Don't know which board or which specific Iranian you're referring to.
Posted By: ;-) on 2006-04-19
In Reply to: You might want to read another article by an Iranian on the other board. - Yowsa
If you want me to read something, then post it, so I can, but please don't suggest that I go on some kind of wild goose chase on some other unnamed *board* for a post by some unnamed *Iranian.* I simply don't have that kind of time.
If you don't think the Iranian president is nuts, then blame the media and the administration because that's he way he's been portrayed by both, and his actions sure suggest that he is. Please post his redeeming qualities as you see them.
I posted this because I thought it was humorous, yet dead on accurate in the way a lot of Americans feel.
Get the picture? 
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
You might want to read another article by an Iranian on the other board.
It helps to know both sides of the story and since I am pretty sure Beth is not in Iran right now, or Iranian in nationality, the one who IS there might have a better handle on things. Get the picture?
Please copy the post you're referring to that says she's not
I can't find it.
Palin is substance, if that's what you're referring to!
x
Post the direct link. I don't see the post you're referring to.
t
You're right. I don't come to this board often sm
as I have lots of other things to do. I saw Chris Matthews' name in the most-recent post, so decided to see what was going on.
I went to that letxa site. Nowhere could I find the author's name. It looks like an opinionated Republican blowhard's blog, and not one of any governmental authority.
That blogger believes Palin had that baby and he also doesn't seem to believe in global warming. Guess the world is still flat, too. I didn't bother to read any more of his blather when I couldn't find his name anywhere. It may be buried in there somewhere, but I couldn't find it. Perhaps you'll enlighten me?
So does this mean you're going back to your own board now, as you were
They're doing to this board what they're trying to do
to the whole country. They're trying to take it over. They want to control which God you believe in, who you love and what you do with your body, be it regarding life or regarding death. If you don't voluntarily agree to turn your free will over to their control, they will hunt you down and nag you to death (since they can't do anything more violent on a message board). It's obvious they are sick, sick people and need major help.
But they ARE like watching a car wreck and are sometimes hard to ignore.
I've thought about it, and for me personally, the very best thing to do is ignore them and for 2 reasons:
1. Ignoring them and not reading their posts makes my visit on this board much more pleasant. I already know I'm not missing anything because there isn't one post on this entire board written by them that has contributed anything of value or intelligence.
2. If we all refuse to read and respond to their posts, they might give up and go find another board to terrorize. I doubt that, though, because they've taken over this board and simply don't have the CLASS to leave. They take pride in their bully on the playground mentality and are proud of their ignorant behavior. They will probably just continue to pat themselves on their backs on this board. The only thing that might startle them and cause them to stop is that the NUMBER of posts on the Liberal board are starting to increase heavily as a direct result of their posting. In the past, they've used the Liberal board's lower numbers to trash us for not being as interesting, when, in fact, the CON board must be pretty boring if they are always choosing to be HERE instead.
Like I said, I've decided that I'd like my visits here to be pleasant, so I'm just going to stop subjecting myself to their cesspools of attacks. They've proven their posts aren't worth wasting time reading, so I'm just going to stop and will feel much better as a result of stopping.
Libby dear you're on our board
and we haven't asked you to leave yet, so you can't talk about us being here when you are there. The double standard doesn't work here.
You're on the wrong board, aren't you?
If you're done with this board, fine. You don't see the truth
It was not Bush who sent the jobs overseas. The first Bush had a hand in starting it, but CLINTON expanded it to the crap we see today.
I live in a small community of garmet workers and shoe companies. All are gone now because of NAFTA. China bought the last shoe company (very well known for its quality shoes) in this area and promptly closed it a year later because they didn't want the competition for their cheap reproductions.
There are no jobs here and hasn't been any jobs here for the past 10 years. You wanna argue that point while I see all our workers collecting unemployment because now they are either too old or too poor to go to another county to get a job 30 miles away?
We have turned into a bedroom community for the people from NY, NJ, and Phila but that doesn't help the people who have worked hard all their lives to be pushed to the side because of NAFTA.
If the O gets in, it will definitely be worse. All you that work in a production job, banking job, etc. will not have a job. I would almost guarantee that within the next 4 years. If I'm wrong, okay. That would be great.
And, by the way, Ayers will not anser any questions the press asks, and he definitely should not be teaching our children in college.
Kinky. I think you're on the wrong message board.
Sicko!
