>>Things I mentioned touches everyone, they're mainstream. Things you mentioned effect maybe 5 percent of the population.
>
>You think? I think that 99% of the population suffer from the crucial issues of their times being not addressed at all, or left over to corporations, from having their tax money thrown at shady privatniks who seem to be in good relations with K street etc, from never having a chance of a health system like the rest of the world, by means of, among others, having the public discourse diverted to such matters that effectively affect maybe 5% of the people. All the talk about non-issues, and no talk about the crucial stuff.

I think I understand your point here, but not sure.... But I'll give it a shot at responding.
Yes we all have crucial issues we deal with. But I don't think it's the government's role to try to solves all of our problems. Where does it end? If the gay marriage thing passes, so will all the ill feeling about it in due time and people will move on with their lives. But who is being a radical here? Those who want to change a tradition that's thousands of years old or those who want to leave probably the most sacred tradition the way it is? I hope the word "sacred" doesn't offend you. ;)

>
>And I beg to differ on the importance of the other hot button issue. Planned birth issues also affect a small portion of the population, but the difference between that problem being solved this way or another is crucial to the substantial direction where the country is going; there is so much that follows from there. The no-choice option means no less than reverting to patriarchal slavery for women (and for men who don't want to assume their proper role in such a society as well).

Is this the abortion thing again? Ok well I think that unborn baby is human and that late term abortion is terrible, but you obivously don't think so. So I'll just leave it at that.

>
>>BTW, read what Jerry Brown did all by himself to the California marriage adminment. It's dishonest what he did. The Catholic priest, I don’t care, outside of the belief that those that abuse their power should be punished.
>
>Additionally, I think priests shouldn't have ANY power, unless elected. And when priests get elected, I'd probably try to move out from such a country ;).

I don't look at a man's religion. I look at his body of work. What he believes and worships don't bother me. Just don't bring it into the Oval office.


>
>>You don't think the liberal agenda are there to tell you how to live your life? Example, smoking ban in restaurants. Why is it ok for gov't to tell restaurant owners how to run their business? Why is it ok for gov't to step in and put a moratorium on fast food restaurants in certain South LA neighborhoods?
>
>Wait, wasn't Bloomberg the first to ban smoking all over the place? In NY City?

He ran as a Republican, but he is a life long democrat. At best he is a very liberal Republican.

>
>>Nope, liberals rarely offer suggestions, they pass laws. Why? Because they know more what’s good for you than you.
>
>If that's the definition of American liberals, well, then

Not necessarily a definition, but they tend to rely on judicial power to get what they want... election and democratic process... not so much. Example why won't Pelosi put anything up for vote?

>
>1) They aren't any better than conservatives. There are many things that feel wrong, if not outright scary, in the legal system, and this philosophy "you are a moron and therefore prohibited from doing things where you may get hurt" is particularly annoying. All this worry about losing workforce, getting bogged down with medical cost - in the country which doesn't even know how many people got AIDS, because so many are out of the system (what system?).
>
>2) This country is seriously doomed. There's no political left worth its name; what passes for left here is just a bit less right than the neoconservative flywheel, and it won't be able to swing the country sufficiently back left. What's called left here also doesn't seem to have any serious ideology, or plan, or whatever. They may have a good game plan for this election, but I still doubt they have anything so far reaching as was the right's march from the 80s on.

I agree. Obama has no plan other then playing to the crowd that he happens to be speaking to on a given day. Again just a general statement. All politicians do it, but I think it's more prevalent on the left.

>
>>Some time ago California had something called Commission On Social Responsibility And Self Esteem. It was another bad idea from the liberals. You know the statistics. American kids scored last in math and science compared to kids from other industrialized countries, but the good news, they came in first in regard to their self-esteem about their knowledge of math and science.
>
>While this sounds like a good conservative joke, the kind that Tracy's mother would pass on from her spambox, I have actually heard it before and yep, the education here is seriously screwed up... until you get to college. There they have to waste most of the freshman freshperson year making up for the time lost and trying to achieve some standards, before jumping into real science. Literacy may come by itself during the process.

I agree. That's why, I haven't said this before but, I don't agree with Tracy that college education should be available to everyone. Yes there must be some strict standards, otherwise, it won't just be the freshman classes that will be needing to dumb down.

Tracy, sorry if I mis-interpreted your view. :o)

>
>>I'm amazed that the GLBTQ is not fighting the Olympic ruling committee
>
>...about which I don't care either way. Olympics still haven't quite decided whether they are showbiz, aristocratic pastime (as it was for its founder, de Coubertin) or just a bunch of amateurs having fun (what was the initial meaning of the word sport). IMO, if you're a sportsm... person, compete against yourself, and don't make a spectacle of it.
>
>>No wonder so many kids are screwed up today... up is down, down is up.
>>And no wonder conservative are generally happier than liberals.
>
>Beati pauperes spiritu?

Yes. and the meek shall inherit the earth. You surprised me here... scriptures? ;)

>
>My serious doubts as to whether conservatives are happier. Knowing of a number of illusions they sport and support, I am getting an impression that their virtual reality is maintained by sheer amount of money and control over media. If that makes them happier, good for them.

Ever listen to Air America? They all seem so angry. I didn't know FCC allow some of what they say go out on the air.
Ever hear a conservative say if Obama/Kerry/Gore is elected president he'll leave the country?... at least not many... I haven't heard one yet.