Question for Libertarians and all others.....

turbo

I'm honestly asking this question to anyone who espouses support for this parties platform during these trying times; How do you square up your personal views on illegal immigration, with what is being pushed by this party, that wants to liberate everyone from any laws which can secure the citizenry? I keep hearing that we need to secure our borders from illegal entry from libertarians, while the parties platform says otherwise; ******************************************National Platform of the Libertarian PartyAdopted in Convention, July 2000, Anaheim, CA I. Individual Rights and Civil OrderImmigrationWe hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new "Berlin Wall" which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government's policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.*******************************************A major epidemic is occuring in our country presently, illegal immigrants who have previously been granted amnesty, start out on the wrong side of the law, which teaches them that crime does pay; aside from the fact that they sign certain documention where they agree not to become dependent on the state they bring their families in illegally and await the same opportunity to obtain amnesty for them in the next wave of free visas, and at the earliest opportunity apply for food stamps, welfare, and social security income benefits.I am of the opinion that this position is irresponsible, and a detriment to the security and wellbeing of the United States of America.[This message has been edited by turbo (edited 04-07-2002).][This message has been edited by turbo (edited 04-07-2002).]

BallFour

Right on, Turbo.I'd never be a libertarian because I want my chicken inspected before it gets to market!Also, alot of that libertarian 'free speech' message quickly slides into an immoral defence of (a classic example) NAMBLA publication's RIGHT of publishing books teaching pedophiles how to lure, rape, and murder young boys.As an aside, or an attack; democracy does not work with an immoral populace. Otherwise, society is dumbed down to it's least common denominator. Society needs social controls. The best method is when we American's set high standards, ourselves.

stanman

Turbo,I'm not a libertarian, but I share your concern!We shouldn't have to wait long for enlightenment around here!!

---

My wife?.........Sure!My dog?..........Maybe!MY GUNS??........NEVER!!!

offeror

I'm one of those who remembers that man is a civilized animal with its chief differentiating trait being the power to reason (if not the inclination). Remember LORD OF THE FLIES. Well, it had a lot of things in common with the movie PLATOON, which is the same kind of morality play. Except that where LORD is a fictional morality play, PLATOON is based on the reality of the Vietnam experience. Some guys turned spiritual, some got high, some were followers, and some turned demonic, or at least amoral. Ideals have to be balanced with the practical realities -- of the grave imperfections of the human race. Sadly, its a short walk from perfect freedom to chaos. The world is full of good men & women, but it is also full of "perpetrators." I'm probably way off the topic, but that's my view of the world these days. I've always hit a brick wall when trying to investigate the platform of the Libertarians. The devil is in the details.

---

"The 2nd Amendment is about security, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."

wipala

The goverment has no business doing anything other than national defense and illegal imigration should come under that.

salzo

I always think of the book "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxely when the "libertarian" concept comes up. In the book, the populace was encouraged,required to "have a good time". Drug use was encouraged, sex was encouraged(though procreation was illegal,birth control was the Norm, and reproduction was done in test tubes in lavbratories), all sorts of partying encouraged.All of this fun kept the populace dumbed down, which is exactly what the rulers wanted. They were having to good a time to think about anything, especially about how they were being controlled.That is the libertarian philosophy. There is no room for morality, or thinking of right and wrong, or setting up rules to keep society in check. Just have a good time, and nobody gets hurt(but of course, you do get hurt-it just takes awhile)..

