I see I'm in good company.

By the way, I applaud your introducing white privilege to the discussion. I've also thought of introducing critical race theory on these boards, but then my common sense prevails.

Fester: "No system is perfect, the Senate held up civil rights reforms until LBJ slammed it through, and I believe the maelstrom of public support was a major factor in the Senate Iraq war vote."

Kate:Thank you for the voice of reason here. Yes, LBJ DID slam the civil rights agenda through - just as Hillary Clinton posited (and was subsequently gutted for so doing, though she spoke a plain truth). And yes, her vote on the Iraq resolution undoubtedly reflected the sentiments of a great many voters in the state which took the brunt of 9/11.

Actually, I picked those to two examples to show

1) The Senate, led by the dixecrats repeatedly blocked (filibustered) civil rights legislation during the 1950's. The role of AA's in WWII demonstrated to themselves and others that they deserved more equality. Slower incremental change sooner probably would have been better for US society than the big bang from LBJ. It certainly would have been better for the democratic party as a big chunk of dixiecrats became Republicans. This is an example of the Senate ignoring the will of the people, in a manner against the best interests of the country, IM!HO.

2) The Iraq war vote (again IM!HO) is an example of the Senate not acting as the cooling vessel imagined by the Founders against the passions of the moment. In this case, the Senate failed by rubberstamping the President, and once again acted against the best interests of the US.

James Madison explained that the Constitution's framers considered the Senate to be the great "anchor" of the government. To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Created.htm

pissin' and groanin'

keep it on goin'

Because

you'll

have

plenty

of

time..........

Cheers! As far as I'm concerned, the whole point of a technology such as this one is to engage with one another, to actually work through differences of opinion to a point of, if not consensus, than at least mutual respect.

As for the white privilege thing, well, if we're to take seriously Obama's challenge (and I do and believe we should), we *have* to talk about these things.

One reason I'm attracted to Obama is his "Ask not what your country can do for you"-type empowerment.

He calls on *us* to work at mending fences, recognizing that the resentments and animosities that make us so easy for the right/corporate interests, etc. to divide and conquer can only be overcome at great personal effort.

We must *struggle* to get along. We are all of us called upon to do our bit.

Transparency is prerequisite to this end, and so I applaud you, red, for proposing this exercise!

the one i read said,
"Blue collar Catholics?
The last time that was a significant demographic group was about fifty years ago, correct?
-- thepunk"
THAT got you so mad? how could it? is being obviously incorrect offensive? or did the recent finding that moslems have beaten the catholics in the baby-making race put your nose out of shape?(making handlebar's problematic)

Thanks for the kind reply. You may not like me so much if you were to find out my political preferences for this election, though. So maybe you will want to take a deep breath before clicking on my letter history, where it's all laid out, in plain view.

In any case, I'm not ashamed of my views and will defend them at any time. It's the flaming and illogical comments/replies that drive me up the wall -- but those I just ignore.

So, until the next episode of this gripping political saga, I remain.

Respectfully yours,

-- red

:-)

My score:

-2.28, -3.23

some of the questions were a bit "loaded".. e.g. predatory multinationals?

Gotta say, given all that's gone on lately, that "one party state" question was awfully tempting.

I know! The One Party State thing most certainly was.

:)

Economic Left/Right: -6.38

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08

I'm pegged somewhere between TDL and Mandela, but that's not really me at all, or at least my "Matrix" of me. Interesting.

Both Clinton and Obama have to mature in their thought processes on Iraq. From both candidates, we are asked to accept that al-Qaida, with recognized terrorist affiliates in more than 60 Nations, had no discernible presence in a hub of world terrorism, I.e. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq! For years, Saddam gave sanctuary in Baghdad to both Abu Nidal and Abul Abbas, who prior to the emergence of bin Laden, were two of the world’s most notorious terrorist operatives. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was an al-Qaida affiliate in Afghanistan, where he commanded a terrorist training camp in the production and deployment of chemical agents, was also provided sanctuary in Baghdad in 2002, along with a cadre of his lieutenants; and, extended medical treatment was given to Zarqawi for injuries that he had received in a U.S. air-strike against his base camp. Zarqawi then transitioned to Northern Iraq and integrated with the the al-qaida affiliate, the Ansar al-Islam extremists, a terrorist organization that Hussein had permitted to operate under the supervision of a senior Iraqi intelligence agent. A group that, with Iraqi compliance, had constructed an extensive underground chemical weapons facility. By claiming that he had no control over his Northern sector, Hussein created plausible deniability with willing dupes such as Clinton and Obama in the event poisonous toxins, such as the ricin attacks in Europe, were traced back to the al-Islam enclave. Of course, we all know that Saddam gassed the Kurds who occupied the same sector when they deviated from his agenda. Further, overhead reconnaissance had verified multiple terrorist training sites within the interior of Iraq, to include an aircraft hi-jacking training facility. As well, Hussein openly funded Palestian homicide bombers who carried out attacks against Israel thru their Hamas and Hezbola initiators; and, dispersed Iraqi agents throughout the world who have been documented to have had numerous contacts with al-Qaida operatives.. Recall that it was Saddam who blatantly attempted to assassinate the 1st President Bush. Can there be any doubt that Saddam would have surreptitiously provided dangerous toxins to disparate terrorist organizations who were in pursuit of his common objectives! A conclusion given emphasis by the recent Pentagon Report which found that although no DIRECT OPERATIONAL relationship could be established between Saddam and al-Qaeda: "Saddam collaborated with known al-Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups." ; and, "This report is damming to those who doubted Saddam's involvement with Jihadist terrorist groups. It DEVASTATES one of the central myths plaguing our government prior to 9/11, that a Jihadist group would not cooperate with a secular regime and vice versa." Greg Neubeck

_________________

Greg Neubeck