IRC log started Fri Oct 4 22:07 Hi everyone. Welcome to the discussion. Tonight's discussion will not be as structured as usual, in part b/c it may facilitae more in depth consideration, and in part b/c I only had 1/2 a day to prepare :) So, let's start with the basic question: What do we mean when we speak of the politics of class envy? Using envy of the rich to influence voting by people who want to increase taxes or otherwise expropriate the more productive Generally, that's a Marxist view with the "class interests" of the proletariat at odds with that of the bourgeoisie. Pitting people against each other for the purpose of gaining votes by encouraging people to believe they are being treated unfairly? Betsy, yes that is at the root of it Here in Canada, I know that unionization has a lot to do with it--there is the 'management', and then there is the unionized worker. Legislated classes. I'd say it's using the envy of the rich for political gain Just the rich? Yeah ... anyone making more than min. wage ;) Class envy is a very European concept that Americans don't really identify with. the "rich" defined as those who have more than the group being targeted Betsy: The Democratic party may differ with you People could be split based on their property, income, fame (popularity), or geographic location. Wright: That's why the Dem. party is losing. "They're cutting your Medicare to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy" Betsy: is it? That seemed to me to be a very effective slogan against the GOP controlled house Betsy: the Dem. party, I mean We'll see in next elections I think Betsy is correct, primairly because America is one of the first countries where people are not "stuck" into a class at birth and must remain there, but are free to achieve any social status of the time. I see the Democratic party as holding even or getting somewhat stronger next elections (but I'll keep off this topic unless Wright wants to get into it later) Wright: The slogan is effective because the Republicans have not come to term with their own altruism and guilt. Clinton has been using arguments that smell like class envy The Repubs. have failed to follow through on promises to destroy the IRS, etc. because of that (disarmed in face of altruism) Hatred of those who are happy, healthy, and wealthy by those who are angry, sick, and poor ... :) But, it would not be effective at all if it was for the premise than many Americans seem to hold.. altruism ... Hatred for anyone who isn't "us" Clinton and his fellow Democrats are like the Marxist holdouts in American universities. Out of step with reality and the American population. People think that Republicans and Democrats are opposites, but they're not... Bryn: Right, they hold very similar core premises. (Rational@U) greetings, all :) Bryn: No, I'd be more inclined to think that they just think very low of all politics--irregardless of whether Republican or Democratic. (at least in Canada, there's very *little* distinction between Conservative and Liberal) The Democrats are a substantial portion of the population. And while many Republicans explicitly state different views, they still accept the premise that class envy is based on.. altruism MarkES: I mean, the Republicans and Democrats are always pitted against each other in a blood-thirsty battle, but they don't realise their fighting for the same things i.e. altruism, mysticism, etc. [michelis] Impeach Billary Klinton! The Democrats are very good at inciting feelings of victimization among people. They say, (correctly) that "tax cut for the wealthy will help everyone" implying that only that fact makes the cuts ok Bryn: I suppose -- Americans are generally different than Canadians in many ways, being more aggressive politically and such. (though as you mention, it is over trivial differences mostly) Sube: I don't think the Dems are inciting anything. They're just cashing in on certain people's bad premises. '_gDE3 If Clinton is actually going to win this election, it makes me think that our culture is in bad shape. Subetai: like Clinton's campaign commercials where he is nodding compassionately at a child in a wheelchair There are a _lot_ of people who don't care for either Dems or Repubs, and for good reasons Betsy: right. It is the underlying bad philosophy that allows the class envy argument to work Betsy: I think some people aren't very sure of their own premises. The democrats come in and point to someone else and say "it's his fault that you're not doing better" - this catches on a basic feeling of discontent the person had and gives it Betsy: an explicit form, i.e., victimization/class envy. Glenn: It depends on _why_ he wins. If he beats Dole it may be a relfection of something good. Many people do hold the notion of a static "pie" ... if one person gains, another must be losing That's what I meant when I said "incite" . That may be the fault of a gerneral ignorance of economics Wright: That "static pie" view is a accurate description of how a _loser_ feels. Fortunately, losers are in the minority. -r GlennM:Our culture IS in bad shape. Wright: in my thinking, that notion only is true with communism -- where the state owns everything and ppl have to scramble for their share. Under capitalism, to use a cliche, "the sky's the