JR, I agree that the words "freedom", "justice" , and "democracy" are overused and are buzzwords that are often used to justify many actions. I've thought about these. Why are these words used so much in America? What is the historical antecedents to our modern usage of these words? Are they still relevant?

I dont have much to say about "justice". It's a very relative term and too vague too even pin a precise definition on it. "Plato's Republic" includes an incredible discussion led by Socrates on the subject of justice and the relativeness of the concept. Definitely worth a read for anyone interested.

The concept of "freedom" played a pivotal role in the founding of America. Today, people often mean freedom of speech when they think of freedom. Early American documents though show a total concern with the concept of freedom from despots and tyranny - most specifically King George III. Many of the early Americans were republicans who believed that the US should be a true Republic, that people should choose representatives who would literally "represent" their interests. These early Americans didn't believe there should be one leader and many didn't even think there should be a central government at all. This didn't work out too well as there was much infighting and it threatened to tear early America apart. Eventually, a federal government was formed and a president was put in place partly to keep the congress in check. There was agreat battle between these republicans and the "Federalists" who believed in a more central government. What actually resulted was a balance of these two views -- a theme that I think is most important in the governance of a nation. Balance between competing ideologies and systems that are designed to moderate that balance.

When a president of the United States proclaims and invokes the concept of "freedom" they usually mean this latter kind - freedom from tyranny.

What freedom would mean in time ebbed and flowed in those early days. Note the stretch of time between 1776 and 1789, from the Declaration of Independence to Washington becoming president. In that time. Congress was trying to decide what system would best allow decisions to actually be made and yet not allow too much power to be invested in one any office or institution.

Declaration of Independence. 1776.
Articles of Confederation. 1781.
Constitution. 1787.
Washingon became president. 1789.

Many were so worried that a leader would assume monarchial powers like back home that they
didn't want any central government or a president at all. No central government seemed great in practice but didn't work for a variety of reasons.

All of these changes had to do with "freedom". That people would be free to choose their representatives, that people would be free to change their leaders , that people would be free from tyranny and control, that people would be fairly represented but that government would not grind to a halt and split.

"Democracy", from the greek "Demos" meaning people. Government of the people. A Democratic Republic. People would choose their representatives but the states would choose
the president. The system was unique as such but with antecedents mostly in ancient Greece and Rome.

"Freedom and Democracy" meant something then and they still do today. Democracy has been
spreading the world over and continues to do so. America has fought over these principles before, both successfully and unsuccessfully.

If Afghanistan should continue down what looks like the path to democracy, should we proud of our role in that change from a government of tyranny to a government of consent? Should Americans, British, and Australians be proud of their country's role in converting Iraq from a government of control to a government of the people?

When can sovereignty be violated and when can it not? Does the world become "safer for
democracy" when there are more democracies? Is ideology worth fighting for? It seems to me that as more and more countries becomes democracies there are less and less interested in fighting for more. Maybe we've reached some critical density? If we judge the current decision of the US to go to war by what it's leaders say, we are once again - at least partly - fighting to spread the democratic ideal. George Bush speaks extensively of the importance of installing democracy in Iraq and the process may very well occur. Planning for such is very well under way in Afghanistan and it seems to me it will happen. But who knows such things for sure?

America has no monopoly on the concepts of democracy and freedom. She has been instrumental in their spread but not alone. Americans are proud of their country's heritage and it's role in the spread of these ideologies. One things these messageboards can do is help us to
understand the ideas and thoughts of people from different places and cultures. I am interested in what others think of the concepts of "freedom" and "democracy" and how important they are to them.

In my reading of history, people pretty much take the positions that would benefit themselves the most. Many in America believe that democracy in Iraq is more important than Iraq's sovereignty - that Iraq is a place to plant the first seeds of Democracy in the Middle East - and that this will reduce the terrorism threat from the whole region if elected governments spring forth from those seeds. Many elsewhere believe that sovereignty is more important than the democratic ideology various other reasons. Still others think that planting seeds in the desert is a risky agricultural practice.

Some people think the UN should play center stage in world politics because it agrees with their views. Some Americans think that US sovereignty is more important than the UN because it disagrees with their views. I have little doubt that if the UN authorized military action, many opposed to military action would think the US bought members of the UN off. I also have little doubt that if the UN never does authorize military force that many Americans will think of US sovereignty as more important than the UN and that the UN is "worthless".