Gordian Blade

First, there is a circle in politics in America, which I am over-simplifying but goes something like this:anarchist - communist - socialist - liberal - moderate - conservative - libertarian - anarchistPeople start at one point on the circle and can move one space to either side as a result of a specific event or general life experience. Sometimes people jump two spaces in their lifetime, but hardly ever three. As I said, it's really more complicated than this, but it will do as a model for discussion.Now, I am assuming from what I've read that most (not all) of the participants here are in the conservative camp. scot5792 is (was) evidently a libertarian. Conservatives value the traditions of our society, including religion (mostly Christian of some type), firearms, and the two socially acceptable drugs, alcohol and tobacco. (OK, throw caffeine in there if you like. Hey, what do you know, another e before i word!) Libertarians don't value the traditions of society in and of themselves, but only so far as the traditions of our society favor individual freedom (like the Bill of Rights). This is the common ground of conservatives and libertarians. On other things, conservatives and libertarians will disagree.I have one foot firmly in both camps, so I can see some of scott5792's points a couple days back, although I must say he did a horrible job of presenting them. The government has clearly overstepped the bounds of the Constitution in the War on Drugs, I think even most conservatives will agree on that. What happened to the protection against seizure of property without due process?And I also have to agree with scott5792 that some anti-drug laws are overblown. Marijuana is no worse for society than alcohol or tobacco, in fact I think it would cause less overall harm if it were legal to grow your own and use it on your own property. (BTW, if anyone cares, I don't use marijuana, nor alcohol nor tobacco for that matter.)But where I depart from scott5792 is on the harder stuff. Experience (another word for the traditions of society) has shown that most people cannot handle the harder stuff and will pose a real danger to themselves and others when they become addicted. This danger would exist even if the drugs were legal and cheaper, it would just take a little longer for the user to sink to that level. (Think alcoholics and cheap wine.)Where the Libertarian Party is coming from on illegal immigration, I don't know. I think it's the racial or ethnic profiling they object to. The funny thing is, the INS is failing so miserably at it, the Libertarian Party should be happy in this case that a government agency is so inefficient. In fairness, though, the INS is hampered by manpower and funding limits, as well as rules to prevent just what the Libertarian Party objects to.Would I be willing to live in a perfect libertarian society where all drugs are legal? Only under certain conditions: (1) Society will allow addicts to die in the gutter with no social support for their problem. I guess it would be OK for the government would fund dumping their bodies in a common grave as a public health matter. (2) I get to shoot any addict who tries to rob me or get my kids started, no questions asked. (3) I get to fire any employee whom I suspect of using hard drugs, or for any reason (or no reason) for that matter. Since realistically this isn't going to happen, I support reasonable restrictions on hard drugs.Same thing on illegal immigration. If there is to be no serious effort to stop the flood at the border, then we have to change the internal rules as well: (1) I can shoot anybody who comes on my property if it is clearly posted and I give the person a chance to leave peaceably. (2) If you don't have a valid visa or green card, no welfare, no free healthcare, no state-supported education for your kids. (3) There must be strict checks of ID when registering to vote and actually voting. If you don't like that, then the INS has to protect the border.I almost forgot, add to the above (4) concealed carry allowed for almost everyone (adult citizen), almost everywhere, including airplanes (but with special ammo).[This message has been edited by Gordian Blade (edited 04-08-2002).]

offeror

Gordian --Very good post. I agree. I would make a comment on your following quote. You say:"I think even most conservatives will agree on that. What happened to the protection against seizure of property without due process?"Remember that after 'conservative' comes 'reactionary' and then 'Fascist.' They're all further and further to the right. Fascists, however, have no conscience about it. I think those of us who are conservative feel that in the aftermath of 9/11 there are times when the lesser evil may be overstepping the rights of someone (particularly a non-American-citizen) to get a security job done expeditiously. But I'm no Fascist. I would never throw out the due process altogether, or even a significant amount of the time. I would simply say that in this time of unusual national crisis, we have to be more careful, particularly about aliens. I know for some the freedom is sacrosanct and circumstances don't matter, but I believe in good judgment and conscience too. A trusted leadership may represent us best by making a few exceptions when common sense says it is the safer course to take. As long as they get their hands off when the crisis is past.

---

"The 2nd Amendment is about security, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."

offeror

One more comment, re (4) above.I don't ever expect to see a gun-savvy society in America again, because I doubt that we'll ever be pushed to the wall the way Israel is, where everyone serves in the military. Sadly, in our country today, many have what I like to call a superstitious fear of guns. Under those conditions, I'd rather be among a minority of competent gun carriers than a majority of incompetent ones. But I like your view of Utopia.

---

"The 2nd Amendment is about security, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."

salzo

I never understood why "fascism" is considered to the right of conservative. I always saw fascism right next to communism, to the left of liberalism. Perhaps I am wrong but I always viewed conservatism(true conservatism, not the Neo conservative movement, and the anti fourth amendment conservative types)as the "right(as in correct)" way. You cant get any more right than correct.

