Hi John,

On Tue 2037-Apr-07 16:10, JOHN FITZGERALD (1:123/140) wrote to RICHARD WEBB:

JF>   Richard, nice to see someone who both has depth and the patience
JF> (and capacity) to articulate it.  As for the two party system, there
JF> is much  truth in what you've said, but always keep the perspective
JF> that they still tend to balance each other out.  That doesn't mean
JF> there isn't  room for a third party, one that can balance the other
JF> two.

RW>   TO some degree they do balance each other, but the lack of
RW>   choices that are perceived by the populace as viable means
RW>   they don't really have to address some of the real
RW>   important issues.

JF>   'The' most important issues are our sovereignty, security and
JF> freedom. Without these, all other issues short of famine hardly
JF> matter. 

Agreed, but selling out our freedom to remain sovereign is
no bargain imho.


JF>   Concerning the corrupt, we can only deal with them one at a time. 
JF>  Everyone has their boggy man, real or imagined, but it is good that
JF>  we  all have our guards up nonetheless.  We needed people to hold
JF>  Bush's feet  to the fire...and we need them for Obama's.  
JF>  Neither of them are anywhere  near perfect.   It's just unfortunate
JF>  that some can rave about one  person's faults, then turn around
JF>  and dismisses,  even defends those same  faults in an other.  
JF>  That is how corruption is allowed to flourish.   They know all 
JF>  they have to do is appease their particular ideology, etc,  
JF>  and some will defend them all the way to the gates of hell.

RW>   Agreed, and get us sidetracked on these other issues.  WHy
RW>   do we need to discuss "gay rights" or what constitutes
RW>   "marriage" and other nonissue bs and allow it to dominate
RW>   political discourse?...

JF>    Those would be secondary, at least in terms of the survival of a
JF> nation.  They are still important issues though.

The last thing i think about is whether my neighbor is gay.
A nonissue.  IS he a good neighbor?  IF I"m going to hire
him can he do the job?
I"m not interested in what goes on within the four walls of
his domicile.  IF he wants to live with another man in a
relationship similar to that which we call "marriage" it's
not my problem.  IF he and his partner live in such a manner they should
have access to some of the things which only
benefit heterosexual married couples.

My lady and I are not legally married for a variety of
reasons, but could be considered common law in most states.
WE've had to take some steps to protect ourselves and our
future through other means because of this.  NOt my place to criticize, or
to dictate to my neighbor how he should choose to live.  YET if one of the
theoretical neighbors and
his/her partner are offered medical benefits through work
he/she should be able to put the partner on it with no muss
no fuss.


RW>   BUt, distracting the sheeplee with such
RW>   trivial crappola allows the status quo to
RW>   remain because they'll never notice.

JF>     A lot of it isn't.  However, they will still use these things to
JF> keep a nation divided, very important to a two party monopoly. 

tHe old divide and conquer.  But it is the co-opting of the
republican party with such crap which drove me away from
them decades ago.


RW>    WHich is why we're doing millions of dollars 
RW>    in bailouts to irresponsible jerks right now.

JF>     Yes, this urgency for 'bail outs', started by Bush and his
JF> cronies, and now Obama, with the same ol' cronies, are taking that
JF> to ever more exasperating lengths.

And my big beef with the whole lock the two majors have on
it all.  The same cronies are going to get their bailout,
have the same access to the corridors and offices where the
power resides.  we played "throw the bums out" just to see
the same bums pushing the buttons and moving the levers from behind the scenes.


Regards,
           Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+