I'm not Iranian
Nor is my husband. The friend is. He married a Korean. They chose conservatism. I may not have clarified that. Sorry about that.
I have to wonder where many get their news. I know politics every which-way, so won't even go there. I kick total butt at it.
Not interested in this.
From one Iranian spouse to another...
Left me get this straight. You are married to an Iranian, yet you paint Iranians with such a broad brushstroke that you suggest negotiations can only take place with radical Islamic extremists? Do you also include his family (your in-laws) in that monolith? Are you able to distinguish between the single ultra-conservative party, the 7 main parties of the conservative alliance, the other 11 main parties of the reformist coalition, the 3 repressed parties of the dissident coalition inside Iran and the roughly 70 separate parties living in the Iranian diaspora, which roughly break down as follows:
• 17 communist parties
• 8 socialist and social-democrat parties
• 24 ethnic-based parties
• 6 nationalist parties
• 9 liberal democrat parties
• 4 conservative parties
Let’s not overlook the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Iran and has the final word in all aspects of foreign and domestic policies.
When you say you and your husband are active in conservative politics, I assume you refer to US brand of conservatism…or is it the Iranian brand? There is a difference, you know…or do you? Do you speak Farsi? Are you confident that you know exactly where your husband stands when it comes to the politics inside his own country….you know, that discussion he has in Farsi with his buddies in social gatherings and over the telephone?
Are you at all familiar with the recent history of Iranian politics, i.e. the era of the US CIA-sponsored coup to overthrow Mosadegh in the early 1950s to restore the exiled shah to power and the disastrous consequences that have ensued, an act which ushered in the current era of ill-advised US interference in the region? If you have taken the time to explore any of THEIR issues, even on the most superficial of levels, then you know that the leaders in power do not necessarily reflect the will of their people and by no stretch of the imagination are Iranians all Islamic fundamentalists.
Let us at least extend the respect to our spouses that it just might be possible that Iranians should be in charge of their own political affairs and should not surrender their country as the next US colony in Middle East. It in on their behalf, the behalf of their/your families in Iran, and in our own interest as Americans that these negotiations should commence. It just might be worth a try to present US leadership that uses new approaches to diplomatic issues, starting with the intent to listen as much as the intent to talk, an attempt to establish common goals, mediate differences, engage in dialog void of orders and ultimatums and, at the very least, a commitment to avoid becoming party to nuclear holocaust that has the potential to decimate populations both at home and abroad.
BTW, beware of cowboy diplomatic initiaties. An American Interests Section (quasi precursor to an embassy) will be just that. Translation: An "intelligence" (if such a word can be uttered in the same context as Bush diplomacy) collecting dugout established to gather dirt to manipulate in the US media in an attempt to justify dialing conservative-style nuclear nonproliferation up a notch, just in time for an election. Ain't that handy?
You can't talk to the Iranian leaders
They are the cleric and they are the ones who rule the country. They rule with an iron fist and by the power of Islam. The president of their country is only a puppet just like in the U.S.
We should NOT get involved unless asked, which probably will not happen. Sure, there are some in this country who thinks we should and it's both sides who have that opinion, not just the pubs. President A will be the winner, you can be sure of that, since they are only doing recounts on certain areas of the country (probably those that voted for President A.
Do you honestly think the Iranian president can be reasoned with?
I know you think Bush is as evil as he is (maybe you think Bush is worse) but do you honestly think the Iranian president is a reasonable person? I think nukes should be a last resort, but it should be in the contingency. I think you and the writer of the article are looking at this all wrong. Sometimes you have to saber rattle. When the neighborhood bully is issuing threats and does not appear open to negotiation you have to show him you can beat him up, and basically that's true. We could light up his little sandbox of a country inside of 30 minutes. He knows that, but he's just testing the waters to see how passive, poll-sensitive our country has become. He, like the rest of the fundamentalist Islam Jihadists, are testing what our resolve is.
Hey, but have a good shopping spree. I'd hate to have to count on a nuclear war to erase my debt...
I've actually listened to what the Iranian president says.?
You said for liberals only, so excuse my intrustion into your world, but have you honestly not listened to some of the speeches he makes in his own country which usually begin something like *Death to America* etc. etc.? He's sounding all diplomatic right now, because he knows that his soldiers got caught in Hezobollah's forces, and he knows he has everything to lose. I'm going to watch it not because I think he's the best thing since sliced bread like some of you do, but because it's going to be real interesting when on Monday morning the free press rolls out all the hate/kill America speeches he's made, but you all will just believe they are fabricated too.
