I definitely agree with you - we all need to be civil
Posted By: me on 2008-08-26
In Reply to: I hear what you are saying....and I am not bashing either...see inside... - sam
Sharing one's viewpoints is one thing. There is no need to call people nasty names. Those other bashings you are talking about came after I posted my message, so I didn't see them.
I hate to quote Rodney King but we all do need to get along. Having one viewpoints is important (it's what makes us human beings), but not everyone will agree with us, and as you stated in your message calling you a d-bag (that has got to be so low class) just because you don't agree with someone? I think I called someone that in high school (but that was over 30 years ago). We will all disagree about issues, but I hope people would be nicer and just say "I disagree and this is why", and leave it at that.
I am sorry you were called all those horrible things. I just want you to know that with our disagreements I in no uncertain terms think you are a d-bag or jerk or anything horrible like that. You are a person just like me. Strong in our beliefs, just different in our ways.
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
civil war
During the civil war the rich people, who owned slaves, worked up the poor people, who did not own slaves, into a frenzy about how the north was bossing them around, how they should leave the union and it was an ideological war. All the rich people left their plantations and went north until the war was over. The poor people fought out, brother against brother, without shoes, for an idea. The rich people came back after it was over and kicked the freed slaves off their land, right into the laps of the poor people who had to compete with them now for jobs. The rich stayed rich, alive, and healthy, and all of the poor people were slaughtered.
Are all you republicans rich? Don't fight for them, they are on vacation.
Thank you van - and thank you for being civil
Everyone here gave me a headache I shut it down for awhile. Talk about jumping on and attacking. Heaven forbid anyone should ever put their opinions or beliefs up on this board.
You are correct and I did state in one (if not more) that I was incorrect and he did not lie. But even after saying that they kept attacking and attacking. Then bringing up past posts that had nothing to do with this.
Thank you for posting below all the countries in the Middle East. That helps sort things out.
Like I said, they have every civil right I have.....
--
Political civil war that really does sum it up....sm
And it really is a sad state of affairs.
You raise a good point about bin Laden, I never thought of that. He could have died of natural causes and be buried somewhere. It's not like he was the most vigorous being (healthwise). Who knows?
Catching him two years ago would have meant more politically and *antiterror* wise than it would mean today.
You do Civil War re-enactment?
Politics aside, I feel like I'm meeting some new FRIENDS on this board! By any chance are you going to participate in the Prairie Grove, Arkansas re-enactment the 1st weekend in Dec? We're working to get recognition for the Battle of Cane Hill and hopefully in the next few years we'll have a re-enactment here.
Why have civil defense. NM
x
Civil Defense
civil defense: NOUN: abbr. CD A range of emergency measures to be taken by an organized body of civilian volunteers for the protection of life and property in the event of natural disaster or enemy attack.
Well....civil unions would have
to be something we would do on a country wide basis. I mean...what is the point if you can't leave your state because other states don't accept them. I meant this as a country wide thing. If the whole country recognized civil unions with the same benefits as marriage kind of thing. I guess I wasn't specific enough.
As it goes, same sex marriage is only accepted in the states that allow it. I mean...you have to live in those states to have the rights of marriage...right? Please correct me if I'm wrong on that one because I really don't know.
For someone who "laments" civil debate
you do a fair job of attacking me - it at least feels like one - and I am hardly a Republican... something you obviously hate.
I totally share your disgust of the fascists in power and those who defend them. But if you think for a New York Second the Democrats are much less corrupt you are fooling yourself.
Ask yourself WHY in the face of clear criminal conduct the Democrats have not only successfully challenged bu$h but have HELPED TO ADVANCE THE VAST MAJORITY OF HIS AGENDA (POLICIES).
You do a little real research on this and get back to me. Maybe then you'll hve a better idea why I am a recovering Democrat.
Clinton himself said it best: Fool me once (democratic party), shame on you; fool me twice, shame on ME.