limit." Bryn: Of course it's untrue, but I've heard it stated many times, especially on the left All right, it seems to me that what allows a class envy scheme to work is envy of the successful by the unsuccessul unsuccessful JayT: I agree. Clinton is so obviously corrupt though, that I can't imagine basically honest, thought misinformed people voting for him. though Glenn: People may not ber voting FOR anybody -- just against the other guy. But here's the thing ... if this view were actually representative of America today, it would not explain the "Republican revolution" (even including the lameness of many Repubs) -r Glenn: most Democrats I know say that Clinton is "a good man" and "he is trying his hardest" If "class envy" were dominant here, we'd have a communist state Bryn: I have a hard time finding anybody who will _admit_ they are Democrats! The quetion is, why does this envy arise? Why is there envy in the place of determination to make a better life for oneself, to follow the example set by the successful? GlennM:For reasons I don't understand, the "public" doesn't seem to care about moral character. Betsy: really?? most of my family are Democrats Betsy: and proud ones, at that I think a lot of people don't see much difference between the Democrats and Republicans anymore. They don't see the Republicans as being capable of delivering on promises of lower taxes, etc. Without anything to differentiate, Clinton seems ... Wright: Because envying the successful is a lot easier than working to become successful. Wright: Because it's easier to blame someone else for your failures, or to come up with conspiracy theories. the "nicer" and more "dynamic" guy than Dole. Phil: It's not dominant, but is does have influence.. how else do you explain "progessive taxation" Wright: The easy way out. Wright: That's evil, as is all taxation .. point is the slope of the curve, not necessarily where we've come from but we're things are going we're=where Okay, it is the easy way. but what of those who have the attitude that it is impossible for them to get ahead, b/c "the cards are stacked against them" etc I think the public thinks Clinton is a "good ol' boy". Wright: Well, the cards are stacked against them today, considering the tax code and the regulations...it's very difficult to get ahead and to stay there. Wright: "The cards are stacked against me" is a copout. Glenn: maybe because he cries at every pubic event he attends (like the Olympics) It makes the last century seem like a pipe dream. Glenn - I dunno. It may be be peopl I associate with, but he's seen mostly as a used car salesman Phil: I've even heard people argue for a flat tax b/c "the rich will pay more without all the deductions" Glenn: Right. He appeals to a larger class of voters. Most polls show him doing better than Dole in the states he lost to the Republicans last elections. With him in the White House, the Democrats will do a lot better in the Senate too. But, did the general belief come from bad philosophy, such as some form of fatalism? Bryn: Did you mean PUBLIC? Wright: The ideas came from Marx translated into the only way to get ahead is to exploit others....the class enviers simply take a governmental short-cut. I think that if people can't get ahead, they feel as though they have to at least bring down the people who *are* ahead It is easier to say "let the government do it". Tom: Right! Betsy: Yes!!! oh my god, I didn't notice that....of course, "public" Wright: Also, on a deeper level, note the independence necessary to get ahead even in a free society...they have been taught that we are all dependent. The "me" generation is not (rationally) selfish enough. And, to what extent did this come out of faulty comparisions to feudal times when the barrons really did get realitivly wealthy by exploiting others? Class envy helps make people dependent on the gov't. Tom: That's what I've been aiming at... the role philosophy of life plays Wright: Well, Marx was living in a feudal society...it's all he was aware of (or evaded the other evidence). excuse the typos, I'm doing this on the fly :) To what extent do many people still hold this view? Also, if the choice is between being a "good guy" and not succeeding...or being an exploiter and getting ahead (a false dichotomy), many persons will choose to be good and poor, rather than bad but wealthy. Is some of the resentment of Bill Gates, for example, based on this premise? Wright:what kind of machine is the "fly" :)? Wright: question: do you think that the 19th c. tycoons became wealthy by expoiting others, in the terrible conditions the workers existed in? Maybe the ideas today stem from those times, when being a factory worker was life-threatening Wright: It's not just the feudal mentality. There are a lot of distorted pictures in people's minds about the beginning of the industrial revolution and social conditions at the time. Jay: ;-) Bryn: that's a myth. It was far more dangerous on a farm. Bryn: Being in a factory in those days was life _giving_. That's why people left the farm. Bryn: And is still more dangerous...there are many farm accidents that are life threatening. Sube: I think those come out of the erroneous application of a feudalistic model to the factory owners Yeah, I'll bet slaves down on de ole plantation