The Iranian president is a whack job & needs to be snuffed out.
FOR LIBERALS ONLY: 60 Minutes Interviews Iranian President Sunday.
I am looking forward to watching this interview because I am truly interested in hearing what this man has to say.
I can recall as a child growing up to the tune of We have to fight Vietnam because the Communists want to take over the world. During those times, the worst thing a person could be called in the USA was a Communist.
It seems to me these days the USA is the one that wants to take over the world. It has no respect for any government that cares about its poor people or even America's poor, for that matter. (For example, Chavez tried to provide cheap oil to the poor last winter while Bush didn't care if poor Americans froze to death.) Any country that removes the profit incentive from medicine or education for its citizens is a terrorist nation in Bush's eyes. We're quickly approaching the day when most of us will be poor as the middle class continues to disintegrate before our eyes.
I am suspect of everyone Bush labels as terrorist these days, and I want to hear both sides. Bush refuses to sit down diplomatically and listen to what Ahmadinejad has to say, so I'm grateful that Mike Wallace took the time to do so.
The Iranian President has challenged Bush to a live debate...sm
I would be interested in hearing that. One quote from the article:
The debate should be uncensored in order for the American people to be able to listen to what we say and they should not restrict the American people from hearing the truth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5295550.stm
I should have been more specific
Maybe "reformed' would have been a better choice. I would not consider the Southern Baptists mainstream anymore. There have been many changes in that denomination pushing it much further right, and it has changed a lot over the years.
Can you be more specific?
What is your impression of his "drug policies?" What poor black man ever went to jail for getting some doctor to forge prescriptions for him? It sounds like you are talking about someone caught dealing for personal gain (money), not because they were addicted. Most dealers don't use. I would say 95% of them don't use and less than that are addicted. So could you be more specific on what you think John McCain had to do with putting poor black men in jail for forging prescriptions or using political clout to get someone to forge them for them. Because that is what Cindy McCain did. I am just trying to understand here.
Could you be a tad more specific?
nm
Could you please be a little more specific?
nm
Could you please be a little more specific?
I am interested in how Obama smoked the Constitution (what's left of it) and just when he stood by while the flag burned? While you are at it, please provide your sources. Otherwise, I can't reply to the rest of your post since I gave my Magic 8 ball to my neighbor's little sister when I was 11 and never replaced my Tarot cards after my college roommate stole them back in ྈ.
How about being a bit more specific?
Medicare and Medicaid, but what I want to know is why bother to post if you can't back yourself up with a logical argument, examples, sources for your info or something....ANYTHING? Otherwise, these sweeping generalized predictions of failure are just more sour grapes cat calls.
Can you be more specific, please?
1. Exactly which "19th century" principles should the Republicans abandon or "modernize"?
2. What evidence is there that "evangelicals" are "running the party", please?
Thank you - and I hope you'll provide something cogent for discussion instead of supporting your talking-points with more talking-points, so that we can have a good discussion about this.
Could you be more specific? Or maybe . . .
you're talking about the part where he talked about his father being Muslim and you misunderstood that he said it was his religion. It would be most helpful if you could post the exact portion of that speech, please. I pretty much listened to the whole thing, and I don't believe there was any part in there where he professed to be Muslum.
No,actually, they are more specific in their bias...
they are definitely more biased toward the clintons than democrats in general. But it is obviously that the mainstream media are all Obama adorers. That's why I take what is reported there with a grain of salt. And if I want to know ANYthing about conservatives Fox is my only choice.
I am sure no one here can deny with a straight face that the mainstream media has a left bias. lol.
not specific enough to draw
an inference from your post. Vague.
I was trying not to be gender specific
Care to be more specific?..(sm)
You might want to look up his voting record before you go there.
That is not what I said. I will have to search for the specific case...
in this case, the school had a rule banning any kind of religious symbol. A girl wore a cross to school and she was told to take it off and not wear it again. The same school tried to ban a Muslim student from wearing a head covering on the same basis. The ACLU took the school to court (actually I think it was settled out of court) on behalf of the Muslim student to be able to wear her head covering. They did this without being hired by the Muslim student. They did not argue on behalf of the Christian girl at the same time. The Muslim got to wear the head covering but the other girl still could not wear the cross. That is what I am talking about. I did not say that the ACLU sought to ban it. I am saying that they took on the cause of the Muslim girl, but not the Christian girl. And to me, that is discrimination.