They are the first to invoke their civil liberties. sm
And the first to silence others who do not agree with them. They have attempted to bring the office of the Presidency down to their level...disrespectful, unhallowed, a slip shod Animal House with pizza lovers who trash the house when they leave and steal all the W's from the keyboards. Their beloved Clinton sold the Lincoln Bedroom to people who had no awe of anything, much less respect for all who slept there before. They had sex with young interns and said it wasn't sex. They lied under oath and brought their shady cronyism into the White House. Theyrefused background FBI checks and refused to have their medical records made public, both firsts in any presidency. In other words, THEY HAD NO RESPECT FOR THE OFFICE. This from a man who promised the most ethical presidency ever. And those very same people who continue to support Clinton to this day swear it was all about sex post on this very board about following rules. It boggles the mind.
Lincoln and civil rights
Although you are correct that Lincoln was a Republican, in those days, Republican was not what it is today, nor Democrat, no Tory nor Whig, etc. How could it be, the times they have-a-changed. He called himself a Democrat many times during his career and was extremely anti-slavery but did not fall in with the abolitionists. What with Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Jacobins, etc. it would be really difficult to say one party abolished slavery.People from all sides supported and opposed it. Lincoln just happened to be president and the **War of Northern Aggression** quelled those who had seceded.
Lincoln was very anti-war, did not like the idea at all so the civil war was distasteful to say the least. He did, however, have no problem enlisting and personally fighting in the European versus Sac Indians war which makes him not my most favorite president...but then, everyone makes mistakes. He did that in his younger years.
The civil rights act I have always believed rests with LBJ. He is not my favorite either. In fact, I did not like him much at all, but he did, in his predecessor's memory, carry the civil rights act to fruition. I remember him saying on the day that he signed it, the south is lost to Democrats as of this day. Here is a link of the timeline. It is pretty straightforward, comes from LBJ for kids site so it is not overly lengthy or boring.
http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/civil_timeline.shtm
Civil Rights Act voting
Actually in the House 100% of the southern Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act so it seems you may have skewed the results a bit in order to generalize. Actually the vote went by geography rather than party lines as is obvious below.
As far as the Dems having a lot of catching up to do....politics change over time. Democratic affiliation changed with FDR. Perhaps you have a lot of catching up to do yourself!
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT VOTING
The original House version:
- Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
- Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
- Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
- Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Not semantics - Law. There was a need for the Civil Rights
movement of the 50s and 60s. That movement did the job and now it is all water under the bridge. Quit whining about slavery and mistreatment. Quit living in the past. That's all African-American's based their votes on in this election, was the past and skin color. It's racism and ignorance pure and simple. The hypocrisy is the democrats/liberals and their message of tolerance. Now it's the whites that are disciminated against and all tolerance is gone.
Currently in Kentucky ther is a civil
trial going on against members of the KKK for beating up someone at one of the county fairs.
You in your view civil rights don't mean anything? (sm)
Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation.
So acorrding to you, we should just scrap this whole civil rights thing that would protect those who do not have as large a voice and go for a majority vote?
marriage vs civil union
As a nation, we did not used to spend so much time splitting hairs over words.
What if back when the 19th amendment was enacted, they had said: Women having the right to 'vote' would upset men. So instead of 'voting' we're going to call it 'ballot casting.' That way, women can have the same rights as men, but only men can be 'voters' and won't feel they're losing their special status.
How about if during the civil rights movement, when segregation was eliminated, instead of integration they had called it: 'The right to attend the same schools and go to the same restaurants and ride in the front of the bus'? Calling institutions 'integrated' would upset the southern states.
How about when women began to demand 'equal pay for equal work'? What if they had said: Okay, you can have the money and the responsibility, maybe even the corner office, but only a man can be called VP of Sales. Instead, your title will have to be something else, maybe Sales Coordinator, othewise the men who are VPs will get angry.
I suppose a fair number of women or blacks would have considered this a win, because they were gaining the benefit, if not the exact status of the changes. But a fair number of folks rightly would have said: Huh? Aren't these silly distinctions? A lot of people would have wondered why they didn't just shut up and 'settle.'
