Well written message

• Enough of the socialism accusations - sm
  • Two things.... - sam
    • talking about "redistributing the wealth" -- - anon
    • You appear to be getting a lot, if not most, of your - sm
      • Geez.....Obama has a CAMPAIGN ad.... - sam
      • Obama DID say what Sam mentioned! - not just coming from FOX-get a new line nm
  • Well written message - good post

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

piglet.  What would you like to discuss?

commandment -  Two wrongs DO make a right. 

As I've suspected for a long time now, he's deaf and *dumb*!!

Thanks for posting this. 

 I believe I said in order to be forgiven, one has to 'fess up, own up, repent and go and sin no more.  This is a 1 on 1 deal with God. I have repeatedly said, in response to many issues, that God judges, not us but what I get is God will judge W and anyone else with whom we agree and who are we to say anything different but the liberals, the people of other faiths,  poor people, the spiritually bankrupt people, the **undeserving poor** as opposed to the ***deserving poor***, now that is a different story. We can and ought to judge them as harshly as possible; speaking out of both sides of one's mouth it would seem to me. In response to my unChristianness I have enclosed the definition of repentence with Bible ***links***. 

What is Repentance?

Repentance comes from a Greek word meaning to change one's mind. It is much more than feeling sorry about what has happened or regretful about circumstances and their outcome. The key element is the concept of change, of turning completely around. It involves both a turning from and a turning to. In the Bible it means to be converted; to undergo a radical change of heart and life, a complete turnabout of life.

The Shorter Catechism says Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.

The change of mind and heart comes as we move from a state of rebellion against God and the idolization of our selves (Rom 1:21ff; 3:10-19, 23). We agree with God in His assessment of us - we are sinners in thought, word and deed - under His wrath and curse. No longer do we seek to justify ourselves, excuse our sins, or try to merit salvation. Rather we comprehend the awful truth about ourselves - that we are spiritually dead in our trespasses and sin - and the wages of sin is death, and after that will come judgment. (Eph 2:1-3; James 1:15; Rom 6:23; Hebr 9:27).

True repentance is not putting on sackcloth and ashes, a negative preoccupation with ourselves. However to turn from sin and live for Christ, we must see our sin for what it is and how it affects our thinking and actions and this can be done most clearly as Christ bears it to the cross - God's response to our sin is such that he couldn't spare his own Son. (Rom 8:32)

Repentance includes Confession - the acknowledging of our sinfulness to God and our admission to Him that apart from Christ we are unable to please God. It includes knowing God's forgiveness, we can turn away from sin when we know our sinfulness no longer keeps us from God. And true repentance leads to new obedience. We are turning to newness of life, living now as God would have us to live.

True repentance can only come at the foot of the cross. It is inseparable from faith for this reason. Repentance is admitting that we are as God sees us, and He knows every secret within our hearts (Psa 139, Matt 6:4, 6). Faith embraces the Savior he offers for our salvation.

Only as we realize what our sin is before God, will we experience true godly sorrow for our sins (Cf 2 Cor 7:8-11) Worldly sorrow regrets the consequences, feels remorse that I'm guilty - it leads to death. If we dwell on our sins rather than viewing them in the shade of the cross - we would be driven to despair and hopelessness. But godly sorrow leads to repentance and salvation - we see ourselves as we are and hate our sin, humbling ourselves before God. True repentance is being honest with ourselves and with God without fear - because we trust God has dealt with that sin on the cross. (Rom 8:1ff)

P.S. All humans make mistakes. All presidents are human, ergo, all presidents make mistakes.

he is the money guy on CNBC. We listen to him sometimes, have read a couple of his books, and because of watching his show in Sept or Oct of last year, we pulled our money out of the stock market, which was the BEST idea. It is an interesting artcile to some, maybe not to others.

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/cramer-my-response-white-house

pertaining to personal workspace adornment (size, number and/or appropriateness of photographs, posters, banners, political content, sports memorabilia, etc.) then I would agree with you.  If you don't like the policy, don't work there.  Your office is not your personal gallery.

If the company doesn't want somebody hanging up a Soviet flag, then they're probably going to have to prohibit Old Glory as well.

However, if this is a policy formulated on the spur of the moment to appease a complainer, then I disagree.  What's next?  An Ohio State fan complaining about a Michigan pennant in the next cubicle?)  Nor do I agree that new policies should be formulated after the fact to deal with an existing situation just because nobody foresaw it.  If it's an important issue, then a rule should already cover it. 

