<p>
[QUOTE]
"If you are under 25 and a liberal, you have no mind, and if you are over 35 and a conservative, you have no heart."
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>The imperialist pig Winston Churchill coined that statement. Of course I don't adhere to liberalism or conservatism.</p>
<p>ahhhhhhhh DC..i remember my sis went to a protest there a long time ago for some palestinian protest..anyway..im going to Lex, MA this week...</p>
<p>I am going... but I live here, so I do not know if it counts.</p>
<p>When the war was declared, my mom took a friend and me out of school to protest (with the school's permission), but a truancy officer caught us and took us to the truancy office with some kids who had actually skipped school to come. We did not get in trouble because it was the school's fault for not having given us street passes, but I missed what would have been my first anti-Bush rally. :(</p>
<p>"I love Bush, I'm a Republican, and I just wanted to say hi to all the liberals here even though I don't agree with you.~ flipchick</p>
<p>we dont have to agree..thats whats soo great..hehe hii~ sexydesi"</p>
<p>Let's hope that it stays that way, despite the efforts of some very compassionate conservatives...not that I'm a crazy leftist or anything....</p>
<p>same here..i protested during the RNC..plus a bunch of us debaters started our own little protest like two days before the 29th..it was great..!</p>
<p>sexydesi you were talking about hill-billy conservatives, and republicans not caring about the poor etc...</p>
<p>according to NPR (a well respected source by most liberals i know)
All Things Considered, January 1, 2005 · A survey by a group called The Catalogue for Philanthropy finds the poorest American states score the highest on their "generosity index" for 2004 -- an annual scorecard ranking states by how much their residents give to charities in proportion to how much they have. Hear NPR's Jennifer Ludden and George McCully, a trustee of the Ellis L. Phillips Foundation and project coordinator for The Catalogue for Philanthropy.</p>
<p>the rest of the report named the states...the funny thing was all the 6 top charitable states (and this is in terms of percentage of people's incomes, not actual amount) were RED states: Mississippi, Arkansas, North Dakota, etc...</p>
<p>and they also gave the 6 least charitable states, and the only red state was Colorado--which was a swing state anyway LoL. But yeah just guess the top state: Massachusetts (and then New Jersey, Rhode Island, Minnesota followed)</p>
<p>(this is from jacksonville.com) it is an editorial piece from the Jacksonville Newspaper in Florida </p>
<p>CHARITY: John Frugal Kerry</p>
<p>Like Al Gore, who donated a miserly $353 to charity as vice president in 1997, John Kerry may be a serial cheapstake. </p>
<p>During the early 1990s, with no apparent presidential aspirations, Kerry contributed the following amounts: $0 in 1991; $820, 1992; $175, 1993; $2,039, 1994; and $0, 1995. Last year, however, after media attention, he gave $43,435. </p>
<p>However, it was painless giving. Kerry published a book--still available in discount bins--spelling out his positions on public policy issues. He is drawing from the proceeds to pay his taxes and giving the rest to charity.</p>
<p>In other words, he's polishing his image with proceeds from a book written to further his political career. </p>
<p>Kerry and his wife have a combined net worth between $664 million and $760 million and, becuase the charitable contributions come from the book proceeds, they won't draw down the family treasury.</p>
<p>The question Kerry still needs to answer, however, is why he isn't as generous with his own vast personal wealth as he is with tax money forcibly extracted from everyone else. </p>
<p>Obviously this article was written a couple of months ago---but it's still interesting nonetheless.</p>
<p>Pixie, I would recommend that you check up on how much Teresa gave since she is actually the one with the Heinz Trust. </p>
<p>It makes sense that poorer states gave more in proportion. But then we look at people say, in California, and specifically Hollywood, who give hundreds of thousands out per individual. While that may be less proportionally to the people in North Dakota, the effects of their money are much wider felt. </p>
<p>I personally find that the middle of the country, no offense to anyone who lives in that area, they believe much more in the ideal of America being a land of opportunity where anyone can make a great life for themselves. That is however, not the case. The percentage of the poor or immigrant who find themselves wealthy by the end of their lives is so small that this theory is almost a myth. While we do offer the best land to do it, the actual number of people who make that dream is very small. I also believe that they think America's actions are always right and that no matter what, if a President makes a decision, we as Americans should stand behind him in his choice. </p>
<p>I however believe as Thomas Jefferson said "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." I think we as Americans need to question our authority and the government far more than we do and not accept what we hear from the mainstream media as absolute truth. There are much more hideous things America does with public tax dollars than what we hear on the news. It is time for people to wake up, smell the coffee and question what is being force fed down their throats.</p>
<p>Let's discuss :)</p>
<p>what is your definition of the american dream?</p>
