women in the MN legislature only make up 31% of those elected -- and this is the highest it's ever been.
We've got a long way to go, but thanks so much for recognizing, and so eloquently writing about the concept.
Anybody who has been unfortunate enough to read any of my previous responses has probably deduced that I'm not the brightest guy. Those of you who know me have most certainly figured that out. Probably my only saving grace - the thing that allows me to operate in a reasonably effective way in this world - is that I'm cognizant of the fact that I'm not too bright. Being aware of the fact that I might not always be able to figure out "reality" and "truth" allows me to avoid making catastrophic decisions based on my intellectually inferior conclusions.
I wanted to preface my posting with those comments because I want you to understand that I understand that there is likely an alternative explanation to the decidedly negative conclusions that I reached after reading your posting. < sarcasm> I also didn't want people to be too shocked by the next sentence.< /sarcasm>
I found this most recent posting of yours to be the most confusing posting I've ever read.
After reading it (and re-reading it, and re-reading it again, because I was sure I must have missed something) I concluded that one of two things must have happened:
1) Somebody stole your password and wrote this posting without your knowledge or blessing.
2) Your frustration and hatred has taken your otherwise harmlessly liberal mind to the typical liberal place of alternately condemning and accepting something as it becomes convenient for you to do so.
For the love of god (pun intended) Markadelphia, there are a number of postings from you that haven't even scrolled off the bottom into the archives yet where you quite viciously condemn the current administration and those with whom they associate, to the point where you utilize predictable liberal catchphrases such as "Nazi-esque agenda". Had you simply argued against the virtues they represent I could understand, but you have gone so far as to call for the elimination of religious elements from government affairs. (remove religious symbols from government buildings, no PoA,...,no "enforcing their morals on me")
Now you are telling us that Ms. Starbird has deduced the true meaning of Christianity and that her "ideas and beliefs need to be spread". Via a government position, nonetheless.
Sounds like a holy war to me. Should make for some good watchin'. I guess all I can hope for is that, when the war starts, somebody prints up a program for us interested bystanders, because there are going to be about 17 different armies marching under the "True Christians" banner, courageously asserting what they profoundly believe. Without a program, I'll never be able to keep track of which armies are the right ones and which ones are the wrong ones. Which ones I'm supposed to support as they force their values on me and which ones I'm not.
I appreciate your honesty PL. I too consider myself really dumb. But I've discovered that to REALLY get to know liberals, all you have to do is read this blog.
Here's what I've learned so far about from reading this blog about what liberals think...
We believe that our soldiers are torturing people at GITMO.
We believe that "Well we really don’t know what is going on at GITMO"(as evidenced later on in the discussion).
We believe that images of dead US soldiers should be shown on primetime TV (as recommended by Markadelphia in his post "5 ways democrats can grow balls"
We believe that when fringe Iraqi fighting forces are soundly defeated with relatively low Coalition casualties, that this is inescapable evidence of crisis.
We support our troops.
We believe that no one should ever question us when we say "We support our troops".
We believe that John Kerry is a hero for his service in Vietnam.
We believe that because John Kerry served 4 months in Vietnam, he has the national security expertise necessary to be commander-in-chief.
We believe that any attempt to question his voting record is an unfair attack on the patriotism of a hero.
We believe that GWB doesn’t understand war and Barbara Boxer would make a good president.
We believe in saying things like "We would be right back to square one and make no progress in unifying this country".
We also believe in saying the following things as well..."Evangelicals, Catholics, and other strict disciplinarians across the nation will be shitting themselves so much"
"Everyone knows that all women are evil and should eternally be subordinate to men, right?"
"what with all the folks here who are against abortion and yet have no problem with 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians"
"sorry ncds, gay people will be married. I know it frightens you to think about what gay people are doing in the privacy of their own homes but, TOO FUCKING BAD, bitch!)"
"And if Joe or Jane Evangelical is offended by this, then they can FUCK OFF!"
"...Tom DeLay (bye, bye dickhead!)"
"..neocon douchebags"
"(The soldier) has been completely brainwashed, most effectively, by the ruling party of this country and their brain dead minions (talk radio, Fox News, etc)."
"Your president and vice president are chickenhawks"
We believe the country should be unified.
We believe the harsh tone of politics these days is the fault of GWB.
We believe that "Our society, and the world in general, is run by violent men who have lost touch with their feminine side and need to be reminded where it is."
We believe that it is OK for people to "laugh their ass off" at injuries suffered in accidents as long as one disagrees with the politics of the people involved.
We believe in having a "feminine side" and that the country needs more tolerance and compassion.
We believe that 69% of the people want a more progressive agenda.
We believe in Hillary needs to move to the right in order to win in 2008.
We believe the above 2 make sentences are not contradictory at all.
See, one can learn so much. I certainly have.
I think that there is a tremendous amount of hype revolving around the DaVinci Code right now. I should say right off that I have not read the book and I probably wont see the movie (at least not right away). Here's the thing that I don't get...it is a work of fiction...everyone agrees on this, yet there seems to be a great deal of winking and nodding going along with that as though there is acceptence that this is a NOT TRUE story, but that in reality it really is true. As I said, I haven't read the book, but I can appreciate that it must be a moving piece of literature for all the discussions, shows, law suits, etc that it has inspired, much the same as The Shining was a moving piece of literature that was also a favorite of the public for a long time upon its release. But that doesn't make it true.
I really have to say that I am having a hard time in accepting the difficulty that people are having sorting out reality from fiction. Like all of the best lies, it seems that the book uses enough facts to make the story seem real or plausible, but that doesn't make it a historical truth. In fact, it kind of annoys me that there is hubbub about this book at all or that anyone takes it seriously.