If this is a public area (waiting room/reception area) then I am sure the company must have had the foresight to write a standard regarding decor, since all visitors will see this.  In my opinion, if it ain't covered in that policy, it should be okay.

Interesting that people voluntarily come to this country, going to considerable effort to get here, then so easily become offended and need special accommodations.  What is it they don't understand about "liberty"?  If an American coworker complained about the Ugandan flag in a neighboring workspace, there would be h*ll to pay!  Disciplinary action against the complainer.  Law suits!  ACLU involvement!   Paid leave  and free counseling for the Ugandan employee to get over the trauma of the event!

by a first-generation African-American woman (hard to get by with calling her a racist) in The National Thinker: 

Had Americans been able to stop obsessing over the color of Barack Obama's skin and instead paid more attention to his cultural identity, maybe he would not be in the White House today. The key to understanding him lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa

Well worth reading the entire thing:  http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/2278969/posts?page=1

I don't think some people realize the seriousness of the illegally invading a sovereign nation for what is truthfully nothing more than regime change, after being dishonest to the entire world about the true reasons for invading this country.

If/when it happens, they still won't get it.  And if/when more Americans are killed by terrorists because this president was too stubborn to care about America first and refused to implement most suggestions of the 9/11 Commission, the ones who survive the next terror attack will still be kneeling down and kissing his boots because they are preprogrammed to believe this man can do nothing wrong.

 knew there were pro-life liberals; just had to look for some.  She does not understand the stand some of you are taking, any more than I do. 

Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life

Consistency demands concern for the unborn

Mary Meehan, The Progressive,

The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.

Some of us who went through the anti-war struggles of the 1960s and early 1970s are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.

Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation.

Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known. Less familiar to many is the Oath of Geneva, formulated by the World Medical Association in 1948, which included these words: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception." A Declaration of the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1959, declared that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth."

It is not my purpose to explain why courts and parliaments in many nations rejected this tradition over the past few decades, though I suspect their action was largely a surrender to technical achievement -- if such inventions as suction aspirators can be called technical achievements. But it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion.

One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born. When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."

Unfortunately, many liberals and radicals accepted this view without further question. Perhaps many did know that an eight-week-old fetus has a fully human form. They did not ask whether American slaveholders before the Civil War were right in viewing blacks as less than human and private property; or whether the Nazis were correct in viewing mental patients, Jews, and Gypsies as less human and therefore subject to final solution.
 
 

Class issues provided another rationale. In the late 1960s, liberals were troubled by evidence that rich women could obtain abortions regardless of the law, by going to careful society doctors or countries where abortion was legal. Why, they asked, should poor women be barred from something the wealthy could have? One might turn this argument on its head by asking why rich children should be denied protection that poor children have.

But pro-life activists did not want abortion to be a class issue one way the other; they wanted to end abortion everywhere, for all classes. And many people who had experienced poverty did not think providing legal abortion was any favor to poor women. Thus; 1972, when a Presidential commission on population growth recommended legalized abortion, partly to remove discrimination against poor women, several commission members dissented.

One was Graciela Olivarez, a Chicana was active in civil rights and anti-poverty work. Olivarez, who later was named to head the Federal Government's Community Services Administration, had known poverty in her youth in the Southwest. With a touch of bitterness, she said in her dissent, "The poor cry out for justice and equality and we respond with legalized abortion." Olivarez noted that blacks and Chicanos had often been unwanted by white society. She added, "I believe that in a society that permits the life of even one individual (born or unborn) to be dependent on whether that life is ?wanted' or not, all citizens stand in danger." Later she told the press, "We do not have equal opportunities. Abortion is a cruel way out."

Many liberals were also persuaded by a church/state argument that followed roughly this line: "Opposition to abortion is a religious viewpoint, particularly a Catholic viewpoint. The Catholics have no business imposing their religious views on the rest of us." It is true that opposition to abortion is a religious position for many people. Orthodox Jews, Mormons, and many of the fundamentalist Protestant groups also oppose abortion. (So did the mainstream Protestant churches until recent years.) But many people are against abortion for reasons that are independent of religious authority or belief. Many would still be against abortion if they lost their faith; others are opposed to it after they have lost faith, or if they never had any faith. Only if their non-religious grounds for opposition can be proven baseless should legal prohibition of abortion fairly be called an establishment of religion. The pro-abortion forces concentrate heavily on religious arguments against abortion and generally ignore the secular arguments -- possibly because they cannot answer them.

