is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against

Hi Schraffy,I’d like to review the string of posts you made at the end of the O' Reilly thread, Message 98, before responding to your OP. But before I begin, let me say how much I dislike hit and run posters. It’s so easy to throw something on the wall and run for cover. So when I didn’t reply to you in the O’Reilly thread it wasn’t a dodge for cover, it was because we were off topic.I also realize that my posts in this forum’s political threads raise the ire of many. The reason is that this forum is heavily weighted to democratic and often extreme democratic positions. The end result is a feeding frenzy on the minority positions. I’m ok with that, just be patient with me. Republicans are in power, yes, but they are not extreme fundamentalist. Bush, Cheney, and House Speaker Hastert are Methodists. Senate Majority leader Frist is a Presbyterian. Do you consider Methodists and Presbyterians to be extreme fundamentalist? Um, there are no Republicans who are Fascists. Then they would be in the Fascist party, not the Republican party. Republicans are Republicans. I can always substitute your labels for mine, that dog won’t hunt.So it’s ok to call Republicans extreme fundamentalist fascists, but a Democrat is just a Democrat eh? Spoken like a blind partisan. I at least recognize that my side has its faults and can stoop to lies and propaganda. You seem to think Democrats are the Mother Theresa’s of the political world. Yet another example of blind party line mantra. Let’s proclaim all Democrats to be saints and end the debate! C’mon, no extreme left wingers at all? I suppose all democrats in powerful positions have been middle of the road eh? The next thing you’re going to say is that Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Hilary Clinton have all been misunderstood.But if you want to talk about fascism and the US presidency, then you need to look at Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt. He created the economic tools of fascism and organized capitalism under the influence of the State for the purpose of bettering society.He was successful in doing that, and long after WWII ended, that agenda was still being followed. The agenda of using the State to direct the economy in ways that would benefit society. This was part of the development of fascism during the 20th century. Prior to that, the idea that the State should direct anything was considered a no no among western democracies. When I wrote this, you listed a variety of topics. Let’s take these one at a time. I note your tactic of connecting the Bible to any and all issues simply by tying a neat little ribbon to it. From this, your implication is that we are now a fascist police state. But let’s examine each of your issues a little more critically: Research is moving forward unabated by the Bush Administration and is not severely restricted. Bush decided in 2001 to allow research to resume in government labs, but restricted researchers to use only 72 existing lines of stem cells.

quote:

---

It is not clear whether the existing lines of stem cells will be sufficiently robust and genetically diverse to continue research in government labs. If they are not, then the most competent government researchers will simply move to the UK or to private American companies to continue their work, but their research will not stop; it will merely be relocated. Link

---

Bush has only halted federal funded research. States can fund the research if they so desire. Embryo stem cell research continues in private US labs. Furthermore, around the world, stem cell research is moving forward.

quote:

---

Research continues in U.S. private labs and in both government and private labs in the UK, Japan, France, Australia, and other countries. On 2002-SEP, Governor Davis of California signed bill SB 253 into law. It is the first law in the U.S. that permits stem cell research.

​

Governor James E. McGreevey signed a stem cell research bill into law. Such research is now permitted in both New Jersey and California. Bills are pending in Illinois and New York.

​

Governor Jim Doyle (D) of Wisconsin announced plans to spend $750 million to build an embryonic stem-cell research institute on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He said: Other states, like California, are trying to play catch-up and build from scratch what we already have here. He added that Wisconsin has the best scientists in the world and first-class research institutions. The money will come from both state and private sources. Link

---

Besides that, stem cells can also be obtained from adult stem cells and they may offer more promise than previously thought.

quote:

---

Researchers began using adult stem cells from bone marrow back in 1960. It was only in 1998 that other researchers were able to isolate and cultivate embryo stem cells. Adult stem cell research thus has an almost four decade head start compared to embryo-derived stem cells. As of 2004-Fall, promising trials are underway using adult stem cells, while stem cells from embryos are still being experimented upon in the laboratory. Link