We all contradict ourselves in these views sometimes thinking sovereignty is the most important principle, sometimes thinking worldly institutions are important, sometimes thinking they are irrelevant. No one is right or wrong in any sense of the word.

I have never been able to resolve these differences in myself and I have never heard a completely consistent viewpoint regarding world politics from anyone or anywhere. What seems to happen is that everyone acts in what they believe is their own best interest and forms their views accordingly. Maybe it has something to do with Godel. Logic, consistency, and politics
are the strangest of bedfellows.



Last edited by Colin at Feb 28 2003, 10:44 AM

I don't think you "have it bad" at all. My view of Canada is EXTREMELY positive, Alex.

Rut Ro....I wasn't talking about myself being the 80 pound weakling (I WISH!!! ) :(

Alex said that Canada doesn't need a military because Canada doesn't piss people off, but I was wondering out loud if maybe they weren't pissing people off because they didn't have a military :rolleyes: Chicken/egg/chicken.....

It's real easy to say "Oh, everyone loves Canada and Australia!" Well sure! Because again, who the heck are you going to go and tick off when you know you can't really defend yourself? It just wouldn't make much sense, would it? America is the 800 pound gorilla. We have the ability to create economic and military problems for most of the other countries in the world. We can be a bully and it's human nature to hate the bully.

And please understand - I LOVE Canadians, I LOVE Australians and there are a LOT of Americans I can't STAND. This isn't anything personal. :) And I think the Japanese are committing suicide in such high numbers because they live in such tiny little spaces - yuck!

(Gigi was touching my boobie and my eyes were closed in deep ecstasy. I hope everyone downloaded that picture as that's about as close to a lesbian scene as you're going to get from me :yowsa: )

Some of us can agree on THAT, Peaches. Alex once said that the US is "a big bully next door" that makes him feel "uncomfortable".

I have got to say this is the most worthwhile and interesting thread ever
and I read every word!

mutt made me realize something when i made remarks in the past about Canadas military.

a simple fact is that Canada and Mexico do not NEED a significant military. i agree with that. if they dont NEED a significant military, why have one? they can spend billions of dollars on other infrastructure while the US spends billions on their own military.

makes 100% sense to me.

to make the arguement that canada does not need a military because "canada does not piss people off" means that you have to also make the case that Canada could realistically be attacked or faces any real threats while living in the shadow of a multi-trillion dollar fighting force.

"America" do get alot of attention in the world media, but thats the price of being a "open" superpower - everyone wants to either messure up or create an outside enemy (explains alot of the bad image "America" got).

Also more and more people are "news junkies" - they always got to see what the latest news are, even though most of the time the news headlines have zero impact on their life... If you live in small country, then you need to import news or there will be nothing to show and people will run amok... Love this quote from Dan Rather:

"I got addicted. News, particularly daily news, is more addictive than crack cocaine, more addictive than heroin, more addictive than cigarettes."
--Dan Rather in Brill's Content, October 1998.

America is one of the biggest suppliers to news addicts around the world...

I haven't finished reading today's posts this morning...but I just had to say


BRAVO JR!!! You almost had me in tears. :rokk:

That is an excellent post! Very moving, and absolutely on target IMHO.

Damn Peaches...so I guess that means I should cancel the photographer I set up for the next show then?

:headwall:

Some of us can agree on THAT, Peaches. Alex once said that the US is "a big bully next door" that makes him feel "uncomfortable".[/b][/quote]
I don't think being 'next door' has much to do with it....as we know CJ feels the same way and she's on the other side of the pond. :awinky:

Agreed.

I don't think being 'next door' has much to do with it....as we know CJ feels the same way and she's on the other side of the pond. :awinky:[/b][/quote]
I was inferring that Alex agrees that the US is a big bully, not I.

I have no idea if CJ considers the US to be a "big bully".

Interesting post Colin....

I think you will find that the concepts of freedom and democracy are very similar in other democratic societies as they are for most Americans.

I think this question should be targeted at non-democratic societies ie: Iraq etc....

I fear the ideologies of freedom and democracy are not held in such high esteem in areas such as the Middle East where, as JR pointed out, their societies are not based on 'pop culture' and other typically democratic concepts.

I think I've said this before....even if Saddam WAS removed in Iraq and a democratic system implemented, 'the people' would most likely 'vote' for a person/party that upheld their belief systems and lifestyles.

