The Stark Difference

One group hurls insults and fiction.  The other hurls their own words right back at 'em.

So who aced debate classes here?  And just to cover all bases here, RINOs get no respect, either.  I've wanted Susan Collins and Olympia Snow (among others) purged from their so-called Republican seats.  They're literally embarrassments.  Meanwhile, Barney Frank (and others) are lauded.

• Former DNC Chairman on Gustav - EyesWideOpen
  • The Stark Difference - EyesWideOpen
  • That is pitiful. Just pitiful. But that is the attitude they have.... - sam

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

pubs and dems when it comes to infidelity is that dems, for the most part, don't throw that term "family values" around like pubs do.  Realistically, that is why its always worse for pubs when it comes to this. 

BTW, did you know that Sen. Ensign is being investigated for the pub party funds that he used to pay his mistress and her son, as well as the firing of his mistress and her husband?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/23/MNVB18BO98.DTL

What's even better than that is Sen Corker's (TN) statement regarding Ensign.  He said:  "I think he's been very stand up about it." 

What part was so stand-up about it?  The affair itself?  What it did to his family?  How he paid off and then fired his mistress and her family? 

Check this one out:  "He apologized and we welcomed him back," Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah).

Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.): "I think he's prepared to move on, and I wish him well."

They sure do have a different tone when it's one of their own.

...in immediate and direct response to Obama's choices.  If you want to blame the media, then okay:  It was the media who informed me of Obama's choices.  The "media," I suppose, also brings me CNBC (which I watch a lot) and CSPAN (where I was able to watch part of the auto company bailout hearings yesterday).

Perhaps I misunderstood him when he was campaigning, but I thought one of his most passionate gripes was with the same old faces in Washington and the same old policies and how that needed to change.

My concerns include both personal and country; our country is comprised of all of us "personals," so I believe they are one and the same.  Our economy is headed down the tubes, and there's not much debate about that.

It's impossible for me to trust anything that is Bush or anything that is Clinton.  That's from present and past experience, having survived both administrations and seeing how dishonest each of them was in their own right.

If the election were held today, I would still vote for Obama.  I hope my suspicions are wrong, and they very well may be.  I've seen him run a brilliant campaign, and I know he's a brilliant man.  I acknowledge and honor everything both he and Michelle have achieved in their lives.  I wouldn't have supported him and voted for him if that weren't the case.

Perhaps I'm just preparing for the worst so I can enjoy the "best" all that much more if and when it comes.  However, at this point in time, the more Clintonites he appoints, the further he drifts away from the Barack Obama that used to condemn the "same old, same old," and the larger that little red flag in my brain will grow.

In the meantime, though, I still support him as my President in ways that I will never be able to support a Bush or a Clinton:  I still see him as an honest and trustworthy man -- until he shows me through his ultimate policies that he isn't.

Rudolph and Osama bin Laden is that one is Christian and one is Muslim.  Other than that, there is no limit to their hatred.

To say that clinic workers at an abortion clinic are just as guilty as Rudolph is, at its best, INSANE.  Those clinic workers broke no laws.  Rudolph not only broke the law, he violated the "Thall shalt not kill" commandment that you all claim to believe in.

But, as with Bush in Iraq, it's okay if people kill, as long as they're the people you worship.  I truly don't understand people like you, and I don't wish to.  Frankly, you all frighten me, and I won't be reading your posts any more because I find them too disturbing.

 is between free speech and slander/libel. Everyone has a right to an opinion and to voicing that opinion as long as one does not libel and/or slander a particular individual(s). Since the widows were named and The ***WTC victims*** were not, one is free speech, albeit lunatic fringe free speech,  and one is not. 

To weigh in on the subject of Coulter; she makes her living saying and writing outrageous stuff. She is a shock jock. If she started writing books like William Safire does, no one would read them and she would not be on every talk show on the airwaves. It is her job to be repugnant and she does it quite well.  I don't listen to her, don't read her books. I don't listen to Howard Stern either; nor Rush, nor Grover, nor anyone who makes my blood boil. It is an exercise in futility to try to change anyone's mind on the stuff these people say. You love them or hate them and so I just avoid them.

Within 24 hours of taping?  I reiterate the point I made above. And when you buy things from a private company unless they state it outright they might turn around sell your information to other advertisers.  Unless you can produce where you signed a waiver of privacy, like you do at a doctor's office, you are not guaranteed that your information will be kept private.

I guess any good consumer could elect not to have phone service.  That's one way to keep your conversations private.  It's a bummer when it comes to communcation, but unless your plotting something illegal you really shouldn't have a problem should you?

It's okay for President Bush to get political but it's not okay for his employers (the American citizens) to do the same thing?  That would be the norm in a fascist government ruled by a dictator like Iran.  Is that where we're heading in America today?

Grandma's comment regarding the number of American troops killed in Iraq approaching the number of civilians killed on 9/11 was a very relevant comment, considering Bush himself exploited 9/11 in order to justify invading and occupying Iraq when it turns out Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with it. 

The consertatives you list are political commentators.  They can have their own shows and columns, etc.  Many liberals do.

Huffington Post puts itself out there as a newspaper, a NEWS source if you will.  Problem is, they are all biased to the left so it's not being fair.  Should not be called a newspaper if they can't be fair on both sides.

JMHO.

between American news and real world news, here's a suggestion:

http://www.linktv.org/

Before you start in by saying, well that's just more liberal media, look who contributing authors are and where they are from.  This is just one example of real world news.  Step outside of the box for a while.

Electing a president -- constitutional

Taking away civil rights -- unconstitutional.

If the majority were to rule in all instances, you would not have had the right to vote. 

provision in this bill.  Don't like the HMO, you can go somewhere else.  With total government control, where will you go?  No where, just kow tow.  I don't know anyone who could think it is right to withhold medical care from the infirm, the elderly, and children with devastatinly incurable diseases, anyone not deemed by government as being a productive citizen worthy of having medical care, those who will be a drain on the healthcare system.  I don't want to know anyone who could support withholding medical care from the most vulnerable in our country.

is that you think it's the end of the world if you have to help someone else, while I consider it a privilige to be in the position to do so.  Greed isn't going to make all our problems go away.  It didn't help anything over the last 8 years and it won't help in the future.  The sooner people figure that out, the sooner we have a chance at actually restoring this country to what it should be.

between speech that incites violence versus voicing one's opinion?  On Hannity's website he listed 3 types of revolutions (all of which would be violent -- as in no option for a peaceful revolution) and asked which one would you choose.  That would be the same as asking someone would you like to stab, drown or suffocate this person?  What do you honestly think the implication is with this type of rhetoric?  Get a clue.

Yeah, there are far left nut jobs just like on the right.  However, we (the left) recognize those nut jobs and don't defend them.  You guys do defend your nuts. 

The homeland security report that came out specifically pointed out threats by extremist right-wingers.  So what did you guys do?  You defended them by demanding an apology.  So, what I see is that you self identified with what was pointed out to be extremists.  Why?  I believe it's because that's where the base of the pub party is right now.

What a huge difference it is!

That between OBSESSION and normal ordinary use.  Tee-hee!!!!