I respect your analysis about how the people in the
Posted By: () on 2009-06-12
In Reply to: What I think you have to keep in mind...(sm) - Just the big bad
Middle East are going to react to the exposure of the torture pictures. But it is a risky thing. The Muslim people's, the everyday people that is, reaction was also standing in awe to the 9/11 catastrophy and condemning it, as they knew it will backfire on them, the people.
But, I guess, their reaction seeing the torture picture, would not be favorable to us, in no way. The pictures will be met with horror, not respect by the Muslim people and the people all over the world. It is cruel torture, and who wants to see humans suffer in such way?
They will ask, 'What is the logic and reason to post those pictures?' They most probably will misunderstand it and maybe judge it as provocation. No good can come out of this. And I do not even dare to think of the reaction of the extremists. Why should a country expose its humiliating mistakes so openly to the world?
Let's not exaggerate trying to repair America's image to the world and the Arab world, I think O is on the right path.
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
That's how they are -only respect people
nm
Right on! - I respect people who stand up for what is right
Lots of prominent democrats are coming out saying similar things.
Evan Bayh and Clarie McCaskill are a couple others that come to mind. Thank goodness not all the democrats have lost their mind.
Speaking of losing their minds I understand Pelosi is now saying something about keep the doors open because she wants another $500 bailout or whatever. Truth being I haven't read the details myself, just read headlines here and there, so not sure how much truth there is to that.
Because SOME people on both sides will not respect the view of others, ..sm
and it ends up being a fight match instead of debate. That's why the boards were separated though I agree I have learned a lot from some of the conservative posters even though they don't agree with me. I too am a liberal with some conservative views. While I believe in pro-choice, I think women should chose life. I think marriage should be between a man and a woman, but I'm for civil unions and equal rights for everyone. But as far as this war goes, I'm liberal all the way. I think America has been hoodwinked into this war, and it is a quagmire.
I too think people should be able to bear arms, but not an automatic street sweeper for example.
I THINK I would have voted for Bush if it were not for the Iraqi war. I ALLLLMOST did in 2004, but didn't because of the war and his Operation No Plan to get America out of this. And now, I'm glad I didn't. I rest easier knowing I didn't cast a vote for this administration.
Again, I agree labels are simplistic in a complicated world.
analysis is exactly what you need
nm
Response to your analysis...sm
First, let's clear away everything you said about Obama's motives, because they are completely irrelevant. A man can act from the purest of motives and the best of intentions, and yet be entirely wrong.
So, to start us off let's just concede that Obama is a patriot, has the best interests of the country at heart and has no ulterior motives or personal interests driving his agenda.
Then, let's also set aside the desirability at least most of the agenda that Obama is promoting, because that, too, is irrelevant to our disagreement with him. At bottom, "we the people" of both/all parties want much the same things. No one would argue, or is arguing, that good schools for our kids, job security with a decent wage, equal opportunity for everyone, access to affordable healthcare, safe streets and national security.
We do have some problems with parts of Obama's agenda. The "science" of global warming, for instance, is simply abominably bad, and many scientists have said so. It has become a business, starting with AL Gore and spreading outward to the greedy hands that grasp for government money allocataed to "combat" this Don Quixote windmill. It is at least strongly possible that the earth is simply going through a cyclical climate change that has existed since the earth was formed - and some of us are saying that before we undertake the enormously expensive and economically damaging measures that the "sky-is-falling folks" are demanding, let's get the science right first and stop using models that start out by assuming the truth of global warming in order to prove global warming. The science has been hijacked by greed for government money.
We do have problems with Obama's policy of appeasement, and so far we have already had three very disturbing confirmations that appeasement is a very bad idea (Russia, Iran, and North Korea). It hasn't been pleasant watching Obama get slapped around in front of the world by Putin, the Ayatollah in Iran and Kim Jong Il.
But let's get closer to home. I said that people of all parties want much the same things. The questions that divide us are not what we should do, but how these things can best be achieved, at what cost, and how rapidly.
As to how these things can best be achieved, Obama believes that government should do them. He proposes to expand government more than Roosevelt did during the New Deal, and extend government's reach into every nook and cranny of American society. Under his budget, the government will account for 25% of the American economy - spending 1 in every 4 dollars. This alone should both stagger and worry everyone, because every government dollar must first be taken away from us (the government makes no money of its own), because the government is infamous for waste and corruption that will siphon dollars off as they do by the $billions with Medicare/Medicaid, and because government dollars always have very burdensome strings attached.
A good question to ask yourself is: Name 5 things that government does well (meaning, effectively and efficiently). You'll have a tough time filling out your list, if you're honest with yourself. Think about education, government-funded healthcare like Medicare/Medicaid, etc. and try to convince yourself that government is doing them well.
