I find it interesting that many of you cannot comprehend why I not only find it impossible to defend either party but also extend incredulity to those who suggest "republican baaaaaaad, democrat goooood". Are you really that easily fooled? Can you not see that Nancy Pelosy is just as driven by self interest as George Bush? How easily fooled can an otherwise rational adult be?

That is my primary complaint with Greenwald, et al. They actually think there is some distinction of quality between the two currently reigning parties. What there is, is a distinction of who's sponsors will benefit the most. Neither party is driven by a burning desire to actually represent the people in their best interest, but to enslave the population by coercing it to believe that they are needed, no absolutely necessary for their very survival (they don't call it a "social safety net" for nothing, you know). One clear example of how republicans have joined the socialist ranks of the democrats was the passage of the medicare drug bill. There are many, many more.

If I post for anything other than for the opportunity to spout my opinion, it might be to say "wake up people. It really is time for a massive political change. Don't accept the lesser of two evils anymore, and in particular, stop promoting them".

As for me, I am what is referred to as a "Crunchy". That is an individual who is environmentally minded, and who believes in self reliance, and self responsibility. And one who does not agree that licentiousness is a good thing for either society, or public policy. There is a good definition of this particular variety of conservative here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5256754

I will say this in defense of the posters today. As has happened so often in the past, by some notable and (respected?) individuals in this forum, no one has called me a faggot or a f***tard. With that in mind, I find it a bit ironic that some of you think I need to improve my writing style in order to be taken seriously.

Poco

"Do you honestly think that large governments arose out of pure maliciousness?"

As I look back on it, it would appear that large government arose out of temporary policy that became permanent, and the natural desire for men to build empires, and to control other men. That, however, does not make it any less malicious.

He is the first (ever) to guess the meaning of my on-line name: Poco a poco. It is a musical term that means "little by little". We are being destroyed "little by little" so that we do not notice. Good work Fraud Guy.

Valentinia asks:

(If America is becoming socialist then)

"Where is my crappy free government health care? Where are my six weeks off with full pay?"

Hang on Val. If Hillary wins, it will be here soon. And it will be crappy compared to what we have right now. We already have mandated maternity leave.

Two years ago you could have asked "Where is my grandma's free (or subsidized) prescription medicine?"

I am quite surprised, due to the vast number of existing entitlement programs, that you raise this question. I was once told to quit harping about socialism "the word has become meaningless" as I recall, due to the worlds acceptance of it, eg. Canada's/Britain's health care systems. It makes more sense to me for someone to tell me that it is already here than to question if it exists.

m.b.f says:

I'd be interested to see what sorts of candidates or parties Poco feels are good ones.

I'm not ducking any question here. I have no confidence in any current politician or anyone currently wishing to enter what has become a corrupt and corrupting environment. I have always thought that it take a very pathetic and weirdly egotistical person to go around denigrating him/herself by begging for votes. "lookit me, lookit me, lookit me" They all come across as wretched, warped children.

I have heard some interesting things about Ron Paul. I think, just to have an answer for this question, will study him some.

I primarily believe that the government should never be allowed to be in a position to purchase votes. It is one of the most corrupting influences.

I agree with Davy Crockett when he said this about congress giving money to the widow of a greatly respected Naval officer:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it."

Lokannan,

I used to think like you, but I am older now, and no longer able to accept that a little less nasty and vile is in any way acceptable.

Poco

Pieces of the real cross, magic water from the Sea Of Galilee, and the gospel of Judas. They all belong in the exact same category. Distractions. Nothing more.

"I spoke with Pagels by phone about the bitter quarrels among early Christians, why it's a bad idea to read the Bible literally..."

Considering the multitude of possible motivations on the part of Ms. Pagels, it's probably not a good idea to read her writing literally. I find the supposed luminance of such writers ironic at best. The book she disparages has held it's own for going on two thousand years. I wonder where her writing will be in the equivalent. One thing is certain, education is not an indication of intelligence, though it may have some direct correlation to arrogance.

Poco