---

Happiness is a warm gun

turbo

offeror,I also disagree with your facsist categorical position, your a bit off on this one.Reference: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/victcrim A more closer examination of the LP platform, reveals, other areas of disagreement among persons claiming to side with the parties platform and seemingly misquoting this parties official position.On the subject of victimless crimes; I have heard many times persons siding with them state; "the government has no right to meddle in conduct concerning consensual sex among adults", as if quoting the parties position on this matter, The word "consenting adult" is nowhere to be found in their official stated position on the matter, as previously stated, they appeal to pedephilles amd homosexuals because both want children to victimize.Their mantra "We beleieve everyone is free to do what they want, and ought to be able to"; fits perfectly with their world wide humanistic goals of enslaving all peoples, not liberate them. Note; In their platform statement they call on the government to repeal the Anti Racketeering Laws and then lump "Insider trading" as being a being a victimless crime, If anyone can explain this one I would like to hear, how insider trading can be classified victimless; Wasn't the demize of ENRON brought about by insider trading?It makes me wonder what they were on, or smoking when these issues were ratified and made their official position.I for one agree with certain issues raised by the LP party, however, I would not consider aligning myself nor voting for any candidates, while they push half baked ideas.After considering this parties history, positions, and goals, and understanding that this parties was founded in 1971, at the end of the free drugs hippie life style movement, I'm of the opinion that their true goals are nothing more than Socialist Democratic free thinking humanistic position, repackaged to appeal to be more palatable to middle of the road waffling centrists, who really are unable to crtically evaluate and digest what is being dished out as a Utopian paradise, if only we could throw off the yokes (laws) that bind and orderly society, namely us; And them much excitement quote, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other fine patriots, as if they authored their causes.If there are any persons considering joining this movement, Please read their platform and compare it to your thoughts and positions.[This message has been edited by turbo (edited 04-08-2002).]

Gordian Blade

The idea that fascists are to the "right" is a hold-over from the 1930s, when propaganda from both the communists and the fascists tried to portray the other as pure evil and themselves as the antidote. The biggest difference between them IMHO is that fascists tend to be nationalistic socialists (to use the NAZI term) where communists tend to have a more international outlook. Other than that, their methods and ideologies are actually quite similar. That's why my circle is admittedly too simplistic.BTW, there is an interesting story of fascism versus communism behind the movie version of We The Living by Ayn Rand. And PS, if you want to read an excellent ( ) review of that film as released on video, check out http://users.wsg.net/bedrosian/WeTheLiving.htm

turbo

More info on this subject.By the way, Ayn Rand is an "anarcho-capitalist.In order to understand the roots of this movement, allow me to define "Libertarianism", without changing this into a religious issue.********************************************"The term ``libertarian'' goes back at least to the 17th century religious debates regarding free-will versus pre-destination, and was used at that time to refer to persons who believed that individuals had full liberty to act as they saw fit" (quote from a link). | "http://www.free-market.net/directorybytopic/anarchism/" | All libertarians would agree with the old Jeffersonian motto, "That government is best which governs least." And many would also agree with Henry David Thoreau when "http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.thoreau.html" that "I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe -- 'That government is best which governs not at all'." Although a majority of libertarians do believe that a limited government is probably necessary to carry out certain essential functions such as criminal justice and national defense, individualist anarchists (or "anarcho-capitalists") believe there is nothing that cannot be done (or even done better) voluntarily. That doesn't mean anarcho-capitalists are necessarily pacificists. Most agree that force will always be necessary to defend people and their property, but they argue that defense and security services can be provided in a free market. One of the most prominent anarcho-capitalist intellectuals is economist "http://www.best.com/~ddfr/" (son of Nobel laureate Milton Friedman). He has spent years describing the institutions a society without government might use to secure peace and justice; he calls these institutions the "machinery of freedom." It should be noted that most libertarian anarchists qualify their anarchist label with an adjective like "individualist" or a neologism like "anarcho-capitalist" to differentiate themselves from bomb-throwing radicals and left-wing, anti-property anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin and Noam Chomsky. For more background on the anarchist ideological differences, consult the excellent "http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm", by George Mason University economics professor Bryan Caplan. For obvious reasons, libertarian anarchists don't tend to be very active in politics. They tend to see themselves in a long-term battle of ideas. The hearts and minds of people need to be won over, they reason, before society will change. Some libertarian anarchists (and other libertarians) are interested in alternative, individualistic, even "anti-political" ways of pursuing freedom, such as "http://www.free-market.net/directorybytopic/secession/", offshore investments, and spirituality. | "http://www.free-market.net/find/" | ? "http://www.free-market.net/directorybytopic/anarchism/" | "movement_2.html" | *****************************************There are thirteen political parties in this country today, can anyone name them all?