I am not a biblical scholar, but I have some familiarty with the Apocrypha (the 14 books of the Septuagint included in the Vulgate)as well as the Old and New Testament (which is a real hoot because I am technically a heathen)and the reality is that there is almost no basis for organizational or interactive role of women in constructing Christianity or Judaism or Islam. Yet, here is all this discussion of how women were responsible for it and then written out of the picture. I am confused by this...but again, I am not a biblical scholar. I could address the role of the Sacred Goddess in some of the earliest city-dwelling cultures and the role of the feminine in pre-urban hunting and gathering societies, but I'm not sure that is relevant to this discussion. We could just as well say that it existed and leave it at that.
That being said, I do think that many Christians have missed the point of Jesus' teaching, but that is up to them to find out.
I appreciate Markadelphia's sentiments regarding inequality between men and women and I heartily endorse encouraging a more flat playing field in that realm, but I don't think that this equality should come from a fictionalized past to justify its existence today like some long lost orphaned child that has finally found is parents. Women should be treated with the same respect and honor that everyone is entitled to. Period. End of story.
I'm not sure how Markadelphia's belief in Jesus squares with the theory that we (humanity) are the result of extraterrestrials flushing their toilets in our atmosphere, but I am always willing to learn.
In the end, I have found that when it comes to religion, those who shout the loudest about their beliefs are typically trying to convince themselves that what they believe in is true. You don't typically find people shouting about how the sun will come up the next day as it is without doubt going to happen. Just an observation. Let people say and do as they feel they need to. I am comfortable with my beliefs so I don't really care what others believe or how they choose to express that, as long as it doesn't violate my rights.
Crab...I don't know what the hell you were going on about...seemed only tangentially related if you ask me. I think you would be doing a lot of people a diservice by rating them according to what a limited number of people on this blog have to say.
First off, to PL's comments, I don't think you are dumb. In fact, much of what you have said on the blog has caused me to think about my own position..sometimes even alter it and my perception. In other words, I respect your point of view immensely.
I put this post up (and the last one) because I wanted to illustrate how our country really needs a more feminine voice...and I am not talking about Hillary. Yes, Ms. Starbird has deep Christian beliefs that would probably influence her job in government. But these beliefs are the GOAL of our country...or were the goal until Bush Co took over.
I think we can all agree that loving and respecting one another, advancing our culture on emotional, spiritual, physical, and mental levels, and nuturing our world are good things regardless what religious philosophy one espouses. These are not "liberal" or "conservative" points of view...these are human points of view. Our current leadership (Congress included) is working directly against these goals. Scant few are really helping and I have chosen six people for my Profiles series. These are people that I think outside of the box.
Which brings me to Crab's post. While I don't think you are dumb either...in fact I think that in many areas of life you are much more knowledgable and careful than I.....when it comes to politics, you are incredilby single minded, stubborn, and are stuck drinking at the never ending jug of Kool Aid that is poured from the spigget of a mindset that is entirely contrary to any sort of evolution.
I have argued many things on this blog in the defense of liberalsim and against conservatism but the time for that is now past. These are not "liberal" issues or "conservative" issues....these are human issues and we need to deal with them. We need to find common ground and I believe that now, more than ever, our leadership (both "sides") want us to remain apart.
I stand by all the commnents I made which you have pointed out above because they are a testament to an insurmountble frustration of trying to explain something you may never understand or don't want to see.
You have said that in your political voting career that the only time you have ever voted for a Democrat is when he was more conservative than the Republican candidate. I have, as you well know, voted for just as many Republicans and Independants as Democrats in my time. So who is more open minded?
Our country is at one of the worst points...if not the worst point...in our short history. If you wish to continue to blather on about how my ideas are "liberal lunacy," how "liberals think", or how am so "biased" because I have a problem with the atrocities committed by and the incompetance of Bush Co ....well, I suggest you really try, for God's sake, to look at our situation logically and tell me honestly if you think our leadership is steering us well. I don't think it is possible for you to admit that Bush is as bad as he is because, to you, it represents some sort of collasal defeat of the conservative agenda. You, like our leadership, are so wrapped up in believing things should be done in a certain way, that you can't find the humility to admit that
you are wrong....that many of the results of Bush Co's actions of the last 4+ years aren't even close to....well, human.
Ironically, I think that President Bush made his most "human" speech last night of his presidency. He actually seems to be trying to find some middle ground on immigration. And who are his biggest critics? The people that supposedly are followers of Jesus.
Maybe they should pick up one of Ms. Starbird's books but that, of course, would take them out of their self-imposed cocoon of ignorant bliss.
And we can't have that now, can we?
Actually John, I’ve been really bored with politics lately and I just decided to have a little fun. I just noticed that the recent calls for unity, tolerance and compassion could very easily start on the entries on this blog as well. I haven’t been paying close attention to the news recently and I actually have been having more fun. Besides, Markadelphia told me last week that if the leadership in this country didn’t change soon that there would be no more volleyball, softball and fishing. I guess I’d better squeeze as much of that in as I can during our countries remaining 3 years of existence.
I was just funning when I said PL and I were dumb.
Markadelphia, how can anyone think of "kool aid" after reading my last post? I mostly used your own words.
Glad to see you stand by everything you’ve said. If there was 100% validity to your debating content on the issues of religion and gay marriage, I would think that there would be no need to adopt your debating style on those issues. Cussing and saying "Too fucking bad bitch" isn’t going to bring anyone over to your line of thinking who isn’t already there and condescension is only going to widen the divide between yourself and them when you say stuff like that. When you’re in the minority (which you are in terms of gay marriage regardless of which side is right or wrong), you can’t afford to make instant enemies of people who might otherwise listen to what you have to say and you won't advance your message much if you continue to aggressively insult Christians or anyone else who gives you enough respect to listen to your opinion in the first place.
