<p>Ah, the perils of democracy, CGM. </p>
<p>…don’t you hate the fact that they let all these idiots vote?!</p>
<p>The religious right is indeed scary. But in time, most will self-destruct. Just wait and see.</p>
<p>(For the record, I’m a church-going. choir singing moderate who values separation of church and state above most everything, and believes there are many, many pathways to God)</p>
<p>what you don’t seem to understand FS, is that when a certain type gets into power, they change the rules of the game, and it can be ever so slightly, but has a huge effect.</p>
<p>For instance, one person appointed by one person approved by that person’s majority can change the future of this country almost irreversibly…and as for those checks and balances. we have a congress that won’t check each other on corruption any more…even though similar activites would have been looked into in the past</p>
<p>and FS- when you are old enough to particpate fully in a democracy, will you, or just let the rest of us do it for you…I am aware you are Canadian, can you vote there?</p>
<p>I almost deleted that question because logistics can be tough, but I changed my mind…if it was important for you to be able to fully participate in voting, I am sure, when you are old enough, you would fight for that right and responsibility</p>
<p>ps- I haven’t miss one election since I was 18…no matter how big or small, I have worked on many campaigns- of all sizes, and for local, state, and national, and for causes, not just people</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what the KKK used to say, CGM; they were very, very concerned about certain types getting into power. Didnt really like the idea of voting for those certain types either. </p>
<p>And as to my voting, we’ve been through this ad nauseum. Either you know that, or your memory is failing you…and I don’t think you are quite that old.</p>
<p>“oozes out”? “a certain type”? How intolerant of you, CGM; you, above all, who prides yourself so on your tolerance. Tut-tut, now.
FS, x-posted.
I’m outta here - getting a headache. :)</p>
<p>wow, sorry if I think that a person who thinks only Christians should be elected, sorry if i think she is a bad choice</p>
<p>talk about twisting my words…you had certain types in the south that voted to keep blacks from having rights</p>
<p>:certain types" nice try twisiting my words…that was a new low, even for you FS, to compare me to the KKK</p>
<p>Remind me of why you can’t vote again…will you participate in any campaigns at all, lots of people who can’t vote do that…my Ds have lots of times…</p>
<p>and yes, I think Harris oozes prejudice, arrogance, bad leadership, and think about and read about all those that worked for her who quit…they sure don’t have much nice to say about her either</p>
<p>Again, nice try FS, comparing me to the KKK…indeed, thought you were more clever than that, but guess I was mistaken</p>
<p>I guess according to some I should be tolerant of someone who thinks Christians are the only ones to hold office, tolerance of someone elses intolerence…good thing lots of people in the past didn’t think toloerating others prejudices was the right thing to do</p>
<p>really, FS, a new low, didn’t think you had it in you, but always suprising me…</p>
<p>CGM:</p>
<p>Take a breath, hug your child, get some sleep…you’re hyper-ventilating. </p>
<p>And stop talking about “certain types”: it’s offensive and beneath anyone who believes in a pluralist democracy. </p>
<p>FWIW: isn’t this exactly what you and others are accusing Katharine Harris of?</p>
<p>…of course it is. Heal thyself.</p>
<p>Dear FF-</p>
<p>Well, of course there are <em>supposed</em> to be checks on radical extremism, but the fact is, we’ve had a bit of erosion of those checks of late, although I know you haven’t noticed.</p>
<p>And puhleeze…this has nothing whatsoever with the “ability of Christians to legislate well”, or not. Christians can legislate all they like, as long as they don’t let their faith interfere with the law. It’s really very simple.</p>
<p>And HH, I am not a Wiki fan, but it was the first hit, so here ya go:</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</a></p>
<p>I just read a sermon by a minister who pointed out that if the U.S. didn’t have a separation between church and state, a Southern Baptist like Harris wouldn’t be able to run for office. The founding fathers were Episcopalians and Presbyterians, mostly.</p>
<p>Too bad she and the theocrats like her are trying to destroy the Bill of Rights without understanding it. I suspect when she gets the theocracy she wants (and sadly, I think it’s inevitable) she won’t like it much. Women’s rights are usually the first casualty of fundamentalist governments.</p>
<p>
Same with atheists? Religo-phobes? Can they legislate their faith or do they need to conform their faith to the law as written before they start legislating religion out of public life and the public eye. Because
Such legislators have changed America’s view of religion to the extreme over the years. That is why religion occupies a very different place in public life now, than it did, 25…50…75…100 years ago; even back to when the constitution was written. Somehow the laws changed: was it osmosis, fate, or did someone change the laws. </p>
<p>Just guess…</p>
<p>That’s politics.</p>
<p>Atheists don’t tend to let religion dictate public policy.</p>
<p>Are you trying to change the subject? Or pulling that old GOP canard of “deflect, deflect”? ;)</p>
<p>(I am too tired to continue, however, but do carry on in my absence)</p>
<p>still, FS, not answering the question…certain types- I was referring to certain types of politicans, yes, Harris is of a certain type of politician who thinks her religion is the best…I will not apologize for thinking that Harris has a hidden agenda (well not so hidden anymore), that she is prejudiced and scary cause she thinks God chooses people to lead this country</p>
<p>Toloerance of intolerance is the same as being intolerant…i never said she couldn’t run, but if she hadn’t gaffed, and later tried to take it back, we never would have seen her true colors, would we?</p>
<p>And please do not condecend to me to stop hyperventalating…calling me akin to the KKK was uncalled for and you well know it</p>
<p>Plurisism does not require tolerance of people who want to keep other people back because of religion, color, sex, orientation…your take on plurilism is interesting, don’t you think…</p>