Gordian Blade

turbo, better to say the late Ayn Rand "was" something, anarcho-capitalist will do for a label as well as anything else, but there is much more to her philosophy than the political/economic side.American Conservative PartyCommunist Party U.S.A.Constitution Party Democratic Party Green Party Labor PartyLibertarian PartyNatural Law PartyReform PartyRepublican PartySocialist Labor Party of AmericaSocialist Party USASouthern PartyHow did I do?

Gordian Blade

PS - Some of these "parties" aren't much more than three cranks and a brass spittoon.

turbo

Gordian Blade,Alright, I think your the scholar amongst us.I thought one of the Socialist parties was named Socialist Workers World Party?I may be wrong.

Gordian Blade

I think the correct name for that party is the Workers World Party, with the socialist in front just as an adjective, like "conservative Rush Limbaugh."One of the things that puzzled me about your question is how do you define a political party? If it is any organization that has ever gotten a candidate on the ballot (under its name or symbol or alias) for any office in any district in the United States, it's a lot more than 13. If you are talking about parties that ran a Presidential candidate in the last election and got enough votes to get matching funds next time, I think it may be smaller than 13.

turbo

To establish a party you must register it as such, fielding candidates is something they mostly work on after the fact, for instance the Southern Party of 1982, best known for it's desires for cessation have never fielded a presidential candidate, or any candidate of consequence, to my knowledge, of course in southern townes and cities they may have, especially where they are founded they may have their strongest base of appeal.The amazing thing to me is how all of them almost without exception quote Thomas Jefferson, as a Patriarc of their platforms.In this day and age, people not grounded in principled absolutes or moral conviction, are ready to march to the sound of any pied piper that tickles their fancy.They quote their own moral convictions and then try to find the party that most closely aligns with what they would like to hear, never giving it another thought.What ever happened to that quote; "Take heed, that know man deceive you"

turbo

Gordian Blade,You seem to sit on the fence, and I was meaning to ask you (I assume your conservative from your responses in this matter, assuming I'm right), How are you able to have "one foot firmly planted in each camp"?The difference between conservative and liberal is like night and day.Libertarianism, as has been pointed out is an extreme phlisophical position veiled or dressed in the colors of our national symbol, and strike a chord in the senses of concerned citizens.I have never accepted the argument that, the use alcohol and smoking are acceptable vises by conservative people, I have always argued that both of these are abnormal and unnatural, and have pointed out to those that defend them as normal activities, that we humans who are supposedly of a higher order (using their own evolutionary argument) do, what lower order species do not, supposedly for pleasure.Is there something I missed here??

turbo

Gordian Blade,You seem to be bright enough to recognize the difference between, the conservative and liberal camps and I was meaning to ask you, since you say "I'm a conservative libertarian; How are you able to have "one foot firmly planted in each camp"?The difference between conservative and liberal is like night and day.Libertarianism, as has been pointed out is an extreme phlisophical position veiled or dressed in the colors of our national symbol, and strike a chord in the senses of concerned citizens, freedom from governmental laws and regulations as they desire will bring on anarchy and in the end, this country will be worse off than now. We are heading that way now, at a fair pace, imagine the chaos today if the government were to be dismantled as libertarians desire it to now.I guess what bothers me about your position is how do you vote 1/2 for conservative candidiates and 1/2 for liberal candidates. Has there ever been or are there any conservative candidates within the libertarian party? I doubt it.Another thing, I have never accepted the argument that, the use alcohol and smoking are acceptable vises by conservative people, I have always argued that both of these activities are abnormal and unnatural, and have pointed out, to those that defend them as normal activities, humans who are supposedly of a higher order (using their own evolutionary argument) do, what lower order species do not, supposedly for fun, pleasure and relaxtion.This in itself points out the difference between man and brute beast, he is able to reason, and in spite of logically been able to conclude correct answers to his calculations, man in the end does what he "wills" to do.The libertarian party has only been around since 1971, the philosophy has existed for centuries as previously pointed out.I beleive most all libertarians are displaced democrats, who for the most part have been the culprits who have created this countries dilemas, and now in their aged years look back and are trying to go to the extreme end the other way, using liberation from more government restrictions the new theme to accomplish their liberal socialist ends; after all, they (the democrats) have held the reins of power in this country for more quite a few more years than republicans.Is there something I missed here??[This message has been edited by turbo (edited 04-09-2002).][This message has been edited by turbo (edited 04-09-2002).]

