You, my dear are the worst offender, it is apparent from your posts all you read are the tabloids.

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

can't possibly believe that story...and if you do, it just proves how gullible many people are.

I think that you have made a crucial error in believing that WWII and Vietnam are at all similar. WWII and the US Civil War were also very different wars. There are even major differences between Iraq and Vietnam and the Korean War although some historians would also find greater similarities in these three wars. You may rewrite the history of wars as well as US history to fit your agenda of political hatred, but you will never be able to present a convincing argument if you have completely questionable sources and facts to back it up.

If you will please read my post, I was alluding to the differences in the mindset of 18-year-olds at the time of the draft in the 60's and at the time of the draft in the 40's. It was an opinion, one I believe is justified in looking at the correlation between mindset of young people then and of young people now. When morals decay, and the character weakens. That is my opinion and frankly I don't care whether you share it or not. I was NOT comparing the two wars. try reading it AGAIN before lecturing me.

You negate most historical records, which I admit often have some aspects of questionable validity, and you seem to re-create a fictionalized account to accommodate your rather far-out-there belief system based in hatred of the left.

Please explain what in my post led you to say that...that I fictionalized something for my rather far-out-there belief. And again, how many times do I have to say it...I have no hatred for the left. A lot of sympathy, but no hatred.

You rearrange and fictionalize facts and history to make your point. You provide spurious sources for your facts (I could probably find sources that prove that the earth is populated by aliens from Mars if I looked hard enough).

What the heck are you talking about? Spurious sources? Did I post any sources? I was answering a question and then giving an opinion. I rearrange facts and fictionalize? What did I fictionalize?

I also notice on the conservative board constant condemnation of liberals, leftists as a whole.

No, not leftists as a whole. I based my opinion of leftists who speak out and speak *for the left*, the poster children of the left, on these boards, blogs, in print, on TV, etc. I form my opinion of the left on what I hear coming out of their mouths, mostly, and here from their fingers as it were. That is plenty. The rest is icing.

We are characterized as stupid, immoral, crazy, unpatriotic, love the terrorists, cowards, angry, on and on.

Well, to me abortion IS immoral. To me cloning embryos just to kill them IS immoral. To me oppressing people with social programs instead of helping them grow into productive citizens is immoral. If that is you, then I think you are immoral.

I never called anyone crazy. So far you are the only one I have ever seen call anyone mentally ill....when you compared me to your mother.

I believe patriotism is supporting the military when they are engaged in a war. If you do not do that, then I believe you are unpatriotic. You will notice I said I believe. I did not say all Republicans believe, all conservatives believe....I, myself, believe.

I never said you or anyone else loves the terrorists. I said when you get out and protest against the war and carry nasty signs about the commander in chief when we are engaged in a war you are aiding the enemy. I, me, myself, speaking only for ME, believe that you are. I did not say you love them, and if you cannot figure out how they would use that video as propaganda....not my fault. I still have my opinion. You, if you are carrying those signs or support those who do carry those signs, are aiding the enemy. It should not be done in war time when we have soldiers fighting. Again, MY opinion.

Cowards....well, to me it is cowardly to call yourself a *peace* movement and be unwilling to take that movement to the real enemies of peace....you know, the ones who have been attacking us for years now, with the big hit on 9-11. The people who are really interested in snuffing you, and I mean literally. The people who are really interested in making this a Muslim nation. Those people. Talk to THEM about peace. Because if you change THEIR minds, your problem is over, sis.

Angry...yes, I believe you as an individual are angry. The left as a whole...sure, I believe they are angry. They act angry. They talk angry. They can't even get along among themselves (kind of like radical Muslims seem to be) ---and before you go there, I am not comparing the left to radical Muslims...just the fact that they cannot get along in their own ranks. The Republicans seem to be having the same problem, though not to as large a degree....yet.

You are condemning at least 50 percent of the citizens of this country with those adjectives.

I am not *condemning* anyone. You escalate each post with needless inflammatory rhetoric. I am merely stating an opinion. And yes, when I see that some 41% of Democrats are not sure they want the surge of troops to succeed, 51% say right up front they DONT want the surge of troops to succeed, and the rest are undecided, my opinion of those folks is not very high, and yes I think they are unpatriotic. If you can say bold faced that you do not want your troops to succeed in battle .... yep, that is about as UNpatriotic as you can get...my opinion, my own, me, myself.

Your group also points out nuts (like those who would spit on veterans) as representing the liberal mindset.

*Your group.* There you go, doing the same thing you accuse me of...demonizing an entire group.