First off, I’ve never made any claims that I am more open minded than anyone else. Second, I think open mindedness is defined by more than someones voting record. Third, I voted for Ross Perot in 92 and 96 and even though I may have disagreed with him on a few issues, I was never a Clinton hater. "Open mindedness" is a mindset, it isn’t determined by ones voting record.
Check out this book review…
In Roosevelt's Secret War: FDR and World War II Espionage, author Joseph Persico writes that "[f]ew leaders have been better suited by nature and temperament for the anomalies of secret warfare than FDR." He quotes Roosevelt: "You know that I am a juggler, and I never let my right hand know what my left hand does." As Persico demonstrates (pages 34-36), President Roosevelt's enthusiasm for intelligence extended to prewar domestic wiretapping of "diplomats, journalists, labor leaders and political activists" in the face of newly enacted statutory bans on wiretapping that had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
"I have agreed with the broad purpose of the Supreme Court relating to wiretapping in investigations," Roosevelt instructed J. Edgar Hoover. "However, I am persuaded that the Supreme Court never intended any dictum in the particular case which it decided to apply to grave matters involving the defense of the nation." Persico summarizes: "In short, never mind Congress, the Supreme Court, or the attorney general's qualms. The nation was in peril." (Persico's reference to Roosevelt's attorney general is of course to future Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson.)
AAAAAHAAAHAAHAAAA...this is fun.
Oh yeah, more fun…
WASHINGTON, May 8 —In a Christian Broadcasting News segment aired today on The 700 Club concerning how Democrats are reaching out to evangelicals, Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Party, said, "The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says. I think where we may take exception with some religious leaders is that we believe in inclusion, that everybody deserves to live with dignity and respect, and that equal rights under the law are important."
In fact, the DNC 2004 platform says, "We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a 'Federal Marriage Amendment.' Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart."
Statement by Matt Foreman, Executive Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
"Governor Dean is wrong about what the Democratic platform says about marriage equality. Disturbingly, this is not the first time he has misrepresented this important and affirming plank, and he has been asked before to correct the record and to cease making these misleading statements.
"Governor Dean's record on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues since becoming DNC chair has been sorely and sadly lacking. The Democratic Party chair should stand by and fight for the party's own platform and values. In light of Governor Dean's pandering and insulting interview today with the Christian Broadcasting Network, we have decided to return the DNC's recent $5,000 contribution to us. We do so with great sadness, knowing that the Democratic Party has long been a champion of our rights. Once again, we urge the governor to accurately represent the party's commitment to equality for LGBT people and our families, and to do everything in his power as chair to realize this vision. This would include but not be limited to fighting anti-gay ballot initiatives in various states this November. We urge him to take the money we are returning today and spend it to defeat these attacks on LGBT people and our families."
Wait, I thought 69% of the people wanted a more progressive agenda? I guess I wonder why Howard has to go on the 700 club and misrepresent the partys platform if 69% of the people are just waiting to vote dem this year.
I made the "kool aid" comment, not based on my quotes, but the way you framed them to reflect something that they were not....
I am in the minority on gay marriage because most people in this country do not know any gay people. And people fear what they do not know or understand. This is a wedge issue purposely put into circulation by the conservatives to get voter turnout. The government has no business getting involved in this...it should not even be a POLITICAL issue so there shouldn't even be a majority or minority.
We are fortunate enough, however, to live in a city with a large gay population so you and I, as well as many of our friends, are well acquainted with gay people and realize they are no different than anyone else.
If you move out state or go to southern states, there just simply isn't an awareness and realization that gay people are like anyone else. For some reason, they are very concerned about what gay people are doing with their personal lives. I wonder how you would feel if someone was equally as concerned with yours...just keep on voting for these people and you will find out pretty quickly.
In addition, while most people in this country are against gay marriage, they have no problem with civil unions which is almost the same thing. The laws that are being proposed now are banning both and people don't know that.
Do I care that I am in the miniority? No, but I bet I am still in the minority when it comes to black people having the right to vote in Mississippi or any other southern state. You are very fond of pointing out that "majority rules" in this country ....if the majority of people in this country favored warrantless searches of people's homes, I guess we should just go along, right? Oh wait, we are almost at that point...and you are already going along.
The wiretapping during FDR's time was wrong then and it's wrong now. But there is still a difference between then and now. I seriously question how much is actually for national security and how much is intel gathering for Karl Rove to have shit on people in the 2006 election and to influence voter turnout in key Democratic areas.
I think Howard Dean made a grave error. I am not happy with the track that he, Hillary, Sens Reid and Schumer are taking. They are essentially shooting themselves in the foot because everyone will vote for McCain. If the Dems really want to win, they should nominate Russ Feingold.
Forgot yesterday to add something else about politicians changing like the breeze...
John McCain also dissapointed me by speaking at Liberty College, Jerry Falwell's school. Throughout the 2000 campaign, he ripped the religious right a new one and I guess now he thinks he has to suck at the teat of the loonies if he wants to be president. He is making the same mistake as Hillary and now has lost his "maverick" appeal.
So, now I guess, a McCain vs. Hillary contest, one I would have found appealing as I would have two great people to pick from, is now back to politics as usual with me having to pick between two choads.
You can't have everything. Especially in a politician. You pick the person who you think is closest ideologically to yourself, then cross your fingers they haven't misrepresented themselves in the campaign process.
