That goes for democrats as well as Islamofascists.

Len, you may be tired of the "local taxes went up" argument.

However, since I am the one with public sector experience, and get tired of the "private sector can do things more efficiently" argument, you might want to get some experience in the field. In more than one City, when bids went out for refuse collection, for example, the City union won on cost, and those bids included equipment, maintenance and benefits as well as wages.

Necessary public services is a zero sum game. No matter what the source, the money has to come from somewhere. Efficiency? Let's hear the complaints when a cop isn't at the door in 10 minutes because your car was keyed, or a fire truck doesn't arrive in three minutes, or the trash collection is late, or the potholes aren't fixed. And, as far as public projects...When was the last time you didn't hear the public b**ch that the roads were too narrow, the downton looked terrible, commute times were too long, we need this, we need that.....People are never satisfied.

Here in Pima County, the City of Tucson, for example, concocted a budget and almost blindsided the County by trying to shift library costs without consulting said County. Why? The reasoning was less State aid, and the continuing need for maintaining basic services. Believe it or not, most local governments have very little in the way of "fat", particularly in smaller communities; the public will not stand for it. Make your way up the ladder and things get a bit different. The more remote the level of government, the less responsive it is.

I will, guardedly, agree with school districts. There is less desire on the part of schools to rein in costs since they know that they are dealing with a very "hot button" issue. If school districts were departments of the community in which they were located, there might be a chance for some degree of fiscal accountability. And do not place the total blame on the teachers. We used to joke about School Superintendents. They would come in (carpetbaggers, usually), stay a couple of years, implement a "plan" and leave before the results could be measured. Then, if things went well, they would show how brilliant their plan was. If things did not go well, then their plan was not followed. Based on that, the next district would hire them at ever increasing salaries and perks.

Such is the public sector. LIke the private sector, there are those who do their best to excel, and there are those who are slackers. But I can define one basic differnce at least at the local level: The Mayor of a City of, say, half a million people with a workforce of 3 or four thousand is not paid near as much as a CEO of a comparable private enterprise, nor does he have the ability to "hide" expenses. The public official lives in a virtual fishbowl.

I do agree that there is no winning these people over - our cultures are just too different. I also believe in fighting for just causes but we've done wrong here plain and simple. But you're talking about Afghanistan right? You can't possibly be talking about Iraq - since we went there for Weapons of Mass destruction and NOT anything else (oh wait - what are they saying we went there for now?).

Yeah yeah yeah, I know it was faulty intelligence and Kerry voted for the war too. Fair enough - I think that if Kerry were presented the same evidence that GWB was allegedly presented then there’s a more than fair chance we'd be at war now just the same. The thing is and to be fair the comparison should be with Gore in this matter and not Kerry. I think it is highly unlikely that we would have gone to war without the UN with Gore as president that is where I take issue. The fact that we are there virtually alone and without the support of the UN and our other significant Allies is where I have problems with Iraq. Finishing the campaign in Afghanistan is where we should be more than anywhere else NOT in Iraq.

The lines have already been drawn. Traditional Democrats will vote Kerry because they don't know any better, and remain overall, close-minded to any sort of thought other than their own party. The same can be said of Republicans.

Over here, where I stand in the center of things, I feel it's my vote that both parties want. Last night, Kerry didn't win my vote. He was dull, expository, unengaged. Even he looked bored with himself. Nothing new or compelling that came from him. To me, the man struck out. He just filled space. And here I was, silly me, watching him with the thought that his speech was supposed to be aimed at me. I felt it was aimed at no one but himself and those who have already decided to vote for him. Clinton was brilliant this way; Obama is an obvious understudy of Clinton. Kerry was smug. Or in the least, he seems heartless. Going through the motions as they say.

Now I have Bush and his speech to look forward to. And the debates, of course. And I really want to see those. Both men are so intellectually equal (and they are, too), that personality will be the deciding factor. And I have to say, Bush has ample more personality than Kerry; plus he is at least resolved with his need to do what he did. Kerry is conjecture and stiff. So I give the pre-debate nod to Bush, though they'll be like Rock-em-Sock-em robots.

But I know I'm not wasting my vote on grounds of kicking one man out of office to replace him with another - the de riguer trend here in L.A. To me that's like changing lightbulbs in a lamp for no good reason. Amber for white, though they still glow with the same intensity...or lack thereof.