I realize I am not going to be able to convince you of the great disservice you do to yourself with a narrow and naive mindset like that.

Oh here comes the compassionate I know so much more than you do let me lead you along speech. I swear it must be in some leftist handout because I have heard those same words from others. And I mean the EXACT same words. Your mindset is not only narrow, it consists of the opinions of others. Leftists seem to be incapable of forming an individual opinion and instead repeat what I have read in a million articles, full of buzz words, yada yada. Do you know what you yourself honestly believe as an individual? In your own words?

I know many Republicans and with the exception of possibly one, none are as condemning and narrow-minded as the posts I see on your board.

You are paranoid. I do not see any condemning. All I see is rebuttal with opinions that differ from yours. Thank Heavens for that!

While I have participated in bashing and see bashing on the liberal board, it rarely occurs in a generalized fashion toward all right-wingers.

That is true. You have participated in bashing. You are, in my opinion, the worst offender. But again...MY opinion. Oh come onnnnn.....*your group,* *you guys*...gimme a break. You are into the group bashing as much as anyone. The reason I refer to *the left* as a group is because you all say the same things. Nearly the exact same things. If I could find any individuals, it would be different. I can't.

As I said, that would be a very naive assumption and the root of bigotry and prejudice and ultimately hatred is in the grouping of all peoples as being of one mindset.....

I would not group you all together if you were not all saying exactly the same things? And I am so glad that you are so all-knowing that you have laid down the edict that the root of all bigotry and prejudice and ultimately hatred is the grouping of all peoples as being of one mindset....geez, which article did THAT come from? But, you know, you might try flying that one at Bin Laden. See if it will bring HIM around, because he has kinda put the West into one big group he HATES.

Lurker is the only one that I can honestly say does not fall into direct lockstep.

think of Muslims, blacks in the south pre-Civil Rights, Native Americans in the 1800s (and even now).

So easy to ridicule and oppress when we don't see folks as individuals. Actually the comments I see made about the liberal mindset are so far removed from the reality of most liberals in the United States it verges on the ridiculous, well no, it doesn't verge on the ridiculous, it IS ridiculous.

Okay....let me see. You said so easy to ridicule and oppress when we don't see folks as individuals. Well, if you were all saying something different perhaps that would be easier to find those individuals. Then you say *the comments I see about the liberal mindset*....hmmm...that does not sound individual to me at all. How, dear Teddy, do you expect us to know the *reality of most liberals* when all we hear, see, read, are saying almost exactly the same thing?

Well, I feel so privileged that you took my simple little post as a stepping stone to rant. Please do not get me started on which board is the worst on bashing. I have seen comments on both sides, but the liberal board has been far more virulent and tasteless (I feel like I have been defecated upon, sit your butt in your chair). I have seen far worse than that. The reason we do not see that now is that they probably have been banned. And so should they be. On EITHER board. There is no need for belitting and name calling, and you are a master at it. Your lecturing, condescending, holier-than-thou attitude wears real thin. We all read it, we all recognize it, including other liberal posters who do not want to join in on your name-calling, condescending manner. If you are so smart, and you have it all right, why don't you take it somewhere it will do some good? Take the antiwar rhetoric, all the noble ideas about we are all the same, and it is wrong to group everybody together because that is where hate comes from, yada yada. Why not take that message to the real enemy? Quit preaching and sermonizing to conservatives and talk to your real enemies, the terrorists. Except...oh...how silly of me. You don't view them as a threat. Or, more truthfully I am sure...you like your head where it is on your shoulders.

As far as your further condemnation of Democrats as far as blacks and their allegiances, I believe most informed political science folks would be the first to admit that the party doctrines have evolved over time. What probably counts most is the current party belief system. Just some common sense.

*Party doctrine evolve over time.* Now that is funny. The only reason it evolved is because Republicans forced it to evolve. Check the votes on civil rights legislation as close as the 60's, Teddy. Democrats voted AGAINST, in great numbers. Had it not been for the Republicans outvoting them, no civil rights legislation would have passed. The filibustered it for days. All that has evolved is now Democrats choose to enslave in a different way....through social programs that do not encourage people to do any better and stay tethered to the government for their existence. Whenever you have 3 generations of a family on welfare, something is VERY wrong with that system. Again, Teddy....pay attention now...that is my OPINION.

you will see that I think the blame should go all around. This isn't just dems versus reps. They are both to blame for this. I am just sick and tired of turning on the news and hearing nothing but ridicule of McCain when Obama had his whole hand in the cookie jar.