Now, in my opinion, the American voter has too many "showstoppers". Gay marriage, for example, is something I define as a "showstopper". So is abortion rights. (And I'm not talking about hot button issues - which are issues everyone has an opinion about.) To find your own showstoppers, answer the following question:
I would vote for a potted geranium as long as it agreed with my view on X.
I believe an educated and thoughtful electorate has very few showstoppers - hopefully none at all. Unfortunately I also believe American political discourse is filled with showstopper issues. Given our limited time and energy for political discourse, why waste time worrying about gay people? Or abortion? Is that truly what defines our political mindset?
Isn't there something more important? Really?
Crabmaster,Markadelphia,PL, thelma - what are your showstoppers?
Showstoppers? That's an interesting question. I can't really think of a particular issue that will make or break a candidate for me. In fact, I've repeatedly heaped scorn upon those who vote for or against candidates based upon their stance on one particular issue. It's a concept I'll never grasp.
I guess not having my belief system grounded in any sort of faith not only makes me a callous prick, it makes typical showstopper issues such as abortion and gay marriage really not that important to me.
For lack of a better answer, I guess a rallying point (not really a showstopper) for me these days is a politician that speaks to wasteful spending in government. Any politician that challenges the spending habits of government is going to instantly have an advantage over the opponent. All interests want more money to spend...it's only human nature. But as somebody who, at a fairly young age, already feels like I'm carrying too much of a tax burden (to be fair to my wife I should say that I feel we are carrying too large of a burden), I want accountability from those that are spending the money. Even if that politician proves to be full of hot air, which would certainly come as a huge surprise, I think it's a useful exercise to make people sweat their source of money just like the common person does his whole life.
Oh yeah, and politicians that are as overtly prejudiced against gays, blacks, asians, hispanics, midgets, women, disabled, left-handers, jews, muslims, catholics, wisconsites, kids, liberals, stupid people, and wine-drinkers as I am.....they're good, too.
Using your hypothetical, the potted geranium would neither question the need to raise taxes for education nor tell an overtly racist joke thinking that the microphone was off. Therefore, I cannot lend my support to that potted geranium. Sorry.
For me, there really isn't a specific showstopper either. I guess I am naive enough to think that anyone who tells the truth over someone who is clearly lying has an advantage for me. Is there an honest politician out there?
I guess anyone who gets my vote in the coming election is someone who is going to be a fucking human being. By that, I mean someone who is going to make some serious changes to the way our country does business. I would like someone to stand up and clearly state the obvious problems we have, no spin allowed, and tell us how we must fix them.
A big showstopper for me is that little (D-) following their name. Makes me run 100 miles the other direction. j/k
Markkkus has asked me before why I vote the way I do. Yeah, I have 3 showstoppers (besides the showstopper in my pants) that come to mind right away, more along the lines of "If Joe presidential candidate starts talking about X, I will immediately make up my mind to vote for the other candidate on principle" and I don’t care if that sounds too black and white.
X1 – Anyone who complains about "tax cuts for the rich". That isn't ever going to resonate here because Americans never bought into the whole class warfare rhetoric to begin with. Ditto for bashing corporations, who employ a large number of voters, not to mention the fact that over 50% of the electorate is now part of the investor class and thus has a stake in their success. The failure to resonate was further exacerbated by the fact that most of the elites who are promoters of the class warfare ideology do not come close to practicing what they preach. This manifested itself clearly in the last election when the democrats ran a billionaire who is the richest person in congress (who married into his money) as someone speaking for the little guy.
I like tax cuts, especially capital gains tax cuts (a bunch were passed last week – boo-ya). That money I put into mutual funds and so forth has already been taxed once. Democrats seem to count on the public being ignorant of basic economics when they say that capital gains tax cuts only favor the rich. I like the fact that I can now put $5000 a year into my IRA as opposed to $2000. That helps everybody, not just the rich, and gets the government out of the way by giving people the tools to create a secure retirement for themselves and not be dependent on the social security or some pension that is about to dry up.
For example - if you implement a flat tax, the rich will still pay more but they won’t be penalized for making more, because the percentage is the same no matter what. Yet liberals seem to reject this system out of hand and while they won’t admit it, they do so because of the control it strips away from government (see X2). In contrast, the only place this idea does have clout is in economically conservative circles.
X2 – Anyone whose policies on a number of issues favor the state over the individual. First one that comes to mind is individual accounts for social security, an idea that is fiercely opposed by Democrats. What about school vouchers that give parents a little more control? Voters have already rejected gay marriage but the left still insists on ramming it through. Affirmative action was soundly defeated by the VOTERS in Michigan several years ago and what did Jesse Jackson do? Filed suit to overturn the will of the people. Cmon, what happened to "Power to the people"???? Sure I was already asked in this discussion “What if the voters vote for warrantless home searches”. Well, I don’t have What If’s, I have 2 examples of leftist leaders thinking they know what’s best for people and don’t really care what voters think.
The debate between economic freedom and government control, between Marx and Adam Smith, between capitalism and government control of entire industries, or however else you wish to define it, is over. The left has lost this debate and needs to rethink its fundamental assumptions. This includes Democrats here in the U.S. You can continue on with temper tantrums or you can accept this new reality. I guess I’d encourage Democratic self-examination rather than blaming Karl Rove, ignorance, racism, and all sorts of other condescending generalities which have increasingly turned voters off to their party.