---

Bush is far from having universal republican support on this issue. Many leading republicans are urging the president to approve federally funded research.From my perspective, I believe embryo stem cell research should move forward and it is moving forward in many areas in the US and around the world. Bush has opposed only funding research with US tax dollars. There is absolutely no prohibition against the research itself.Bush is obviously catering to the right wing of the republican party but there is also a fiscal consideration in light of all of the concurrent research being done by private US labs and by private and government labs around the world. Another mischaracterization of the facts. The U.S. Congress had allocated up to $34 million in aid to support international family planning programs administered by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Bush withheld these funds because part of the UNFPA's total efforts deals with China. Sometimes, China forces women to have abortions or to undergo sterilization against their will in order to enforce the country's one-child policy.Do you support China’s policy of sterilization? It’s a difficult subject given China’s population, but Bush felt that policy was extreme and did not want US funds to support that effort. Besides, Bush did not cut funding, he merely redirected the money to the USAID Child Survival and Health Program Fund. As the name implies, the mandate of this agency is to improve children's health. Those groups have been more vocal recently, but that won’t change any laws. Teaching religion in public schools does not happen and will not happen. It’s a violation of existing laws. Wrong. Faith based initiatives have been around for a long time and have been supported by both democrats and republicans. This is not legal discrimination. The fact of the matter is that faith based organizations are numerous and effective in reaching out and serving the needs of the poor and disadvantaged in many local communities.Bush’s plan seeks to remove the barriers that has prevented faith based organizations from competing on an equal footing with secular organizations for federal grant monies. That is the true discrimination. Faith based organizations will be allowed to compete, it is not an unrestricted giveway.Your implication which is consistant with your OP is that this initiative is driven by extreme Christian fundamentalist. Bush publicly says otherwise:

quote:

---

If a charity is helping the needy, it should not matter if there is a rabbi on the board, or a cross or a crescent on the wall, or a religious commitment in the charter, said Bush. Link

---

The specifics of the legislation regard competition and not blanket funding giveways:

quote:

---

The legislative portion of the president's plan -- which would allow religious groups to compete with secular organizations for federal dollars to pay for after-school programs, drug treatment counseling, meal assistance and other programs -- will be sent to Capitol Hill Tuesday, Bush said. Bush aides said safeguards would be in place to make sure the religious groups do not use the money to proselytize.

​

"This will not be funding religion," Fleischer insisted. "It is not the religious aspect of what they [are] getting funding, it is the community service aspect. These are not going to be programs that preach religion, these are faith-based programs that help people improve their lives."

​

Aides said some faith-based groups already receive federal funding under the 1996 [Clinton’s] welfare reform law, and that these groups have not violated the constitutional separation of church and state. Link

---

A little history is in order here.

quote:

---

In the 1880s religious organizations begin to get involved in social services and tend to the social needs of people in a systematic manner. Link

---

In recent times, it was the Clinton administration who was active in moving faith based initiatives forward:

quote:

---

President Bill Clinton and Congress enacted Charitable Choice into law on four separate occasions, beginning with welfare reform in 1996. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, also known as "Charitable Choice,"supports and encourages increased involvement of religious-based organizations and congregations in providing social services.

​

The law, introduced by then-Senator John Ashcroft and embraced by the Clinton administration, opened the door for faith-base organizations (FBOs) and congregations to get public funding for programs while preserving their religious nature. In 1998, the scope of Charitable Choice was expanded to include Community Block services; and in 2000, it was further extended to drug treatments. Link

---

Many democrats support the initiative including Al Gore:

quote:

---

The 'politics of community' will be neither government doing everything, nor the churches and charities picking up the slack when government scales back. A politics of community can be strengthened when we are not afraid to make the connections between spirituality and politics." Al Gore, part of an election speech in Atlanta, GA, on 1999-MAY-24. Link