I think it's utopian thinking that they will become 'westernized' just by the implementation of a democratic system.

In fact, I fear that they might 'vote' for someone who upholds fundamental Muslim beliefs...and that is scary. At least we know that Saddam could care less about Jihad or Alla....he's too greedy and self-serving for that. :awinky:

That's not to say I don't want Saddam out (Lord knows I think he deserves alot more pain than a quick shot in the head)....but I DO think we need to think VERRRRRRRRRY carefully about implementing a democracy there.

My 2 Canadian Cents



Last edited by gigi at Feb 28 2003, 12:51 PM

Yes'm, I thought the same??

Hmm, I based my assumption on her previous posts....however I could be wrong...you know what they say about 'assuming'. :awinky:

Some very well expressed and thought provoking posts here over the last few pages
Which proves my point that good strong viable ideas and concepts will stand up on their own merits even in the face of opposition

CJ - Could you please share more information why you feel this way? -
"the answer is you would not defend us until our assets were at risk, then you'd jump in and help on the condition that you own or control our assets"

also could someone (maybe The Other Steve or CJ) - please show me where I can find a synopsis of information related to Australia was victim to a terrorist attack (in bali) which lost 170 (mostly) australian lives due to our immediate and very public support of usa?
Also any information regarding the concerns that Australia has regarding possible conflicts with Indonesia and (the possibility of a) lack of support from the USA

I'm lazy and you are better versed in this area than I and I would like to know more about it

At this point and time Australia and the UK are the USA's only allies and if Australian's feel the US would not support them in kind (which we should!!) I'd like to know more about it and the causes and conditions

JR- Great post
You have a better perspective from your travels and living in different cultures than most would/do

I am a little conflicted on a few things in the post though, maybe with more information I can better understand

" there is proving to be a legitimate need to keep a check on US power and global influence" Why? According to whom?
and
"to most who can only helplessly sit back and watch the worlds most powerful nation, most powerful military and most technologically advanced fighting force go around the UN and arguably international law, to attack a country, it doesn't."

But at the same time you understand a country's need to serve it's own interests as it sees fit

Why should the US concern it's self with international law (if there even is such a thing as international law) when we need to serve our own interests (I'm not even going to throw in the democracy agreement)
and who is responsible for creating and upholding these international laws?

I'm pretty much to the point where I believe the US should lessen it's involvement with the UN. As much as I'd like to see it the US can not totally remove it's self from the UN

i agree with this too to some extent. i think that Democracy is not the ultimate "cure all" that the Western world thinks it is. however, its a rare opportunity to try to push that region down that course and plant the seed.

what you said is similar to a report by the International Monetary Fund on Russias economic transition that i used to love to read.

the initial assumption was that a "free market" would instantly cure all evils, sort itself out, self correct and set the economy on the right course automatically and life would be peachy for all.

after Russia defaulted on payments for billions of Dollars in foreign debts in 1998, the IMF admitted in the end, that it also requires the will of the people and government to commit down that path.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

two Candian cents by the way, is only 1.3 American cents
the good news is that it is 2.21 Australian cents, so you may get change back if CJ posts.

:bjump: :bdance:

Once the US government decides to step outside the framework of the existing structure in place for resolving international conflicts and violates the very democratic process it claims to be a proponent of AND additionally goes completely against world opinion and the will of that organization - it becomes a sincere threat and danger to everyone.

Americans dont think so... but people world wide who already question the motivations and intentions of the US certainly do.

the UN was created specifically to "represent the moral consensus of its members" and its primary function and reason for its very creation was to avoid war.


PREAMBLE

"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS"


i think that if the USA is going to again, act outside of the consensus of the UN (i.e. bombed Yugoslavia) then they have the obligation to withdraw from the UN... not insist to UN members that they must act unilaterally in the interest of democracy.

the world is not a perfect place. democracy is not perfect. its a question of willing to abide by the system and accept the good with the bad. If world opinion is against attacking Iraq as well as that of the Security Council, then it has to be respected or the institution itself is being rendered irrelevant anyway by acting outside of its authority.

the argument is not about Iraq violating international law. its a question of degrees. the Security council is also putting pressure on him as is the US right now. is it effective, working, not working etc etc... do they need more time before coming to a clear conclusion? can Saddam be disarmed without a fight? ... thats a matter of the collective opinions and will of the members of the UN Security Council.



