Try and articulate your thoughts in English, I might be able to respond. For now, you're not making sense. To what are you objecting exactly?

Wt and RMP make some excellent points. Not sure where you were going with the neuroscience theory and freewill..

My point on it is this:

I believe some higher being instilled in all of us (whether you are agnostic or athiest)a moral compass to guide us. It's what's kept civilization going for centuries-what's created order out of chaos. When those codes are broken down by govt-it then creates chaos. That's where I think we are now-by the actions of our govt.

I think our Founding Fathers knew and thought of freechoice when they wrote the Constitution.I think it was provided for-by freedom of religion. That should even think of athiesm as a religion also. Most athiests I know are not lacking in any morals-the only difference is whether or not they believe in the same God/higher Being I do.

Religion or spirituality, despite what we see from the extremism of it-on the whole makes humans more aware their own compassion, empathy, compassion and tolerance of other humans and the planet. It's men with thier egos--who have many times hijacked those basic things-and led others astray in thier morals.So it's those followers of men like these who have given up thier freewill-and instead willingly put thier fate in someone elses hands.

On my own spiritual journey in the last few years-I've come to conclusions about God on my own-without outside interference---by specifically MAKING my own freechoices about what I believe. I actually took the time to ask myself that philosophical question---why am I here? where did I come from? How can I be happy?

It's been years in the figuring and listening---but I do believe in an afterlife, I believe in the soul. The ego and materialism are just illusions, if we think this is how we should measure ouselves or judge ouselves by. There is much more to the human existence than this----yet my govt., with its' capitalistic, imperialistic ways----wants me to think otherwise(that it is the ego). A fatalisticly flawed belief-which will enslave the mind to the ego---therefore keeping anyone from being truly happy-or finding their own purpose in life. flawed becasue it depends on those who follow it to think---"if I just had this, I would be happy",or "if I just had more oil, I would be happy..."which sets you up for a circular, neverending pattern of always wanting more. who capitalizes on that?--corporations of course. Corporations who have hijacked our govt.

In a nutshell-it is becasue of freewill-that I have that same right to take responsiblity for my own soul, my own afterlife, my own fate, my own search for God---which IS provided for in the Constitution (freedom of religion-athiest or not).Becasue religion or spirituality is something not yet proven-or proof or moral codes by science---does not mean it does not exist. i think it means science either has not yet caught up technologically to prove it-or perhaps it is something, by design, not meant to be proven. Maybe that's the test of faith-is believing in those morals and listening to ones own morals while respecting others-without proof-is what religion is about.

To follow you there, would really derail the thread. I wish not to. It was just an idea. I recommend that you choose to ignore it.

The republicans have proven something over the last four decades: you can change the system when the democrats are in charge. So if you want to change the system, you first put them back in charge again, right?

Thks for a coherent point. Look, I'm not viscerally pro or anti any party, I'm just not ideological that way.

I think Barack Obama has the right idea about reforming his own party, and the system in a soft way. I wish him the best in that, and would support such a velvet approach.

The Clinton wing, on the other hand, is unappealing to me if we're talking real reform.

Bravo... Rose Mary Woods...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Mary_Woods

Tapes my ass... VCR? I doubt it... somewhere somehow they are still there... Salon mentions this as CIA was trying to get out in front of the NYT story. CNN is broadcasting TAPES now... let's all get on this... it CAN'T BE TAPES.

There are some good graphical representations that might be useful (they're also pretty attractive):

http://historyshots.com/store.cfm

Also, re:

the criticisms of Dems... you won't find a community more disposed to criticism when warranted, or more specifically, when useful. Useful does not include repeating GOP memes and talking points. Continuing to do Karl Rove's work for him, even now that he's left the WH, is just plain crazy. Make him do his own dirty work for a change. He's clearly teetering on the brink... I don't think we need to provide him with any handholds.

...and elections and two-party system... we would be better served to get the REALLY BIG money out of the system, and require the media conglomerates, many of whom are licensed to use PUBLIC air waves, to donate air time. That's where the really big expenses are. Commercial air time. And it's a sin. (And I rarely make such statements.) Another solution that would be helpful would be to institute some sort of automatic run-off, or, perhaps better, a system that calculates 2nd choices, along the lines of the Iowa caucuses. Without doing those things first, there's really no way for a viable third party to emerge.

Last point, failing to consider the effect of GOP party loyalty, when opposed to one's own loyalty to country first, seems naive these days, though it wouldn't have some decades ago. The GOP wants you to put country first, and ignore their own tremendous gains via successful power grabs during the Bush maladministration. Fighting back against that "coup" requires acknowledging it, not simply ignoring partisanship as a means of taking the high road.