Even if McCain was for deregulation....he still stood up and said something about this before it got to this point. That should account for something.

you would know that I included pubs in my criticism as well. I personally think both parties should be spending their own money and not relying on lobbyists money for the spa retreat, as the pubs did, and not using taxpayer money, like the dems did. I couldn't care less if this was planned since last years retreat. Doesn't mean they couldn't foot the bill themselves or cancel it.

Here I am sitting at home hoping and praying that my job as an MT isn't shipped over to India leaving me jobless. I'm hoping and praying that my husband's dealership can survive this even though sales keep dropping. My husband and I have paid our bills. We have an incredibly high credit score. We have worked for what we have. We don't live off of the government. Yet we are scared sh!tless and hurting because banks were made to give risky loans to people who couldn't pay for them. We are being forced to pay for irresponsible people and you know when it is all said and done....you know who will benefit from this......the same scum that couldn't afford those loans and ran up credit cards. They will benefit because the government will bail THEM OUT. You think they are going to help me and my husband........HECK NO! They will take everything we have worked for.

So I guess you can say I'm a tad bit bitter about government as a whole. I think both parties need to be scrutinized but since the dems are currently running the show wouldn't it just make sense that criticism would be more focused on them because they hold the power right now. I don't agree with the far left and I don't agree with the far right either. I think there are nut cases on both sides.

I am just sick and tired of lazy people who were irresponsible keep getting help while the harding working people who are suffering get absolutely nothing. Giving assistance and money to these lazy people is like giving alcohol to an alcoholic going through withdrawal. Yes, it will stop the tremors and the alcoholic will be content but he will need more alcohol or he will start to shake again. Once you keep giving these scum money....you have to keep giving it. This is what I don't understand about government. Sometimes helping people isn't helping.....it is enabling them to mooch and continue to be lazy.

We are all suffering because of irresponsible people and government enabling them to get risky loans, BTW, thank ole Billy boy for that one.

I'm sure you think you **know** for a fact everything that your religion has taught you. My opinion is that religion is based on faith, though, not fact. That's why it's called faith. Just because my religious beliefs may not exactly match yours doesn't mean that mine are right or yours are wrong. They're just different.

My faith is very personal to me, and I would never try to force my beliefs on someone else by claiming I **know** the truth when what I believe is based on faith and not fact. On the other hand, I resent people who tell me I'm going to hell unless I convert and adhere to their specific religion because they hold the exclusive keys to heaven. I find that kind of behavior to be obnoxious, intrusive and insulting.

President Bush has thrown more money at poverty than Clinton, and I do not dispute the fact that Clinton went a long way in reducing poverty. Workfare is one of the best programs to come along in a long time, and one thing Clinton did right, however, it needs to be to be expanded.

Poverty is not solely a lack of financial means for many people (not everyone), but poverty in this country seems to stem from moral poverty in many cases.

Don't know if I read them all, but I did read the one where you asked the person to go to the conservative board if they had anything to say about you. Of course, we all know how that person would have been ganged up on by you and your friends if he/she would have done so.

I have also read posts by you and your friends on the conservative board that are dedicated to bashing liberal posters on this board, sometimes using their initials, sometimes referring to them by their posts and sometimes coming right out with their monikers. They are all usually cleverly hidden in the text of the message and not in the subject line.

You certainly do this and have done it long before the person posting here last night did.

Don't you find it hypocritical to post on this board, complaining because someone did the same thing you routinely do? Nobody came back on the conservative board to challenge you when you did it. Instead, they just ignored your posts, respected your freedom of speech and left you alone.

If so, are you sure you comprehend them? You said, "I, personally, don't think it's the government's job to provide you a job you will love be it a manufacturing job or a higher level professional one." No one said anything about the government providing you with a job. She was talking about keeping a job you already have. A job that you may well love and want to do until the day you retire.

We worry about immigrants coming into our country and taking our jobs, and everyone in the government seems at least slightly concerned about this, yet the government has no problem off-shoring countless American jobs to other countries. Gee, what's wrong with that picture? It seems that our middle class is slipping into lower class, and the rich keep getting richer. Each man for himself seems to be the American way as of late, and some of us, many of us liberals, want to change that mentality. We need to look out for our working class.

I saw the posts for myself, no one "ran" to me. Note that all boards were reviewed for inappropriate posts.

and plans that don't and won't work can be presented eloquently and there certainly will be people dumb enough to believe that those ideas and plan will actually work. This is all a bunch of fluff to get elected. Obama does give hope....it is called FALSE HOPE!

The Worst President in History?

One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush

George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.

