Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

This post was addressed to LIBERALS.

Posted By: Liberal on 2006-08-11
In Reply to: I've actually listened to what the Iranian president says.? - Hattie

I want to hear what the man has to say, and I don't care what you think or have to say regarding the subject because your posts on this board and the other board prove you are a Bush apologist and are not an objective person.  As such, your repeated intrusion on this board doesn't surprise me in the least.




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 the second time you addressed something I didn't post. sm
I thought the Chickenhawk article was brilliant though.  I wish I had posted it.
Nope....she just stated she was here to post issues for her fellow liberals...
(or he, whichever the case may be), and I just mentioned I had not seen any issues posted. Are YOU the posting police?
Thanks. Maybe it will be addressed again....
we'll see. Have a good day!
he addressed that issue in a recent

interview.  There is much more to the story that the article does not include.  Biden's explanation seemed reasonable when I heard it.  You can, of course, disagree with me on that point.


 


I understand that....but where do you come down on the issues I addressed...
as you are an Obama supporter.
Sarah Palin said it. We already addressed this.
That is not socialism. Key words..."Alaskans." Not just poor Alaskans. Not just middle class Alaskans. ALL Alaskans. Not predicated on how much money you make or don't make. Completely fair. She could have funneled all that money into the government to be doled out to whoever she saw fit (like Obama wants to do). Instead, she said EVERY Alaskan gets a piece of the pie. That is so FAR removed from socialism it ain't funny.
It was a rhetorical statement, which I addressed
under the post below (I accused nobody of anything). There is no need to repeat any of that here. I'm not the one hung up on the number, but all you guys stepping up to defend W sure do seem to be. It's not a wise crack and its not about the number. It's the stupidity. The 22% W defense league can discuss the pros and cons of IQ numbers to their hearts' content. It's not my issue. I'm talking about stupid is as stupid does.

I don't think there is anything cute or funny about a president that displays the kind of ignorance found in the other Bushism posts. I will say this much, though. This utter contempt for Bush is nothing new. It's been there and going on off the radar screen for the entire duration of these unbearable 8 years. The difference now is that it started to get air play in mainstream media when the election season kicked off. It's been around on the progressive airways since day one and will not be going away anytime soon, even long after he leaves office. Why? Because there is SO MUCH THERE. Keep your blinders on, no problem, but get ready for a bumpy ride. This guy has a lot to answer for before it's said and done.

You have no idea the excitement and pure joy many Americans are experiencing at the mere idea that we will be Bushless in just another 2 shor weeks. It's not about Obama. It's about Bush. There is much cause for celebration, regardless of who is up next.
Obama himself addressed the Ayer's issue if you...

watched the debates.  Put the Ayer's issue to rest.


Would be good if you addressed the person you are referring to
Since I didn't post those you are addressing the wrong person. I did read those posts but I didn't post them. I can take anything back that I dish out, but I don't take kindly to people bashing me for posts I didn't post.
No, there are a few liberals here.

But they're outnumbered by neocons who are more like roaches than people.  They're nasty, keep multiplying, aren't very nice to be around, are very hard to get rid of and are just creepy and disgusting.


You know nothing about liberals
I really truly get upset when a conservative neocon tries to tell liberal democrats who is a liberal who is a democrat..You know nothing about liberals or democrats so I think you need to keep you derogatory comments to the conservative board..
To Liberals
Please list 5 negative things that President Bush has done since becoming President.  (Feel free to add more if you desire.) 
For liberals only.

 This is a good read. Would be funny if not so true.


http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0610-23.htm


For Liberals

http://www.badbush.com/war_pres.html


Also click on the ***back to main page*** link. 


It is truly only the liberals

who repeatedly say that Palin has hurt McCain.  I think some people are obviously put off my Sarah Palin but others find her refreshing.  The media is generally more liberal and so we obviously hear more about how she hurts McCain than helps, but I think she is doing great.  I think they make a great team.  You could say that Biden hurts Obama especially with some of the boneheaded things he has said but you don't hear people continually bringing that all.  Nope....it is always Sarah.