<p>I actually don't think dissent is the highest form of patriotism---LoL i think dying for your country is...but anyhow</p>
<p>of course I agree with you that, just becuase someone is a Democrat, doesn't automatically make them less patriotic or anti-American. you are liberal, and you careabout your country, and don't seem to hate it at all.</p>
<p>"if a President makes a decision, we as Americans should stand behind him in his choice."..yeh i find that stupid..being complacent and agreeing with everything..ultimately can lead to "democracy" being a mask for dictatorship if we ALL agree with what the president always does...</p>
<p>"dying for your country"..this reminds me of the last samuri..but the difference is they died for something they believed in..i cant die for a cause i dont believe in even if 50% of america agrees with it..I dont have to die for my country but i still love america so?..</p>
<p>yes..it would make sense that they give to charity if we re comparing it to their income because its extremely low and usually they give to religious groups..also you failed to mention how much the republican party or Bush donates..so what am i supposed to compare al gore or kerry's donations to?..btw..leaving out Heinz..kerry is worth much less than Bush..and plus all the blue states have the highest intelligence in the country..(MA,CT,NY,NJ..etc)..red states are mostly in the bottom..also I dont think we should question how patriotic a person is based on what political party they favor..it really doesnt matter..</p>
<p>"What is your definition of the american dream?"</p>
<p>To be able to dream, without any limitation or obstacles</p>
<p>that's my definition of American dream</p>
<p>but then, it's only a DREAM, not a reality</p>
<p>THEY FIGHT AND DIE, BUT NOT FOR THEIR COUNTRY</p>
<p>By Ted Rall</p>
<p>Why Soldiers Make the Ultimate</p>
<p>LOS ANGELES--On Veteran's Day, Kyle Burns of Laramie, Wyoming lost his life in Iraq (news - web sites). At his memorial service, the Associated Press reported, he was remembered "as a marine who died for his country." Another fallen American was honored in Topeka the same week. Clinton Wisdom, said a reporter for Channel 13 news, was "a soldier who had died for his country." There was another service in Belington, West Virginia, for Romulo Jiminez, killed at age 21 in Fallujah. "He not only died for his country, he died for each one of us individually to preserve freedom," said the funeral director. Wisconsin lost three men in Iraq that week, including Todd Cornel, 38. "What he did was what he wanted to do, and he died for his country, for our freedom," said his father.</p>
<p>Did he? Have any of the Iraq war dead really "died for their country"?</p>
<p>At a time when every other Arab oil-guzzling SUV bears a yellow "support our troops" sticker and probable antiwar liberal Dan Rather "salutes fallen heroes" of Iraq on the evening news, the red-blue divide hasn't altered traditional perceptions of military service. But with 1,500 U.S. soldiers dead in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq and influential Bushists calling for invading Iran, the question bears asking: What does it mean to fight (or die) for the United States?</p>
<p>When we hear that soldiers fight for our country, we immediately think of their role guarding our borders, protecting us from invaders. Yet the U.S. has only been invaded twice, when Great Britain attempted to bring us back into the colonial fold during the War of 1812 and in 1846, when Mexico launched a brief incursion across the disputed Rio Grande. During the ensuing 158 years, no member of the U.S. military has fought or died while repelling an invader. 9/11 demonstrated that the Pentagon (news - web sites) doesn't consider a foreign incursion a major threat; that's why they assigned 12 "ground-based" Air National Guard jets to guard the the entire country.</p>
<p>If you participate in a war of retribution, are you "fighting for your country"? There have only been four attacks on American soil by a foreign power. All were carried out by Japan during World War II: Pearl Harbor, the now-forgotten submarine strafing of a California oil refinery, balloon-borne bombs dropped without casualties on Oregon and Washington state, and an air raid on Dutch Harbor, a remote U.S. outpost on Alaska's Aleutian Islands, in which 43 residents died. Japan and Germany's declarations of war intuitively appear to justify the sacrifice of 291,557 American soldiers in World War II, but were those deaths necessary to defend us? There is no evidence that the Axis intended to invade the U.S., nor did it possess the logistical capability to occupy it. The defeat of Nazism liberated millions from tyranny, but that was a happy byproduct of a war we fought to expand our military and economic influence. Right or wrong, World War II was a war of choice against Germany and one of retribution against Japan.</p>
<p>What about avenging an attack, not on U.S. soil, but against an American facility overseas? In 1986 President Reagan ordered bombings in Libya in retaliation for the bombing of a German disco that killed off-duty American soldiers. Moammar Khaddafi's young daughter, among others, were killed. Subsequent intelligence proved that Libya had had nothing to do with the nightclub attack, but--even setting that aside--it's a stretch to argue that the pilots who bombed Libya were "fighting for their country." Moreover, even retaliatory strikes don't occur frequently. The most recent bona fide assault on a foreign asset by another country took place in 1979 when Iranians took over the American embassy in Tehran. U.S. overseas assets are rarely attacked.</p>