---

These are just a few of the topics you raise, which are numerous. According to you, anything and everything under the sun is bad because Christian fundamentalists made George do it?In summary, I believe the country has moved to the right under republican leadership, but not to the extremes you are so scared of. It certainly wouldn't be considered a "fascist police state". I don't think you understand what a true fascist police state would really be like. Besides, the move to the right should not be surprising after the liberal swing of the pendulum under the Clinton administration.Some extremist, such as yourself, view this swing with great fear and loathing but fail to consider where the pendulum was before Bush took office. Don’t you remember how scared and critical the republicans were under the Clinton adminstration?I’ll make a prediction for you. The republicans will lose the white house in the 2008 election and a democrat will be elected president. The only way that will not happen is if Hilary becomes the democratic candidate.

quote:

---

He doesn't act based on his morals, he acts based on his opinions and general asshatery.

---

Unreasoned Bush bashing, ok, that’s to be expected. I particularly like asshatery hehehehe. Your ranting is original, I’ll give you that.

quote:

---

Oh excellent! Well at least we can rely on other countries to pick up the slack and help further humanity while we continue to roll back the times in an effort to bring back mass superstition.

---

Didn’t you read my post? The evil and fascist corporate America is on the vanguard of stem cell research. But they are evil so we don’t consider their effort, right?. What’s wrong with other countries contributing to further humanity? When the US takes the lead in the world they are criticized and when they step back they are criticized."Mass superstition??" Your extreme prejudice against any and all things religous is patently obvious. Your rhetoric is virolent even when those organizations have proven to be an efficient participant in government programs, proven to maintain the separation of church and state, proven to have wide spread bipartison political support, and proven be an effective and much needed servant to the those in need.

quote:

---

This is grossly short-sighted. That separation is there for the faith not for the secular organizations. Yes, they want to be able to compete, but they don't want to play fair. If they are put in the same grouping with secular organizations they have to observe the same non-discrimination laws as secular organizations.

---

Again, another case of not reading my post. Faith based Organizations (FBO’s) have been receiving federal grant money for years. The program began as a Clinton era initiative. Were you against it back then? Many democrats and republicans were in agreement with this, it’s one of the few times there was true bipartisan support. During all the intervening years there has never ever been an issue of separation of church and state.You are creating a problem were none exists. It's not a matter of "if" they are put in the same group. It already IS. The program has been in place for years. These FBOs continue to do what they do best and serve the needs of their local communities. Do you deny the positive effect these organizations have?

I think you are naive Give a link that shows Robertson is a current Bush advisor, otherwise your comment is ranting. Robertson is a commentator Ok, you're broken I can concede there are extremes in the republican party. I can acknowledge that. But you can’t seem to acknowledge that there are extremes in the democratic party. I have already given several individuals who I consider at the left fringes of the party. Here is my post again:

quote:

---

C’mon, no extreme left wingers at all? I suppose all democrats in powerful positions have been middle of the road eh? The next thing you’re going to say is that Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Hilary Clinton have all been misunderstood.

---

No, it is you dear scraffy who is skewing the world view. Your position is perfectly understandable, though. You just can’t see it. When a person is as left wing as you are, then there are no extreme left wing politicians because you view them as to your right. From your lofty perch, everyone is a republican. It’s just a matter of how far to the right of you they are. That’s right. FDR used those tools for the benefit of the US during stressful times. He organized and directed corporate America to get us out of the depression. Fiscal responsibility. Oh but we blew the budget on the war, so we can’t spend anything on stem cell. But we need stem cell research, so let’s fund it. But we blew the budget, so don’t fund it. Fund it, don’t fund it, fund it, don’t fund it...... Back and forth the democratic mantra goes. Please provide a link to Global Gag Rule Nope, not gonna happen, the laws will not be changed to allow religion to be taught in public schools. The fact that this scares you demonstrates how your view of the world is skewed so far to the extreme left. Your armageddon mongoring against religous folk is wasted energy. This smacks of the so called vast right wing conspiracy aka Hilary. Do you believe in such a thing? I’m sure you do. BTW they meet every month to practice their goose stepping. You do the research. My previous post is full of links, you haven’t posted any. That’s understandable, and I can see your position. Again, from you point of view, there is no such thing as left wing extremist, they don’t exist because nobody is more left wing than you. I’m actually surprised you don’t consider Clinton to be a right wing conservative. Watch it tonight at 8:30 pm eastern time