<p>A person of real intellect knows that it is not necessary to accept forms of hate in order to be a plurilist</p>
<p>And, yeah, a person who thinks that you FS, shouldn’t run for office, guess she is okay with you, right? That if “certain types” who think your type is not good enough cause you aren’t\ religion, guess that is fine with you because it will work it self out.</p>
<p>Its a good thing the bus boycotters in the south didn’t wait for the politicians to work it work it out, its a good thing our founding fathers didn’t wait, and its a good thing the sufferegettes didn’t just hang back and let it work itself out</p>
<p>Yeah, stepping up and saying, this is not a good person running for office and you need to see that, guess in FS land we should all keep quiet, cause just voting is enough</p>
<p>forget, please stop attacking me personally FS…still a new low, you should be embarrassed</p>
<p>“*Take a breath, hug your child, get some sleep…you’re hyper-ventilating. </p>
<p>And stop talking about “certain types”: it’s offensive and beneath anyone who believes in a pluralist democracy. </p>
<p>FWIW: isn’t this exactly what you and others are accusing Katharine Harris of?</p>
<p>…of course it is. Heal thyself.*”</p>
<p>So nice I had to say it twice.</p>
<p>Having lumbered through Nixon and Johnson, it is clear that this democracy will even abide people like K Harris and CGM, neither of which could destroy or even harm our vital form of government by being elected to office. That’s what makes it such a special form of government, don’t you think?</p>
<p>Democracy, and your participation is what, exactly…</p>
<p>There have been many debates over the interpretation of separation of church and state. However, Harris left little doubt as to her interpretation when she said non-Christians would legislate sin. As a Christian AND a republican, that is absolutely unacceptable TO ME- thats why Im not voting for her. I havent heard anyone who can logically defend her statements without either agreeing with them or calling them a mistake. Well in my book I hold a US Senator to a little higher standard than making mistakes like that.<br>
Latetoschool- Collins would make a better candidate in the general election. He is more toward the center on some issues which would appeal to more voters. Hard core conservatives wont vote for Nelson no matter what and Collins has the ability to attract democrats. He does have name recognition- his dad was governor (democrat) of Florida and a great man at that.</p>
<p>Doubleplay, I agree re Collins - we know him, and his daughter very well, as they are leading members of an athletic club we belong to - he’s been something of a mentor to my daughter, and to me in terms of business matters. We share similar interests and reaches re technology security matters, espcially in the financial and military space. But I don’t see him having the connection to people and topical issues the way Bill McBride has it - it’s not a reflection on Collins so much as it is that McBride has been able to leverage his career and reputation from Holland & Knight, etc., where he is/was very highly regarded. </p>
<p>Immediately following the stem cell veto, Collins asked D & I our opinion, and, I had to step out of the conversation, not understanding the complexity and the science; D could articulate to Collins the entire dynamic and life cycle of stem cell collection. He listened carefully and was clearly VERY receptive to diverse opinion (as opposed to being 100% in support of the veto), but, D commented later that she was very surprised he wasn’t articulate on the issue at all and did not even seem to have a grasp on the basic science. I have seen a bit of the same re technology issues - he embraces principles of technology security that have been around for a decade, as if they were newly discovered. </p>
<p>Having said that, as a person, I like him a LOT. He’s highly ethical, respectful of others, and is always in a favorable, positive, pleasant frame of mind. I think I’ve spent time with him once a week for the last five years on average, except when one of us is traveling, and EVERYONE respects him, thinks very highly of him, and genuinely likes him. And his family, daughter, etc. simply could not be nicer, kinder, or more gracious to others. Last, he works out once a day minimum, even when traveling; he’s in better shape at 70-ish than a lot of people in their 40’s. </p>
<p>But having said even all of that, even being so conservative, I don’t have much problem with Bill Nelson, either, if it comes to it. I’ve watched his votes closely enough to be satisfied that he does behave in a senatorial manner and is reasonably fairly representative of the people. </p>
<p>In the highly unlikely event that Katherine Harris would win, she still wouldn’t have much power - as a freshman senator she certainly wouldn’t be assigned to any powerful or coveted committees, and I doubt she would have much influence over 99 or so other senators. The biggest danger she represents to the people of Florida is that if she continues to smear lipstick all over her face like it’s war paint, and wear that weird mascara, the rest of the country might start to think that Floridian women routinely do that to their faces. (Um, we don’t.) Outside of that, I think she’s harmless.</p>
<p>Latetoschool, I like what you said overall about whom you might vote for and why, but going back a few posts, I disagree in that Harris most definitely did decide the 2000 election based on HER OWN bias, Florida law simply provided some cover for her. I felt that she should have recused herself because of her campaign position. Ken Blackwell in Ohio should have done the same thing in 2004.</p>
<p>Today Harris is a meglomaniac with few follower. The good old boys are trying to throw her under a bus now. It’s clear to me that she and Cynthia McKinney use the same capitol hill beauty shop and had their minds warped by a faulty space-helmet hair dryer.</p>
<p>I believe Will McBride is a fine man but in a general election his Christian broadcasting background may hurt. Not that I have anything against Christian broadcasting, and I’m not intimately familiar with the programming that his family does, but that in a state the size of Florida, a candidate has to have a broad appeal. He’d get the conservative Christian vote for sure. Does anyone know about his family’s broadcasting business? They aren’t involved in the religious hawker-type programs that go after money are they?</p>