I saw an interview with that Rothschild woman yesterday.  She stated that she is not only is voting for McCain and Palin, even though she is a major democrat, but she is also going around and talking to many democrats who are not so extreme left as Obama.  They too are voting for McCain.  She would not name names but there are many democrats who do not want to go so extreme left.  You might be surprised at the outcome of this election.  It will most definitely be close either way.


And this is why the liberals are trying to
talk shows and freedom of speech where conservatives speak out against them. If you cannot be for them they want you to go away, and remember, they are in control now. That is what we are seeing every day and hearing right here on this board, an arrogant attitude. A new page, a new direction, like the whole world has already changed. The whole world does not need to be changed and will not be changed for the reasons these liberals are counting on. There are too many people wise enough to know what is happening, thank God!
Not all of us liberals do that

I never call Republicans any of those names and I don't like it when Republicans use the same derogatory names for liberals.  I don't like Ann Coulter because I just think she uses her intelligence for fear and hate mongering, but that's just me.


When people of any ideologic viewpoint call each other names, it diminishes their own standing, imo.  Use your words, people!  Stop name calling and have intelligent debates about the issues.  That's much more fun anyway.  And I've never seen Ann Coulter be able to do that, hence my dislike for her.


I like this one because liberals can
No big words or subtleties for them to wrestle with.
I do believe that the liberals

have spoken out about the war in Iraq over and over and over again and just recently there was an attack on a military recruiting center by a man who said the reason for his attack was for "political and religious" reasons and his disagreement over military operations.  Gee....sounds to me like he did something because he kept hearing the libs on TV disagreeing with military operations in Iraq. Hmmm....if you want to spin something, it can be spinned both ways.....just remember that.


The only people to blame are the people who do the crime.  I can't blame libs for this guy opening fire on a recruiting center just as you can't blame Bill O'Reilly for that nut job who opened fire on Tiller.  So give it up, give me break, and get a clue.


What values do liberals have?
While at a pro bush rally I knew I was surrounded by people who generally agreed with my morale values. I knew these people were pro life, believed in god, loved America, believed all nations and people deserved freedom, and finally supported our troops. I thought if the liberals generally disagree with the conservatives moral compass what do they believe?. They support the killing of children in there mothers womb, they have on many occasions attempted to rid god from the publics view, they opposed liberating the people of Kuwait and Iraq, and are quick to call our brave troops who would die for our nation war criminals.
Hear that liberals

just get better producers and your radio shows and T.V. networks/shows will be raging successes!!! 


   Bill Maher's cheese slid off his cracker a long time ago....


This is too funny! It isn't the liberals who are

"willing to totally put" their lives in the hands of some politicians.


It's the Neocons who are the Stepford Wives of the Bush administration, who follow in step, never varying in their pro-Bush propaganda mantra, who make excuses constantly for Bush, and who treat Bush more like a god than the lying, manipulating, misleading, very dangerous moron that he is.


Well..I know liberals..yada

LOL, your first sentence sounds like back in the 1960's..Well, I know some Blacks..and they are my friends..Well, geez, you know some liberals..yada yada yada..


It is still a free country and if we want to bash Bush we can..Most certainly throughout the 1990's most republicans bashed Clinton and his wife and unfortunately his daughter..Now, who has turned out to be stellar and giving back to society..Chelsea..Not Bush's daughters, they are too busy partying and getting drunk and certainly not Bush's nephew, drunk in public..OMG..As much as you republicans bashed Clinton, he is loved by many and a statesman and handles himself quite well these days..like I said, loved by many..and his daughter is contributing to society, an intelligent, upstanding citizen, his wife is a senator in NY who will most probably be re-elected as many in NY love her..So..mmmm..seems to me Bush and his family fall just a bit short..So bash Bush, you bet, sweetie, every chance I get.


Gt, I know and like and get along with many liberals.. You are not a liberal,
x
Yes, there are other families (liberals)

with the same problems as well.  Bush's family seems to take the lead as far as number of people who are drunks or drug addicts.


Now, if you don't mind, I think I will stop responding to your posts.  It's much more entertaining watching you talking to yourself on this board. 


I hope you find the attention you so desperately seek, but you're not getting any more of it from me.