<p>The truth is, U.S. troops are hardly ever called upon to defend the territory of the U.S. or its outposts--military bases, embassies and consulates. Of the approximately 250 deployments of U.S. armed forces since 1798, the majority have been preemptive actions against possible future threats, or wars of aggression waged to advance American geopolitical interests.</p>
<p>81,243 American soldiers died in combat during the Korean, Vietnam and first Gulf wars. True, had the U.S. not gotten involved, a unified Korea might be suffering under the dictatorship of Kim Jung Il and Kuwait could be Iraq's 19th province. But those problems wouldn't have been ours. The snuffing out of over 80,000 young lives didn't do anything to make the U.S. safer, but that wasn't the point. We lost Vietnam and made a friend; we won in Korea and created our most dangerous enemy today.</p>
<p>For one American president after another, winning or losing doesn't matter. For an empire, military action is its own reward. Our willingness to wage war intimidates adversaries and their neighbors into giving us what we want: cheaper oil, military bases, favorable trading terms. When American sailors invaded the Falkland Islands in 1832, it was "to defend American interests." Ditto for 1855, when U.S. forces stormed Fiji. Ditto for the 1903 Dominican Republic action (where defending U.S. interests meant suppressing a popular revolution), Honduras in 1911, the Soviet Union in 1918, Lebanon in 1953...you get the idea. The soldiers who fought in those invasions were told they were fighting for their country. Those who lost their lives were called heroes.</p>
<p>Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.</p>
<p>Now we're at it again, this time in Iraq, a nation that would never have invaded us. Everyone, even the Bushists who manufactured the war from whole cloth, admits that Iraq never had weapons that could hurt us or means to hit us with them if they had. And we know that they didn't attack us--not on 9/11, not ever. Our soldiers may be doing their duty, fighting fiercely, and giving their lives in the bargain. But since Iraq neither threatens our freedom nor our borders, they're neither protecting our freedoms or fighting for America. The best anyone can say is that they're fighting for our country's geopolitical interests--and what those are is subject to interpretation.</p>
<p>"Private ______ died for his country's geopolitical interests." Huh. Doesn't quite have the same ring.
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...d=127&ncid=1501%5B/url%5D">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...d=127&ncid=1501</a></p>
<p>Do modern intellectuals actually believe that religious believers are naively deluded? Or could they be missing something themselves? David Gelernter responds to Edge publisher/editor John Brockman's request to futurists to pose "hard-edge" questions that "render visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefine who and what we are."</p>
<p>Originally published January 2002 at Edge. Published on KurzweilAI.net January 21, 2002. Read Ray Kurzweil's Edge question here.</p>
<p>Is it just a matter of IQ? (Though I thought intellectuals no longer believed in IQ...) But empirically it can't be an IQ issue, because so many of history's greatest minds based their lives on religion -- from Michaelangelo or Bach to Spinoza or Dante or Kant. Do modern intellectuals actually believe that all such people are naively deluded? Or could they be missing something themselves?</p>
<p>and i hate that there is this double standard...people back east, and even here in LA where i live think peopel from the south/midwest are ignorant and stupid. but goodness, people on the coast are just as if not more ignorant towards people from the south and midwest. </p>
<p>some of the nicest, most POLITE, open-minded people i've met are from those "redneck" states. </p>
<p>bytheway, sometimes how high of an IQ you have does not make automatically make you a great leader. in this country, a C student from the middle of nowhere can be looked at by history as one of our greatest leaders.... If i remember correctly, Abraham Lincoln was from the midwest and didn't even go to high school. </p>
<p>reagan was not an intellectual at all, and i personally believe he had a lot to do with ending the Cold War.</p>
<p>Truman was a hillbilly from Missouri, who went to University of Missouri, and I think he was an awesome President, who helped end/win World War II and made much harder decisions than FDR ever had to. He was mocked and underestimated by all these Europeans when he came into power. Sound familiar? </p>
<p>Nixon? hey you may not like him. he was smart enough to get into harvard, and was accepted with scholarship--but had to turn it down to take care of his brother who had tuberculosis. Then he went to Whittier College, and he still made it to the Presidency.</p>
<p>that's the beauty of America. </p>
<p>Bush? Yeah i think he is an extremely good leader. He has lots of common sense. I could care less waht his GPA or SAT score was way back when. Abraham Lincoln wasn't exactly Mr. Popular when he was President, he had cartoons making fun of him all the time---even the way he spoke. Bush is dealing with the same stuff, but i still think history will judge him as making the right decisions in times of dire crises, just as how Abraham Lincoln is looked at as a good leader now too.</p>