I don't know it to be a fact, but I think if that Christian girl specifically asked the ACLU to support her case they would have refused. The last thing the ACLU wants to do is argue on behalf of a Christian to practice Christianity, even in something so small as wearing a cross to school.
And yes, there are many schools who ban religious symbols because of that gross misinterpretation of the first ammendment...the free exercise thereof totally left out, and the words separation of church and state supplied, which do not even exist in the constitution.
Where does it give a specific age in the Bible? nm
I would really like to see this scripture if you can refer me to it.
The question was specific to marijuana
but frankly, I do not care what anybody else consumes. That includes maryjane, and so my vote is yes.
Not necessarily any specific speech
that changed the trend in Europe, but what those countries see happening in the US the last 6 months.
For decades, whenever there was trouble anywhere in the world, a natural disaster, an epidemic, an out-of-control dictator, a genocide, they could always count on the US to send money (more than any other nation), materiel and personnel to bail them out and fix the problem. Now the rest of the world sees our government bankrupting itself (Obama's mouth writing checks his wallet can't cover) and they must realize that they're going to be pretty much on their own from here on out. They have to get ready to take care of themselves, and rein in their own out-of-control governments.
Nope, not any specific speech he gave, but I think everyone in the EU must see the handwriting on the wall. They are starting to take measures to protect themselves. About time. It's just ironic that we are not moving into the place they are abandoning.
The specific issue is irrelavant to my point
I was in no way arguing the whole abortion issue. Passionate feelings on both sides. I'm staying out of that. What I was trying to say is this bill is typical future-ammo stuff done by both sides. Here is an example: I am a legislator and draw up a bill (the idea of which was probably pushed on me by a lobbyist). I call it the Justice for Pedophile Victims Act. The bulk of the bill talks about harsh punishments for pedophiles, one strike and you're out, life in jail, that kind of thing. But there is a little clause in there that says that at trial the pedophile victims have to come face-to-face with the pedophile and describe in detail what happened to them and be subject to the pedophile's lawyer's cross examination. I know my opponents are all for harsh punishments but don't want to subject the victims to that kind of trauma in court, so I know they will vote no. Then when election time comes I can say my opponent voted against the Justice for Pedophile Victims Act and thus must want to let peophiles walk the street. I know this is not true, but I knew they would vote no due to wording that left out would have changed their vote.
It's all politics and it happens all the time.
Terrible debate! Jim was not direct or specific enough in his ...sm
questions and allowed too much of the same old retoric from both candidates.
George's Interview with her on this specific subject
I think she's on drugs...or else she's ready to run for president...or else she trying to undermine O before he even gets going. Watch and see. Good heavens, she's going off the deep end. She's a big mouth, as is Barney Fife, Harry Reid, and the others. They've been trying to run this country since before the bailout. If O is smart, he'll soon shut them all up.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/01/pelosi-defends.html
Aacks Cyndiee - I guess I should have been more specific
in my message because I've read a lot of your posts and I agree with you most of the time.
There are however other people who don't watch a variety and only listen to the words of Olberman and Matthews and don't even listen to O'Reilly or Limbaugh but put them down. Those are whom I was talking about.
You have always presented yourself very well versed in a lot of different topics and sometimes I wish I could articulate myself as well.
Say what?? I am talking about a specific person whom I personally think...sm
is over-the-top, an embarrasmment to the President in many ways because of her ultra-liberal stance, but I am not "bashing" any Democrats, Republicans, or anyone else in particular here except Ms. Pelosi herself, and I was trying put a teensy tiny bit of humor on the board, sorry I did not pass it by you first, and you make no sense here because I am generally Democratic, not that that has anything to do with this?????? Wow, I honestly gave you more credit for intelligence and fairness than that.
If there already exist specific written policies
pertaining to personal workspace adornment (size, number and/or appropriateness of photographs, posters, banners, political content, sports memorabilia, etc.) then I would agree with you. If you don't like the policy, don't work there. Your office is not your personal gallery.
If the company doesn't want somebody hanging up a Soviet flag, then they're probably going to have to prohibit Old Glory as well.
However, if this is a policy formulated on the spur of the moment to appease a complainer, then I disagree. What's next? An Ohio State fan complaining about a Michigan pennant in the next cubicle?) Nor do I agree that new policies should be formulated after the fact to deal with an existing situation just because nobody foresaw it. If it's an important issue, then a rule should already cover it.