Have a pleasant day, dear.


No, only the ones made by liberals.
xox
Democrats/Liberals
Amen,sm! I noticed that you used one word in one of your responses that is the tell-tale sign distingishing conservatives from liberals, that word being logic. Liberals have no logic and cannot reason, else why would they support Bill Clinton going to war in Bosnia/Yugoslavia when no attack at all had been made on our country and deploy our troops all over the world for no good reason, then pounce on President Bush who is only engaging us in this war on terror to protect all of us here at home, as well as those of our loved ones who have to travel the world over for companies they work for or those who serve our government in various capacities all over the world? Prior to 911, we had been attacked 19 times by terrorists over a period of 20 years or so and not one single president but Ronald Reagan and finally George W. Bush had the gumption to be a real leader and respond, with very noticeable results I might add. Does anyone remember Moamar Kadafi and how his terrorism stopped after President Reagan took care of him?? Bin Ladin and his terrorist organization had attacked us so many times without any response that he called the United States a paper tiger, believing his dreams of total destruction of our country were an inevitable event. I suppose the liberals prefer having our schools, supermarkets, shopping malls, sports arenas, etc., etc., be the targets for terrorists rather than following the advice of every top military general I can think of (save Wesley Clark who obviously has political ambitions)and fight the terrorists where they are amassed rather than fighting them here. To say that Saddam Hussein had no connection to terrorist organizations is nonsense. He hated us with the same vitreolic hatred Bin Ladin had for us and would have loved nothing better than to see us go down. In addition, he was paying a $25,000 reward for each Israeli killed in a terrorist attack. He was a WMD himself, just as Adolph Hitler was. You don't have to possess WMDs to be a WMD; the result is the same. Immediately after the 9-11 attack, 27 Al Qaeda terrorists were rounded up in the very small community in which I live (makes one wonder how many were in the larger cities and communities), and believe me, I feel a lot better knowing that they, along with their terrorist network, have been put out of commission under President Bush's leadership.  As of today, our military has brilliantly performed the task of reducing the entire terorrist organization to about 17,000 in number. Quite a feat!! God bless them all!! I recently heard that a letter from a top terrorist leader was intercepted and stated, We are losing the war. I have much more I could say, but I'll save it for another time as it is getting late.
Liberals: Please read.

I see that I’m being nailed to the cross on the Conservative Board by the usual suspects with more, I'm sure, to follow.  Perhaps my post came too close to the truth and struck a nerve or two.


Just to clarify, my post is not a result of all the mean, nasty personal characteristics they attribute to me.  It is the result of 5 years of watching a President and certain members of his following.  Again, my post didn’t read ALL followers, just the most “radical religious followers,” a point ignored by those who wish to condemn me, unless, of course, they are a part of this rather large group.  My post isn’t a result of hatred; it’s a result of genuine fear about where our country is headed and the true motives behind it.  There have been many articles written about this.  As you can see by the date of this article, this isn’t a new concept.


May 21, 2003


The Rapture of Destruction


Shopping, the End of the World, & Bush


By SAUL LANDAU


There shall be a fourth kingdom on earth that shall be different from all the other kingdoms; it shall devour the whole earth,and trample it down, and break it to pieces.--Daniel 23


As I browsed the New York Times for news of Iraq, terrorism, SARS and the latest environmental disaster, my teenage daughter and her friends arrived with the nutritional equivalent of ecological bio-terrorism. They opened Burger King bags and unveiled cheeseburgers and fat-laden fries (the French might reject their name connected to such items) dipped into what Ronald Reagan called a vegetable (ketchup). They drowned this cholesterol feast with noisy slurps from 22 oz. plastic coke containers.


As they slowly sucked in the artery clogging fast food, I recalled the messianic words from the Prince of Darkness, Richard Perle: This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there, he told John Pilger in the New Statesman, December 16, 2002). If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now


If kids eat food like this, I thought, the only songs they'll sing in the future will be hymns at each others' premature funerals. Fast food, shopping and total war! Can one encompass epic concepts like waging perpetual war for perpetual peace on the one hand and harmonize them with a vision of a trivialized society whose spiritual glue is perpetual shopping?