From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. For years, these perennial debates have largely focused on the same handful of chief executives whom national polls of historians, from across the ideological and political spectrum, routinely cite as the bottom of the presidential barrel. Was the lousiest James Buchanan, who, confronted with Southern secession in 1860, dithered to a degree that, as his most recent biographer has said, probably amounted to disloyalty -- and who handed to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, a nation already torn asunder? Was it Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, who actively sided with former Confederates and undermined Reconstruction? What about the amiably incompetent Warren G. Harding, whose administration was fabulously corrupt? Or, though he has his defenders, Herbert Hoover, who tried some reforms but remained imprisoned in his own outmoded individualist ethic and collapsed under the weight of the stock-market crash of 1929 and the Depression's onset? The younger historians always put in a word for Richard M. Nixon, the only American president forced to resign from office.

Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a failure. Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's pursuit of disastrous policies. In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.

The lopsided decision of historians should give everyone pause. Contrary to popular stereotypes, historians are generally a cautious bunch. We assess the past from widely divergent points of view and are deeply concerned about being viewed as fair and accurate by our colleagues. When we make historical judgments, we are acting not as voters or even pundits, but as scholars who must evaluate all the evidence, good, bad or indifferent. Separate surveys, conducted by those perceived as conservatives as well as liberals, show remarkable unanimity about who the best and worst presidents have been.

Historians do tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole -- a fact the president's admirers have seized on to dismiss the poll results as transparently biased. One pro-Bush historian said the survey revealed more about the current crop of history professors than about Bush or about Bush's eventual standing. But if historians were simply motivated by a strong collective liberal bias, they might be expected to call Bush the worst president since his father, or Ronald Reagan, or Nixon. Instead, more than half of those polled -- and nearly three-fourths of those who gave Bush a negative rating -- reached back before Nixon to find a president they considered as miserable as Bush. The presidents most commonly linked with Bush included Hoover, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan. Twelve percent of the historians polled -- nearly as many as those who rated Bush a success -- flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And these figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurricane Katrina, Bush's role in the Valerie Plame leak affair and the deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Were the historians polled today, that figure would certainly be higher.

Even worse for the president, the general public, having once given Bush the highest approval ratings ever recorded, now appears to be coming around to the dismal view held by most historians. To be sure, the president retains a considerable base of supporters who believe in and adore him, and who reject all criticism with a mixture of disbelief and fierce contempt -- about one-third of the electorate. (When the columnist Richard Reeves publicized the historians' poll last year and suggested it might have merit, he drew thousands of abusive replies that called him an idiot and that praised Bush as, in one writer's words, a Christian who actually acts on his deeply held beliefs.) Yet the ranks of the true believers have thinned dramatically. A majority of voters in forty-three states now disapprove of Bush's handling of his job. Since the commencement of reliable polling in the 1940s, only one twice-elected president has seen his ratings fall as low as Bush's in his second term: Richard Nixon, during the months preceding his resignation in 1974. No two-term president since polling began has fallen from such a height of popularity as Bush's (in the neighborhood of ninety percent, during the patriotic upswell following the 2001 attacks) to such a low (now in the midthirties). No president, including Harry Truman (whose ratings sometimes dipped below Nixonian levels), has experienced such a virtually unrelieved decline as Bush has since his high point. Apart from sharp but temporary upticks that followed the commencement of the Iraq war and the capture of Saddam Hussein, and a recovery during the weeks just before and after his re-election, the Bush trend has been a profile in fairly steady disillusionment.

WASHINGTON, Dec 29 (IPS) - Despite all the claims of improvements, 2007 has been the worst year yet in Iraq.

One of the first big moves this year was the launch of a troop "surge" by the U.S. government in mid-February. The goal was to improve security in Baghdad and the western al-Anbar province, the two most violent areas. By June, an additional 28,000 troops had been deployed to Iraq, bringing the total number up to more than 160,000.

By autumn, there were over 175,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. This is the highest number of U.S. troops deployed yet, and while the U.S. government continues to talk of withdrawing some, the numbers on the ground appear to contradict these promises.

The Bush administration said the "surge" was also aimed at curbing sectarian killings, and to gain time for political reform for the government of U.S.-backed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

During the surge, the number of Iraqis displaced from their homes quadrupled, according to the Iraqi Red Crescent. By the end of 2007, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated that there are over 2.3 million internally displaced persons within Iraq, and over 2.3 million Iraqis who have fled the country.

Iraq has a population around 25 million.

The non-governmental organisation Refugees International describes Iraq's refugee problem as "the world's fastest growing refugee crisis."