Then provide a link, can’t find one eh? Then it ain’t so. Wrong! Wishful thinking on your part won’t make it so. Here’s a Link for my assertion. All you do is rant.

quote:

---

Judging by National Journal's congressional vote ratings, however, Kerry and Edwards aren't all that different, at least not when it comes to how they voted on key issues before the Senate last year. The results of the vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5. But Edwards wasn't far behind: He had a 2003 composite liberal score of 94.5, making him the fourth-most-liberal senator.

---

Ya gonna turn off Air America? You gotta turn that shit off and look at the records. They are there. You refuse to acknowledge it. Do you think you’ve made a point simply by saying there are no extreme left wing politicians. Ooh, I guess you must be correct, I’m changing my mind. Not. Just because it spews from you doesn’t make it so. That’s got to be one of the most hypocritical comments I’ve heard on this forum. YOU are one to talk about being glib. You are the king of glib on this forum. You’re not saying anything. You disagree with my position, big deal, I get it. That’s all you’re really saying, everything else is fluff and ranting. The truth hurt’s doesn’t it.

quote:

---

- Students in a West Texas town will have the opportunity to take a class not offered in most public high schools Bible studies.

​

Tuesday night was not a usual Odessa school board meeting. There was full house, as more than 300 people rallied to voice their support for the proposed Bible class. Outside, the scene was more like a church service than a public meeting as supporters sang and prayed.
All but a few people who showed up at the meeting supported the measure, and in the end the Ector County School Board put its stamp of approval on the idea with a unanimous vote. The decision was met with a standing ovation and cheers.

---

Good article, too bad it wasn’t even close to being on point. These people have nothing to do with changing laws requiring the teaching of religion in schools. There isn’t any law being changed. No, but you ignore that. They are celebrating being able to take a class as an ELECTIVE, meaning it’s not required. Get it? But your religous bigotry will not allow these people to have their kids take an ELECTIVE bible studies class that focuses on the bible in a historical context TAUGHT AS HISTORY and not as force feeding any single religous dogma.Whether you want to ignore it or not, the Bible has been a part of American history and has had a significant influence. Agasst! OmaGod, say it ain’t so. And just so you don’t get your panties all bunched up about tax payers funding this effort, the’re not. It’s being paid for by non profits.

quote:

---

Ritchey explained that the class is funded by a ministerial group made up of countywide ministers, pastors, and business leaders. The non-profit organization raises money to fund the salaries of the instructors teaching in the three schools in Howard County.

​

The class will be taught as a history or literature course elective. The teaching plan will be made available for the public to see before it is put into practice in the classroom.

---

Because Hilary said so, it must be true, right?

Because your post are so long and contain so many different points, any one of which could be a separate thread, it’s easier for me to strike at the softballs you’re pitching. If you want a focused response, then shorten your post, focus on the strongest arguments and leave the lesser arguments for follow up posts.Ok, on to Frist I will concede that Frist is a conservative republican. Is that not allowed? You say that the Family Research Council wants to enforce morality on all US citizens through legislation, where is the link to support this?When Frist met with the FRC he didn’t mention religion, laws, or anything at all to do with religious legislation. His entire speech was about the obstructionist democrats who will not allow a simple vote on Bush’s nominees.Why is the filabuster being used to prevent a fair vote? Because the minority will lose the vote, so the democrats are cheating by preventing a vote altogether. Here is an excerpt from Frist comments at the FRC meeting:

quote:

---

Now let me tell you about a disagreement that is going on in our nation's capital. Never in 214 years, never in the history of the United States Senate had a judicial nominee with majority support been denied an up-or-down vote...until two years ago.