Let me push your analogy a bit further. I can think of a few good reasons to change the lightbulb even if it does work. For instance, if the current lightbulb is wasting energy. Or if the current lightbulb presents a danger to others due to catastrophic failure or poor design/execution. There are those who, rightly or wrongly, believe that the current lightbulb is pursuing policies that are wasteful and dangerous. The only problem is that the replacement bulb might not be much better...

Every war we have been in has been virtually alone...Nothing new here. To spin it otherwise is simply an attempt at discrediting a war effort for political gain...Precisely what has happened here...Did you hear Republicans b!tch and moan about Kosovo?...We went it there under false pretenses, ignored the U.N. and we were assured departure in 1998...Kosovo is a true quagmire and the Kosovars have proven to be the guilty party in the civil war.

The U.N. has absolutely no credibility. They are facing a massive scandal revolving around the "oil for food" scam...France and Germany had sweetheart deals with Saddam, and the U.N. was selling rotten food...The people of Iraq were starving to death and Saddam was making 100s of millions.

Finishing the campaign in Afghanistan as an issue is simply more agit-prop disinformation...We can chew gum and walk at the same time...Our war is a broader war on terrorism and is multi-faceted.

Remember, if Clinton took Osama when he had the chance, none of this would have happened.

I realize this. And what's worse is nothing that is said of the new lightbulb can be believed to make me think it is a better lightbulb. And those who say it is, have agendas of their own that does not serve me, the one who needs light, any viable improvement.

Again, it's swapping out one for the other.

But to further your analogy: 1. the war is much larger than Kerry. As he said, if elected, the U.S. forces are staying in Iraq. He even sounds as if he might enlargen the military. The fact is Iraq will not resolve itself dependent on who is in office. So the Democrats should stop hoping that with Kerry in, the U.S. will be out.

2. Job issues. Other than low-wage jobs, no one is going to experience the high-paying jobs of a decade ago. For that, something akin to another technology boom will be needed. And no jobs are coming back from overseas. The consumers are too used to paying the prices they are now for their products. If they want to pay more, for the sake of something being "made in America," the consumer can also expect to pay more, which no one, not even the most ideological consumer will do.

3. Environment: much as the same as with the war and jobs. The issue is too large to tackle. Messing with it by raising taxes or hog-tying industry will cause a core disturbance with the voters. Kerry would be bounced in 4yrs, and we're back to square one.

Bush and Kerry are wealthy men. And increasingly throughout these elections and presidencies, it seems that the wealthier the man, the more prone they are to interests other than the country at large. Both candidates are bought and sold. And even if we had a viable third party candidate, who's to say they also would not be bought and sold?

This is why I think extenuating circumstances will come into play which will be personalities - Bush the cowboy vs. Kerry the modern Abe Lincoln; Edwards the cutesy boy from N.C. vs. Cheney the over-sized distempered lawn gnome. Teresa vs. Laura - who knows there/who cares? With that, I imagine one should vote as to whether they like their girl with a S. African accent or a southern drawl. This is nothing new, of course. Nixon wowed them with Checkers. Carter had a toothy grin. Reagan was comedic.

But if it the election really just comes down to personalities instead of tangible issues, even with both parties being as far away from each other as I have ever seen, what prevents us from putting just anybody in office?

Personally, this is a matchup I'd likee: Republican nominee Jay Leno vs. Democratic nominee Elmo from Seasame Street.

I see it as one party who spends big amounts of money without any way to pay it (GOP). The Dems want to raise taxes to pay for what the government is spending. Right now the GOP congress and senate rubber stamps every bill Bush wants to pass. Thats scary!
Geoff

Doesn't sit well with us party loyalists too well either...Don't like it one bit...I like to think there is an overall strategery that will come to fruition in the second term, but I won't hold my breath...That said, the war on Islamofascists and the prevention of ultra-leftist legislate from the bench Judges forces my hand toward Bush.

The chances of ultra-leftist, (or ultra-rightist), Federal judge appointments is pretty much nil under either guy. But it doesn't stop Bush from trying.

The way I read it, (can't remember where), is that the far-right cultural conservatives made a deal w/ Bush: Give us the courts and we'll lay off the abortion issue so that you can get elected. (Or appointed by the Supreme Court as the case may be). :cool:

Really?...Name me one liberal appointee that was denied a floor vote by Republicans because he was pro-abortion.