The Bushies address this issue through religion, not political philosophy. For example, their policy planners reject scientists' prognosis of disasters that will ensue from global warming. Indeed, neither corporate CEO's--except for insurance chiefs --nor government heavies seem to factor global environment into their plans.


The May 7, 2003 LA Times reported, for example, that lawyers representing some 30,000 impoverished Ecuadoreans are expected to sue Chevron Texaco Corp. today, accusing the second-largest U.S. oil company of contaminating the rainforest and sickening local residents. The suit alleges that a Chevron Texaco unit discharged billions of gallons of contaminated water, causing widespread pollution and illness.


Other oil companies used similar practices in Nigeria. In 1999 Shell Oil injected a million liters of waste into an abandoned oil well in Erovie in the Niger Delta. Those who ate the crops or drank water in the area fell ill. Almost 100 people died from poisonous amounts of lead, mercury and other toxics. In 2001, exploration for new wells by western oil companies contaminated the fresh water supply, causing serious illness among the local population. The typical oil company responds to such mishaps by explaining: hey, people drive cars, cars need gas, we supply the gas. Neither oil company CEOs nor the President addressed the implications of using more fossil fuels.


When pushed, one corporate executive alluded to God's will. At the 1997 Kyoto Conference on environment, Jeremy Leggett, who wrote The Carbon War: Global Warming and the End of the Oil Era (2001), cornered Ford Motor Company executive John Schiller.


Leggett, a Greenpeacer, asked Schiller how he dealt with a billion cars intent on burning all the oil and gas available on the planet. Schiller first denied that fossil fuels have been sequestered underground for eons. He claimed, instead, that the Earth is just 10,000, not 4.5 billion years old, the age widely accepted by scientists. Schiller then referred Leggett to The Book of Daniel: The more I look, the more it is just as it says in the Bible. In other words, Schiller's theological interpretation of the world foresees earthly devastation [that] will mark the `End Time' and return of Christ.


So, like members of the powerful in the White House, just refer to biblical passages to understand those photos of melting ice caps on the Andes and breakups of polar ice caps, like the warming effects of the now frequent of El ninos, which have a devastating impact on the sea and land's wellbeing.


I juxtapose my fears over deteriorating environment with the rapture experienced over such ecological decay by the very people who manage the destruction. They view optimistically the dire environmental warnings as sure signs that the end is near and the Messiah will return. As a kid in Hebrew school the Messiah would supposedly arrive and take all the Jews to Israel. When my father told my mother about this imminent event, she wailed in despair: Just after we spent all that money fixing up the house?


In the no laughs born-again world, however, the Millennium means that the Lord will welcome a smog-filled planet so he can redesign it as it in its original Edenic form. Somehow he will afford to the true believers the necessary lung power to survive and live for a thousand years in Nirvana.


If this sounds bizarre, then read Joan Bokaer, who studied the fundamentalists at the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell University. Tens of millions of Americans, she reports, have taken up this apocalyptic form of religion. Not all of them shape their lives dogmatically around this religious vision, but they do tend to dismiss environmentalists as worry warts.


Bokaer adds that these serious soldiers of God see their role as paving the pious road for the Lord's return. Like the Puritans who settled Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 17th Century, these modern zealots predict Christ's return only at the time when they have successfully carried out His work: purged the country of sinners and replaced the corrupt civil law with the dictates of the Bible--which includes, in foreign policy, promoting the battle of Armageddon by supporting Israel.


Like the Puritans, they do not believe in the separation of church and state. The Puritans, however, studied science, believing that God had placed the challenge of discovery before them. Modern fundamentalists tend to disparage the discipline of research to learn about God's ways and instead direct their energies at promoting ultra right politics: including belittling environmental concerns and supporting Israel. So, long live Israel (even with its population of Jews, whose prayers God doesn't hear); hooray for depleted uranium in military shells and bombs.


This religious vision --or nightmare--coincides with a society whose main spiritual value is shopping. Place at the political head of this nation a born-again alcoholic and you may have the glue albeit not one that's logical or holds together disparate pieces in any other way. George Bush's inflexibility of thinking on the one hand--his dogmatic use of good and evil as politically defining poles--allows him to live with or ignore the obvious contradictions in his imperial plan for world domination on the one hand and his destructiveness on the other. We need an energy bill that encourages consumption, he told a Trenton, N.J. audience on September 23, 2002.