---

Did you catch that? Never in 214 years has a vote been denied. The republicans had to live with the majority decisions when democrats were in command, but it seems the democrats can’t do the same when the tables are turned.Republicans have filibustered sure, but not to this extent and not with judicial nominees. The process has simply ground to a halt. Something has to be done. Don't be surprised when ads come out supporting legislation to end the filibusters:

quote:

---

The ads center on Democratic-led filibusters on judicial nominees and a Republican effort to halt them. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., hopes to change filibuster rules, lowering the votes needed to stop a filibuster from 60 to 51 a simple majority.Link

---

And when they do, you'll hear the cry that NeoCons are ending civilization. Continuing with the Frist comments:

quote:

---

In the last Congress, however, a minority of senators denied ten of the president's judicial nominees an up-or-down vote. They wouldn't allow a vote, because they knew the nominations would be approved. Now we are in a new Congress, and these same senators again threaten to obstruct the vote on judges. And, even worse, if they don't get their way, they threaten to shut down the Senate - and obstruct government itself.

​

Americans elect their senators to vote on the people's business. That is a senator's job -- to vote. If these senators are not prepared to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities, then why are they here in the first place? Right now, there are 46 vacancies on the federal bench. Four of the appeals court vacancies are in the region that serves my home state of Tennessee. Those four nominees have been waiting a combined thirteen years for a vote on the Senate floor. Thirteen years! Either confirm the nominees or reject them . . . but don't leave them hanging. Don't leave our courts hanging. Don't leave our country hanging. If the nominees are rejected . . . fine . . . that's fair. At least, rejection is a vote. Give those nominees the courtesy and the respect of a vote.

---

Here is the full transcript of exactly what Frist said and there is absolutly nothing about religion at all, nothing. TranscriptFrist is also going to appear in a telecast about this same subject and not about religion in any way. This has caused a major uproar from left wingers

quote:

---

Democrats on Capitol Hill are raising a royal ruckus over news that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will appear on the "Justice Sunday" simulcast scheduled for this weekend. The telecast, featuring Focus on the Family Action Chairman Dr. James Dobson and available to churches and individuals nationwide, aims to end the filibusters against President Bush's judicial nominees.

---

I repeat, he is going to talk about judicial nominees not religion.

quote:

---

Democrats are accusing Frist of inappropriately mixing politics and faith, adding that the organizers of the telecast are "ultra-right-wing crackpots" and the nominees being filibustered are "three steps to the right of Attila the Hun."

​

Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., have all taken shots at the majority leader over his participation, going so far as to label his participation "un-American."

---

Do you consider these fair statements? Don’t you see these statements as extreme positions?

quote:

---

John Wilson, a public policy representative for Focus on the Family, said the Democrats' hypocrisy is showing. Wilson noted. "People say Frist is pandering to the religious right. I would say more likely he's speaking to his constituents. People who elected him are more likely to be of the religious right than they are of the religious left."Link

---

The religious right is part of Frist constituency and every politician, democrat and republican alike cater to their constituency. It doesn’t mean the end of civilization. Now when Frist starts pushing religious legislation aimed at infringing on the rights of all citizens, then we have a problem. But I don’t see it, do you? Yes, ok, but where is the legislation that you are so scared of? Give me a link? Isn’t it just unjustified hysteria that you are scared of? If there is legislation then find it and let’s debate it. Otherwise, these are just unfounded accusations. You’ve asked this question more than once, sure, but just because you ask it multiple times in the same post, then accuse me of not responding doesn’t hold water. Besides, as I previously mentioned, your shotgun posts carry so many topics and issues it’s difficult to get a response in to ALL of them, especially when I get tag-teamed by crash on the same topics.His comments are much more acidic than yours and I’m compelled to deal with those. Anyway, I haven’t seen much of a gang up on republican positions in this thread which is a pleasant surprise. If anything, paisano and I were ganging up on crash.Ok, on to left wing politicians:

quote:

---

Both Kerry and Kennedy have similar voting records and those records are decidely left wing.