If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?
Civil union rights.
"If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?"
I understand your point.
But why, then, is so important for same-sex couples to use the word "marriage" if - as you pointed out - it's just a word.
Why aren't people fighting to have all the rights of marriage applied to civil unions? Seems to me that, while most Americans are against gay marriage, most Americans are actually FOR civil unions.
Civil marriages don't just involve
Lots of people are married by JPs. Have for years. And a church might decide that they would not hire a heterosexual on the basis that they "weren't married in the church". Granted, most don't even inquire, but it could happen, if we accept the governor's ridiculous statement. And he suggests that if they did, it would be hunky-dory. Churches aren't required to recognize "civil marriages" by his pronouncement. This would obviously have to include homosexual and heterosexual marriages or now we have a THIRD type of marriage.
My point is that there is no legal differentiation between a "civil marriage" and one that is performed in a church and never has been. If the governor is now suggesting that there is such a difference, he is nuts.
This is what I found on the civil rights vote.
House Debate and Passage
The House of Representatives debated the bill for nine days and rejected nearly one hundred amendments designed to weaken the bill before passing H.R .7152 on February 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11. A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success. This same arrangement would prove crucial later to the Senate's approval of the bill.
I thought after reading your post that there was something wrong with that statement, Republicans passed the civil rights act; Huh?? Then I remembered at that time the south was predominantly Democratic and I believe those elected officials were voting more on their constituents' demands than on the platform of the Democratic party. That also explains why Johnson said, **As of today, Democrats have lost the south.** and he was right. It looks to me like a bipartisan deal. I got the above information from the Everett Dirksen Library Archives.
This also demonstrates to me how a party can change or evolve its platforms. The Democratic south was once **the little people, the working class, the most good for the most people party.** After the civil rights act the south became predominantly Republican and remains so. In 1964 the south did not want equal rights for women, blacks, religions. They wanted things to stay the way they were. I think the Republicans provided that for them. In 1964 I think it safe to say that WASP was pretty much the bulk of the Republican party and that appealed to the south who were being forced at gunpoint to change.
I don't know about the suffrage movement but I always wonder if they caught the same flack then that NOW gets now. I am going to look that up though.
don'forget civil rights lawyer
and constitutional law professor. Yep, I think he think on his feet with the best of em.
We are heading toward a civil war of a magnitude we cannot foresee
Never in my lifetime have issues gotten so ugly/hateful. This will be the first illegal election in history if Sen. Obama is elected. People do not care that he does not meet the requirements to be President. They will go against the constitution just to get him elected. Why? I know there are a lot of people who would like Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President. If Obama who is not a native born, and is possibly not even a US Citizen can be elected and have the constitution violated for him, then we should be able to do it for Gov. Schwarzenegger. There are so many people who will say we have to protect the constitution, yet they’ll turn a blind eye when it comes to electing someone who is not an American born, and who is possibly still a citizen of Indonesia (forget that he is Muslin, I don’t care about his religion, he may possibly be a citizen of another country). We have a candidate who is so busy running around like a chicken with his head cut off suppressing the truth from Americans, and there are Americans attacking others (no that that girl with a B in her face – I hope she is prosecuted for what she has done), but others who attack (verbally and physically) anyone who is not allowing this lie to proceed. Mr. Obama was supposed to be checked out thoroughly before he could run and the DNC failed to do that. Mr. Obama is calling for the health records of all candidates, yet he won’t release his own. Sorry but a one-page statement from his doctor saying Mr. Obama is healthy, that's all you need to know, with no details whatsoever (and from someone whose parents died at a young age and he smoked his whole life and took drugs and drank) the American people have a right to know this – especially since their side is pushing to have Palin & McCains “full” records be known to the public and people are screaming and shouting its their right to know the full health records of the republicans, shouldn’t that go for Obama too? Then there is the issue of his school records. Why is he desperately trying to suppress those. Most likely it will show he is a citizen of Indonesia and never became a US Citizen. You know if a democrat president is elected fine, just let it be a legal one. Follow the constitution and not this love-fest everyone is sharing towards Obama. Some good democrats that would make fine presidnets are Richardson & Kucinich. I'd even be okay with Edwards.