I will, in turn, prove to you the Democrat litmus test that if you aren't pro-abortion you will be obstructed and maligned, if you are a Conservative justice.

If you are calling everyone who believes in legal abortion and supports Roe v. Wade an "ultra-leftist", then I guess your argument might hold water. Not really, but now I see what you meant.

FWIW, I've never met anyone who professes to be "pro-abortion", :rolleyes: , just people who think that abortions should be performed by MDs instead of in an alley. Abortion is a terrible thing.

How about if I start refering to you as "pro-dead U.S. soldiers for one party's political gain/failed foreign policy"......, would that be OK? I'm sure you won't mind me defining your views for you, I mean fair is fair, right? ;)

I said, Shrink....I wanna kill...I wanna see dead burnt bodies, veins in my teeth...I wanna kill....I wanna kill...and I started jumpin up and down screamin - I wanna kill - and he started jumpin up and down with me sayin I wanna kill...kill...kill........then they pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall and said, you're our boy......

I don't normally get into these political debates, but maybe now is a as good a time as any. While being a "registered repubilcan" I find that they no longer represent the business ethics and focus that had draw me to the them. The republicans have spent a great deal of money and effort to quietly get their ultra right wing zealots elected over the past fifteen or twenty years and now feel its their "calling" to save us from ourselves by legislating their profound views of morality. Seperation of church and state is the lynchpin that drives a sound democracy. You don't have to look hard to find examples of the short comings of a religious based ruling party. This country clearly needs to swing back to the left (to perhaps a center point) before the "moral majority" gets its teeth in to far. As for what I think of GW and his regime of warhawks, ahhh another time perhaps.

Earlier, when asked who his favorite Red Sox player was, Kerry responded, ''Manny Ortez.'' The Sox do field Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz, but there is no ''Manny Ortez'' on the roster. (We hasten to add, however, that ''Manny Ortez'' was closer to the mark than the response Kerry gave the last time he was asked that question: ''My favorite Red Sox player of all time is 'The Walking Man,' Eddie Yost.'' Yost never played for the Red Sox.)

Ask me who plays for what team and I would probably bat .000!!!

Same with most other sports.

Hardly ever watch unless the season finals are on. I will only waste my time with "the best of the best".

Sorry brother, you are fundamentally mistaken. The very lynchpin of this country is the Judeo-Christian ethic of law and morality. The Founding Fathers were predominantly Christian, or held Christianity in very high esteem, the original peoples were devout Christians, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution make direct references to Christianity.

Given my above repost is unequivocably true - which it is - and America is still a predominantly Christian Nation, reflected in not only religious affiliation but embedded in our currency, our patriotic music, our life-style, our Holidays...tell me, how this Christian valued culture has prevented sound democracy?

In turn, I warn you, I will reveal to you the horrific and genocidal byproducts of godless political idealism, secular humanism and the end result of socialist utopianism...For instance, without a doubt the greatest evil the 20th century saw was communism...to the tune of 100,000,000 people MURDERED, countless starved, imprisoned or tortured into submission, and eventual economic collapse...I am talking about killing ones own people here, of course to build the more perfect union, to weed out the undesirables, etc.

You may lean on religious wars for your defense, but these are so factually elusive that they are hard to pin down with actual numbers...Believe me, I have tried...It seems that the wars were nation against nation, more than ideology against its own people and world domination at any costs...Which is more indicative of Godless utopian Marxism or fascism.

I posit just the contrary to your uniformed conclusions...Jesus Christ is the very lynchpin of this country, you pull Him out and this countries will collapse

I guess Kerry never heard of Ted Williams

April 19, 1817, letter to Thomas Jefferson:

"Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell." -- John Adams


In his famous speech to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on June 28, 1787:

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men... If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground unseen by him, is it probable an empire could arise without his aid? I firmly believe this, and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building not better than the builders of Babel." -- Benjamin Franklin (avowed deist)

Mul, again, your quotes have nothing to do with the issue.

The personal opinions of Adams and Franklin were put aside for the greater good of a nation founded without a specific religion at its roots. While some deism language was in the declaration of independence, I ask you to find it for me in the constitution.

As has been quoted here many times in the past, Jefferson was the pilot who guided these documents around the shoals of religious contamination to make this the freest country on earth.

Efforts to reinterpret what is clearly written are actions more worthy of a taliban mentality than an American one.