​

In the 107th Congress, they both voted against barring gays from leading Boy Scout troops

​

They voted for allowing abortions in overseas military hospitals.

​

They both voted against drilling for oil in the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

​

Both voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003

​

Both voted for failed measures supporting access to the so-called "morning after" abortion pill in the last three years.
Link

---

Ted Kennedy seems to be proud of his extreme left wing positions. He said that he has never been mistaken for a "Northeastern centrist."Hilary is of course on the extreme side as well.

quote:

---

Recalling Mrs. Clinton's pre-senatorial work for Marian Wright Edelman's radical Children's Defense Fund and Robert Treuhaft's "revolutionary" and Black Panther law firm. Link

---

I could go on, but again this post is getting long. Let me end this one with a comment on Dean Here, I would concede that putting Dean in the mix with the others might not be fair. He seems to be a fiscal conservative and liberal on social issues, but not extreme. He does support late term abortions though. I would consider him sort of the democratic equivalent to Schwarzenegger.But now that Dean is the DNC chairman, it will be his task to steer the boat towards new waters. In particular, he will need to find some form of new democratic populism if the democrats have any chance in ’08. He can’t and won’t try to form the democrats into watered down me too conservatives.He knows that’s a failed strategy. So his only option is to steer left. If he can find a popular leftist position that doesn’t go to far, democrats will regain the white house which I predict they will unless they let Hilary become the nominee.Now, I’ve spent this entire post responding to you, how about a little reciprocity? You have said that there are no extreme left wingers in congress. Then answer this would you? Suppose that we gathered all democratic members of both the Senate and the House in a large auditorium. Now it is your task to pick the 5 most extreme liberal members of this group. Who would you pick?You can’t say none because there will always be some members who are more liberal than others. Who would they be? If your response is that you can’t do it because they are all middle of the road. Then to me that confirms my opinion that it is you who are the extreme and can find no one to your left.

You jumped in here so answer the question

You are skewing the facts. Many candidates get blocked in commitee. It happens to both democraats and republicans. Here we are speaking of votes before the full chamber after the nominee has already cleared commitee and there is the issue of the all important appeaals court nominees.

quote:

---

Republicans filibustered several judicial nominees during Bill Clinton’s presidency, and Frist voted to continue a filibuster in the spring of 2000. The difference between those filibusters and the current ones, are twofold: First, they say Republicans did not block appeals court nominees.

​

In the 2000 filibuster Frist participated in, Clinton appointee Richard Paez was a nominee for an appeals court, but the filibuster was unsuccessful. Paez was eventually confirmed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

​

Appeals court judges are of particular importance because they often rule on constitutional issues that never make it to the Supreme Court. Democrats say they’ve filibustered 10 appeals court nominees and ratified 34. The other difference, is that the Senate would probably pass these filibustered nominees.

​

The distinction here is that never in history has a candidate who plainly has majority support in the full Senate been filibustered, said Tom Minnery, Focus’ vice president of government and public policy.