But I say we are heading toward a civil war because we have people already threatening that if Obama does not win there will be “riots in the streets like we haven’t seen”, but if he is elected and it is illegal there will be riots of another kind. You are going to have so many Americans angry and disenfranchised with the government that if you thought the Boston Tea Party was ugly this will be worse.
Then we have the issue of the every day American citizens. We are suffering. There’s no doubt about it. We are heading into a depression (do not blame Bush for the whole thing as it started its downward spiral under the Carter administration and continued through the Clinton administration, and yes some republicans are to blame), but Americans are suffering. We are losing our jobs, our homes, cannot afford to send our kids to college, let alone buy gas and groceries or go to the doctor. More and more people’s savings are being wiped out and their retirement plans are worthless. Yet the politicians (both republican AND democrat) are getting richer and richer. The latest saying in the Washington political scene is “if you were not a millionaire before you came in you will be one when you leave”. Politicians are no longer working for the American people; they are working for themselves and their rich friends and against us. They don’t care about us - they don’t care one iota. They have made so many loopholes to protect themselves and have lied so many times they are covering their lies with lies and saying exactly what they think we want to hear.
All I say is if Sen. Obama is elected, the election will be a fraud, the office of President will be a fraud, and with the three branches of office (house, senate, and president) ALL being democrat, he will not be impeached for fraud and they will continue on with their illegal activities. And the country will see a civil distress. Why should we abide by laws when our government doesn’t.
People need to wake up. The constitution is being violated and they are all okay with that. It’s all very sickening. I just think its disgraceful that people would rather see our country destroyed than to elect Senator McCain. Sure I wish it was someone else (R. Paul, M. Romney, D. Hunter or any of the others, but its not). If McCain gets in don’t worry, it will only be four years and then another election will be held and maybe this time a candidate will be chosen on the democratic side that is legal. That is of course if the Mayan calendar is wrong.
First of all, blacks received the right to vote after the civil war,
try 140 years ago (NOT 40) when the Reconstruction Ammendments were passed between 1865 and 1870. Women received the right vote with the 19th Ammendment in 1920 (88 years ago).
I think history has established that slavery is wrong. I refuse to believe that I, as a white person, must continually apologize to the black man or woman for slavery that happened to their ancestors centuries ago! I personally have never codoned or owned slaves and they personally have never been slaves. So I ask you, what does slavery have to do with Obama being elected president? What does slavery have to do with his compaign and this election? Who is making race an issue here? I'll answer the last one, YOU are by insinuating that Obama and all African-Americans deserve special accolades just because they are black. They did not suffer as slaves. They did not have to overcome slavery. And today's African-Americans receive more rights and more governmental assistant, then any white person I know. Just look at affirmative action for crying out loud!
You already posted this question. Civil unions are
*
Rahm Emanuel wants forced civil service
Listen to the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfV8iXiB9Xg
DH said its disgusting that he's laughing about it.
Jeez - is JTBB the only civil person on this board
Believing that the whole thing is one intermingled war in the middle east is not spin. Those are my beliefs. When I talk to my friend and she talks about her husband in Iraq and she says the middle east, then she talks about her son in Afghanistan and she refers that to the middle east, that is why I always believed both countries are in the middle east. That is not spin???? And for pete's sake don't call me ignorant!!!! Like I said I always believed both Iraq and Afghanistan were in the middle east. I'm not trying to incite war against Obama - sheesh! Get a grip. I read a news story and posted it here about Obama sending troops to Afghanistan. The article said 17,000 troops are going to Afghanistan. That is not spin, that is citing a news article I read. He lied - Okay I'm wrong about that. He did not lie about the sending troops to Afghanistan thing (I don't remember him saying he would send them, but I've heard they are on youtube and if they are on youtube then I believe JTBB (she's the one who pointed me in the right direction).