Time and again, it has been proven that private enterprise does a much better job of delivering desirable goods (an economic term for both "things" and "services") than government does. Rather than expanding an inept institution (government) to provide these goods, we should be encouraging the private sector to do so. The private sector is required to pay attention to costs, whereas the government is not (anyone can easily find millions of examples of that!).
Then, there is the second item of disagreement - "at what cost". This is related to the third item - "how rapidly". As desirable as many of the items on Obama's agenda might be, I have a lot of items on my personal agenda that are pretty desirable but that I simply cannot afford, or cannot afford RIGHT NOW. We, the people, are in exactly the same position. We have a deep recession that must be our first priority and perhaps, at this moment, our ONLY priority. In fact, so much money is being spent on this agenda item that it may well be the only thing we will be able to afford for quite some time to come, because the bill for all this stimulus spending has yet to come due. Make no mistake, though - we will pay, and pay, and pay, and pay.
When you look at the stimulus package, for instance, there is an incredible number of items that are "compartmentalized" - meaning that the states will get the dollars ONLY if they use them to do certain things that are on Obama's social agenda. And, a large number of these things will generate few if any jobs. The CBO's own numbers confirm that job creation is likely to be only half of what you're hearing from the White House, and unlike the White House, the CBO can explain where they get their numbers.
If we press forward with Obama's programs, the forward deficit (not one that Obama inherited from Bush!) will be nearly $10 trillion. This number is so staggering that governments around the world are beginning to wonder if Washington has lost its mind, and to worry that Washington will be the fountainhead of global superinflation.
It's time to set aside any questions of whether you like Obama or not...or whether you like his agenda or not. IT DOESN'T MATTER whether you like him or his agenda or not. The simple fact is, WE CANNOT AFFORD IT. We seem to think that the government doesn't need to recognize its limits and live within its means, just like families must do. The prospect of a $10 trillion deficit should strike more fear into your heart than terrorists or Russian missiles. It will literally enslave the American taxpayer, while at the same time increasing the price of everything you buy. Some goods will no longer be available at all to the "middle class" because they will become luxury items. Don't just whistle past the graveyard - think!
No society is ever perfect. A hundred years from now, we will still be looking around and seeing things that need to be done, or things that could be improved, or things that need to be eliminated, or things that need to be done differently. And, in that year of 2109, we will still have to say "There are some things on this list that we can afford, and some things we can't afford." We will still have to say "There are some things on this list that government should do, and some things that the private sector should do". It's the ability to make those distinctions that marks the difference between people who are driven by "party politics" and agendas, and those who realize that there are very real constraints that trump any agenda. They are the constraints of the limitations of government, the budget and the longer-term unintended consequences of rushing headlong to achieve any agenda, no matter how desirable it might be.
Very well put Tired MT. Your analysis is spot on. sm
I have been reading the posts for quite a while and I have to agree with you. If you don't agree with political viewpoints on this board, you are jumped on with both feet. I have been on the receiving end of it alos. I figure it this way, I must have really struck a nerve to get people so incensed that they go ballistic. I do have to say that Sam can more than hold her own and I love reading what she has to say. Kudos to Sam for having the courage of her convictions and kudos to you for putting a finger on the problem.
Wow! Thanks! According to your analysis there is no need to hold an election!
X
I totally agree with your analysis.
The release would do more harm than good.
The only purpose to release these pictures can be to persecute the former administration. We all and they all know that they are guilty.
Also, right, NOW is not the time to go after them.
this is not hateful, it is just an analysis and the truth...nm
I cannot believe the B* that is posted by the Rep on the Politics Board, especially the last 2 days, this has gone INSANE !
I agree with your analysis. It's gonna be ugly, especially if
Hezbullah wins in Lebanon.
EPA slants analysis to favor Bush's agenda
Report Accuses EPA of Slanting Analysis
Hill
Researchers Say Agency Fixed Pollution Study to Favor Bush's 'Clear
Skies'
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday,
December 3, 2005; A08
The Bush administration skewed its analysis of pending legislation on air
pollution to favor its bill over two competing proposals, according to a new
report by the Congressional Research Service.
The Environmental Protection Agency's Oct. 27 analysis of its plan -- along
with those of Sens. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) and James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) --
exaggerated the costs and underestimated the benefits of imposing more stringent
pollution curbs, the independent, nonpartisan congressional researchers wrote in
a Nov. 23 report. The EPA issued its analysis -- which Carper had demanded this
spring, threatening to hold up the nomination of EPA Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson -- in part to revive its proposal, which is stalled in the Senate.
The administration's Clear Skies legislation aims to achieve a 70 percent cut
in emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide after 2018, while Carper's and
Jeffords's bills demand steeper and faster cuts and would also reduce emissions
of carbon dioxide, which are linked to global warming. The Bush plan would also
cut emissions of neurotoxic mercury by 70 percent, while Jeffords's bill reduces
them by 90 percent.