Last edited by JR at Feb 28 2003, 12:11 PM

I agree with the points re: the uncertainty of democracy in Iraq. I have no idea what would happen. There is a presumption from some that the majprity of Iraqis don't want Saddam in power. I have no idea if this is true. I don't think public polls are allowed ;-)

Democracy with frequent elections allows people to vote leaders out that they don't like. Does that make the world better? Seeds were planted in the past and they did sprout. Democracy continues to spread.

[If people perceive that Bush is a tyrant, for example. they can vote him out in a few years.]

JR,

I think the US will most likely act outside the UN and stay in the UN. Such is the world. I don't know what RESPONSIBILITY the US has to pull out completely if the UN should disagree. This may be heavy-handed. It might not be as fair to some as others. I do believe it will happen. Everyone plays by the rules they can, don't they?

Agreed.

Agreed.

In General: If you accept the patently absurd notion that UN failure to issue the Bush Administration a blank check to attack Iraq as some sort of "interference with America's soverignty" then you have a curious notion of what soverignty is, and an almost paranoid view of what UN membership entails. You better put your tinfoil hat back on and tune your scanner to the helicopter frequency before you read any more.

Vick -

I don't see working through the UN and defending America's interests as mutually exclusive. President Bush is using Saddam's defiance of the U.N. as one of his reasons for going to war. President Bush is attempting to work through the U.N. for a resolution to the confrontation with North Korea (and he better find one there, or someplace else diplomaticly, because that's a clusterfuck that makes Iraq look like a Sunday School picnic). The U.S. cannot possibly solve every problem with military power. Further withdrawal from the UN could only damage our credibility when we need them - India/Pakistan comes to mind first, but there could be other situations.

In 1950 the US invoked the UN to oppose the invasion of South Korea. In 1956, 1968, and 1979 the United States blasted the Soviets at the UN and elsewhere for invading small countries when they felt their interests were threatened. In 1956 President Eisenhower blasted our allies France, Britain and Isreal for invading Egypt and using force to solve an international dispute (the quote you correctly identified the other day). That's not top secret information - that's recent world history. We now appear to be abandoning that position. I think that's where some of the feeling that "there is proving to be a legitimate need to keep a check on US power and global influence" is coming from.

Vick the terrorist attack in Bali occurred in December when two bombs were planted inside and outside a popular tourist bar and exploded at a time when the bar was packed.

The Indonesians were so overwhelmed by the incident that they allowed Australian Federal Police experts and our intelligence organisation to go in and assist with the investigations.

Our people quickly found evidence that took them to one of the bombers and when he was arrested he gave up a number of others in his cell. It appears that he, and several others were trained in Afghanistan by Bin Laden's group and then returned to Indonesia where they were responsible for a number of bombings where Christian churches were targeted.

The Bali bombing was the first aimed at westerners and it is still not really clear if the cell was acting independently or following orders from Bin Laden.

That terrorist cell also has links to a radical Islamic group who operate in a number of Asian countries and whose stated aim is an Islamic state that will stretch from the Phillipines down through Malaysia and Thailand, through Indonesia and take in Australia.

The group also has links to Bin Laden and they are believed to have sleepers here in Australia.

I hope that gives you some background on the situation as it currently stands regarding the terrorists.

On the political front with Indonesia everything is smiles and handshakes on the surface but you don't have to dig too deep before you find a lot of tension.

The Indonesian army has had a great dislike for us since the 1960's when we stopped them from invading parts of the newly formed Malaysia. They had vastly superior numbers but were poorly trained and even though they tried to mount a guerilla campaign we beat them at their own game.

Things have only got worse since East Timor where they again lost face when confronted with our people and the Bali bombing didn't help things either. Their security people had no clue and they didn't like it when their President agreed to allow our experts in to assist with the investigations.