You know I could say a lot of negative and nasty words to you like you did to me, but I'd probably be banned, so I'd appreciate it if you keep your closed minded opinions to yourself. Your whole post to me sounds like BS in itself and your just too eager to attack.
we'd be better off without illegals..he deserves a commendation, not a civil suit...
++
Civil Liberty Effects - Police State Pizza
http://www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=5927
National security? Civil liberties? Must be socialist conspiracy
This is an amazing article that not too suprisingly will probably go unaddressed, right along with Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae corporate bailout story. The're too busy getting ready for the coronation ball. However, I just wanted to thank you for passing this along. The links and other articles also lead to some insightful and interesting reads on stories that will probably end up thrown under the royal coach. Let them eat cake!
Community service and CIVIL service - not the same thing nm
x
I agree, that goes for both sides. I don't agree with those starting trouble over...sm
on your board either, but then some of you come and take it out on the people who only post here and we have nothing to do with the fights over there.
I enjoy communicating with liberals and occasionally do learn something from conservative posters, so I refuse to let the driveby, no moniker, one-sided finger pointers, self-indulging posters drive me off.
Rush is right. I agree. Somebody's gotta agree.
....in many of his policies in his attempt to completely socialize America.
I hope he fails.
I hope he succeeds, however, in the office of president, and doing the right thing, and moves to the center.
However, it's not looking good. He's left of left so far, isn't he. Showing who he truly is, in his first acts as president.
I sure don't agree with
the Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain, either, and I also hope that guy buys Souter's property and turns it into a hotel. I love the name of the restaurant he wants to build in the hotel: Just Desserts. (I can't remember which TV show I saw that on because, contrary to those on these boards who already have me figured out, I DON'T only watch MSNBC. I actually flip back and forth between MSNBC and Fox. I'm sure it was one one of those stations, though.)
And I totally agree with a woman's right to choose.
I do have a problem with partial birth abortions, based on my limited understanding of it, which is what I've heard the conservatives say about a full or nearly full-term baby being basically born and then "beaten to death" by the doctor. (From what I've discovered from some conservatives on these boards in the past few days, I take everything they say with a grain of salt and accept the possibility up front that it's an exaggerated statement devoid of critical facts.)
But if this is indeed true, then I don't know how it could be considered anything BUT murder. And I don't understand the issue regarding the health of the mother because if the mother can survive the delivery of a baby that can survive outside the womb, then the issue would seem nonexistent. (Again, I don't know that much about it.)
I also have mixed feelings about children and abortion. One the one hand, it is a surgical procedure, and if my child can't even have her ears pierced without my consent, then certainly she shouldn't be allowed to have a surgical procedure without my consent.
But what about if she's been impregnated as the result of a rape by her father or other family member? That sick stuff DOES happen in this country. What if she knows she wants an abortion? Should she be forced to have the baby? I can think of situations where she might be safer if the parents didn't know, but yet I still feel the parents have a right to know. I'm very conflicted about this particular issue and can't say I have a definite opinion. That's why I'd like to hear more on the subject from some intelligent, thoughtful, nonjudgmental people.
As far as gay marriages, I admit I get a little "twinge" at the use of the word "marriage." It might be that something deep in my gut is telling me that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman. After all, WE invented it and WE wrecked it. I think they should invent a new name for their unions because from what I've personally seen, gay couples seem to last for a very long time, much longer than some marriages I know. As far as whether or not they should have rights, why SHOULDN'T they? I don't recall a day during puberty when I woke up and made the decision that I was going to be straight. Likewise, I'm willing to bet that no gay person woke up and decided to be gay. I just don't understand why people are so threatened by the thought that a group might actually have RIGHTS in this country. As with abortion or stem cell research, etc., if they don't believe in it, they shouldn't PARTICIPATE IN IT. I'm neither pro-gay or anti-gay. (A quick look in the mirror, though, reminds me that I'm definitely pro-gray. )
With all of these social issues, as you said, we will "stand in judgment with our maker." That's between us and our own personal God, and those with different religious/spiritual beliefs have no right to shove their beliefs down our throat.
