bigot- A person rigidly devoted to his or her own group, creed, etc., and who is prejudiced against those holding different views. A person who is intolerant, esp. in matters of religion, race or politics.
Reminds me of something I think Dick Gregory said: "If I had to get a heart or brain transplant, for the donor I'd choose a bigot; because neither organ would have been used."
"This is my first time on the board, and I already feel as if I can relate to all these topics..."
And hopefully your last time.
I think you got the wrong website pal.
I'm behind you, grass.
Scaryneighbor is a good name for you. People like you are extremely frightening. By the way, there's no such thing as a WRONG family, at least not in the way you're describing.
This is a weird message board.
Who's this scaryneighbor guy? His screen name reflects it all. I agree with you, grasstains...scaryneighbor needs to go.
pabillsman, about your response to scaryneighbor's question...what can people do to prevent something like what Ray talks about in "451?"
And by the way, scaryneighbor...
GET OFF THIS SITE!!
In response, we must continue to support freedom and fight against the ridiculous paranoia and political correctness that has infested the world.
A teacher in New Jersey has been fired this week because she had a picture of President Bush on a bulletin board amongst pictures of other presidents and historical documents. She was told she created a disruptive environment because a parent who supported Kerry was offended. Well, let me wipe that parents tears!!!!!!!! My heart bleeds for him/her. Whether you are a supporter of Bush or not, HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A.!!!!!!!! To suggest that his photo does not belong in a public school is outrageous. The biggest threat to freedom is sue-happy lawyers. Healthcare is a big issue now. So many are calling for socialized healthcare. We don't need it. If lawyers like John Edwards were not becoming filthy rich off of malpractice suits, everyone could afford healthcare.
I could go on and on forever but I think you get the idea.
[This message has been edited by pabillsman1 (edited 10-06-2004).]
One thing that might help ensure that the world of Fahrenheit 451 does not come about is to fight for a free press and, by the way, impartial presidential debates. This "Debate" is one of the first times that the League of Women Voters HAS NOT held and managed the preseidential debate forum. The two parties, yea those guys, are running what we see on TV. No chance to ask questions, no embarrassing responses from candidates. This is approaching the type of "reporting" that might have been on the three walls of Montag's house. We should all be very afraid that our election process is now being managed by the two parties. That precludes any third party opinions. Scares me that we are in 451 territory now.
I usually stay out of these types of discussions(politics, religion) because they so often and so quickly can turn ugly and it's so easy to get sucked into it all, but I think(hope) this one is going to remain civil.
How about "sub-parties"? That way we'd be assured of some of each parties votes being thrown into the waste bucket. I'm one of the fuzzy-headed idealists who effectively assured Bush's win last time around by "making a statement" and voting for Nader. Now if there was someone equivilent to say...Ross Perot(?)... running, in addition to Nader, then perhaps that would have leveled out the playing field. No, Buchanon doesn't count.
Or maybe each party having to field multiple teams?
As long as my vote for a third party in an attempt to legitimize a multi-party system is going to have such disastrous results, I won't be voting for a third party. Once bitten twice shy. I'm sure there's thousands of other fuzzy-heads determined not to let it happen again.
A third party isn't good enough. We need four, maybe more.
Alternative Democrat(or Dem-II)
Alternative Republican(or Rep-II)
Third Party(ultra liberal ie. Green Party)
Fourth Party(ultra conservative ie. Buchanon)
Now where The Reform Party would fit in, I don't know. Perhaps Rep-II?
It is possible to assemble this many candidates on one stage for debates. We did it here in California during the race for Governor after the recall of Gray Davis. It was a debate by no means won by "The Governator". Tom McClintock, the ultra conservative, and The Green Party's(ultra liberal) Peter Camejo were strongest on the issues and offered the most solid(if not extreme) solutions, but didn't have nearly enough time to reveal the details of all their plans or positions on all the issues.
So. We can have multi-party debates. We caught a glimpse of that possibility here in California and shouldn't forget about it, don't let it go unnoticed. Let it inspire us. It can work.
[This message has been edited by grasstains (edited 10-06-2004).]
I disagree. The two party system works best. Each party is forced to broaden its appeal o attract a majority of the voters. When you have more than two, the chances of one party achieving victory with less than 50% of the vote heightens dramatically. (Hey. No cracks about Bush being elected with a minority of the vote. With a third party in the mix in 1992 and 1996, Clinton won with a lower percentage of the vote than Bush. You begin to see the problem.) More parties will only lead to the Balkanization of the United States. We have our hands full with enough special interest groups as it is.
"When you have more than two, the chances of one party achieving victory with less than 50% of the vote heightens dramatically. (Hey. No cracks about Bush being elected with a minority of the vote. With a third party in the mix in 1992 and 1996, Clinton won with a lower percentage of the vote than Bush. You begin to see the problem.)"
I don't see the problem, Pete. The candidate with the most votes should win each State, not the candidate with at least 50% of all the votes. Please explain, I'm a little slow.
And I also don't see how additional parties would cause the Dems. and Reps. to scale down their attempt to appeal to as many people as possible. I think competition would force them to broaden their appeal even more, just as it does in the bussiness world. Wouldn't it be the other parties with narrower appeal and specific interests?
[This message has been edited by grasstains (edited 10-07-2004).]
I think that your reasoning for the extra political parties is understandable, grasstains.
With more parties, the candidates would have to focus more on their campaigns and winning states in the election.
But the two party systems works best for the people. Then they wouldn't have to deal with trying to pick from four or five different candidates. So, this could go either way.
By the way, pabillsman, if a Kerry supporter is so offended by the picture of Bush with the rest of the presidents of our nation's history, do you think that that person has studied history at all? Or is he/she that blinded by political devotion? Bush is the president of the U.S., but do you think we'll be seeing Kerry's mark on American history as our next president? Or do you think Bush will hold his place?
Or, if you're like me, do you not really have a real opinion?
I think you're all screwed.
The opinions of others don't matter. They can think what they want, but they just need to shut the hell up!
Also, if you got a problem with me, why don't you just get over it?! You're all WRONG!
[This message has been edited by dandelion (edited 10-08-2004).]
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8|