Although it represents a step toward understanding the impacts of legislative
options, EPA's analysis is not as useful as one could hope, the Research Service
report said. The result is an analysis that some will argue is no longer
sufficiently up-to-date to contribute substantially to congressional debate.
The congressional report, which was not commissioned by a lawmaker as is
customary, said the EPA analysis boosted its own proposal by overestimating the
cost of controlling mercury and playing down the economic benefits of reducing
premature deaths and illnesses linked to air pollution.
EPA estimated the administration's plan would cost coal-fired power plants as
much as $6 billion annually, compared with up to $10 billion in Carper's measure
and as much as $51 billion for Jeffords's. It calculated that Bush's proposal
would produce $143 billion a year in health benefits while Carper's would
generate $161 billion and Jeffords would yield $211 billion. Carper's measure
would achieve most of its reductions by 2013, while Jeffords's bill would enact
even more ambitious pollution cuts by 2010.
EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said the agency based its cost estimates on
mercury controls by gathering comments from boilermaker workers, power companies
and emission control companies, whereas the Research Service used a single study
to reach its conclusions on mercury.
Clear Skies delivers dramatic health benefits across the nation without
raising energy costs and does it with certainty and simplicity, instead of
regulation and litigation, Witcher said. Because of our commitment to see this
become a reality, EPA went above and beyond to provide the most comprehensive
legislative analysis of air ever prepared by the agency, so it does a real
disservice to this discussion to have a report that largely ignores and
misinterprets our analysis.
But aides to Carper and Jeffords said they felt vindicated by the
congressional study.
The CRS report backs up a lot of what we initially said about EPA's latest
analysis, that it overstated the costs of controlling mercury and understated
the overall health benefits of Senator Carper's legislation, said Carper
spokesman Bill Ghent. The report clearly states that there's no reason to settle
for the president's Clear Skies plan because the legislation doesn't clean the
air much better than current law.
© 2005 The Washington Post
Company
Do you agree with this analysis of Jewish abortion stance? sm
Jewish beliefs and practice not neatly match either the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" points of view. The general principles of modern-day Judaism are that:
The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only." 2
Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.
Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.
With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.
"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law." 5
Historical Christianity has considered "ensoulment," the point at which the soul enters the body) as the time when abortions should normally be prohibited. Belief about the timing of this event has varied from the instant of fertilization of the ovum, to 90 days after conception, or later. There has been no consensus among historical Jewish sources about when ensoulment happens. It is regarded as "one of the 'secrets of God' that will be revealed only when the Messiah comes."
Wow, and you can ascertain all that from 4 weeks in office? Amazingly rapid political analysis!.....
nm
Great post, great insight, great analysis, thanks!..nm
nm
With all due respect,
all the posts I've seen you post have come across to me as very confrontational. You seem to be limited to posting only posts that defend these three, and I haven't seen you post anything on any political issue -- just confronting posters and complaining about their behavior, sympathizing with poor AG, Nan and MT. That's ALL you've posted on this board, and to say it was YOU who was attacked shows, at the very least, the very same mindset that precludes you from seeing things objectively. Afraid I have to agree with GT above. I, too, smell a conservative in liberal clothing, and it also wouldn't surprise me if you were either one of those three or one who is very closely allied with them.
But I will take you at your word that this is your last post. In addition, I will make this my last post to you. I'm happy that at least temporarily we're free of all the intolerance and hatred and rage and battles that ensue when those three are around. I refuse to get back into that, and I feel that you're trying to take me down that path, and I'm not buying it.
Have a blessed day.
With all due respect.
One source is a personal blog. Those are strictly opinion pieces and carry no weight on either side. The Chicago Sun piece is more interesting, but merely makes vague statements without a single name of anyone who is bashing. Now don't get me wrong, I have serious concerns with President Bush, stem cell research not being one of them. I am alarmed at the big government policies and also at the illegal alien fiasco (which I am reading has some surprises in store). At any rate, this really is a nonstory. Remember when Lieberman gave the speech on the Senate floor criticizing Clinton. It happens. I feel no connection to the country club wing of the republican party (any more than the country club wing of the democratic party). They certainly don't speak for me.
With all due respect..
... it doesn't say very much about an Army mom who would use his service -- his putting his life on the line -- in order to try to bully, shame and coerce people who would rather see her son home with his family and safe.
It doesn't say very much about an Army mom who would sacrifice her own flesh and blood because she's too busy worshiping a very false idol in Bush.
But most of all it doesn't say very much about a president who couldn't care less about her son, a president who has recklessly, negligently and uncaringly tossed America's young people into harm's way for an unnecessary, very possible illegal war.
I honor her son, and I respect his courage very much. I thank him for putting his life on the line in service to his country. And I profusely apologize to him for the way his life has been devalued by Bush. Maybe if Bush had the integrity and courage to actually serve in a war himself, he wouldn't be so hasty about killing our young people. Her son, by virtue of having the courage to serve, is way, way, WAY above George Bush in the integrity and courage categories. Wouldn't we be fortunate if someday her son went on to become president? He's already more fit to serve than Bush is.
I hope and pray that he can return home to his family (where he belongs) and that his return is safe and without injury. I'm just very, very sorry that his mother can't see that just because we don't worship an idiot like she does, that doesn't mean we don't support our troops because we want them safe and home with their families instead of fighting an unnecessary, immoral war.
No respect
No respect for the owners of this board who have requested republicans/conservatives to not post here..Do I have to report you?
With all due respect...yes you did...
you posted that you loved to find the errors and do the research. That certainly implies that you enjoy trying to prove people wrong. And that is fine, if that is what trips your trigger. Again, what I said was we had more social programs, and again, the comparison to other nations, I would like to know what other nations and their population in relation to ours before I put a lot of stock in the data. Respectfully.
With all due respect...sm
*Civil debate* has not gotten us anywhere. In order for there to be debate BOTH sides would have to listen to each other, and meet somewhere in the middle.
With all due respect, I
disagree. I have read the words Dems and lefties and socialists used interchangeably. Look through the archives and I did not say it was you.
Respect
Well, I find the posts title a bit disrespectful. I mean, I wouldn't come to the conservative board and post with a title "Glad to not be a republican." Seems to me like "Me" was looking to stir the pot with that title.
With all due respect...
the moderator has posted several times that we can cross post. Apparently the moderator does believe in freedom of expression.
If "most of you" want to speak among yourselves, don't answer my posts, don't pile on with the crass remarks that are totally unnecessary. To coin your own words, ignore me. Quash dissent. Be intolerant of other views. To each his/her own.
There are those on the liberal board who do not mind a discussion and are actually able to do so in true liberal fashion without the personal gotchas. And as far as the gotchas...I only gave as I got. At least there were those true liberals who did not mind...but I believe you quashers have run them all off too.
So, if you do not wish to have a discussion, certainly your right. Don't answer my posts.
And...just a side note...liberal posters cross over too, and I have yet to ask them to get on back to their "own" board or stay on their own board. You see...I don't just say I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression...I act on it...unlike you.
With all due respect....
Your quote of:
"What is wrong with this picture? First, it should be obvious that it is not the job of the U.S. government to tell people what version of Islam to embrace on pain of permanent incarceration. As long as people are not committing or fomenting acts of violence, it is not our role to pressure them into changing their faith. When did it become acceptable to set religious conversion of any kind as the price that frightened people must pay for their freedom?"
These kids at Camp Cropper were committing acts of violence..setting roadside combs, firing at soldiers, etc. Your quote came from a different article about a different program dealing with adults...not with children. Two different programs I think. No one is asking them to change their faith. Are you saying that all Islam is radial jihadist? Of course it is not. These children are being taught by Iraqi teachers, not Americans. The article I posted describes it more clearly.
If it can turn a few away from jihad to what most Muslims call "true Islam," that is a good thing, right? If it can get sunni and shiite teens talking with one another, listening to one another, interacting with one another...is that not where change begins? Like you rightfully said, it was the young people in Venezuela who helped turn the tide in that country. Perhaps the same can happen in Iraq. Are you saying it is a bad thing to present these kids with a different view of Islam, that perhaps killing other Muslims is not a good thing to do? When it is presented to them by other Muslims, not by Americans? How can that be a bad thing by any stretch?
Again...we are there, piglet. Whether we leave now, next week, next month, or next year, we are there. Why should we not try to help while we are there? Like the soldier said...it is a positive thing and he is proud of what he was able to accomplish. If it turns one kid, two kids...they may be the future of Iraq. Someone had to start teaching kids in Venezuela another way...why can't we show those kids another way while we are there? If we can stop one from strapping a bomb to himself or getting his arms and legs blown off trying to set a roadside bomb...is that not a good thing? I don't see the down side to this. Honestly.
I have a lot of respect
for any man or woman in the armed forces. I think that their opinion in our next president is very important. However, even with military personnel, there are still going to be some of them who vote strictly because of race or political party.
If our votes don't really count....this is pointless, but you can't screen people and question their motives for voting and who they choose to vote for and why before you let them vote.
with all due respect...
the only one WITHOUT a voice here is the child. We are speaking for the child. If that chaps you so severely, I'm sorry. No one is judging anyone. When Scott Peterson killed laci and connor, 12 people judged him and he is in jail for the rest of his life. It is somehow different because Scott chose to kill the baby instead of Laci? Please tell me how that makes sense. If it is wrong to kill, it is wrong to kill, and it certainly wrong to let one person have the choice to arbitrarily kill another. It is the act and the procedure that is being judged here...or that is what should be judged here.
Moral wrongs are judged by people every day. Stealing is wrong. Murder is wrong. Killing someone is murder. Cutting a defenseless baby to pieces with no one to defend it and nowhere to run to is horrific. At least admit it. If you want to give a person a right to murder another person, at least call it what it is.
With all due respect...
I don't think making it through an ivy league school on student loans indicates character. But to each his own and you are entitled to think so.
Yes, this is a democracy, and frankly I don't think there should be any parties. I don't think there should be an electoral college. I think it should really be up to the people. But that is just me.
I beg to differ...majority may rule but majority is not always right. I refer you to the Carter years.
Again, with all due respect, Obama's speech last night, was nothing new. It was the same thing Democrats always promise. The same things Bill Clinton promised. He had the country for 8 years and none of the promises happened. That happens on both sides, I realize. But it is politics. It is give them what they want to hear and when we get elected we do what we want. No matter which man is elected, that is what is going to happen. The only thing that makes Barack Obama different from any other Democrat who has run is that he is African American. And yes, he did make history last night, and he should be commended for having the will to work his way up to where he is. That should tell him he should be backing off social programs and figure out a way to instill that ambition in other folks, instead of rewarding people by keeping them dependent on the government for everything. If he can do it, why not others? But that is not the Democrat way.
We are up to our eyeballs in China because of Bill Clinton, not a Republican. If the truth really matters to you, check it out. Bill forged alliances and trade with China during his administration. You don't remember the big flap about the contributions gotten for Clinton by the Chinese. And I don't look for Obama to change anything about how we trade with the Chinese. Have not heard anything about him doing that, and I have listened to most of his speeches. Didn't see anything about it on the website either...but I could have missed it.
Please...the Democratic party is as corrupt as the Republican party. They are both corrupt. That is the nature of the beast, because they are controlled by money people who all have agendas and while they pay lip service to the little people, they do whatever they want, including trashing their own, as was so eloquently demonstrated in Denver this week.
I say this to your party...STOP TRYING TO MAKE the US A SOCIALIST STATE and destroy the greatest nation on earth.
Like I said....I don't want your respect nor do I need it.
Your posts prove constantly that what I say is right. Keep piling it on.
With all due respect....
if providing birth control to teenagers would stop teen pregnancies we would not have 1.2 million abortions every year. I do not want to start an abortion thread...just making a point.
I respect you even more - your the first....
to say anything of substance that is positive about Obama without cutting down McCain.
I do agree with you 100% I can't afford to pay any more taxes. Food, gas, and cost of living expenses are skyrocketing but my pay isn't. Do you think we paid so much in taxes the last time we had a democratic president (Clinton) because of congress. It was absolutely horrible during his pregnancy. We were being taxed over 40% of our pay (we didn't own our own place, we drove a used car, could only afford to live in a 1-bedroom apartment, so it was not like we were living high off the hog), but we were getting taxed so much when Clinton was in that we could hardly afford to do anything. When Bush became president our taxes went down and we started getting rebates, so wondering if it has anything to do with a different congress/senate (the real people who vote). The presidents in my opinion are a bunch of talking mouths but don't make any real decisions. They are told what they will do. They are there just to look pretty (ooh, is that a sexist remark HA HA).
I totally agree that corporations are not paying their fare share and jobs keep going overseas - that absolutely has to stop or we'll be forced to move overseas just so we can get a job.
I'm just scared all round because in the past both democrat and republican have always said on their campaign trail it will be better, yet it just seems to get worse and no president ever keeps the promise they made during their campaign trail.
I like the idea of new ideas, but I also like for people to be truthful too. I think why I'm starting to fall away from supporting Obama is because he keeps changing his mind and that's starting to scare me. Now I hear he's not bringing the troops home. He said he plans to keep them there for at least 5 years, and, he said he's for the draft. When will our tax money start coming back to the US to be used to rebuild the US, not support military in countries we don't belong in and a war we should not have started in the first place.
Thank you again for your opinions on Barack Obama without being cutting down John McCain. One of them will be president and I just hope whoever gets in will make America a better place than it's been. I'm open to everything.
Respect
I respect your opinion even though we disagree. What I am looking for in a leader is a moral man or woman with a HUGE dose of common sense and honesty. I don't think we have that in any of the candidates. That's just my opinion and I thank God every day that we have the right to express and differ in our opinions. I have to wonder how long we will have that freedom. I don't think many of us realize just how much freedom we actually lost with the Patriot Act.
So, in the same respect,
do you admire Sarah Palin for standing up against her own party in Alaska for the good of her state?
Probably not, I would guess. Double standard.
With all due respect,
I care what she thinks. That is different than I don't care for what you think.
I had a lot more respect for him
before I watched the video of him being VERY ugly to the lady who was testifying before the senate committee wanting to know what happened to her SON who is still MIA!!!. He had absolutely no compassion for her whatsoever. I also had more respect for him before he started every other sentence "I was a POW and have the scars to prove it." He is no more deserving of credit for his military service than the many POWs and MIAs. His military service is no greater than the lowest boot in the military, many who have and are continuing to make the ultimate sacrifice. If you want to think I'm "cheapening" his service, go ahead and think what you will With his "experience" one would not think he would have been so quick to side with Bush to send our young men and women into harm's way in this ridiculous Iraq war, many of them have made a much greater sacrifice than he and he promises to keep it going for "100 years if necessary." How many more will die? I would think being a POW would be preferable to being DOA!!!
Respect...........sm
is something that is totally lacking in our society today, Kendra, and not just in displays of drunkeness and the likely ensuing brawling and revelry such as what sounds like is the plan for the inauguration, but also in our families and work and practically every area of society. It's time we started showing a little less "me-me-me" and started thinking of what we can do to help each other and how we can show honor for those in positions of leadership at all levels.
Out of respect
could we not give this man a rest and let him mourn the passing of his grandmother without all the rhetoric? I'm sure even John McCain would agree with that. . I think by now most people have made up their minds how they are going to vote and posting this old tired stuff over and over and over and over and ........is not going to change anyone's mind that I can imagine.
look, I can respect
the man because he is president of the US. I have no problem with that. I didn't vote for him OR McCain for that matter. The problem is such that when you speak up and say you have a good point, but what about this? There are some on these boards that take it as an attack and state you are uneducated, a sore loser, fascist, misinformed or whatever. I respect the fact that Obama stepped up and tried to reassure us as a nation when Bush did not. I have no problem with talking to someone as it can help me to learn something I may not have known. What I do have a problem with is a bunch of adults that cannot tolerate anything negative said.
You don't have respect for
us. As Joy Behar says, "Who cares? So what???
I respect your views
eventhough I don't mirror all of them. I am a Republican but I tend to me more libertarian in my views. I think privacy rights are a big issue, but my views part ways with yours when it comes to abortion. I also really disagree with you about the Terri Schiavo case. I don't agree with euthanasia in any form. I don't think feeding Terri was a heroic measure, but that's not the point. When when we as mere humans start judging whether innocent people should live or die or not I think we've crossed a huge moral boundary, and Roe versus Wade was that boundary. The morals in this country have been riding a snowball to hades since that time. I see things from a spiritual perspective. I believe that everything that happens has spiritual consequences, and every decision we make has spiritual consequences...that's just the way I believe, and yes, Libby you have every right to state your views, and I will fight for your right to say them to the death...I hope you would do as much for me.
I respect your views, as well.
That's what makes America so great. The freedom of all people to have different views, based on different principles (religious or otherwise). And I would certainly fight to the death for your freedom of speech to say whatever you believe. 
I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose as much as I firmly DON'T believe in partial birth abortions. That's my opinion. That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it wrong. It just makes it my opinion.
As such, I don't feel I have the right to force my opinion on someone who might feel differently. I believe this is a privacy issue, based on an individual's religious/spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof if that is the case) and not an issue that should be overturned because one Supreme Court Judge believes her religious views should be imposed on an entire nation. Harriet Miers answered a questionnaire (I believe) in 1989, wherein not only did she say she's against Roe v. Wade, but she also promised to use the *influence* of her elected office to ban abortion. If she has, in the past, promised to use the influence of her elected office to effect such a ban, why wouldn't she do the same with an appointed office? The only solid *qualification* she has is her anti-choice religious views, which happen to coincide with those of Bush's *base.* America has a lot of brilliant legal scholars and attorneys and judges who have devoted their entire careers specializing on Constitutional issues. Why wasn't one of THOSE people considered for this appointment?
Regarding euthanasia, I can promise you right now that if I am ever terminally ill with an incurable disease and my pain progresses to the point where I just want to die with some dignity and not endure agonizing pain any longer, I certainly will not permit a bunch of people who have never met me to claim they know what's best for me and force me to obey THEIR religious beliefs and die on THEIR terms. This notion is so arrogant on its face, it's even hard to write about. I would hope my physician would be caring and compassionate and assist me in ending my suffering if I were to reach that level of agony. Why do we show more kindness and compassion to our pets than we do to our humans? My own spiritual beliefs would not preclude me from doing that, and I refuse to be forced to obey YOUR religious beliefs. If forced to do so, then MY freedom of religion ceases to exist.
These are definitely privacy issues that, in my opinion, should be left to individuals. What if the *right* religious belief in this country doesn't believe in contraceptives? Will they be outlawed, as well? That's not as far-fetched as it sounds.
As far as dwindling morals in this country, I agree there are more heinous crimes being committed, particularly against children, than I can ever recall, and I'm outraged that our children are allowed to be raped and murdered, with the perpetrators of those crimes receiving what seem to be minimal prison sentences.
I also think it's clearly immoral that our ability to live or die is directly related to the number of dollars we have in our wallet. Healthcare in this country has become a very immoral commodity, along with legal care. I find it disgustingly immoral that American children are starving to death every day.
Morality has to come from someone's heart. It can't be forced, and it can't be legislated. Each of us has our own conscience, our own soul, and our own *creator.* Mine might not be the same as yours. It doesn't mean one is right or one is wrong. Just different. That's the beauty of America: Freedom of religion for all.
I can only end this as I started it, by saying that's what makes America so great. The freedom of all people to have different views, based on different principles (religious or otherwise).
Thanks for posting. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a debate with someone who is friendly and respectful and doesn't resort to calling names. And I do respect your opinion and especially your right to say it, even though I respectfully disagree.
I respect someone who stands for what they believe in...
and you obviously do, and I appreciate that you also respect my stand. While we agree to disagree on certain things, we have had this exchange without making it mean or personal. Be Blessed!
With all due respect, and I am sincere in that....
how can you learn new things if you only talk to people who agree with everything you say? I come here to the liberal board for that very reason...if I wanted someone to rubber stamp my ideas I would be talking to people I knew would do that. That is not how you learn. Debate forces you to go to different sources, listen to differing views, and help you make informed decisions. I am not a rote party person. That is why I am not a registered Republican. I registered Independent only because you have to register as one of the three to be able to vote. I have voted for Democrats before (though I admit, not often). I admire Joe Lieberman tremendously and I hate that the Dem party is so far left they forced him to run as an Independent this time. I thought that was very short-sighted on their part. Because there are Democrats out there in small-town America who have not taken the same hard left turn that the Dem base seems to have taken. If I were a Georgian, I would have voted for Zell Miller in a heartbeat. Not because of his political affiliation, but because of his views, and because of he had the guts to stand up for those views when the hard left sought to highjack his party. My parents were lifelong Democrats. Sadly they are not longer with us, but I am telling you my friend, they would NOT recognize the Democratic party of today. They would be horrified at the hard left turn it has taken. Much of the Republican party has abandoned their core platform as well. Most of those running are not true conservatives. What I want is less government interference in the lives of individuals, more power at the state level where it belongs according to the constitution, the Supreme Court to keep their noses out of state's business and not legislate from the bench...encourage individual responsibility again instead of everyone looking to the government to supply every social need. The more we move toward that, the more we move toward socialism...and that is the agenda of the hard left in this country today. And friend, it does not work. Look at Venezuela. Look at Cuba. Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy...both started as socialism and ended in dictatorship. That is where socialism inevitably goes...when you take power away from individual states and give to the federal government, and make the entire populace depend upon the government to supply everything. Believe me...that is NOT where any of us should want to go.
Thanks for listening.
With all due respect, you are wrong...
even when abortion was "illegal," there were provisions if the life of the mother was in danger. Any law can have exceptions. We have thousands of laws on the books with exceptions. On killing someone...murder one, murder two, manslaughter, and on and on. I don't know of many laws that are completely cut and dried. If all abortions cannot be stopped, then stop the "convenience ones." That would save a staggering amount of babies and let's face it...if there were consequences for the action, many might make difference choices and for pete's sake be more responsible. You know that as well as I do...that is human nature.
God bless!
With all due respect....way off on figures...
Abortion in the United States - Statistics
There have been over 48 million abortions since 1973.
The annual number of abortions went from 744,600 in the first year of legalization, to a high of over 1.6 million in 1990. In 2003, there were 1,287,000.
There were over 3,500 abortions per day in 2003, 146 per hour, about one every 25 seconds.
For every 1,000 live births, there were 312 abortions in 2003.
There were more than 148,000 second and third trimester abortions in 2003. (that is appalling)
In 2003, more children died from abortion than Americans died in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf Wars combined (This is a true statement, even if you go only by the CDC number of 853,000 plus (the million plus is the AGI numbers...contributed by all abortionists. The CDC readily admits their numbers are probably way off due to reporting mechanisms). The total number of Americans killed in all wars was 653,708. Add the 3192 killed in Iraq so far and you get roughly 657,000. So, in one year alone more babies died than all Americans in all wars. That 653,000 figure includes the Spanish-American war, indian wars, etc. ALL American wars.
A 2004 survey of women seeking abortions indicated that only about 7% of women cited typical “hard cases” (rape, incest, or some health concern with either the baby or the mother) as the primary reason they were seeking abortion.
An April 2004 Zogby Poll found that 56% of respondents support legal abortion in only three or fewer circumstances: when the pregnancy results from rape or incest, or when it threatens the life of the mother.
At an average cost of $372, the abortion business is a $400 million a year industry.
Nearly half of all abortions are obtained by women who have already had at least one abortion.
(The good news is that the number of abortions is going down. However, it will take several MORE wars to come close to the number of babies killed by abortion in this country.)
It was estimated back in 2003 that at that point over 48 million babies had been aborted in this country. How you can say you are okay with that and slam me because I say a country has a right to defend itself is beyond me. I have no more to do with the war thanyou do with abortions, yet you think it is inconsistent to be against abortion but for defense. By the same token, I think it is inconsistent to say you are against abortion but for giving the woman the right to kill the child. I frankly see no difference in your position than mine.
The Civil War...the bloodiest of all the wars...was that one worth fighting? WWI? WWII? The Revolutionary War? Surely that one was worth fighting...so is it some wars are worth fighting? Some aren't? I don't know what wars you feel are justified or if you feel none are justified....I don't know if you would feel fighting was worth it if we were attacked again like 9-11....of if you feel it is ok to fight in Afghanistan....or what you would have us do if they flew over and dropped bombs on NY? I just don't know. What I do know is that many more thousands of babies have died than Americans in wars, and as long as all abortion is legal we will continue as a country to kill babies at a horrifying rate, war or no war. And yes, the thought of that is sickening to me. No war...yet the numbers dying are HORRIFIC. Where is your outrage about that? Justified in the name of choice? Yep....I don't get it...and am glad I don't.
What I also know is that we have not had to fight any wars other than the Civil War on our own soil, and I believe that is because we have taken the fight to the enemy rather than wait for the enemy to come to us.
Don't want to fight with you, piglet...I still feel that someone needs to speak for the babies. You speak for the mothers. They have many to speak for them. Some of us believe we need to speak for the babies. And I will continue to do so.
While I respect your opinion...
While I respect your opinion I disagree and sorry to hear you feel that way. Out of all the candidates the Obama's are the best chance we have of putting some decency and good values back in the white house. While the senate and house are the ones who make the decisions we need a decent President who can speak well and appeal to everyone around the world (all countries need to get along and be neighbors). We need republicans, democrats, and independents to work together and Barack has the most experience and is by far is the best person for that job. McBush is just a relic (and his wife the dragon lady) and he's ready to keep us at war for the next 100 years. Hillary is Hillary...a bold face liar that cannot be trusted. She lied through her 8 years as First Lady, she lied through her time in the senate and her lies just keep going and going like the Energizer bunny. She had these ads claiming that she'll fight for middle class. Give me a break! She has never and will never care about the middle class. They gave the biggest tax breaks to all their friends (which just so happened to be the top 1% of the wealthiest in the country). And we won't even start to begin on all the lies, all the broken promises, her foul mouth, their vicious and cruel attacks on people who are not voting for her, etc., etc...and her voice grates on my nerves like fingernails on a chalk board. And we do not want that impeached piece of dirt husband of hers anywhere near the white house again. Finally got rid of him and now he crawls back out of his hole. Barack can speak without having to read every word from a cue card like Hillary. He is intelligent and his wife is graceous. I'm sorry you have bad feelings about her, but I have read stories about her and she is by far (to me) the most decent person for First Lady. She's gracious, elegant, intelligent, hard working, knows what a gallon of gas, loaf of bread, and cup of coffee costs (something neither Clinton or McCain know). She will do a great service to the white house and finally clean up after the mess that was left for the past 16 years...that's right 8 of Bush AND 8 of those Clintons. What a mess they left it in before the Bushes even got in there. So, am glad for our country that Obama is pulling forward and glad the people with some knowledge of what is going on politically wise are finally being heard.
I do respect your opinion
and also thank you for respecting mine.
My mom always told me nobody always agrees on everything. That's what makes us unique and interesting people.
Still have more respect for him that I do Obama,
nm
Respect has to be earned...it is not a God-given right!
You cannot demand respect, you must earn it! I have the right to respect or not to respect whomever I want! If you are one of the people I do not respect...too bad! Apparently, I do not feel you are worthy of my respect, which is my right!
And I respect yours. Personally,
if I had to be in a foxhole with someone, it would be McCain no question. I have a feeling that Obama would look out for himself.
Having respect for faith all around?
I do. Faith and religion, two different things. I respect everyone's right to pray. I just don't think it should be made into a political issue like it has been done on this board. If it was truly a prayer request, why wasn't it on the prayer request board and the faith board?
I have all the respect in the world
for your opinion. Why not respect mine or do I not deserve respect because by NO MEANS do I agree with you? One question though was your Dad a union member and, did he benefit from the union workers strike? 
|