In the October 11, 2002 Counterpunch, Katherine van Wormer cites brain studies to reinforce what recovering alcoholics and their counselors have been saying for years; long-term alcohol and other drug use changes the chemistry of the brain These anomalies in brain patterns are associated with a rigidity in thinking.


My wife first said it during the presidential campaign debates, when issues emerged for which the programmers had not prepared Bush. He's a dry drunk, she said, referring to the Alcoholics Anonymous term that describes the alcoholic who no longer drinks, but has not stopped thinking about drinking and has not entered a program to deal with his addiction.


Van Wormer, a professor of social work at the University of Northern Iowa and the co-author of Addiction Treatment: A Strength's Perspective (2002), says dry drunks tend to go to extremes. I immediately thought about his religious fundamentalism, his insistence on an extreme tax plan, his threat to smoke 'em out. As we all have heard, Bush called for a crusade after 9/11--which he later rescinded, but he loved to label his enemies as evil. Van Wormer also lists exaggerated self-importance and grandiose behavior as characteristics of dry drunks. Judge for yourselves!


Arguably the least qualified president, Bush presides over the most complicated period of world history. The American economy needs a public in a constant shopping frenzy. That requires certain kinds of freedom--freedom to confuse desire with need. Shopping needs advertising, which needs broad freedom to lure anxious customers into purchasing goods and services to elevate their status, self esteem, sexual prowess, and power, as well as to improve or enhance their body features. In Upside Down: A Primer for the Looking-Glass World (2001), Eduardo Galeano calls advertisers who know how to turn merchandise into magic charms against loneliness. Things have human attributes: they caress, accompany, understand, help. Perfume kisses you, your car never lets you down.


The car--or SUV--has become a basic capital good which our system must mass produce. The very act of producing gas burning vehicles, however, conflicts with the future of human life on the plant--global warming, ozone layer depletion etc... Bush's policies exacerbate the environmental issue. Instead of confronting this reality, Bush and his followers pray that the end will soon come. Perhaps his troublesome teenage twins contribute to his desire to bring it all to an end.


My teenager finishes her greasy burger, belches and does not sing great songs about Bush.


 


How do you know what most liberals thought?
 I mean, that is quite a sweeping statement. My husband and I are both liberals. I thought Colbert was hilarious. My husband said he felt 2 things at the same time, one humor...he thought it was funny but at the same time he felt it was disrespectful. I thought it was interesting in the video that when they would pan the crowd we could see people laughing but as soon as they realized they were on film, they stopped.  There is a thankyouSteveColbert site, much like the Harry Taylor site. By the Thursday following the dinner it had 40,000 replies, many more now. I still don't know what **most liberals** thought; I don't even know how many liberals there are but at least 40,000+ of us thought he was funny and said what we would LOVE to say given the opportunity.
Nobody stereotypes like liberals
They preach at conservatives all day about the evils of stereotyping, and then in their next post they stereotype. They want the world to think that all Christians are like Coulter. It's just a further attack on Christianity and conservatism. They think if they shout a lie long enough people will believe. Fortunately, not all of us are tin-foil-hat wearing, hick numbskulls they think we are.

I'll get my spiritual opinions from my pastor and people older and wiser than me and not some columnist who has self-appointed himself a religious pundit.
It's obviously okay when they threaten liberals.

Sure comes across as intimidation.  Creepy, isn't it?


Funny how on their board, they defend posting under other monikers.


For the record, though, I did NOT post under the moniker of Stephen Crockett.  Everything I have said in these posts is the truth.  Obviously, when they can't find a truthful response, true to the Republican party these days, they stalk, intimidate and threaten. 


They think they're coming across as credible and all knowing, as if they are actually speakng *FACTS*.  They should continue to post so people can see what they're truly all about.  Might not be safe for you (or me or anyone) to respond to them any more, though.  They're obviously and unfortunately unstable people.  They've already admitted to stalking, so who knows what else they're capable of?