Still another, more emotional reason is that so many conservatives oppose abortion. Many liberals have difficulty accepting the idea that Jesse Helms can be right about anything. I do not quite understand this attitude. Just by the law of averages, he has to be right about something, sometime. Standing at the March for Life rally at the U.S. Capitol last year, and hearing Senator Helms say that "We reject the philosophy that life should be only for the planned, the perfect, or the privileged," I thought he was making a good civil-rights statement.

If much of the leadership of the pro-life movement is right-wing, that is due largely to the default of the Left. We "little people" who marched against the war and now march against abortion would like to see leaders of the Left speaking out on behalf of the unborn. But we see only a few, such as D*ck Gregory, Mark Hatfield, Jesse Jackson, Richard Neuhaus, Mary Rose Oakar. Most of the others either avoid the issue or support abortion. We are dismayed by their inconsistency. And we are not impressed by arguments that we should work and vote for them because they are good on such issues as food stamps and medical care.

Although many liberals and radicals accepted legalized abortion, there are signs of uneasiness about it. Tell someone who supports it that you have many problems with the issue, and she is likely to say, quickly, "Oh, I don't think I could ever have one myself, but . . . ." or "I'm really not pro-abortion; I'm pro-choice" or "I'm personally opposed to it, but . . . ."

Why are they personally opposed to it if there is nothing wrong with it?

Perhaps such uneasiness is a sign that many on, the Left are ready to take another look at the abortion issue. In the hope of contributing toward a new perspective, I offer the following points:

First, it is out of character for the Left to neglect the weak and helpless. The traditional mark of the Left has been its protection of the underdog, the weak, and the poor. The unborn child is the most helpless form of humanity, even more in need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient or the boat people on the high seas. The basic instinct of the Left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves -- and that instinct is absolutely sound. It is what keeps the human proposition going.

Second, the right to life underlies and sustains every other right we have. It is, as Thomas Jefferson and his friends said, self-evident. Logically, as well as in our Declaration of Independence, it comes before the right to liberty and the right to property. The right to exist, to be free from assault by others, is the basis of equality. Without it, the other rights are meaningless, and life becomes a sort of warfare in which force decides everything. There is no equality, because one person's convenience takes precedence over another's life, provided only that the first person has more power. If we do not protect this right for everyone, it is not guaranteed for everyone, because anyone can become weak and vulnerable to assault.

Third, abortion is a civil-rights issue. D*ck Gregory and many other blacks view abortion as a type of genocide. Confirmation of this comes in the experience of pro-life activists who find open bigotry when they speak with white voters about public funding of abortion. Many white voters believe abortion is a solution for the welfare problem and a way to slow the growth of the black population. I worked two years ago for a liberal, pro-life candidate who was appalled by the number of anti-black comments he found when discussing the issue. And Representative Robert Dornan of California, a conservative pro-life leader, once told his colleagues in the House, "I have heard many rock-ribbed Republicans brag about how fiscally conservative they are and then tell me that I was an idi*t on the abortion issue." When he asked why, said Dornan, they whispered, "Because we have to hold them down, we have to stop the population growth." Dornan elaborated: "To them, population growth means blacks, Puerto Ricans, or other Latins," or anyone who "should not be having more than a polite one or two `burdens on society.' "

Fourth, abortion exploits women. Many women are pressured by spouses, lovers, or parents into having abortions they do not want. Sometimes the coercion is subtle, as when a husband complains of financial problems. Sometimes it is open and crude, as when a boyfriend threatens to end the affair unless the woman has an abortion, or when parents order a minor child to have an abortion. Pro-life activists who do "clinic counseling" (standing outside abortion clinics, trying to speak to each woman who enters, urging her to have the child) report that many women who enter clinics alone are willing to talk and to listen. Some change their minds and decide against abortion. But a woman who is accompanied by someone else often does not have the chance to talk, because the husband or boyfriend or parent is so hostile to the pro-life worker.

Juli Loesch, a feminist/pacifist writer, notes that feminists want to have men participate more in the care of children, but abortion allows a man to shift total responsibility to the woman: "He can buy his way out of accountability by making `The Offer' for `The Procedure.' " She adds that the man's sexual role "then implies-exactly nothing: no relationship. How quickly a `woman's right to choose' comes to serve a `man's right to use.?" And Daphne DE Jong, a New Zealand feminist, says, "If women must submit to abortion to preserve their lifestyle or career, their economic or social status, they are pandering to a system devised and run by men for male convenience." She adds, "Of all the things which are done to women to fit them into a society dominated by men, abortion is the most violent invasion of their physical and psychic integrity. It is a deeper and more destructive assault than rape . . . ."