I saw a post on the other board referring to when the U.S. was founded, saying that the vast majority was Christian but that others were given "the freedom to others not to believe..."
NOBODY can "give" anyone "freedom" to either believe or not to believe, and the fact that this poster thinks they can is either very stupid or very scary, and I'm not exactly sure which it is. I think this is relevant because I believe there are some conservatives out there who don't only want the law to reflect their specific narrow brand of religion, but they would LOVE to be able to control what people think and believe.
Knowing that Bush is going to appoint one (maybe two before the end of the year) new Supreme Court Justice(s) scares me because, as you said, our rights are being slowly taken away, and this man has proven by his own actions that the personal freedoms of others aren't things that he cares for much, especially freedom of speech and ideas. That's why he banned anyone who didn't agree 100% with his views from all of his "open town hall" meetings.
We also have an evangelical Senator who holds a public meeting in a search and says that liberals aren't people of faith.
First, it's freedom of speech. Next, it will be freedom of religion. What about freedom of "thought."
I wonder what their views on stem cell research would be if it was discovered that stem cell research held the key to developing a new technique to control thought processes of those who disagree with them. 
I AGREE
I agree with a few of your points..maybe this govt will push us liberals and conservatives together..how great that would be. I agree with eminent domain, I dont know about the abortion issue for a young person, however, I feel empathy for them. Regarding gay marriage. I feel there is not enough love in this word and if two people find love and want to be married, let them. I personally do not believe in marriage..dont want the govt or anyone else keeping tabs on my personal life. I have lived with my male friend for 11 years and dont want anyone telling me what choices to make in my adult life.
agree
I agree with you..why, a lot of my friends are conservative (smile), they really are. We agree on a lot and disagree on a bit but do it in a friendly manner. My dream..that both ideologies can live together peacefully..
I agree!!!
These people on here are pretty nasty to conservatives. They are definitely not living up to their standards of tolerance and peace. They seem very angry even enraged. I don't think we should rip each other apart. It serves not useful purpose whatsoever.
I agree with most of what you said.
However, I don't think it's because of President Bush AND his DADDY. I think George W. came into office hell bent on finishing what his daddy DIDN'T finish and only needed a reason, real or invented, to "finish" it. And I totally agree with you when you say that this was his personal agenda. I think the disconnect is that many people want him to focus on terror, but his personal agenda has always caused his focus instead to be on Iraq, and I personally am very fearful for the future of this country as a result of that.
Agree with everything you said
I believe they will definitely find a way to twist it if some are found guilty. Under no circumstances will they admit that this administration could possibly do anything wrong.
I so agree with you. Even one is way too
many.
I agree. I think they're ill.
It should be criminal to expose children to such hostility and insanity. It sounds like real violence could have ensued if these whackos would have been crossed in any way.
I almost feel for some of these people. A brief visit to the Conservative board left me thinking I should have worn a helmet and worn body armor. Although it's a scary place over there, it must be terrible to exist inside a body that harbors such rage and hatred every day, 24/7. I don't understand what has happened to their religion, but my Christian religion still promotes love, tolerance, respect and the principles of the Golden Rule, all attributes that seem completely foreign to them. All they do is trash others and haven't contributed one positive thing to that board.
Sometimes I think there isn't much difference between these people and the terrorists who attacked us and other countries. They both exhibit signs of mental illness, a maniacal obsession with controlling what everyone believes, and they both promote hatred, violence and intolerance in the name of their respective gods. About the only main difference I can see is that the terrorists, unfortunately, seem to be much more intelligent in their pursuit of their goals.
I agree.
The only way to do it is to DO IT, increase our troops, speed up training their troops, and GET OUT. We've created such an unnecessary mess over there, I think it would be very immoral to just invade, turn their country upside and leave without fixing what we broke.
I agree with you
I had the same feeling about Roberts and I was glad to hear he had done this pro bono work.