would much rather have been free and working in northern factories.. I think most people do envy the wealthy and the successful. They have had it crammed down their throats in the churchs and schools for decades that it is evil to be rich. they were supposedly the new "barrons" .. note the term "robber barrons" The thing being overlooked by all of them is that wealth is created, it's not just plucked from trees. TomM: but my point is, it *was* dangerous...people died. The workers were not exactly living in the lap of luxury. I'm saying that resentment could have built substantially from those times Bryn: resentment that a better life wasn't granted even *sooner* to them on a golden platter? Exactly.. and the creators of those factories were the ones that *created* that welth wealth I know the workers would not have even *had* jobs if it weren't for the tycoons... Bryn: You missed my point. Working in a facftory, even then, is far safer than being surrounded by wheat thrashers that could pull you in and spit you out all mangled up. Wright: It's their image as the people who sent little kids into mines and had them die of asphyxiation or cave-ins or burns because they wouldn't pay for the safety equipemnt. Glenn: I don't think most people I deal with -- middle class professionals living in suburbia -- envy the rich at all. Neither do the ambitious working poor. Bryn: OF course life in an early industrial revolution factory was hell by our moderne standards, but so was life on the farm, by our standards But if you are an ignorant worker in a factory, in dangerous conditions, and your employer is getting rich and fat....don't you see where resentment could come from ? Betsy: That's the difference: ambition I am not justifying it...just saying that it's there The Vanderbilts were "expected" to give their Newport vacation home "to the public". the people who envy the rich (want to bring them down) are those too damn lazy to work to make themselves rich to generalize a bit Bryn: However, it wasn't that way at the time. The factory worker moved to the city because life in a factory was not only better paying, but also far safer than a self-sufficient farm. the creation of more wealth, and a more productive technology was what allowed conditions to improve TomM: I know, but it was still hell....the point is, we have improved so much since then, but the resentment still lingers Bryn: I'm asking you to check your premises that a factory worker will naturally envy his betters. Still, the ideas of class envy are present in America Bryn: resentment of WHAT, Bryn? The fact that those rich and fat factory owners didn't give them super-modern factories overnight? What do you think the term "Working Class" implies? Betsy: those who have no drive to succeed will merely try to drag down those who do, like crabs in a bucket. The working poor and middle class professionals do have the desire to advance TomM: I am generalizing, talking about the ignorant workers (in the manner that politicians use it) Wright: it implies that there are "classes' that are there for life. Tom: not what I was getting at Byrn:I think you're right, but you're asking the uneducated factory worker to be rational. It implies that there's an "idle rich" class. 'working class' is a term applied to lower class blue collar workers, usually Subetai: That's the idea Wright: I think it implies every worker that seeks protection and identifies his work directly with a group .. (union member, etc) Jay: The uneducated factory workers are quit rational. .. a lot more rational than modern intellectuals. Subetai: there's the Kennedy's Betsy: right on! if the blue collar lower middle class and poor are the "working class" it impleas that the rest of us don't really work An interesting thing about poor Americans is that they don't see themselves as "working class" -- or any other kind of "class" for that matter. Betsy: I'm talking about being educated to be rational. (MikeH@U) from being rich and happy, too. Or, if he's not necessarily interested in being rich, just from being happy. And who is that person? The rich man. The happy man. Bryn: Don't know about the Kennedys, but there are bound to be exceptions. However, the majority of rich people today work harder than the average person. Betsy: Really? Why do I hear "working class families" all the time? [Clay] "What a wonderful world it is that has girls in it!" Hi Clay They class envy is fueled and made possible by the underlying philosophy of the culture. I think most of the public thinks it's better to be a giver than a producer. Even many of the producers feel that way. Glenn: right .list U [#GeekSpeak@U] HAL9001 X LurchGS Eriks Subetai MikeH The media uses the term "working class". Glenn: it's the philosophy that's inherent in the culture....producers feel guilty for producing Glenn: Only because they falsely think the producer is a "taker." Jay - exactly - the only people I've EVER heard use that term are media and politicians So do politicians, they are always referring to the "working class" and how they will help them Lurch, you must've never had a social sci college prof. Clay- those are media people with beards The term "working class" is used by intellectuals and journalists -- not by those they refer to. Wright: the "working