Gordian Blade

Hi turbo,Looks like this thread is just the two of us talking to each other now, but that's OK. I tried to get on last night, but the system was clogged. (This would be a really great discussion board instead of just a good one if the server could handle the peak load.)From your two posts immediately preceeding this one, I feel like I've been hit by both barrels of a SxS! But I'll try to answer your questions.I like to think of myself as a realistic libertarian or a conservative with libertarian leanings. I'm with each group on some issues and not on others. I know many who call themselves conservative who would support a law to make all "pornography" illegal, not just what most agree should be banned (kiddie porn, real snuff movies, etc.) but also things like Playboy magazine. They also support laws that limit what consenting adults can and can't do in their own bedrooms. I'm libertarian in my view that consenting adults should be able to do what they want, but face the consequences. I don't have to agree with it. (See the next paragraph for how grave the consequences can be.)But on the conservative side, just to give you an example, I went to bat against a teacher at my son's school who was trying to teach that homosexuality is just another lifesytle choice (or hardwired into the brain) and it's OK. One of my best friends during my high school and college years, the best man at my wedding, decided after several years of marriage that he wanted to leave his wife and sample the other side. He died of AIDS in the mid-80's. So I have some personal experience with how dangerous that "lifestyle" can be and I will fight anyone who wants to teach my kids differently. (I know it's easy to make things up on the internet but I assure you this is a true story.)Another place I disagree with many conservatives is the law against marijuana. As I stated in an earlier post, the minimal harm to society does not in my mind justify the loss of freedom. But harder drugs that experience has shown are truly dangerous to society (crack for example) should be controlled, so there I am disagreeing with the libertarians.I once got into an discussion with a libertarian on another discussion board (Free Republic) about how far the Second Amendment should go. As far as he was concerned, private individuals should be able to own bazookas and stinger missiles. In my view, the 2nd A supports the private ownership of weapons up to and including automatic rifles like the M-16. As a compromise, I could live with the law as it now exists if the stupid 1994 "assault weapons" bill were allowed to sunset and Florida-style concealed carry existed in all the states. (And it was made perfectly clear that we were done with making new laws and would stick to enforcement of the existing ones.) In that, I am more libertarian than many conservatives but less libertarian than the extreme ones.I could go on, but I fear I'm boring everyone to tears, including myself.Finally, to some specific questions. Notwithstanding my leaning toward some libertarian ideas, I find myself voting for Republican candidates more often than not because as I said, I'm realistic. However, George W might not get my vote next time. I already don't like how he caved in on campaign finance; if he supports the continuation of the illogical 1994 "assault weapon" ban, I'll be finished with him.Finally, on alcohol and tobacco: Even Jesus drank wine. In fact, His first miracle was to turn perfectly good water into wine. So there is no question that the use of alcoholic beverages goes way back in history and is accepted (in moderation) by most people in society. Tobacco is more recent to most of the world, and it is more dangerous in that its deadly effects can only be slightly decreased by moderate and wise use, not eliminated. (Still, people should have a right to grow it and use it as long as they don't pollute the air I'm forced to breathe with it.)As for the animals using alcohol or tobacco, elephants will seek out and eat rotten fruit specifically to get drunk (amazing but true) and many dogs like to drink beer if their owners let them have it. Apes will also drink alcoholic beverages if given the opportunity. I've seen old movies of chimps smoking cigarettes, but I think they have to be specifically trained to do that, I don't believe they take to it naturally. I don't think any animal would think of chewing tobacco and not swallowing it. (But you could say the same thing about gum.)