If this is a public area (waiting room/reception area) then I am sure the company must have had the foresight to write a standard regarding decor, since all visitors will see this. In my opinion, if it ain't covered in that policy, it should be okay.
Interesting that people voluntarily come to this country, going to considerable effort to get here, then so easily become offended and need special accommodations. What is it they don't understand about "liberty"? If an American coworker complained about the Ugandan flag in a neighboring workspace, there would be h*ll to pay! Disciplinary action against the complainer. Law suits! ACLU involvement! Paid leave and free counseling for the Ugandan employee to get over the trauma of the event!
It is not the same at all, not picking on a specific group,race, or ethnicity....sm
as a matter of fact, some of my worst dictators are AMERICAN, they hate dictating and so act like little kids and speed talk, trip all over their words, slur everything together, mispronounce without correcting themselves, chew, burp, rattle papers and x-rays, etc., and then will correct several paragraps because they "forgot" this or that. At least foreign docs have an excuse, and many try to enuniciate clearly, spell things, out, etc. There is no comparison here...complaining about high percentage of difficult docs in your queue is not the same as drawing a "cartoon" that points directly in one direction, is poorly disguised, and is dispersed and disseminated in a national, hugely circulated newpaper.
So you and your buds bash us on *your* board and suddenly, once you reach this board,
some respect?
You publicly post on the other board that you *try not to visit the bog of eternal stench.*
Well, doesn't look like you are trying all that hard. Or is that another example of Conservative honesty, like your buddy on the other board lies 3 times before suddenly deciding to be *up front* (in her own words) about the whole bogus line of crap she was spouting.
You and your 2 friends don't respect anyone unless they're a member of your little club, think exactly as you think, belong to the same political party as you belong, and believe in the very same little narrow SUBsection of one particular religion.
That's what I interpret from YOUR WRITTEN WORDS. Your posts don't show respect. They only show twisted *facts*, ignorance, anger and hatred.
You can't be *respectful* on your own board but suddenly, when you come here - HERE - the place YOU call *the bog of eternal stench* you suddenly discover some respectability during your mouse click from there to here?
Please. Some of us aren't as stupid as you think we are.
You're becoming quite a bore. You and your friends stated you don't want us on your board, but you're not happy unless you're picking a fight. You and your *gang* told us to leave and not to post on *your* board. Maybe that should work both ways.
Out of ALL the problems with radical Conservatives, maybe the most annoying thing is that you don't believe in equality at all. You believe in SUPERIORITY. Somewhere along the line, someone made you think you were special and above everyone else. Sheesh! You're not happy unless you're dictating to everyone else in the country what they're allowed to do in their own personal lives regarding life, death, science, etc. You even think YOUR GOD IS BETTER than everyone else's.
You want to make the rules, censor people and tell them which boards they can and cannot post on, but YOU want to invade them all and spew your ignorance and hatred.
In my heart, I believe there are sincere, honest, intelligent Conservatives out there who are capable of a sensible debate. I've seen them. (I hope you don't chase them away, too.) But and your crew don't fall in that category, and this will be the last of your inane posts I will subject myself to.
Talk about stench. Just read your very own posts.
Can we bring the board back to the true reason for the board
Can we get the political board back to the true purpose of this board – to share opinions of why we like our candidate. Not bash and cut down others because they don’t agree with you.
I stayed away from this board for the past couple days because anyone who had anything positive to say about Sarah Palin got slammed, bashed, kicked down, etc. After awhile I found it all too draining, and was not seeing any reason to come. Yes, I did see some of it towards people who favored Barack Obama, but if you read the posts again it is mostly towards anyone who favored Sarah Palin/John McCain.
I thought the political board was for posting information regarding politics and candidates. What I have seen for the past few days is that it has been an attack board. Especially if you have anything positive you want to share about Sarah Palin. You say something good about her and you get attacked, you answer back, and you get attacked more, and then when you get mad and pretty much say stop attacking me, they come back with this “Geez, I’m allowed to have an opinion”.
Another thing I am tired of seeing is the slanderous, hate filled, really off the wall comments about Sarah Palin. The latest was something about her daughter actually had her baby. Talk about just bizarre comments. I thought what’s next, she’s an alien from another planet? The more I kept reading the more the comments were getting just really weird and bizarre. Of course nobody ever having any proof of any of these allegations. I then came to realize that the posters were just trying to get a fight going.
