Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

I thought paranoia was a disease of the "right"

Mar 10, 2004 3:19AM PST

but this seems to make it,and rightfully so,an equal opportunity malady!
http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/03/far04007.html

Also dont the "moonies" own the Washington Times?

Every day seems to bring a new revelation. Never knew that Howard Stern was the voice of reform.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:I thought paranoia was a disease of the
Mar 10, 2004 3:41AM PST

Hi Gearup

6) Moonies?? Must be a spin off of Rev. Moons colony.
Years ago (80s) I believe, the Moonies took over Island Pond, VT by the hundreds. Used to be a nice little RR town.

George

- Collapse -
Well...That'll give you chills. -nt
Mar 10, 2004 3:45AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:I thought paranoia was a disease of the
Mar 10, 2004 3:55AM PST

Howard is a Republican but he's not a "party-liner." If he finds fault with someone he'll say so, regardless of their political party.

And you're right, the Washington Times is owned by the Unification Church. So is UPI. But if the stuff about Tom Delay is true, that scares me more than the Moonies owning a newspaper does.

I didn't read the whole article.

- Collapse -
In case you missed it
Mar 10, 2004 4:28AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) I think they should have to teach the 'giant tortoise' theory too
Mar 10, 2004 4:30AM PST

.

- Collapse -
I think they should teach all manner of creation mythology, too.
Mar 10, 2004 11:46PM PST

Just don't do it in the science classroom.

Dan

- Collapse -
I think they should teach all manner of evolution mythology, too.
Mar 11, 2004 10:12AM PST

They just shouldn't teach it in a science course, since it isn't really science, just an unproven hypothesis that overlooks anything scientific that disagrees with it. The remembrance of human footprints inside of dinosaur prints come to mind, along with many hoaxes passed off as "science". Evolution; A science falsely so called.

- Collapse -
I thought you guys were into spoofs! This looks like another one.
Mar 10, 2004 6:20AM PST

How about 'can you imagine anyone being "Dixie Chicked" for criticizing Bill Clinton?' Actually, yes. A suburban couple heckled Bill Clinton in, as I recall, Grant Park. Shortly thereafter, at Secret Service, behest, they were arrested and jailed by the Chicago Police. All charges were dropped when the case came to trial.

All these mysterious, right wing groups sound just like all the stories about the Trilateral Commission and others of its ilk. Really! (chuckle, chuckle)

- Collapse -
Sadly, it's true. -nt
Mar 10, 2004 10:26PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Here's the bacic details, Kiddpeat...
Mar 11, 2004 2:00AM PST
- Collapse -
Interesting. I only know about the Chicago case because it was covered by the local papers & TV. (NT)
Mar 11, 2004 5:30AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:I thought paranoia was a disease of the
Mar 11, 2004 12:25AM PST

Everyone complains about Republicans being funded by religious organizations, but how is that different than the numerous liberal organizations that fund the Democrats...they're all groups which are trying to force their own set of morals upon the rest of society. Both sides use the tools of fear, misconception, and hate to control voters.
For example, I read about a new political action group made of athiests who wish to support mainly liberal candidates. The funny thing is, they realize that no one would want their backing because the overwhelming majority of citizens are in fact religious, so they've stated that they will blackmail candidates by threatening to support them if they support any measure with a religios basis.

- Collapse -
Now that's getting complicated! Hi dirtyrich, welcome to SE. -nt
Mar 11, 2004 12:31AM PST

,

- Collapse -
One basic difference
Mar 11, 2004 12:41AM PST

is that one side wants to increase government interference according to it's beliefs and the other side wants to reduce government interference. One side wants people to be able to make their own decisions about how they live, who they marry, etc. The other side want to have behavior dictated by the government.

If people are free to make their own decisions without government meddling, they can impose whatever strictures they want on themselves while allowing others to live in their own way.

Welcome to the forum.

Dan

- Collapse -
Gee Dan, I didn't know you'ld joined the Republican side. Welcome!
Mar 11, 2004 5:33AM PST

Let's drive the big government, big spending, big regulating Dems out of office.