Loesch, de Jong, Olivarez, and other pro-life feminists believe men should bear a much greater share of the burdens of child-rearing than they do at present. And de Jong makes a radical point when she says, "Accepting short-term solutions like abortion only delays the implementation of real reforms like decent maternity and paternity leaves, job protection, high-quality child care, community responsibility for dependent people of all ages, and recognition of the economic contribution of child-minders." Olivarez and others have also called for the development of safer and more effective contraceptives for both men and women. In her 1972 dissent, Olivarez noted with irony that "medical science has developed four differ ways for killing a fetus, but has not "developed a safe-for-all-to-use contraceptive."
 
 

Fifth, abortion is an escape from an obligation that is owed to another. Doris Gordon, Coordinator of Libertarians for Life, puts it this way: "Unborn children don't cause women to become pregnant but parents cause their children to be in the womb, and as a result, they need parental care. As a general principle, if we are the cause of another's need for care, as when we cause an accident, we acquire an obligation to that person a result .... We have no right to kill order to terminate any obligation."

Sixth, abortion brutalizes those who perform it, undergo it, pay for it, profit from it, and allow it to happen. Too many of us look the other way because we do not want to think about abortion. A part of reality is blocked out because one does not want to see broken bodies coming home, or going to an incinerator, in those awful plastic bags. People deny their own humanity when they refuse to identify with, or even knowledge, the pain of others.

With some it is worse: They are making money from the misery others, from exploited women and dead children. Doctors, business and clinic directors are making a great deal of money from abortion. Jobs and high incomes depend on abortion; it?s part of the gross national product. The parallels of this with the military industrial complex should be obvious to anyone who was involved in the war movement.

And the "slippery slope" argument is right: People really do go from accepting abortion to accepting euthanasia and accepting "triage" for the hunger problem and accepting "lifeboat ethics" as a general guide to human behavior. We slip down the slope back to the jungle.

To save the smallest children, save its own conscience, the Left should speak out against abortion.

Mary Meehan has written for Inquiry, The Nation, The Washington Monthly, The Washington Post, and other publications.

I live in a rural area, have three dogs and do weight training also!!!

Actually it is said by the experts that if you are inexperienced with a gun you're better off not having one.  It's kind of complex, but check out the info if you're interested. 

I used to have military mace (actually from when I lived in a big city) - not sure if it's available to the public - probably easier to use than a gun and just as effective.  Otherwise, not sure who we're supposed to be afraid of here.....I generally am not afraid of intruders and I don't have any weapons in my house other than my dogs and my mouth!!!

I can't wait to see what Fitzgerald's investigation unfolds.

Libby and Rove both were sources for the leak of Plame's occupation.

This was after Joe Wilson made public that Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein was purchasing uranium to make nukes was FALSE.  The administration KNEW it was false, yet Bush used this fake threat of nukes in his State of the Union address to scare the heebie-jeebies out of the American public so they would support this bogus war.

That's how Bushies handle people who cross them.  Don't DARE tell the truth or expose the administration for what it truly is.  If you do, they'll not only put the life of a CIA agent in danger, but every single person she worked with around the globe pertaining to WMD.  Why isn't this treason?  It's the Bush way of doing things, and Karl Rove is an expert and accomplished thug.

I hope this goes beyond Rove and Libby and goes straight to Bush and Cheney.  This is definitely an illegal war, brought on totally false premises, and Bush and Cheney should be personally held accountable for all the deaths (American and Iraqi) that have resulted from their lies.

It's truly sad when the only man on earth who can make Saddam look not so bad is GEORGE W. BUSH.  I'm very ashamed of my government.

I'm writing to my Congressman and Senator and see if this is true, express my objection and see if they can BOUNCE the *blank check* they gave him regarding Iraq and require Congressional approval for air strikes.

The article you posted included the following: 

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the former official said, he was told that Bush felt that “God put me here” to deal with the war on terror. The President’s belief was fortified by the Republican sweep in the 2002 congressional elections; Bush saw the victory as a purposeful message from God that “he’s the man,” the former official said. Publicly, Bush depicted his reëlection as a referendum on the war; privately, he spoke of it as another manifestation of divine purpose.