​

Democrats did control the Senate during part of Clinton’s presidency, just as the Republicans control it now.Link

---

Ok then as I posted to schrafinator:

Because as I said, those people are part of his constituency. Do they not have a right to be heard? Aren't they intitled to representation in Congress? Is this a democracy?You're still dodging my hypothetical

quote:

---

The Patriot Act and proposed PA2

---

Dealing with terrorist requires changes

quote:

---

Gay Marriage Ban

---

This is stupid and I disagree with it

quote:

---

Privitizing Social Security proposal

---

Did you bother to hear what the president had to say about this last night? Is the following in any way fair:
A couple both work outside the home and pay into the social security system for many years. One spouse dies before retirement. The surviving spouse must choose the greater of the two incomes, but can’t have both. The deceased spouse paid into the system for many years, yet the survivor gets none of that. It stays in the system and is in essence a huge tax.Bush want to allow part but not all of the social security payments to go to private accounts so that when a spouse dies, the surviving spouse gets at least some compensation for all the years of contributing. You don’t consider that fair?

quote:

---

Restrictions on out of state abortions for teenagers passed by the house

---

There should be restrictions on teenage abortions. The ACLU is supporting a 13 year old’s right to an abortion without parental consent. That’s extreme

quote:

---

Bankruptsy Bill

---

What is this? drival

quote:

---

Tax cut for the wealthy

---

Party line mantra

quote:

---

General weakening of environmental laws.

---

This is not legislation only an opinion

quote:

---

Weakening of paid overtime law for workers

---

What weakening?

It's not at all circular. In any group of democrats, there will be some who are futher left than others. The fact that you can't or won't name any is why you are so extreme in your position.

Please. Then what would you suggest? No changes at all? Business as usual after 9/11? Tell me what you would do? Nothing? Many conservative Christians support it yes, but a lot of other people do also. Wrong! You’ve been listening to too much rheteric. Think it through for yourself. US treasury bonds will be part of the range of investment options and it’s as safe as you can get. Either way, anything and I mean anything is better than the paltry 2% you get from social security.But if you are still concerned, you can go with the 2% US treasury bonds which is exactly the same yield and the same security as social security. The difference is this: when the spouse dies it can be passed to the surviving spouse and does not end up as a huge tax. This would help the average and lower income folk. Rich people don't need social security. Yes, Yes, this always gets thrown up as the reason to not have any restrictions at all, even though it is an isolated case. But let’s consider the much more likely scenario. I guarantee you would want to know if your 13 year old daughter were pregnant let alone is going to have an abortion. Don’t deny that you would not want to know.Besides, ever hear of social services? Is there no one to help this poor unfortunate? She should be removed from the household and taken away from the incestuous father. Why should he make any decisions about her let alone pregnancy decisions?Social services should be involved because she is a minor. What would you have? She gets the abortion without telling anyone about it then goes right back to the incestuous father.This message has been edited by Monk, Fri, 04-29-2005 02:15 PM

I think I’m done with this thread but I didn’t want to leave before noting the voting records and positions of the individuals you mentioned. I went to the website that YOU provided and found the following descriptions. These descriptions can be found at the very bottom of each politician’s page and is an accumulation and aggregate based on their voting history. Since you provided the Link, I assume you agree with the following:

• Ted Kennedy...........Hard Core Liberal
• Barbara Boxer.........Hard Core Liberal
• Nancy Pelosi...........Hard Core Liberal
• Howard Dean...........Hard Core Liberal
• John Kerry...............Left Leaning Libertarian
• Hilary(sic) Clinton.....Liberal Populist

• Denny Hastert...........Libertarian Leaning Conservative
• Tom DeLay................Libertarian Leaning Conservative
• Roy Blunt...................Libertarian Leaning Conservative
• George W.Bush.........Libertarian Leaning Conservative
• John Ashcroft............Hard Core Conservative
• John McCain..............Moderate Conservative

Hmmm.. seems to me that the democrats are more extreme than the republicans.

Hi gnojekAir America is on the air but not everywhere, they have 53 stations. Here is a Link to their website. They have a station listing.

Agreed, those individuals are going to live they want to anyway so why shouldn't they have the same benefits as heterosexual couples. OTOH why couldn't they be granted all legal protections and government benefits as married couples, just call it a civil union instead of using the word "marriage".