- Collapse -
(NT) And it's nice to see that you also think that government meddling into people's sex lives is wrong
Mar 11, 2004 5:47AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Maybe if they quit deliberately drawing govt attentions to their illicit activities.
Mar 11, 2004 10:17AM PST

Oops! Was I talking about prostitution? Or homosexuality?

- Collapse -
Why should the government care what people do in their bedrooms?
Mar 11, 2004 10:59PM PST

Heterosexuals commonly engage in many of the same "illicit" sexual activities that homosexuals engage in. The government has no business peeping into my bedroom, your bedroom, or anyone else's.

- Collapse -
Because it's out of the bedroom and out of the closet.
Mar 12, 2004 1:10AM PST

The only ones that have brought it into the political arena are the gays themselves. When it's there, we all have a say over it.

- Collapse -
Out where?
Mar 12, 2004 1:15AM PST

I get around a little bit, and I've never see gays doing anything in public that straights don't do. And if they do there are public indecency law that apply to both straights and gays.

Dan

- Collapse -
Ridiculous claim
Mar 11, 2004 6:12AM PST

How can you seriously call the Democrats the party of regulation when the Republicans want to control who can marry who, who can have what kinds of adult consensual sex, and on and on and on...?

Dan

- Collapse -
So you support prostitution now? [nt]
Mar 11, 2004 10:19AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Bait ignored -nt
Mar 11, 2004 11:02PM PST

.

- Collapse -
You misunderstand Dan. The Republicans don't care who you marry
Mar 11, 2004 1:14PM PST

as long as it's a woman. Is sex all there is to life? It sounds like you're a young, single guy with all your hormones flowing. There is much more to life than sex.

The Dems don't care what kind of sex you have as long as it's kinky. Of course, they do want to decide a few things for you like who your doctor should be, how much you can pay the doctor, how much income you are allowed to keep, what you can teach your kids, and all the other little details of life. But sex? The kinkier, the better!

- Collapse -
Re:You misunderstand Dan. The Republicans don't care who you marry
Mar 11, 2004 7:41PM PST

While I do agree that in theory the Republicans want to interfere least in people's lives, unfortunately, both sides have succumbed to the influence of their big spending, extemist sides. While I don't think that there should be gay marriage, mainly because marriage is a religious institution that the government hijacked, I don't mind civil unions and such, which is what most people supposedly do according to the polls.
I read a study on the FoxNews website that stated that the periods when the government was split (like the Clinton period recently), that was when the government spent the least amount of taxpayer dollars.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:You misunderstand Dan. The Republicans don't care who you marry
Mar 11, 2004 8:35PM PST
I read a study on the FoxNews website that stated that the periods when the government was split (like the Clinton period recently), that was when the government spent the least amount of taxpayer dollars.

I've expressed before it's probably a bad thing for any party to control House, Senate, and Presidency. And as the two major parties become more extreme, and the individuals elected become more extreme, that is even more so. Hopefully some of it is just perception and not true, but it seems there are less and less moderates in either party.

Can't remember which administration it was, but the news was talking about how Congressional gridlock was keeping laws from being passed. I suggested that wasn't necessarily a bad thing. While there are always things that need dealing with, I'm not sure that the less Congress can pass new the better off we are. There are too many laws now, even if they don't address everything that needs attention.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
- Collapse -
That's an interesting idea.
Mar 11, 2004 10:22PM PST

I wouldn't mind a discussion on the possibility of government getting out of the marriage business entirely and leaving it up to whatever non-governmental official the participants choose.

Dan

- Collapse -
I have a suggestion. Go to New Hampshire, see the new bishop, and have
Mar 12, 2004 1:33AM PST

him marry you. I'm sure he will be happy to oblige. You don't need a piece of paper or a change in the laws to do that. You can do it today.

- Collapse -
No, thanks, I'm already married. -nt
Mar 12, 2004 2:39AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Yes, the Republicans haven't distinguished themselves with spending restraint,
Mar 12, 2004 1:27AM PST

but at least they mostly recognize the legitimacy of the idea. I think at least some of President Bush's spending has been an attempt to accomodate the Dems. The Dems, of course, only like spending restraint for military, intelligence, and law enforcement.