PD - I'll take it the tinfoil crack wasn't aimed at me :nyanya:

JR - thanks for your insight
Guess where I'm still conflicted is in the past we (the USA) have been able (on occasion) to further our means via the UN and currently we are not able to do that and are basically ready to take our ball and go home so to speak, but we must act in our own best interests even if that includes turning our back on the UN

Can the UN really work with 159(?) representatives all with different agendas and interests?
and if it's its primary function and reason for its very creation was to avoid war .... um not sure how well that has worked

The Other Steve - much thanks for the info, I was aware of the Bali terrorist attack but not aware of long standing tensions between Australia and Indonesia



Last edited by Vick at Feb 28 2003, 05:14 PM

Bali Terrorist Attack - search on google

Australia and East Timor - search on google

Usa support for Indonesia

General East Timor

The Media Coverage

Indonesia InfoBali Bombings

On Australia Day, U.S. Rights Group Demands that Australian Government Stop Bullying East Timor

to some americans, we are seen as the bully ...

here's some information on our aid to east timor since indonesia invaded in 78
Aid to East Timor

Amnesty international letter to clinton to stop providing weapons to indonesia

a us based east timor activist opinion on usa involvment

CJ - thanks for the time and effort to put those links here
A lot to take in there ....

Vick, one of the things Americans have not had to be in a long time is scared. Since the end of the cold war, the falling of the Berlin Wall, there has not been an enemy that could harm America directly.

9/11 changed that.

In a weird way, non-super power countries always feel that fear... that they could be victims of an attack, a war...

Alex

How many countries have you been to?



Last edited by Joe Sixpack at Mar 1 2003, 11:44 PM

I was in over 50..so?
I have an American Ego too
;-))

Alex, the difference between super powers and not super powers is what super powers can do about to dissipate the fear...
super powers eliminate the source of fear,
while not superpowers only wish they could

According to your philosophy, even bin Laden is not really not Anti-American...

Now the name calling starts?

Someone is really taking this debate personally now..[/b][/quote]
I guess Pd's frequent references to people on the right as morons doesn't qualify as name-calling, since it comes from a self-described Liberal...?



Last edited by Torone at Mar 2 2003, 09:29 AM

Anyhow, I have a solution to much of this blather...
End ALL foreign aid, pull out of the UN (thereby ending its' existence); and ask the other countries of the world to pay up front for the protection they receive from us. It is sort of a 'user pays' setup. Sort of like the many parks, etc. that we taxpayers pay to build and support and still have to pay to visit. :nyanya: :nyanya: :nyanya:

Torone ... there are some ideas that I consider moronic. People who question my patriotism are morons at best. People who make statements suggesting that I somehow don't consider binLaden as anitAmierican prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they may be a moron.

The suggestion that liberals are part of a vast communuist conspiracy is a moronic idea. The assertion by reactionaries such as Ann Colter that liberalism equates to being a trator is equally moronic.

The suggestion that everyone opposed to a war with Iraq is a communist/socialist is an extremely moronic idea. The idea that the U.N. is interfering with our soverignty may not be moronic (but it's close) - it just proves somebody doesn't have a clue what soverignty is.

Characterizations of every European country as socialist which is really communist is moronic.

I don't instantly characterize conservatives as morons. They have to earn that designation. Reactionaries, just like communists, socialists, and members of PETA, do so very quickly.

Torone ... there are some ideas that I consider moronic. People who question my patriotism are morons at best. People who make statements suggesting that I somehow don't consider binLaden as anitAmierican prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they may be a moron.

The suggestion that liberals are part of a vast communuist conspiracy is a moronic idea. The assertion by reactionaries such as Ann Colter that liberalism equates to being a trator is equally moronic.

The suggestion that everyone opposed to a war with Iraq is a communist/socialist is an extremely moronic idea. The idea that the U.N. is interfering with our soverignty may not be moronic (but it's close) - it just proves somebody doesn't have a clue what soverignty is.

Characterizations of every European country as socialist which is really communist is moronic.

I don't instantly characterize conservatives as morons. They have to earn that designation. Reactionaries, just like communists, socialists, and members of PETA, do so very quickly.[/b][/quote]
You prove my point about the name-calling. As far as the Socialist/Communist thing, I posted the definitions for you...Prove me wrong. Show me that the Liberals are not reaching 'way out into left field to become as Marxist as possible.

BTW, research ANSWER (which backed many of the Anti-American rallies) and post who is backing them. While you're at it, do the same for an organization called 'Not In Our Name', which also sponsored a number of the rallies. If you want, I'll make that a dare; because I've heard their representatives state who their backers were.

Torone,

What dirt do you have on "Not In Our Name'?

Well, well, well ... A.N.S.W.E.R. does seem to be quite the group. I didn't realize Vietnam Veterans Against the War still existed, and had no idea anyone still talked about Leonard Peltier or Mumia Abu-Jamal. I really didn't know that those sort of folks were still around - but since the Klan and the American Nazis ain't gone, and the Birchers seem to have become mainstream Republicans, it doesn't come as a terrible suprise.