In October the Syrian government began requiring visas for Iraqis. Until then it was the only country to allow Iraqis in without visas. The new restrictions have led some Iraqis to return to Baghdad, but that number is well below 50,000.

A recent UNHCR survey of families returning found that less than 18 percent did so by choice. Most came back because they lacked a visa, had run out of money abroad, or were deported.

Sectarian killings have decreased in recent months, but still continue. Bodies continue to be dumped on the streets of Baghdad daily.

One reason for a decrease in the level of violence is that most of Baghdad has essentially been divided along sectarian lines. Entire neighbourhoods are now surrounded by concrete blast walls several metres high, with strict security checkpoints. Normal life has all but vanished.

The Iraqi Red Crescent estimates that eight out of ten refugees are from Baghdad.

By the end of 2007, attacks against occupation forces decreased substantially, but still number more than 2,000 monthly. Iraqi infrastructure, like supply of potable water and electricity are improving, but remain below pre-invasion levels. Similarly with jobs and oil exports. Unemployment, according to the Iraqi government, ranges between 60-70 percent.

An Oxfam International report released in July says 70 percent of Iraqis lack access to safe drinking water, and 43 percent live on less than a dollar a day. The report also states that eight million Iraqis are in need of emergency assistance.

"Iraqis are suffering from a growing lack of food, shelter, water and sanitation, healthcare, education, and employment," the report says. "Of the four million Iraqis who are dependent on food assistance, only 60 percent currently have access to rations through the government-run Public Distribution System (PDS), down from 96 percent in 2004."

Nearly 10 million people depend on the fragile rationing system. In December, the Iraqi government announced it would cut the number of items in the food ration from ten to five due to "insufficient funds and spiralling inflation." The inflation rate is officially said to be around 70 percent.

The cuts are to be introduced in the beginning of 2008, and have led to warnings of social unrest if measures are not taken to address rising poverty and unemployment.

Iraq's children continue to suffer most. Child malnutrition rates have increased from 19 percent during the economic sanctions period prior to the invasion, to 28 percent today.

This year has also been one of the bloodiest of the entire occupation. The group Just Foreign Policy, "an independent and non-partisan mass membership organisation dedicated to reforming U.S. foreign policy," estimates the total number of Iraqis killed so far due to the U.S.-led invasion and occupation to be 1,139,602.

This year 894 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq, making 2007 the deadliest year of the entire occupation for the U.S. military, according to ICasualties.org.

To date, at least 3,896 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq, according to the U.S. Department of Defence.

A part of the U.S. military's effort to reduce violence has been to pay former resistance fighters. Late in 2007, the U.S. military began paying monthly wages of 300 dollars to former militants, calling them now "concerned local citizens."

While this policy has cut violence in al-Anbar, it has also increased political divisions between the dominant Shia political party and the Sunnis � the majority of these "concerned citizens" being paid are Sunni Muslims. Prime Minister Maliki has said these "concerned local citizens" will never be part of the government's security apparatus, which is predominantly composed of members of various Shia militias.

Underscoring another failure of the so-called surge is the fact that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad remains more divided than ever, and hopes of reconciliation have vanished.

According to a recent ABC/BBC poll, 98 percent of Sunnis and 84 percent of Shias in Iraq want all U.S. forces out of the country. (END/2007)

Can someone explain to me please why in all communications about the war in Iraq, both for and against, they never speak of how many Al Qaeda are being eliminated during this continued fighting in Iraq? Considering that this would be the ONLY plausible reason why we should continue with it, if we were actually making headway against Islamic extremism and the Al Qaeda network? Furthermore, why in the last six months or so has the media started referring to the "insurgents" as Al Qaeda with no clarification whatsoever?

This is very telling isn't it? If we are not fighting the terrorists anymore, why is our military still putting their lives on the line?

I believe this is because they are no longer there, considering that there was a very small faction there to begin with.

Considering that the Bush administration is losing what is left of their reputation continuing this war against AL Qaeda in Iraq, is it so far fetched to see media manipulation in the fact that now all of a sudden the American media is sprouting headlines about Al Qaeda being the cause of Bhutto's death without any proof whatsoever but based on wishful thinking and supposition? When in reality Musharraf has the most to gain from her death? Especially if it is lauded that Al Qaeda is behind her death, this lends to solidity that Bush will not withdraw US funds from Pakistan if it is thought that Al Qaeda is behind Bhutto's death, perhaps Musharraf asking for MORE funds and getting them from the Bush administration to fight Al Qaeda (supposedly) in Pakistan.