And for the record, intentions are not what matters to me and I don’t care if the issue is "human" or not – results are what matter to me and the results of government control of things like Social Security, Medicare, public education, welfare programs are that each and every one of those are underperforming, financially strapped, in danger of falling apart without major reform, and some (like welfare) have actually encouraged the problems they set out to solve. There is quite a bit of evidence that up till 1995, subsidizing of out-of-wedlock births encouraged more out-of-wedlock births, that penalizing marriage discouraged welfare recipients from getting married, and that penalizing work discouraged welfare recipients from getting a job. For many years, people simply didn’t want to look at the results because they are a natural consequence of a piece of the liberal agenda that was enacted in this country.
On the other hand, look at industries that are handled out in the free market where competition is highest and you will see a higher level of service and more benefits to the consumer. The cell phone industry comes to mind – it is very competitive and the free market is what makes prices go down while benefits to the consumers keep going up. When I got my mortgage, I noticed that the 3 or 4 offers I got from different mortgage companies were pretty much the same. My realtor told me that is because the industry is so competitive.
X3 – any politician who opposes meaningful tort reform.
Crab, by your own admission, "Anyone whose policies on a number of issues favor the state over the individual" should send you running away from the Neocons that are currently running the show. They tout "national security" as the reason why they should have carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they want. For a group of people that are SUPPOSED to be about small government, they sure have a funny way of showing it.
Oh, and btw, X1 is the reason why Republicans are going to lose the elections in 2006 and 2008. People are sick and tired of corporate welfare and all the grease money that flows between Washington and the business world. It's getting harder for people to get by and when they see the CEO of Exxon getting 400 million, who do you think they are going to vote for? Since you are so fond of pointing out what the majority thinks in this country, poll after poll shows that people trust the Democrats to handle the economy better than the Republicans.
There is no class warfare because there are only two classes now: poor and rich. The middle class has been eliminated thanks to policies put forward by the people you vote for....any reminants left of them can be bought off with the gay marriage or gun cards.
I am actually a believer in the original ideas of smaller government that Republicans have put forward. Tax cuts during a time of war are NOT part of that idea, though, and are probably the single dumbest thing this administration has ever done. The reckless spending of "drunken frat boy with daddy's credit card" has put our world economic standing in the shitter.
But here's a real challenge for you. Instead of coming back with your usual tidbits of evidence to support your side, whatever that is now, why don't you find some information out there about what is really going on? Look and see what the real conservatives are saying about this administration and listen to the other side for a change.
A couple of points:
1. First a blanket over-generalization: Conservatives oversimplify; Liberals think too much.
Case in point: the flat tax.
Conservative viewpoint: it seems fair because we all pay the same percentage tax based on our income. What could be more fair? Plus it's just so simple!
Liberal viewpoint: It depends on the definition of income. Example: a cab driver owns his own business. Is his car a depreciable asset? How about the cost of gas? Insurance? He makes $50k per year. But so does Joe CorporateGrunt, who doesn't have these expenses. Do they have the same income? If they have the same income, it's not fair to the taxi driver. If they don't, then the new system isn't any simpler than the old.
Independent viewpoint: It's probably not as simple to implement as the conservatives, think, but there is also some relatively simple middle ground that is less complex than the liberals think.
Real life: we've decided as a nation that the people who make the most money should contribute a higher percentage of their taxable income than the rest. How much more of a percentage are we asking them to pay? And who are we asking? The numbers are so complex and plentiful that we can all cite what we consider reliable resources that support our arguments and all be right but none of which agree.
So where does that leave us? I find it almost pointless to try and have a meaningful discussion of taxation that gets into any level of detail because we're all right, and we're all wrong. So the discussion devolves into rhetoric.
Which brings me to ...
2. Conservative or liberal, we all agree, we HATE RHETORIC! We want our politicians to speak their mind and be consistent.
Stop with the class warfare. Stop the fear-mongering Stick to the issues.
Speaking of rhetoric, here's some that really pisses me off. "I don't want to pay capital gains taxes because I've already been taxed on that money." This is rhetoric, not fact. Here's how it works:
I earn $100 at my job. I pay $40 in taxes and invest the other $60 in a stock. Taxable income at this point: $100
Taxes paid: $40
The stock doubles and I sell it. I get $120. Taxable income (subject to capital gains tax): $60
Taxes due on capital gain (note the lower rate): $6
In what way are you being taxed twice on this money? You are taxed (at a higher rate) for the initial $100. Then you use the remaining $60 and it earns you another $60. Crab - are you saying that other $60 shouldn't be taxable? You haven't paid any income taxes on it, so it looks to me like you've earned $60 and are trying to get out of paying taxes on it.
Not taxing capital gains allows persons with accumulated wealth to live tax-free. In other words, if I have enough money in the bank that I don't have to work and I can survive on my investment income, I don't have to pay any taxes. Yet I still get all the benefits of living in my community. Is that fair?
I just don't see how people miss this argument. If you've worked hard to accumulate your wealth, bully for you. But if you have income you should pay taxes.
Well, I view national security and the running of wars as a legitimate function of government. There’s nothing set on stone that says the government has to run a social security program or have any responsibility for education. Yeah, they are doing whatever the fuck they want with regards to national security and I’m glad you "privacy rights" and "civil rights" camps are up in arms. Btw, I remember when DNA analysis first came out and the ACLU claimed it was an invasion of privacy. Yeah, good one there. Times change. I post all kinds of court precedence on the NSA/FISA deal showing that is is 100% legal and I even point out that one of your heroes (FDR) did the same thing and you people still scream to the top of your lungs about it being illegal and so forth. Like Neoconprog said, it really doesn’t matter what kind of facts anyone posts on here to counter your allegations – you just call it "drinking the kool aid" and move on.