class" makes up most of the voters....of course politicians want to help them Lurch, actuallyl I think the media people are little versions of college prof's w/o beards.. except for Wolf. Why would they do this if they didn't expect large numbers of voters to identify with that? Clay.. Hmm.. you may be right, at that Wright: do you really think the media is motivated by facts? the term "working class" applies to those primarily engaged in physical labor. It implies that anything other than physical labor is not work. Wright they talk that way for the benefit of each other. ;-) Wolf doesn't count - any way you cut it, he's a fool They've started using the "working class" idea in country music now. :) Kevin - actually, no. It implies (in mondern times) that you are an employee workingto make someboy else rich Betsy: I've seen democrat pols that blather on about the "working class" get re-elected year after year Subetai: That's been there from the beginning of "coal miner's daughter." ;) All: There is one thing I learned tonight, which I wish to thank you all for--the very concept of 'working class', or 'working man' is an insult to me. working class implies that anyone who uses their brains doesn'tr work. Lurch: Wolf asked Clinton a tough question ONCE. Then Clinton got mad and that was that. Clinton likes "working families"... and "middle class tax cut" Wright: That's not because the Dems are doing anything right but because the Repubs are doing it all wrong. Lurch- I don't see how that contradicts my statement. Jay - of course, he's a political appointee, not hired because of any outstanding ability or backbone Clay: Right. It generally includes blue collar workers only. The implication is that there's something fishy about how all others earn their living. Kevin - middle managent is also working class - it's not so much a contradiction ans a modification bunch of losers who wouldn't Betsy: is it possible for the GOP to do it right w/o renouncing their religious roots? um.. oops. I don't know any member of the so-called "working class" who is ashamed of what he does That also comes from Marxism, which directly denies the mind of man. If that is true, then the laborers are the only real men...the others are fakes. Byn - right "Honest days' work for an honest day's pay" Wright: The Repubs don't have to renouce religion. They just have to give GOOD reasons for their point of view and stick to it. Bryn, there's no reason for them to be "ashamed" unless they know they could be doing alot better for themself Lurch- I disagree. Those who use the term "working class" usually do not consider management to be true work. They view management as parasites of labor. Ahh, but.. how do they justify themselves from an altruistic base?. We're just "talking" here, so we're dispensable, right? Clay: if they enjoy what they are doing, what could they possibly do to "do better for themselves" Kevin - we mus move in different circles, then Bryn, the point is.. they need to recognize that the reason they have a job in the first place as a janitor or whatever.. is b/c some person really worked hard thinking about how to accomplish some task.. JayT: According to Marx, yes...the intellect is dispensible. TonM:So if I fix my own plumbing, I'm OK? and I'm not sure that some mental giant could enjoy doing blue collar work all their life.. I think they'd just be bored to death. Wright: Altruism is the more fundamental evil in this discussion. Without altruism, selfishness would reign, and there would be far less problems. If Clinton gets elected, it's not going to be just because people that do physical labor vote for him. The politics of envy cuts across all income levels. Clay: Howard Roark worked in a quarry.... JayT: Only if you don't think about it forst ;) Tom: Right, that does seem to be at the root of many evils Bryn, and? Bryn "all their life..." Bryn: Yes, Roark worked in a quarry, but he didn't do it out of a sense of "working man's pride." Clay: ok, I see your point. But I'm saying that an honest blue-collar worker commands as much respect as an honest white-collar worker I do manual labor all the time, and I sometimes find it quite enjoyable, but if I thought I was gonnna install flooring all my life, I'd go buy a gun and end it quickly Bryn: of course they do! Bryn, in what context? Respect of what? His intellect? His person? His character? My father installs flooring, btw.. Actually, pegging persons as "blue collar" or "white collar" is also Marxist. Didn't Ayn Rand say, "There are no rotten jobs, only rotten men unwilling to do them" or some such thing? (Eriks@U) menial, not rotten Tom, you are correct. Betsy: Wasn't that Hugh Akston talking to Dagny in diner? :) I don't think anyone is saying that there is anything wrong with manual labor, if you enjoy youur work and youu are excercising your full potential So if the "have nots" outnumber the "haves", Clinton's a shoe-in! If a person's honest and respects your rights, you respect them. However, if one person displays more intelligence and knowledge than another, you have to acknowledge that too. or, if you just need a tempory source of support :) them = him JayT: If those who consider themselves a "have not" outnumber those who do not... Subetai: yes! JayTL Actually it's the "haves" -- the