Someone needs to tell Bush that God thinks Bush is too engulfed in his own ego to fully understand God's REAL message to him, and that's why God gave us POLLS.

I don't believe religious symbols of ANY kind belong in schools (unless they're religious schools) or government buildings.  If Walmart or Target wish to be inclusive to all religious beliefs, more power to them.  Private businesses should be free to do as they wish.  If they want to limit it to the religious Christmas and exclude the secular *Christmas,* some people might not want to shop in that kind of *exclusive* shop.  You can bet their profit margin is the bottom line for them.

For every religion out there, there are buildings:  churches, mosques, temples, etc. where like-minded people gather to worship.  Trying to control the very WORDS people say isn't going to work unless and until you guys figure out a way to implant a chip in every American that will force them to speak, think, believe and worship just like you do.  Maybe some of us think you'd do that if you had the ability, and maybe THAT'S the underlying thing that people are fighting.

That mental image HURTS.

I am so SICK of this man's lies.  Bush needs to get them straight.  When he said the following in 2004, he was clearly lying and KNEW IT, as we now all know.  I just wonder if there's ever been just ONE TIME in the last 5 years when he's actually told the truth.  Have you seen this?

Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order, he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.

Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so, he added.

On April 19, 2004, Bush said the Patriot Act enabled law-enforcement officials to use roving wiretaps, which are not fixed to a particular telephone, against terrorism, as they had been against organized crime.

You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order -- and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example, he said in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

I totally agree this absolutely reaches across the board.  This monster repeatedly raped this child for 3 years, but the damage he's done to her is going to affect her entire life.  How about putting him in jail FOREVER so he can't hurt anyone else???  I also wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty for animals such as this.

I've recently seen this judge on TV, actually defending his actions, as if there is a defense for them.  Thank God for Bill O'Reilly (I don't usually care for him) and Joe Scarborough and Dan Abrams (and others, I'm sure) who are publicizing this.  Hopefully, this judge will be removed soon so maybe more children won't suffer.  This judge, in my opinion, is just as guilty as the molester himself.

I sat here, trying to put myself in the parents' shoes, and I wonder how many parents will begin to feel that taking the law into their own hands and killing these rabid animals is the only way to keep their children safe in lieu of a judge that cares more about the criminals than their victims.  If and when that happens, I'm not sure I could blame them.

I've written to Vermont's governor, as well.  I'm glad so many people are writing and publicizing this issue.  It's the only way things will change.

Number one, despite what is so *obvious* to you, I do not hate my country.  In fact, I miss it very much.  And I don't hate Bush because I don't *hate* anyone.  When he took over the Presidency, I began my impressions of him on an even keel.  Slowly, bit by bit, he has corroded any good impressions I ever may have had of him with his constant lying, dirty tricks, contempt for the Constitution, total and complete refusal to admit that he is NOT PERFECT, blatant disregard for the security of our borders, presiding over an econmy where people can barely afford gas but oil company executives get richer and richer, etc., etc.  I truly and sincerely believe he poses a HUGE threat to the security of every American citizen.

Regardless of what the Iranian President (his name is Ahmadinejad, by the way) claims to have, they don't have the capacity to nuke anyone, but the USA does, and Bush has a ZERO record when it comes to diplomacy.  Again, both Bush and Ahmadinejad are whack jobs, and neither can be reasoned with.  I believe this is a very dangerous combination of two out-of-control egos, and the end of humanity could very well be imminent.  I'm not going to apologize for caring if my grandchildren might not have the opportunity to reach voting age in this country because of a president who doesn't care about his legacy because, when asked, he said Who cares?  We'll all be dead, anyway.  That statement, combined with his love of war, I find to be quite chilling.

As far as being *lost in my world,* I can see very clearly a President who is losing more and more credibility, not on a daily basis any more but on an HOURLY basis.  I have ZERO faith or trust in this man.  Again, contrary to your implied intimate knowledge of me, my brain, my heart and my soul, these aren't because of any preconceived notions I might have about Bush.  These are because the actions of Bush himself.  As polls are evidencing more and more each day, I'm not alone in my skepticism of him.

Regarding where I got the quotes, if you are genuinely interested, I would suggest you Google them.  You've already indicated an inclination to not believe them, so I'm not going to waste my time by going back to the multiple sources I found, simply to provide you with a link that you've already decided not to believe.  If your interest is sincere, you'll look it up. 