Again, if you notice the polls have been saying for about 8 years that people trust democrats to run pretty much everything. Election results say something else. Polls are worthless. Btw, you told us you aren’t a democrat so why point that out? You aren’t a democrat yet you are doing volunteer work for 2 democratic campaigns this year. Hmmmmm...
Tax cuts at a time of war are dumb? Heaven forbid the government go without their "fair share" of our take home pay! My God! The sky is falling! Our world economic standing is in the shitter? Please point out 1 other country on this planet that has an economy that is doing as well as ours is. You people sure do have a lot of doom and gloom in you. Glad I don’t have time for economic doom and gloom, I’m busy getting my final 3 years of volleyball, softball and fishing in.
You need to define "rich" and "poor" for me. I need specific yearly salaries. And be sure to let me know if you are talking about total household income.
I’m not going to bother "finding out what’s really going on" because you doom and gloomers are spending far too much of your time doing that already (and getting pissed off on a daily basis over shit that one has absolutely no control over is not how I choose to live day by day). Besides, I wouldn’t say you, or anyone else on this blog, truly knows what’s "really going on". You claimed that we are tourturing people at GITMO, then when pressed on the issue you said "Well we really don’t know what is going on down there". It’s not surprising to me that lefties are pretty much willing to accept, at face value, allegations of abuse by our sworn and dishonorable enemies, who are trained to lie about the conditions of their captivity, but not the responses of the American soldiers who put themselves at risk every day. How can we explain this? Support for the troops??? Or maybe because you made up your mind on that issue, as well as the NSA/FISA deal, based on ideology and not on fact or court precedence.
Phil, I generalize all the time. Everyone does to an extent. To me, the issue isn’t that people generalize groups of people, the issue is if the generalization is accurate.
Obviously, your definition of the word "fair" when it comes to taxes is different that my definition. Nobody said it was simple to implement but it is a new idea. Google Flat Tax or go to www.fairtax.org and read about the national sales tax. Nobody is saying they are the best thing since sliced bread but they are new ideas and the sure as hell aren’t coming from the "progressive" side of the political spectrum.
Say you own a business...under the current system, investment income can be taxed two, three or even four times. Income is taxed first at the corporate level. When the remainder comes to you in the form of dividends or interest, it is taxed a second time. If you sell the business, you can be taxed a third time through a capital gains tax. And after you die, your investment can be taxed a fourth time through the inheritance tax. A flat tax system would tax income only once when it is earned.
"Crab - are you saying that other $60 shouldn't be taxable? You haven't paid any income taxes on it, so it looks to me like you've earned $60 and are trying to get out of paying taxes on it."
I view that $60 as part of the $100 you already taxed so yes, I am saying that the $60 is my money. You took 40% of my money already for fucks sake. For all the hooting and hollering on this blog about the government being intrusive, people sure don’t seem to mind the government being intrusive on this issue do they? Also, it would be lovely if the stock doubles every time but, as you no doubt know, that doesn’t happen every time. Whatever the merits of the argument for capital gains, if capital gains are to be taxed, capital losses should be fully deductible right? Nope, not with our government!!! If that were the case, government would collect very little net revenue and might even lose revenue on balance.
I could care less if a wealthy person lives tax free. Yeah, I said it and here’s why – millionaires invest their money in the stock market, bonds, etc which in turn allow companies with initiative to make more money, sell more goods or services, grow their business, hire more people, and better the economy. Even if Joe Millionaire decides to stick all his money in a savings account at the local bank that money will be used by the bank to loan to people or small businesses who will spend it or use it to grow their business. It could be used by a family to get a mortgage, and obviously buying a house is good for the economy, and this would not be possible without the "accumulated wealth" that you want to see taxed so bad.
When Joe Millionaire is paying his "fair share" (barf), when the government is done wasting 70% of it, the government will no doubt use the rest of that money to build a bridge in Trent Lotts district. Besides, it’s often said that rich business owners and corporations really don’t pay any taxes. The cost of the taxes they owe are built right into the price of the products they sell, just like the cost of class action lawsuits.
Boy, of the 2 replies I get to my last post – one decries intrusive government and the other advocates more government intrusion into my take home pay. I must be doing something right.
I agree that people really don’t need $400 million dollar bonuses (and how that translates into votes for Democrats I’ll never understand since we all saw how Enron hurt the Republicans come election time...haahaahaaaa. Besides, all of us pay more for a gallon of milk and 12 oz of beer than we do for a gallon of gas. My proactive solution to the problem - buy a car with kick butt gas mileage like I did and don't live 40 fucking miles from your job) but I do know a few things...
Scarcity + Demand = Value
Now, consider our country.
What is scarce? Superior business plans.
What is not scare? Labor, particularly in an economy that every day becomes more automated.
What is in high demand? Superior business plans.
What is not in high demand? Labor, particularly in an economy that every day becomes more and more automated.
Is the American economy a manufacturing economy? No, every day the economy becomes more and more a service and technology economy and most services either require a very high level of specialized skill, or no specialized skill. Technology jobs require a high degree of skill.
I’m not justifying $400 million bonuses but I do want to point out that I know why management and business owners make more money than laborers – it is because superior business plans are scarce and are in high demand. Labor is not scarce and is not in high demand.
You do the math.
Crab, your points on FISA are open to debate. There are people in this country who have degrees in constitutional law who have said the NSA thing is against the law. I am more willing to listen to them than to you who, the last time I checked, does not have a degree in constitutional law. I have read the same information you have and see that the president needs a warrant. I would say this if JFK or MLK or John Lennon were in office.