limosine liberals -- who support Clinton in Calif. He will probably carry the state because nobody likes Dole. I'm a have.. I have lots of credit, and no money. Okay, the scheduled part of tonight's discussion is over. Please continue the discussion if you wish to. Clay: You have a computer, which no one last century even dreamed of though have/have not isn't really the issue..getting/not getting is more appropriate. I have to go. I'll close with one of may favorite quotes from cartoonist Al Capp -- "Americans don't want to soak the rich -- they want to BE the rich." Yes, I have the magical rebooting computer.. :) I'd like to go back to the point I made earlier. I think the Democrats are definitely gaining ground, at least as far as the next election goes. The liberals long for the times when money was true political power...that's why they want to give away (read take away) everyone's money but their own. JayT: The "have nots" don't outnumber the "haves", but the "haves" have no way of justifying their success and wealth. Okay, I have to go too.....it was nice talking to you all :) night, Bryn So they vote altruistic. I'm going too. See you next week. Actually, in congress, it looks like Clinton's success is working against the Democrats Wright: How's that? Americans like divided government Wright: Yes.. how? Subetai: that's correct if you can believe the polls. I have seen some elections where the results differed sharply from the polls however. Pools show that in general, people asked "are you more likely to vote democrat or GOP for congress?" split pretty much down the middle... polls I predict that many of the people who voted in a Republican Congress last time will switch sides because they're disgusted with what the Republicans achieved. but, when the question is changed to "given that Clinton will be re-elected, will you vote democrat or GOP for congress" the GOP wins by a large margin And with a Democratic President and a Democratic (or less Republican) Congress, things are going to get worse. I plan on voting for Clinton as president and Republican as congress. I will NEVER vote for Clinton Who will you vote for, Wright, if you don't mind me asking? Wright: i did last time, and he's doing what I wanted him to do: Make a fool out of democrats ;) I think the Repubs make a big mistake when they assume that _fiscal_ conservatives share their views on moral issues--and tie their campaign so strongly to those moral issues Wright: ME NEITHER! I can't vote for such a man I'll vote for Dole most likely, he's FAR from perfect, but he is the better man of the two good point,Harper Harper: Sure, the Republicans need to learn that government is not there to enforce a morality...they tend to think that's all it's there for. however, on those grounds (altruism) the democrats win hands down. I'd sooner abstain than vote for Clinton to anyone but moral majority types--the bash Clinton for cutting anti-drug spending make Clinton out as the good guy (the DEA isn't all that popular among voters who were teens in the 60's/70's) I may sit this one out. Dole seems to stand for nothing. He did give a good speech at the convention though. Harper, nor the 80's, methinks If I don't vote for Dole, it might be a write in protest vote Glenn, his "Dog, family, and country" speech? and being seen as the tail wagged by the Xian-conservative dig makes things worse Actually, what I might do is vote straight Republican for congress, and abstain for president. dig=dog When are the next Congressional elections? November :) I'm considering writing in Forbes. I will vote for neither Clinton nor Dole. I don't know that it's a good idea to vote for a creep, just so he will don damage and hit people over the head with the error of their ways For members of the senate, bazzie? However, in the present context, a vote for Clinton is a protest vote against Dole...which I think is the proper reply. No, Senate elections are every six years, but are staggered, so there are some senators elected every two years Representatives are elected every two years No, Clinton is the incumbant, a vote for him is a vote for him Okay, so a bunch of them will be running for Senate same time as the Presidential election. if you want to protest, write in someone else Wright: Nope, the stategy is to lock up the government. Having a democratic president and a repulbican congress will hold off any big n=messes until MAYBE the repulbicans will get it right. not voting for Dole will not help Dole Wright: I don't want to help Dole. that's right, but do you want to help Clinton Wright: he won't be helped. How 'bout the everybody on the legislature who ever upheld a collectivist measure that was enacted into law. Better to say, none of the abouve Limbaugh has hinted that there are already plans for a major power struggle within the R. party following Dole's loss. Wright: then Clinton wins anyhow. I will not give Clinton the benefit of my vote What exactly is a protest vote? Wright: He won't benefit...not with a republican congress...he will be very ineffectual. He gets re-elected, yet he does not benefit? He gets elected President for another term and he doesn't benefit? Subetai: Not voting for the person on the balet. come on Has Clinton benefitted this time? How? Yeah, but what happens to these "protest votes" ? Who looks at them? What do they count for politically or media-wise? It is not a benefit to hold the office opf President? -p He's drawing a salary, Living in the White house. Subetai: The political analysts. He's doing what he *loves* to do Gets to use Air-Force 1. It's the power for him. Wright: He's sounding more and more like a republican anyhow...it's the only way he can enact any laws. Clinton doesn't care for principles, he shifts with the wind.. Remember what Rand said about voting for Nixon against McGovern: Anti-Nixonites for Nixon he gains exactly what he wants through re election he will not have help from me Wright: So, four more years of the same will shift the democrats so far to the right they won't know what hit them. Wright: He's a lot like Carter, only more savy. Clinton may be shifting to the right, however, the Democrat leadership in congress is a lfet wing as ever left I don't see any democrats shifting to the right. They're doing what's politically expedient to them now. Wright: And they will be inefectual with a mostly republican congress, so who cares? They are keeping quiet for the most part out of party loyalty to Clinton A large Clinton victory will tend to help the Dems in congress.. The message, if interpreted correctly, will say: Yes, we want Republicans, but not Dole. What's the guarantee there will be a mostly republican Congress all four years of Clinton's next term? Wright: Did we decide what the motivation of the public will be in re-electing him? if his margin is under 10 pts, history shows he won't help dems much A good case for voting Dole, even though he is not likely to win Subetai: None, actually. But I can't see the republicans loosing too many seats, though I've heard otherwise. TomM: All polls I've seen show them as losing seats. How many they lose is disputable. The best rebublicans, (the freshmen) are supposedly the most vunerable Wright: Trouble is, with a republican congress and Dole as president, the republicans might get the message that we all want their moral code enacted into law. vulnerable (Eriks@U) Help!!! How do I look at a BIN file with Win'95?? Dole will not win Is that not just about obvious by now unless he pulls of a miracle at the debates Wright: Then any vote *for* Dole is not a vote for repulbicans, but a vote *for* Dole...you want that? What is their moral code anyway? They'll push for anti-abortion laws, but they have to fight the Supreme Court and millions of people for that. What else is part of their "moral agenda" ? I'd vote for Dole over Clinton.. Dole is not a bad man Subetai: Censorship of the media, including the internet, for one. TomM: Clinton's already signed that bill. note that A democrat started that one and a democrat cast the deciding vote in confer3ence -3 Clinton may ahve signed it, but the repulbicans didn't speak out against it. Good-night all. I'm off. the Democrats are not the saviors fo free speech So? Clinton's okay for signing it and the republicans aren't because they failed to speak out? I think Dole might build the military back up and get us out of the stupid entanglements Clinton has us in now. they weren't any more willing, for the most part, than the gop to speak up "in favor of pornography" Wright: Nor are the republicans. Generally, the democrats are for free speach on the grounds of whim. The republicans want free speach so long as smutt is dnot produced. Democrats *used* to be for free specch now it is "free speech as long as it isn't 'hate speech' or 'sexual harassment' Actually, both ['sides" want free speach, so long as their agenda is promoted. Liberal Pat Schroeder (sp?) cast the final vote for the Exon measure in conference. The democrats are for whatever they view "popular sentiment" as being at the time. They thought they saw a strong feeling towards censorship of the net and supported it. The only people against it were some "rich" folks who had computers. We have to rely on the courts to protect us here.. free specch is not really championed in either party now The democrats want free speach at everyone's expense. the republicans want free speach within certain (religious) bounds. the dems want speech within political bounds Wright: Sure, and they want the rest of us to pay for their microphones. another example... Clinton blaming talk radio for the OKC bomb Wright - that was a rich one I've heard for a bunch of democrats railing against religious radio stations and asking for censorship. The democrats are the hate-mongers. that too, the point is, I don't see us being much better off speech wise under the dems for = of Subetai: The democrats are agains any moral code on principle. they were the proponents of the "fairness doctrine" aka "the Hush Rush bill" Tom: So why do you think they're for free speech? Subetai: They are for the "freedom" to say what they want to with no other side being mentioned. Tom: But you;re not supporting that, are you? Maybe I should ahve put "free" in quotes ;) Subetai: of course not. So free speech isn't an issue that would make one vote either Democrat or Republican. What is? Abortion might be, for one The democrats are for any speach that flies in the face of convention...the republicans want free speach so long as it is the conventional. IRC log ended Fri Oct 4 23:38