I also saw posts that had nothing to do with politics but attacking a poster named Sam. Again, probably trying to get another fight going for no good reason and on things that have nothing to do whatsoever with politics. I’ve read “Sam is like an annoying nat that you sway away”, “Sam, please let me know where you work” or “she must have her quota” or “sam is to the politics board as oracle is to the” This childish rhetoric is getting old. I’m not defending sam she is a big girl and I can see by her posts she can take care of herself, but my point is that this has nothing to do with politics. If you want a fight maybe you could request that the administrator create a separate “fight and degrade” section.
I’ve read the administrators post a couple different times called Beware of Flaming. She/he said as long as we realize that not everyone is going to agree we shouldn’t wear our feelings on our sleeves and a little more oversight on here would be good. Let people express his or her opinion and move on. If you don’t like someone just ignore that person. “It’s not rocket science, you know” (I liked that statement) 
I consider posting on this board a privilege and not a right. If you don’t agree with something and you post that you don’t agree and state the facts why (and are civilized about it) that’s one thing, but when you bash and degrade others without showing proof and just want to start fights and belittle others it just seems a bit juvenile to me.
I come to the politics board to hear ideas and stuff (facts) about the candidates. That is how I’m learning about each one, but I don’t want to read people attack other posters for no good reason. I'd like to hear about Obama/Biden & McCain/Palin, but I want to hear facts.
If you like to fight so much why don’t you pick on people that you can fight to face to face.
Your on the wrong board - you need to preach on the faith board
You just delivered a sermon (or quote). Either way it doesn't belong here. What does this have to do with politics. The democrat and republican party did not start up until after the 1800s. Socialism also wasn't created until the 1800s.
To me your post describes the way humans should treat other humans. This has nothing to do with politics - imho.
Because you posted on the Main board not Politics board.
It was removed, as we do not have an option of moving from Main to Politics.
This could have easily been avoided had you posted on the correct board.
The response from another poster to not post political viewpoints on this board was becuase you posted it on the Main board.
Not what I was referring to...
Anyway, I'm beginning to be sorry I mentioned this. The whole point was that a poster said TWICE that it was easy enough for her to check ISPs to find out who was using multiple monikers in order to find out what was posting as whom, etc. I was just questioning that comment, that's all.
As far as the hacking on the protestwarrior.com website, that is a separate issue from what I was referring to. Someone revealed some folks' personal information on the forum. I wasn't blaming the owners of the website for that.....
Time for me to give this a rest.
LOL! I was referring to
Bush's invasion of Iraq to *spread freedom* (#2 reason after the failed WMD excuse). I'd consider it kind of a *gander invasion* (as in what's good for...). Could you imagine an America where, regardless of wealth, everyone received medical care, nobody starved, everyone had adequate housing? An America that didn't throw its poor to the wolves (or the *waves* of a hurricane, as pointed out below in the areas that Bush included in his Louisiana plan)? An American government that allowed personal freedoms, didn't force one set of religious beliefs down your throat via politics, didn't try to control your personal life/death issues, didn't condemn you to unequal rights and eternal damnation because you love the *wrong* person?
I wouldn't object to living in that kind of America.
Actually, I was referring to
money/evil as it regards George W. Bush, et al.
The UAE has a very unstable history of *loyalty* to the United States, and I believe allowing this deal to go through is very risky business and completely contrary to the man who said *If you're not with us, you're against us,* who, to me, is now completely against us and in favor of big money. The 9/11 Commission is totally against this deal. But anything to defend Dubya, right?
Let me guess...you *accidentally* posted on the liberal board again, right?
I was actually not referring to you.
You are not the message-syntax-style-similar person.
I was not referring to these 2
individuals exclusively. I said there are those who are able to see a problem from all sides. These are the people who will lead us to peace if we can ever achieve it. As far as liars et al, PULEEZE, take a look at our current Congress, take a look at many of our **ministries.** Take a look at our leaders of industry. Take a look at our professional sports and news people and newspapers.
My point was that one can actually have a viewpoint that is diametrically opposed to yours and still love America, love democracy and disapprove of this administration AND say so out loud. I admire people who can put their personal feelings aside and see incendiary events objectively. I am not able to do that but there are those that can. My post was not a defense of anyone in particular.
|