How about we take George Bush's word on this? In 2004, he said that the government needs a warrant, complying with FISA. Now he says that he doesn't need it. Which is it? Go and find out what he said and how he is contradicting himself.
I am going to do volunteer work for Amy and Wendy because they stand for the same things I do. I think you ought to take a serious look at what Mark Kennedy and Michele Bachman (in your district against Patty Wetterling) stand for. It's bloody awful. You say that you aren't that much into politics now but I bet dollars to donuts that is who you will be voting for come November simply because they are Republicans.
Mark Kennedy, when he ran against Patty Wetterling in the 6th, ran attack ads saying that she was soft on crime and would let Al Qaeda in this country. Patty Wetterling? The woman who lost her son to an abduction? Are you fucking kidding me? And Michele Bachman has said that she wants to put every woman who has had an abortion in prison. Great...
I would also suggest that you start talking to people....people other than me since you think my views are biased, crazy, paranoid, and out of control....and see what they are saying. Why don't you start with my father in law? He told me today that he has never seen it this bad in his 65 years and HE fears for my children's future due to this administraions complete mismanagement of...well, everything. Talk to my friend Kathleen who works in state politics everyday. Or my friend Brian who is starting to treat Iraq War veterans at the VA Hospital.
You know I listen to Rush and Laura all the time. Why don't you take a week and listen to Al Franken or Stephanie Miller? I would be interested to hear your opinion on the facts as they see them. Or better yet, read Bruce Bartlett's book, Imposter. He is a leading economic specialist and conservative.
As far as all your rants about the corporate economics and taxes, did you become a millionaire overnight and not tell me? If you did, that's fine. I completely understand why you support Bush Co. If you have not, don't you think that you deserve to make more money than you are now? Wouldn't you like to? Does your CEO need to make 5 million a year? Couldn't he make 2 million and you could make 80 K a year?
Which brings me to my final question....why can't there be a more equal distribution of wealth in this country?
I know the answer to this one...let's see if anyone else does.
The court precedence on the issue I posted on this very blog doesn’t need to be debated. Doesn’t sound very "progressive" to prioritize your concern for the perception of evenhanded enforcement of the law above the need for the benefits this program gives us in terms of preventing another 9/11 (which is really funny because you are on record on this very blog criticizing GWB for "failing to prevent 9/11"). Well, if the NSA program were terminated we would be right back where we were before September 11, with phone calls from terrorists into the U.S. going unheard. This can fairly be described as "Al Queda being able to call American operatives with impunity".
A lefty complaining about attack ads? Hell you guys made entire movies full of half truths before the last election. I imagine that losing a loved one to abduction would be one of the most horrible things to go though but does losing a loved one to an abduction qualify someone for public office? Does losing a loved one automatically give them a free pass to criticism of their stance on issues? Pure emotion based thinking.
What business is it of yours how anyone else votes? Why do you care so much about how the people around you vote?
I talk to plenty of people. Just in the last 4 days I talked to a successful real estate investor, a guy who does very well for himself in the mortgage industry, a couple of high level managers in the insurance industry as well as an accountant who works at a large downtown firm (guys on my softball team). On Friday I talked to our friend Stephan Munck who was heading off to Denver for an enjoyable 3 day weekend. I also talked to our friend Mark Peterson about music, softball, baseball, camo gear, etc. On Saturday my friend Sharon from Glasgow, Scotland called me and we talked about my upcoming trip over there. I also chatted (via MSN) with my friend Frankie who lives in Hasselt, Belgium. That night at the Jordis Unga show I hung out with my friend Lorraine who is an Indian, my friend Dave who I see at lots of metal shows who is 25 and has never had a job and I also spoke to Patrick (that DJ from 93X who is in the NFL football hall of fame as a "fan of the year"...he’s the guy with the purple and gold spiked mohawk) for a bit at Pizza Luce. On Sunday, Danielle and I went and ate breakfast around noon, then later on I went to the gym and talked to a few of the powerlifters who were lifting legs on the same day I was. I talk to all kind of people from all over the world from all different backgrounds and life experiences and the one thing all of my conversations had in common was that we didn’t talked about George Bush at all or how terrible this country is doing these days. I have no desire to "educate" the people around me as I firmly believe that the people around me are smart enough to make their own decisions as to who they want to vote for.
A tennis tournament, a really good movie and food and beer with friends...in a day that consisted of those three really cool things… you absolutely had to bring up (to people that you know have no interest in politics nonetheless) the fact that you think GWB is the worst president ever and that we are in the end times in this nation...and you brought it all up 3 different times throughout the day. I swear you think of GWB about three times as much as the people who actually voted for him. This is absolutely consuming you these days and worrying accomplishes NOTHING. Think about it, what does worrying accomplish? Not much at all is the answer. I'm going to spend the remainder of my time here having fun, not telling people how horrible things are.
I can’t listen to Al Franken or Stephanie Miller, I work during the day.
Is that how you justify Phils suggestion that the government take more than 40% of my take home pay? By saying that one has to be a millionaire to vote GOP? Well, one doesn’t have to be a millionaire to understand Economics 101. I know the answer as to why the government should not forcibly redistribute wealth – because that is also known as Marxism/Communism/Socialism. Do you really see wealth as a fixed pie, where it is governments job to slice it all up? Those types of measures limit the growth of wealth and therefore hurt those that you long to help. I also don't understand how someone thinks that the government should have the right to forcibly confiscate someone else's estate and give it to others who haven't earned it. And all this time I thought you were against government intrusion. I’m now convinced that liberals really do know the true truths of the universe and are naturally ordained by God, because of their inherent vast moral superiority, to know exactly how to redistribute all wealth. No one else has the knowledge and mental superiority to do such a job, but it is all in a day's work for liberals. Talk about forcing your morality on people.