And this board is for liberals so as we say it here...sm
You ain't gone yet???
A little humor for the Liberals sm

He falls off bikes, gets black eyes from pretzels, and nearly flattens his staff with a tractor -- Dubya's middle name should be Clouseau.  Wonder if he went to strongarm Caterpillar over their recent acknowledgement of global warming. 


The White House announced its visit to a Caterpillar factory in East Peoria, Illinois, yesterday, where President George W. Bush advanced his case for expanding free trade negotiations. But it didn't detail the President's clumsy driving of a giant D-10 tractor that sent the White House press corps and presidential staff scrambling, which was reported at a Newsweek blog.

At The Gaggle, Newsweek reporter Holly Bailey writes that the president clambered into the driver's seat of Caterpillar's giant D10 tractor. I would suggest moving back...I'm about to crank this sucker up, she reports him saying.

But as White House staff started to move the press corps back, the situation became more chaotic. Bailey writes that the tractor lurched forward and White House staff too were forced to scramble for safety. Get out of the way! a news photographer yelled. I think he might run us over!

Bush chuckled about the incident, and referenced driving the tractor during his speech, saying I'm impressed by a culture of excellence and accomplishment that is the spirit of Caterpillar. I also appreciate the chance to drive a D10. If you've never driven a D10 -- (laughter) -- it's a cool experience. (Laughter), according to the White House website.

Bailey looked less fondly upon Bush's test drive of the D-10. Yeah, almost as much fun as seeing your life flash before your eyes, she wrote in response to the president's remark about his cool experience.


Joke for liberals. sm

 


How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to change a light bulb?


The Answer is ELEVEN:

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed.

2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed.

3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb.

4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either: For changing the light bulb or for darkness.

5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb.

6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a stepladder under the banner Light Bulb Change Accomplished.

7. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark.

8. One to viciously smear #7.

9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light bulb-changing policy all along.

10. One to change the wrong lightbulb.

11. And finally one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.


Another joke for liberals...

Hillary's Deal With the Devil


Hillary was finishing up a day as Senator for New York when the Devil suddenly appeared in her office and made her an offer...

I am here to offer you a deal, the Devil said. I will give you unlimited wealth, even more power, and a media that will pander to your every whim. In return, all I ask for is your soul, the souls of every member of your family, and the souls of all your constituents.

Hillary pondered for a moment and then asked, Unlimited wealth and power?

Absolutely unlimited, the Devil asserted.

A pandering media? she asked.

They'll fall over themselves to support you, no matter what you say or do, the Devil assured.

And you want my soul, my family's souls, and the souls of my constituents? she asked.

Yes. All of them, the Devil answered.

Hillary was deep in thought for a moment, then finally spoke:

So...what's the catch?


I never said liberals were bad people...

and I have no doubt most of you sincerely individually believe what you are saying...just like most conservatives do.  Debating is not "trying to shove something down someone's throat."  I truly come to this board to learn...I want to know what everyday liberals/Democrats are thinking, not what I hear coming out of Washington.  While sometimes you hear the rote party line here, you also hear the moderate and conservative Democrats (yes, there are some) and I like to hear their point of view as well.  I am not arrogant enough to think I know everything and I am concerned about what my fellow Americans are thinking...not what the DNC is thinking, but what my fellow Americans are thinking.  I think if you don't listen to other viewpoints it leads to narrow-minded robot-like following of a set group of ideas and I think that is dangerous.  That being said, I don't think everyone who posts here does that.  But it is not across the board.


By the same token, just because conservatives (myself and others) counter-post here does not make us bad people either.  We love our country too.  We just have a different view of the direction we think she should go.  That does not make us better than you or worse than you.  We are all Americans.  We are so divided now, because there are too many who do not want to debate and share ideas and learn.