Regarding your response to my *shopping spree* statement, I'm sorry, but it didn't come across as a joke to me.  It sounded like a negative character judgment regarding someone who doesn't agree with you, which is a common Neocon MO from Bush and his cronies all the way down to the lowest peon on the totem pole who is convinced Bush is on his or her side. 

Likewise, you can't possibly know the extent of my intelligence since you don't know me, have never met me and aren't qualified to offer such an opinion.  Inherent in your assessment that I'm *not that stupid* is the notion that you feel I do possess a certain degree of stupidity, which leads me to your comment that I feel I have to *label everyone who disagrees* with me as *uninformed and unthinking.*  I respectfully point out that these *labels* are YOUR words, not mine, and I would challenge you to point to those words in my above post to you. 

Have a very pleasant day.

I try to get my information from a variety of sources.  These days, it's hard to find a completely neutral source.

The main thing I'm interested in is finding the truth, and it seems that the party with the most to hide is the least likely to provide it.

When Clinton was President, I listened to a lot of right-leaning news sources for the very same reason.  I thought the lack of respect Clinton showed in the Oval Office was terrible, and I was actually in favor of impeaching him for that.  I didn't buy into and agree with the notion that what he did in his private life was his business.  In my opinion, the Oval Office doesn't belong to the President; it belongs to every American tax-paying citizen. 

I voted for Ronald Reagan, and to this day, I still think of him as a wonderful President.  Historians may disagree with me on that point, and they may be right, because I'm obviously no expert in that field.  I even voted for George Herbert Walker Bush, so I'm not some hardline lefty who hates the United States, is godless and has no moral values.

(I just wanted to share a thumbprint of who I really am because some people want to crucify me on this board simply because they see my name and couldn't care less what I have to say.  You, on the other hand, have been posting here in a very respectful, intelligent manner, and I'm very appreciative of that and hope you continue to do so.  I'm beginning to look forward to reading your posts after the last day or so.)

I believe that many people were looking for a big change in the White House when they voted for George W. Bush.  I believe they wanted some sense of decency and honor restored to it.  I was one of those people.

When I look back at the thing Clinton did that I thought was so terrible, and I look at what Bush has done, I guess the only thing I can say to sum it up is what Jay Leno said in his monologue the other night:  At least Clinton only screwed one American at a time (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it).

What amazes me the most about (what seems like) blind loyalty to Bush is that I wonder what they thought they were voting for, compared to what they got.  I thought Republicans (conservatives) were supposed to beiin favor of less spending, smaller federal government and fiscal responsibility.  After really disliking President Clinton, I actually feel that when it came to things important to the everyday lives of Americans, Clinton was a far better President.

I feel no sense of trust for President Bush.  I don't feel he is on the side of the average American.  I truly believe he wants to get rid of the middle class altogether, so the only ones left are the rich (who he referred to as his *base*) and the poor.

Whether he made the pejorative comment about the Constitution or not, he ACTS like he has no respect for it (as was also mentioned in the article).  There is truly no need any more for Congress, regardless of whether it's a Republican or Democratic Congress because it doesn't matter what laws they write, if Bush doesn't like it, he will simply issue a *signing statement* expressing that he will do what he wants, anyway.

We have a system of checks and balances for a reason, and he seems to totally disregard it.  To me, it's ironic that he seeks to search and destroy all dictatorships -- except the one that is of his own creation here in the United States.

There's a growing history of how he treats those who either tell the truth or simply don't agree with his policies.  He *Swiftboats* them.

There are many stories out there about the Diebold machines being rigged so that a certain political party wins.  I have a friend who voted on a Diebold machine that produced a paper receipt.  Sure enough, it reflected that she voted for the other party, when, in fact, she did NOT.

I'm completely against his views on immigration.  I believe we should have immediately tightened and secured ALL our borders after 9/11 and, at least for the time being, not allow ANYONE in.  Instead, we used that money to go to war with Iraq, not because Saddam Hussein was a threat but because Bush needed a war to insure a *successful Presidency.*  Did you know that the President's itinery was found by an ex-con in a trash can last week?  Why was that allowed to happen?

Did you know that part of his Iraq war spending includes a comphrehensive healthcare plan for every Iraqi?  Look at the healthcare system in the United States.  Shouldn't the healthcare for Americans take precedence over the healthcare of Iraqis?

Do I want our troops to come home?  You bet I do.  I believe the best way we can support them is to get them out of there. 