Attempts to implement economic fairness through government (which means force), such as in the example you gave, typically only lead to even more unfairness. There are countries out there like that and the economic systems of countries such as those are set up such that people cannot get rich by investing capital in those countries, and often times that is a direct result of a government policy designed to promote "fairness" as you define it; to prevent the rich from getting richer. Thus, no investment takes place, the poor people their get no jobs resulting from such investment, and thus they have no opportunity to climb out of poverty...all in the name of "distributing" income "fairly".
Crab, if you think that by complying with FISA, our government would be letting Al Qaeda operate freely in this country then you need to go and re-read what complying with FISA means. And you need to stop listening to what Dick Vader and his fear mongering pals have to say about Al Qaeda phone calls.
This statement
"if the NSA program were terminated we would be right back where we were before September 11, with phone calls from terrorists into the U.S. going unheard. This can fairly be described as 'Al Queda being able to call American operatives with impunity.'"
is so flat out ridiculously ignorant that I don't know really know what else to say....
Which brings me to answering your question about why I care about how other people vote. I care because my family is directly affected by the people that they vote into office and the policies they have put into place. I don't want my children to have to live with the mistakes of ignorance. I feel that it's too late for "minding my own business"....there is too much at stake.
If you think that the people running the show now (and by people, I mean the current conservative leadership NOT all conservatives), are doing a good job and everything is fine, than you are ignoring reality.
Next time you talk to Stefan Munck, why don't you ask him about George Bush? I'd like to be a fly on the wall in that conversation.
I think your view about how "much" I talked about George Bush is slightly distorted. My initial conversation with Paul lasted all of 15 seconds on the way out of the gym. Most of my conversations with Paul centered around tennis and baseball anyway. YOU brought up the subject the second time and the last time I brought it up.
I think that talking about politics is a cool thing. Paul doesn't so I won't talk to him about it anymore. You used to think it was....hell, you were talking loud and proud about "W" and how great he was in 2000 and 2004. Now, I guess you don't like to do it anymore. Gee, I wonder why.
If it makes you feel any better, I won't bring it up (unless you do) anywhere else but the blog. There are certainly plenty of other things to talk about....like Albert Pujols or how the Cubs suck and are a bunch of whiney little shits who pick fights constantly with vastly superior teams like the White Sox and Cardinals.
I don’t think that Washington DC is the center of the universe and I can’t understand for the life of me how you think that your life is actually affected on a daily basis by the happenings in DC. This country has been through much worse than what is going on now. For your life to be affected so much by something so far out of your immediate sphere of influence is a feeling I cannot relate to.
I’ve never said that GWB and crew are doing a super duper bang up job. I do think he was a better choice than Gore or Kerry. I think you say that you’re not a democrat because you don’t want to be held responsible for every decision and statement coming out of the leadership of that party these days. You don’t want to be held to the same standard that you hold me to when it comes to the "people you vote for". You voted for Kerry and you’re working for 2 democratic candidates but all you have to do is say "I’m not a democrat" and you are off the hook on whatever subjects you choose. Why am I held responsible for every single decision GWB makes?
I know how Stephan Munck feels about politics and I would never think of starting in about such a divisive subject at a birthday party for a friend (Mark Peterson) who really doesn’t care about politics. I have absolutely no desire to take the conversation there. If it is you and I just hanging out, we can still chat back and forth about the happenings of the day and so forth. Just know your audience and know that you really aren’t going to change anybody by starting or even engaging in a loud political argument at gatherings you go to, whether it is at Steve and Linde’s, downtown at Murrays, or at your own birthday party where large groups of your friends are at (all three of which have already happened).
Like I’ve said before, the sky isn't falling and I will never make a habit out of trying to change the way another person votes. I trust that they can make their own decisions as to who they want to vote for; they don’t need my "help".
Hell I’m kind of happy these days - Mexico legalized drugs - It ought to be an even trade. We get a mass of hard working Joes who'll bust their asses and Mexico gets all our stinkin hippies. Perfect plan. A win-win situation for everybody.
Ahh sports, another area that doesn’t really get a whole lot of my attention. If there’s anything on TV that is more boring than a lib and a con yelling at each other, it is 2 sportswriters yelling at each other. I do know that the cubs have 3 stars that were/are out for a good period of time so when I take into account the context of the current situation I wouldn’t expect them to be doing very well, plus it’s not really something I spend a lot of time thinking about seeing as I don’t even know the cubs record right now. "Whiney little shits who pick fights with vastly superior teams"...sounds like the democratic party.
It used to not be that way. You could blow off what was going on in DC and live in bliss. Now, if we didn't have Qwest, the government would have a log of our phone calls. I have a real problem with that amongst a host of other things.
Who knows what Gore or Kerry could have done? I think Gore would've done a better job on environmental issues. He certainly is now. I also think that your assessment of Kerry is out of whack. I think it is honorable that because he has so much money he still wants to serve the country. That is cool.
just-Dave and I had our usual deal at Steve and Linde's...big deal. Happens all the time. Murray's? When was I there last? And it's my fucking birthday so I can talk about whatever I want.
I have a lot of problems with the Democrats. I have aired them on this blog. One thing I will never do is characterize myself as one thing or the other in a two horse race. One of the biggest problems in this country is we constantly set things up to be an "US vs Them" scenario. If the Republicans decide to embrace some of my values (i.e human values), they will get my vote every election.
Great site loved it alot, will come back and visit again.
»
Interesting website with a lot of resources and detailed explanations.
»
Post a Comment