That being said, the views I expressed here regarding children's health care are my own and should not be attributed to all who call themselves conservative.  Too often things get painted on this board with a broad brush...one person posts an opinion and all of a sudden it becomes "conservatives think..."   I just want everyone here to know that all of those opinions were Observer's opinions and not meant to be construed as the "conservative stand" on that issue.  It was my stand.  And I would like to set that record straight...I do believe children should have health insurance.  I believe we as a country should help those who cannot help themselves...the low income families who really cannot afford health insurance for their children, and we were doing that.  What I was..and am...against is expanding the program further and further up the income ladder.  I would like to encourage responsibility...and keep people off programs instead of getting more and more of them on.  A 100% tax refund on health insurance premiums paid makes more sense to me than government-subsidized health insurance for higher income families.  What I do not and will never understand is why the Democrats in Congress could not let the program stand as it was for another 6 months, still covering the families it has covered for the last 10 years, and worked out a compromise. 


So, if you liberals who post here really do not want to engage, I will just come here and read to learn, and will not "force" you to defend your ideas.  In asking my questions I was seeking to learn why you thought what you thought and if there were facts to substantiate it so that I could go and look and continue to hear another viewpoint.  I would think if you were secure in your beliefs you would welcome the chance to explain them.  Color me wrong.


 


Is that what liberals are about, really? Intolerance? nm
nm
Are posts like this really what liberals are about? nm
nm
Okay. I have a question for liberals. sm

Where do you stand on these issues:


1. Homosexual marriage


2. Welfare


3. Abortion


 


I'm neutral in my views. I don't think I'm Republican or Liberal. I'm just trying to learn the mind of a liberal.  In short, could you tell me where you stand on these issues?


we could easily do what the liberals
constantly do and spin that out and say that was a set up by the Obama campaign to make McCain supporters look bad. 
See how hateful liberals are? Which is why I no
nm
Please don't lump all us liberals together

I don't like Ann Coulter but not for any of the reasons you said.  I don't like her because I think she uses fear mongering tactics to get her point across and as she proved with the comment about Michelle Obama, she is unable to do it without resorting to name calling.  That doesn't speak to any level of intelligence for me.


I don't like any of the pundits who are either so far right or far left that they are unable to see any other viewpoint but their own.  Anyone like that is just scary to me.


PLEASE READ...You have just described yourself, and most of the liberals
lots and lots of (to use your own words) sad, miserable, angry people whose candidate won, and seem to have to smash and bash the losers into the ground under their feet with their neverending toxic posts.

Yours today have been terrible, along with JTBB, woofer, and others.

I'm not saying that Lu isn't over the top on the right, because she is. I wish she would stop also.


But all of the liberal posters should try a bit of hope and kindness towards those you continually stomp upon.


A lot of us have refrained from commenting lately on this board one way or another, just to stay out of the fray, and allow you and Obama your day to shine, on this upcoming historical next few days, especially.


But really.....the whole board has gone to heck in a handbasket, with mostly the winning libs loud and nasty the most to the rest of us.


I won't be back, as there is such a hypocrisy among the winning side this time round.


No tolerance except towards their own.


Very, very sad, indeed.



I seriously doubt liberals have anything
Republicans, the party of whiners.
Ask the liberals who are posting there to come over to this board.
I know it is tempting to want to post on the opposite board, I try to fight it though because I know anything I say over there will only start a fight.
No liberals here just extreme leftists

I know some good liberals and the ones who are here are not them.


If you are not a Bush hater or a Bush basher on this board then you're a troll.


God help these people if they ever do get in a real fight.


Liberals exposed in all their glory. SM
Ain't it grand.
With liberals it's not the proof behind the accusation
it's the seriousness of the charge....
No when I see liberals, no leftists, I SEE hate
I have some liberal acquaintances, and they are not the least bit like the ravenous tar and feather stuff I SEE here. I don't think anything. I observe, and what I observe is the out and out attack on anything conservative. We don't see things the same way, that's obvious, but you all are out for blood which is supposedly to be what you all are against. The hypocrisy is staggering.

BTW, we are dicussing issues on the C-board. We don't always agree, and we don't always agree with Bush, but obviously you would rather turn a blind eye to that in order further your revenge agenda on anything conservative.
Note to uptight liberals
It was s-a-r-c-a-s-m.   Humor is lost on you all...
The term *Christian Right* was given our by liberals
so, giving us the defination of Christian right is condeming us for the title your group gave us.