Having said that, I also believe we simply cannot *cut and run.*  We simply cannot go into a country and completely destroy and then leave without fixing what we broke.  I believe we morally owe it to the people of Iraq to leave their country in a better place than when we found it.  I wish democracy would have worked in Iraq INSTANTLY.  Then maybe Bush would have hopefully begun to worry about fixing the massive problems in his own country.  Having said that, I have serious doubts that a long-lasting democracy will survive in that region.  I believe that many of them view us as being evil and having no morals.  (I can't really disagree with this view, considering some of the things that go on in this country.)  I think Joe Biden had an excellent idea of dividing Iraq into three provinces (which is supported in the Iraqi Constitution). 

Instead, I believe this war was a whim, based on his own personal goals, without regard for one single soldier he sent to die.  To me, that is unforgiveable.

Should he be allowed to spy on innocent Americans during wartime?  I guess that depends on the definition of *innocent.*  I sure don't know any terrorists.  Heck, I don't even know my own neighbors.  But I have repeatedly expressed my disagreement with his policies, and I've read how innocent Americans whose only *sin* is disagreeing with this President, so I have no reason to believe that I won't find myself being *investigated* by some agency eventually, maybe even the IRS in the form of an audit or some other intimidating tactic that this President is so fond of using.

As far as the Democrats are concerned, I personally can't stand Hillary Clinton and would never vote for her (even if I DID live in a country where my vote actually counted).  I'm as disgusted with the Democrats as I am with the President. 

I'm not some Godless heathen without morals simply because I don't agree with Bush.  I very much believe in God.  In fact, I believe God has been sending Bush a series of *signs* that he has chosen to ignore.  What I don't believe is pushing my religion down everyone else's throats.  What I believe in most of all is tolerance and respect for everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs.  When one religion acts as if it is superior to all others, that concerns me and automatically forces me further to the left.  Freedom of religion in this country is a wonderful thing, and nobody's religion is better than someone else's (including those who simply don't believe at all).  Yet, the fallacy that all Democrats (or anyone else who doesn't believe in Bush) are godless heathens is alive and well.  Ann Coulter, who can't seem to remember her address and is under investigation for voter fraud (see http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002807.htm, complete with the complaining document) plans on releasing a book outlining evil devils (such as myself and other millions of Americans she's never met) on none other than 6/6/06.  I believe that one particular religion has no place in government.  Do I have a problem with *In God We Trust* on our money?  Of course not.  When the word *God* is used in a generic term, it's INCLUSIVE, not EXCLUSIVE.  But whether or not I can read it as I purchase a newspaper is irrelevant to what I feel in my soul and my heart.  I can assure you my morals are very high, and it truly hurts (thus turning to anger) when certain conservatives accuse people like me of being evil and Godless.  They say that most anger is the result of fear.  The times I'm most angry is truly when I'm the most frightened.  It's really hard to carry on a dialogue with someone who has labeled you so negatively, a sense of self-defense kicks in, and often arguments and more name-calling ensues, none of which is productive and all of which is hurtful and fruitless.

I'm sorry this is so long, but as I said, I enjoy reading your posts.  Although I don't know you or your political beliefs, you seem to be conservative.  You also seem to be intelligent and respectful and don't resort to personal attacks on posters, which is very refreshing on these boards.  I was just trying to give you some insight into who I am and the reason I don't like Bush.  In fact, I'm very frightened of him.

As I've said before, if I felt my President was honest, trustworthy, ethical and truly had the interests of ALL Americans foremost in his mind, I would have no problem at all with his obtaining lists of my telephone calls because I truly have nothing to hide, and if it saved one life, to me, it would be worth it.  I just don't trust him to do the right thing, and that isn't based on anything I've heard or read from any left-leaning media.  It's based solely on his own actions in the last six years.

I'm no far left-leaning whacko.  In fact, I'm truly a middle-of-the road kind of thinker.  I think there are a lot of us out there.  Speaking personally, it's just that the *righter* he goes, the *lefter* I automatically wind up, not because I voluntarily choose to, but because in order to maintain my original thoughts, that's where he pushes me.

I don't expect you to agree with me.  In fact, I fully expect you not to agree with me, and I hope you respond because I am very interested in hearing your views.  Again, I thank you for being respectful and not resorting to name calling.  You have opened the door to serious, honest and intelligent debate, and for that, I thank you.

I hope you have a wonderful weekend.