offeror

Well, gentlemen, I tried to get on last night too but also was unable. I tip my hat to your corrections about Fascism and won't argue the point because I have nothing riding on it and am too lazy to research the point further. I'm getting old enough that I realize there IS sometimes newer interpretation out there. When I was growing up, Fascism was most assuredly considered the extreme right as Communism was considered the extreme left. Both of course looked like totalitarianism and/or dictatorship in practice. You will excuse my outdated information, I hope. I still believe it is possible to be too conservative, and reactionary is one of the ways to do that. Closed-mindedness is never a virtue, nor is selfishness, Ms. Rand notwithstanding. Thank you for the link to the We the Living review, by the way. Rand is a curiosity, and although her popularity is past and her notions largely debunked I still find some of her ideas worthwhile to chew on. She was a woman with some grandiose notions, but I like to be challenged by big thinkers, even when some of their theories haven't worked in practice. There is nothing wrong with championing individual achievement, up to a point. Rand was wrong enough, though, that some people are still mad at her for leading them down a garden path to selfishness, and understandably so. Since I came to her game late, I enjoyed reading her and have no particular prejudice -- her take on the power of the individual is still refreshing in a society of conformists. I know people coming out of Harvard who were still pursuing her ideas as late as the 70s and 80s (whatever that suggests). I think of her as the scientist who pursues a line of research which proves to be faulty. It's still not worthless, because it's how progress is made whether we're talking gene mapping, disease cures or social engineering. You might enjoy the following link, if you haven't already: http://www.aynrand.org/ari_home.html

---

"The 2nd Amendment is about security, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."

offeror

I'll add that every time I check into the Libertarian party I run into the same problems. They may agree with me on the gun issue, but they seem a little cracked on other issues. They also never have much of a chance of getting elected, particularly around here in Republican territory, so I'm better off working within that framework. I'm comfortable in the party except that having been a young person in the 60s, I remember clearly who it was that was disowning their daughters and running girls out of school and off to back alley coat hanger abortionists while characterizing single motherhood as "never in this household." I therefore find the self-righteousness of the anti-choice crowd hypocritical in the extreme. They got "hoisted on their own petard" -- choice became necessary to salvage a woman's reputation from the same group that views choice with alarm now -- and belatedly embraces single moms and the kids they used to refer to as b... well, you know what I mean. Now back to guns....

turbo

Gordian Blade, OfferorWell, I'll accept the idea, that some animals might take up to chosing to eat rotten fruit, but NOT necessarily to get drunk, as for chewing the weed, if it palatable and an animal won't get an ill feeling from it, I believe they would normally eat anything, but NOT, to get high.I'll accept these explanations before I would concede that animals have homosexual tendencies, like what was brewed up here the another day.I also, agree with some of the liberatarians position on several issues, but there is no way I would vote for anyone running on their platform. Because I honestly beleive they do not have the answer to what ails this country.Drastic changes have got to be made, in order to reverse the tide of the left leaning liberals agenda.Boy, these people have no end to their civil disobedient ways, they are the ones that committ fraud in elections, and because of them this country may some day come to the brink of another civil war, the biggest reason they get their way is on account of center of the roaders, who can be swayed to vote for this or that on a whim. We are on collision course with the history of nations that have before us..The way I see it unless conservatives aren't willing to set their differences aside and work together;for the good of the nation, and for positive change, it's a lost cause.I think we have all been conditioned to rely on government or the courts to establish laws and the direction the nation travels in, unless we the people take the bull by the horns and move in a positive way to re establish "the way, this nation should go" we as a civilised nation will become as impotant as England is today.The only reason England can hold her head up in the world today, is because the US stands by her, today.How can we affect change, for the better..??[This message has been edited by turbo (edited 04-09-2002).]

Gordian Blade

turbo, about elephants drinking: I'm sorry that I can't give you the exact source, but I do believe elephants specifically seek out rotten fruit and eat it until they get drunk. Now as to whether they do that because they like the taste or they really only want to get drunk, you'd have to ask the elephants. But they aren't likely to tell you the truth any more than humans do when asked the same question. Now, to the serious stuff: Unfortunately, our country is so powerful that it is difficult for most people to believe that its moral foundation is rotting. I don't know what the answer is, I wish I did.[This message has been edited by Gordian Blade (edited 04-09-2002).]

offeror

I don't have a problem believing that elephants might enjoy alcohol -- after all, cats enjoy catnip in much the same way. Why shouldn't animals have the ability to remember and repeat a pleasurable experience? Now if you show me elephants and cats brown-bagging it and hanging out together under bridges, I'll start to worry....[This message has been edited by offeror (edited 04-10-2002).]

salzo

I remember reading something about a certain species of frog, that eats psychadelic mushrooms-even though the shrooms have no nutritional value.

Happiness is a warm gun