"Not in My Name" does seem to be cut from somewhat the same cloth, even if quite not so far to the left of the bolt.

Which of course, proves NOTHING. That the strident wackos of the lunatic left and the limosine liberals like Asner and Baez are against the war isn't exactly startling news. That their names appeared as organizers of the antiwar marches is even less suprising. That does not mean that the entire antiwar movement consists of communists and socialists and whatever the hell other kind of wackos people those groups.

Torone, in the 1940s and 1950s - years before it became popular - the Communist Party of the United States was active in issues of racial justice. Does that mean that the civil rights movement was a communist plot? Some of the most violent militia groups are very strident defenders of the 2nd Ammendment - are all opponents of gun control militia members? It fits your logic, does it not? I saw on the news the other day where the good old KKK wants to hold a rally in Augusta during the Masters Golf Tourney to support the club's right to exclude women - does that mean that the KKK is behind the Master's stance?

Name calling? Bud, if you think being called a moron is worse than being accused of being a communist or of being considered unpatriotic, I can understand why you are offended - but I don't see much difference. Liberals and communists sometimes take the same positions on things - that does not mean that liberals ARE communists. Conservatives and facists sometimes take the same position on things - that does not mean conservatives are facists. Some of the arguements you make about the U.N., for example, could be taken verbatim from the texts of the KKK or the militias that spawned Timothy McVeigh. Can I use your logic to infer you are KKK or a militia member? That's the simple minded logic of the extremist.

I don't have to prove that I'm not a Marxist, Tailgunner ... those days are long gone, and those theories and tactics have long since been discredited. I am to an American Communist what you are to an American Nazi - that is, we support some of the same ideas without coming close to buying the whole package. I'm sorry if you refuse to see that.

Pornodoggy, I have learned a very important lesson here on Oprano in the last month or so:

Just like a family gathering, it is best not to discuss religeon or politics.

There are a few people on the extremes of each argument that are so far off the end of the spectrum that they are not able to see the "gradients" at the other end of the scale - the angle is too severe. When you get down low enough, it is hard to see the forest for all the trees.

I ain't a communist either - but I can sure understand how certain people can think it - they view is obscured by the people clustered around the center (as they see it) like Limbaugh and Falwell. I am not name calling, I am not finger pointing, I am just pointing something out that the actions of all involved have come to show.

Like I said, discussing certain issues just isn't going to be productive for anyone - and actually drives wedges between people and lowers the value of oprano as a whole. So I opted out. You aren't going to change anyones opinion here, so don't hurt yourself trying.

Alex

Thank you for your concern, Alex, but Tororne and I have been down this road before, and will again. :D Momma told me never discuss politics, religion or sex - and I pay about as much attention to that as I do most of what momma told me.

But "hurt myself trying?" I'm not sure what you mean by that. I believe there is an Oprano pearl out there that suggests it not wise to take anything said on a messageboard too damn seriously - and I never do. In "real life" I have several close friends who consider Rush Limbaugh a pretty smart fellow, even if he is a little too liberal. So if your concern is that I become to personally invested in the discussions of politics, that isn't going to happen.

I've sometimes wondered if it could end up hurting me business wise - if I run the risk of alienating a contact somewhere down the line that I may need, or that my opinions will preclude us working together for our mutual benefit sometime in the future. I'd like to think that people are more mature than that - and I do believe that most people are - but I'd be a fool not to acknowledge at least the possibility that's true. In the end, though, I'm not too concerned with that either ... I've never lived my life that way, and ain't gonna start now.

Actually, it really comes down to this: 99% of what is said on a message board goes by unremarked later in life... we run at the speed of light here, and what happened last month is already long gone... but just like a healed cut, there are things that always remain to remind you - people don't forget, they just are actually polite enough not to mention things. But those things do change their opinion of ya.

Politics and religeon are two places we all pretty much differ, and where many people have very firm and unshakable beliefs / opinions. There is no upside to back and forth on it, only downside. the polite people above will judge you later with your comments.

So, like I said, why hurt yourself? You have put out a good version of your opinions, I pretty much understand them (don't agree with all of them, but that is kewl) - and I am sure everyone else who will every understand them does. No upside from here on out...

Alex :awinky: