So basically anyone who does not agree...

• just doomed. - We're doomed I say....
  • Republicans and democratic are worlds apart - Democracy = 2 parties
  • Actually, I don't hate Obama....I just don't want him... - sam
    • Take a good look at your level headed poster...nm - Up under the Obama Nation piece. Endorses hate wit
      • Where do I endorse hate?? - sam
        • Playing dumb is not your strong suit. nm - Drop the innocent act and go figure.
          • If you are talking about the Obama Nation post... - sam
            • Don't need you to interpret for me. nm - That garbage has already been shot down.
              • So basically anyone who does not agree... - sam
                • Not aimed at "just anyone." - Taking issue with your hateful posts. nm
                  • Please explain where Sam is hateful? - sm
                    • Merely an observation. I'll pass on this and - Let other readers draw own conclsions.
                      • Wow, what an intelligent answer, and thoughtful. - Not! nm
                    • Sam is "hateful" because I post unflattering... - sam
                    • yeah, explain please, instead of once again lashing - out at anyone who questions you!-nm
                      • Lunchtime is over and that is no one-liner. - Be happy to explain after shift is over. nm
                        • Nice dodging of question -how pitiful.nm - kb
                          • Some of us have to make a living. - No dodge here. Answer provided above. sm
                            • You spend plenty of time cat fighting when - you WANT to! -garbage answer .nm
    • You sound like one of the more level headed posters here - We're doomed I say....
      • You must be new to the board...nm - You're talking to the mistress of deception.
        • "mistress of deception"? what, since you disagree? - independent
          • No lousier than your labels. nm - Your posts speak for themselves.
            • Oh, a compliment -thanks - wow, what a bitter person you are -nm
              • Not in the slightest. Your posts are pitiful. - Just call it like I see it.
                • Thanks again :) - "just words, just speeches" gets you nowhere
                  • Don't know what you are referring to. nm - Must be describing your own posts.
                    • Mutual respect, ever heard of it? - We wont hold our breath
                      • divided we fall, people; no matter who the leader will be, - we the people need to stay united. NM
                        • Agreed. Problem is that concept consistently - Escapes some posters on this board. nm
        • And you would be..... - sam
          • Arguing with a know-it-all...nm - Is a waste of time.
            • Meowwwww! LOL. nm - sam
              • Better that than barking, - Bluster and babble. nm
                • LOL nm - sam
  • Actually, if you - Me
    • The running mate will be an important factor - We're doomed I say....

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Get off my back is about as simple as I can put it.  I never said Laura Bush was drunk, so I don't see why you keep responding to my posts asking me to post a credible link to prove this.

There are "internet rumors" about her being drunk, mostly on liberal sites. 

The link I posted in this thread is for liberal entertainment a "what if it was Hillary idea" so to speak.  What I find ironic and even hypocritical is how you boast on the "TRUTH" in the "you probably are a liberal if..." article on the neocon board, but then come over here and throw your weight around about my post (the thread we're in now - let's not get it confused).

Hope you can understand this better, or even better you are staying on the conservative board so you will not get this response.  Geez Louise.

in a nutshell...  

I think we need change and I'm sure Obama will make mistakes, but McCain might as well said "I totally disrespect women."  By picking Palin with no experience tells me he doesn't really care.  JMO.

way this plays out?  My biggest fear is having democrats in total control of everything.  I don't like idea at all.  I know a lot of people are just wanting to get republicans out of the way since they blame Bush for everything. 

The big picture is that government as a whole (all parties) were involved in this crisis and it really is going to take all parties to pull us out.  We need a split to keep things under control.  Our country cannot afford to let everything go extreme left like it appears to be doing.  We need some contrast and balance.  If Obama were more middle of the road and not so extreme left.....I might consider voting for him.  But he is way too extreme left for me.  As a conservative.....I don't like that at all. 

I think splitting the country up like that would do much more harm than good.  We would wind up in the same situation as in the middle east....just a bunch of small factions (if you will) and total loss of control.  Not one of these individual factions would be able to fend off foreign threats, much less threats from other factions.  Individual factions would not be able to compete in a global economy.  We have gained the power that we currently have by being a united country, and that would be totally lost.  This would put us back to civil war days and in my opinion would not serve any real purpose other than to appease those who encourage separation of the country now.

antichrist which some believe it could be the O.  I had a study if this in the Book of Daniel, not only in Revelations.  No matter who it is, better be ready.  Some state middle age, 40's and 50's. 

http://www.theprophecies.com/antichrist.html

censorship is unconstitutional.  That was his reason for not having restrictions on certain websites in libraries and schools.  However, as a parent, I do not feel comfortable knowing that people can go to porn sites in libraries where my child might see this or at school where children might pull this stuff up.  If people want to look at porn on the internet, they can feel free to buy their own computer and watch it from the privacy of their home, but not where children can see.  Also, I do not see why it was important to Ogden to oppose a law stating porn distributors had to verify with documentation the age of their models.  Doing away with this law would make child pornography easier to do.  Having a law making them prove the models age, to me, is a responsible thing to do and also will prevent underage children being used in lewd sexual acts. 

I just cannot support a man who would not allow restrictions for obscene sights in public libraries and schools and not see why it is important to have laws to verify that a person is of legal age to be involved in pornography. 

Seriously, pornography is intended for the privacy of our homes with adults.  Not in public places or involving children whether those children be watching or actually involved in the porn.

This is not a personal attack on Obama.  I honestly wouldn't like anyone if they had these views on pornography.  I personally feel that all appointees should be scrutinized whether it be dem or pub.  I think if we hold them to higher standards than we have, maybe we will start getting some honest people in Washington.

anyone for fear of picking up an innocent person.  Kind of hard to do that since most of these terrorists blend right in with civilians and have no problem using civilians as human shields. 

You still have not answered my question about how many in Gitmo were "tortured." 

So there are no innocent people in our local prisons?  I'm sure there are some but the majority of them are guilty.......just like Gitmo.

What was done was done in an attempt to protect Americans whether you want to believe that or not.  Terrorists are NOT covered under the Geneva Convention.  How fast we forget the horrible things that were done to use by terrorists.  We weren't waterboarded or electrocuted.  We were either beheaded or just simply blown up.  Which would you prefer? 

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

With every day that passes, I feel less and less hope.  I've never been this frightened of a politician in my entire life.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.