Let's hope he really is a "good guy" with a heart and a brain.
I agree.
With every day that passes, I feel less and less hope. I've never been this frightened of a politician in my entire life.
I agree with you.
And I wonder if we had stepped it up a while back, how much of this would be going on today. The more we delay, the better they get at their "craft."
I wish we had never gone in there to begin with and think it's one of the biggest mistakes a president could have ever made. But we're there, and we can't just go in there, turn their country upside down and leave without leaving them with some semblance of normalcy. Those who said this is a quagmire were right on the money.
I agree
Anyone who has anything less than a hate Bush agenda should burn in hell as far as GT is concerned. I too don't agree with Bush 100% on everything, but that does not matter to GT. If you agree with Bush on anything you should not pass GO and go straight to hell along with Bush's Stepford wife and alcoholic daughters. Am I painting that picture correctly GT?
I agree with you.
What you said is so profoundly true and so profoundly sad. I think over time Bush will be viewed as a pawn or a stooge. Who or what do you think may be the controlling force behind Bush? I have read articles on the "Vulcans" but have read little about this recently.
I agree.
It keeps promising to leave (yet another lie). Maybe if we ignore it, it will go away.
I agree.....
I am a moderate conservative, and a Republican, although I'd consider a moderate Democrat like Joe Lieberman or somebody reasonable, however, the Democrats won't nomiate anybody like that, so my vote stays Republican.
As for hand outs and hand ups... There's a big difference between somebody who is unable to work and somebody who is unwilling to work. The individual who is physically or mentally unable to work, or the hard working family who falls on hard times for whatever reason that is out of their control, those people deserve some help. Hands outs/hands up, whatever you want to call it should be viewed as a stepping stone to self sufficiency.
I feel for the innocent victims (children) of those who embrace a lifestyle of just taking free money from those of us in society who work hard, but I havn't much compassion for able bodied young people who refuse to work. If an uneducated person is working hard but not making enough to sustain themselves they can avail themselves of food stamps, WIC, free school lunches, and I don't a problem with that. But, drive through a poor neighborhood and watch the young healthy people sitting on stoops and standing on corners doing nothing all day instead of working. Whether it be pursuing their GED, or taking vocational classes, they should be at least thinking of bettering themselves instead of just resigning to a life of free hand outs.
agree!
I hear ya and yes I agree we should stay away..There are a lof of other political boards through the net, where we can discourse/debate with conservatives over ideas and America without being attacked like mad dogs (I hate to use the analogy as mad dogs as my dogs are much kinder than the conservatives who post here..smile)..
I agree with you.
I think O'Reilly got a taste of his own medicine and was about to lose it. I roared when Phil called him Billy, and Phil in no way denigrated Bill's nephew, but Phil had asked if any of O'Reilly's kids are serving in Iraq. O'Reilly tried to use his nephew's service to detract from the fact that NONE of his own children are there. I think that's what made O'Reilly the angriest: The fact that Phil zapped him on that point.
I agree with you both.
And now that Libby (yuck! I should change my moniker) and Rove are both implicated in the Plame scandal, it will be interesting to see what Fitzgerald's findings are, and they should be coming soon.
I also agree about Cheney. He's very scary. There is definitely a very shrewd, conniving network at work in this administration, and Bush simply isn't bright enough to do this on his own. And there are no standards of decency left on any level in this administration, which is incredible for the CONs, considering all they ever babble about is their superior *decency*. For example, they blatantly lie without blinking an eye, as do some of their more dedicated followers. If anyone dares to disagree with this president, the response it to DESTROY the opponent (not unlike what happens on these boards, only to a more dangerous degree, such as exposing Valerie Plame, for example). Nothing is out of bounds any more.
I'm eagerly awaiting the results of Fitzgerald's investigation. 
I agree with you as far as
the definition. But to read some posts on these boards, you'd think it WAS communism. It's a part of their mantra that you're worse than a traitor if you have anything GOOD to say about it, so it looks like McCarthyism is still alive in well in today's CONservative party!
|