<p>In this country, intellectual elitism isn't what's idealized: entrepeneurship, pragmatism, etc... is. Bill Gates makes the covers of magazines, while college professors don't. In Europe, there is no Bill Gates-type-figure. We've respected peopel who work their way up fromt he bottom---not necessarily people who are born with titles or go to the right college. </p>
<p>As wealthy of a family Bush was born into,t he thing that sets him apart from his father was that he was raised in Texas, while his father was raised in Connecticut...and for whatever reason, baby Bush was able to connect with a majority Americans in a way his father never could. </p>
<p>the C student from Yale beat the valedictorian (Kerry)---that happens in this country.</p>
<p>hmm.."some of the nicest, most POLITE, open-minded people i've met are from those "redneck" states. "..thats not the majortiy though dear...majority is racist..and a lot more..</p>
<p>Nixon was still smart though..doesnt matter if u go to the uni of missouri or w/e..these were smart people and Kerry is definitely smarter than Bush..yeah Bush thinks he can connect to the majority of Americans by the clothes he wears and the way he speaks but in reality he doesnt give a crap about the Americans..but he is clever..because he fooled the majority indeed..</p>
<p>"peopel from the south/midwest are ignorant and stupid. but goodness, people on the coast are just as if not more ignorant towards people from the south and midwest."..have u actually been there?..my teachers nephew got in trouble because he said something like the confederate states gave up or something during the civil war...he was sent to the principals office..if u fail to realize that this country is totally divided when it comes to certain issues..that the northeast is even more similar to ppl overseas like in europe then they will ever be similar to the people in the West then i dont what to say....and o yeah the rich states..like MA CT NY..etc..are democratic..in favor of welfare..etc..its not like they benefit from it..btw im still waiting for the amount of donations bush gave..</p>
<p>who cares about lincolns cartoons..that happens to every president..just because the same thing happened to Bush doesnt make Bush a great leader so please can we not compare Lincoln to Bush based on some ridiculous comparison..</p>
<p>btw receiving a C doesnt make Bush stupid..his policies does..so please dont think I hate him because of the way he was BEFORE..i dont care about his past..</p>
<p>buh bye dear..</p>
<p>the thing that's interesting about MA and some of those northeastern states, is that they nationally vote Democrat---but state-wise, they vote Republican. Like in Massachusetts, they have a Republican governor.</p>
<p>A lot of has to do with the fact that as liberal as they are in social views, they still don't want state taxes to dominate their lives. </p>
<p>oh and almost every time Kerry re-ran as a Senator, it was a close call...</p>
<p>he had a reputation for pulling through at the last minute. (luckily it didn't work on the important election <em>phew</em> ) </p>
<p>more on this topic later, il'l be back LoL</p>
<p>"oh and almost every time Kerry re-ran as a Senator, it was a close call..."
Same thing can be said for Bush with his "presidency", but a difference is, Kerry actually won fairly when he ran for senator. The same cannot be said for Bush.</p>
<p>"Bush? Yeah i think he is an extremely good leader. He has lots of common sense. I could care less waht his GPA or SAT score was way back when. Abraham Lincoln wasn't exactly Mr. Popular when he was President, he had cartoons making fun of him all the time---even the way he spoke. Bush is dealing with the same stuff, but i still think history will judge him as making the right decisions in times of dire crises, just as how Abraham Lincoln is looked at as a good leader now too."</p>
<p>I find it ironic that you say Bush has common sense. Yes, let's attack another country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no weapons of mas destruction. Excellent common sense, no?
Or even better, let's have more tax cuts when the counry is already in a deficit. Once again, more brilliant common sense.
In addition, let's alienate teh countries that stood by us after teh worst atack on ameriacn soil. Some more common sense.
Seems that in Bush's case, common sense isn't that common after all.</p>
<p>And it is incorrect for you to compare one of the greatest uniters, Abraham Lincoln, to Bush, who has basicaly pushed an "us .vs. them" policy, but in forgeign affairs, and domestically. Not only that, but Lincoln was actually a good president.</p>
<p>today my great uncle told me that protesting was "unamerican, absolutely unamerican" i could feel my face flush as i replied that telling me that statement is the unamerican part because the right to peaceful assembly is protected by the 1st ammendment. he replied "i know that, but protesting the mandate of the people is completely unacceptable" i replied that it was a mandate of 52% of the people, not by any measure a "vast majority" and that i was protected in my decision to dislike the policies of the president.
then he went on to tell me that Bill Clinton single handedly "through complete ineptitude" destroyed america. i just smiled and said "i disagree with you 100% percent, and thats why im going to DC next week."
thankfully i had to leave for an oboe lesson before we could discuss the subject any further. </p>
<p>i just needed somewhere to go AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I LOVE CLINTON ~ AND PROTESTING WHAT YOU DONT LIKE IN THE GOVERNMENT IS PART OF EXERCIZING YOUR RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN.
so there i said it thanks for listening</p>