The further to one side you go, the closer you get to falling off and landing on your ass.  That is funny.  Temper your opinions with some moderation and people will take you seriously.
the more you start looking like the other side too. what i was trying to get at several pages ago with hippie communes looking like right-wing militia compounds, and radical feminists and christian conservatives picketing the same movies.

the word christian has "tia" in it. hmm.

the more you start looking like the other side too. what i was trying to get at several pages ago with hippie communes looking like right-wing militia compounds, and radical feminists and christian conservatives picketing the same movies.

the word christian has "tia" in it. hmm.



Maybe you ought to bump up those posts so that people coming to the thread now can see them. 

these questions are sorta too general for me to do much with. i mean, left vs. right depends on the issue, on the particular faction you're talking about, on the context you're in -- what country, what class, what gender, cetra cetra. i mean, i see a lot in common between hippies in communes and right-wing extremists in isolated militia compounds. i also think a lot of radical feminists and christian fundamentalists hate each other because they were separated at birth. they must wonder why they keep showing up to the same protest rallies, for instance because the feminists want a particular movie banned because they think it advances an unhealthy view of women and the christians because the same exact movie is detrimental to family values.

   Allow me to take a stab at this.  I suddenly feel naked...

   Left - Favors Social Progress - Liberal...
   Right - Against Social Progress - Conservative...

   Conservatism - Gives the illusion of concern for the individual.  At its philosophical core, this is true, IMO.  The adoption of the conservative cause by so many working Americans mystifys me and lends a further dimension to the illusion - conservatism in America is only concerned about certain individuals, and that has sort of been the hallmark of conservatism in history: conservation of the balance of power...

   Liberalism - Alleges to think in terms of society at large, on behalf of the common mass of humanity.  As such, the connection between one's choices and the adverse effects on others any given choice may have are at least one degree more apparent...

   One has a right to believe whatever they want.  But there is a moral line drawn by liberalism, and to deviate from the core idea of community strength is a deviation difficult to quantify...

   I offer the simplest example I can think of:  The idea of feeding the poor.  The conservative might wonder why his or her hard-earned dollars should go to feed a non-working person.  That conservative will also complain most loudly when the non-working person resorts to theft in order to fulfill his or her needs.  The liberal sees in terms of society a condition whereby the social evil of theft is largely eliminated as a specific symptom of the human condition.  Modernity teaches that we cannot extinguish certain deviations entirely; there will always be rapists, there will always be thieves, but what of the proverbial "stealing to feed a child..?"

   Shall we merely punish the criminals for individual and common satisfaction (e.g. conservatism) or seek to stop the pollution at its source by addressing the suffering that compels such deviations (e.g. liberalism)..?  Suddenly, you'll notice, we've moved from charity to crime and punishment...

   To borrow from O'Reilly - "am I wrong..?" groove ;) on...

   

Put on some clothes.

False.  As eloquently ( :o ) stated by Mushroom, both favor some form of progress, it's just there are different approaches to doing so.  Most of my conservative friends agree that resources are wasted on keeping gays from getting married, that universal health care would alleviate some economic burdens, and that you put the "conserve" in "conservative" if you actually go out and save the whales.  My liberal friends agree that there should be harsh punishments for certain crimes, although they disagree with me on the death penalty...and that's fine.

It's a conservation of values.  Is it good to respect your parents?  Yes.  Do the kids deserve to be smacked on the butt if they misbehave?  Yes.  Should kids respect their teachers and authority?  Yes.  Should we help old ladies across the street?  Yes.  Should we have a responsibility to speak appropriately despite having nigh-unrestricted freedom of speech?  Yes.  Is it bad for us to show a drive to work hard and to instill that work ethic into our posterity?  NO!  UGH UGH UGH.  I know some of you will yell at me for touting personal responsibility, but conservatism emphasizes it above all else.  Does this mean that I'm against welfare and unemployment and social service programs?  NO!  WIC is good!  Unemployment is good!  But I just don't want to see those programs abused as I've often seen.  It's sickening the way both sides aim to screw over middle America...the liberals by giving the lazy poor even more reason to be lazy, and the so-called conservatives by allowing big business to continue to expand and force out the little guys.

WTF!  Conservatives have morals!  WTF WTF WTF *SMASH*

NOBODY has the right to tell me WHAT I do with MY money.  If I choose to give it to the American Cancer Association or to some kid for Make-A-Wish or a hobo on 57th St, that's my choice.  If I choose to blow it on an HDTV or a new console game, that's my choice.  *I* worked for the money, not you.  If you want poor people to be less poor, give them YOUR  money.  I can back up my words with actions; don't tell me what to do with my resources when you can't back up your words.

And I was poor once.  Still am.  Am I going to rob a liquor store or embezzle money from the retail store I work at?  No!  At the end of the day, we ALL have a choice. 

   
I don't aim to punish people just for fun, I want them punished because they committed a crime.  Is that bad?


In some cases, you are.

so...

found the hippie=militia post and also a couple of the more interesting posts that i thought might be conducive to reasonable conversation.

I thought Kin's post was dead on the money.

You give real Conservatives a bad name.  That is not something you should be proud of.


It makes me a sad panda when that happens :(

Ok guys, chill. I really don't want Chucky to delete this thread. There are a bunch of interesting posts on here but with this going back and forth which doesn't have anything to do with the topic is getting a bit out of hand. I am very close to locking the thread.



Cat


Au contraire, it has everything to do with the topic...

Note how wackjob liberals and wackjob conservatives paint things with a wide brush in certain posts, whereas more levelheaded liberals and conservatives address the ideas within the posts without calling each other names.

I'd say that was pretty on-topic :) 

GW was still a reactionary prick.

It makes me a sad panda when that happens :(
i like it! it edges us closer to world domination. :)

and then we can implement our secret plan to take everyone's guns, confiscate all SUVs and issue everyone bicycles, and force the entire nation to watch smutty nambla movies all day long. good times!

Wait, so I'm a wackjob liberal?  Wait a darn tootin' minute. 

Wait, so I'm a wackjob liberal?  Wait a darn tootin' minute. 


You get diplomatic immunity because you're cooler or something.

oo! look. i ten-thousanded adn didn't even notice.

You get diplomatic immunity because you're cooler or something.



Neato!

i like it! it edges us closer to world domination. :)

and then we can implement our secret plan to take everyone's guns, confiscate all SUVs and issue everyone bicycles, and force the entire nation to watch smutty nambla movies all day long. good times!



Don't forget forcing all citizens to have 4 mandatory flag burnings per month.

Don't forget forcing all citizens to have 4 mandatory flag burnings per month.
hello? insufficiently liberal much?

american flags will actually be piped into your house. you will be forced to heat your house exclusively with the energy generated from burning american flags.

in fact, this could be the solution to the looming oil crisis!

hello? insufficiently liberal much?

american flags will actually be piped into your house. you will be forced to heat your house exclusively with the energy generated from burning american flags.

in fact, this could be the solution to the looming oil crisis!



Sorry, I forgot to flip the Liberal switch all the way to 11.  :(

Sorry, I forgot to flip the Liberal switch all the way to 11.  :(
make sure and stomp the tubescreamer stomp pedal too. you wanna REALLY wail.

hello? insufficiently liberal much?

american flags will actually be piped into your house. you will be forced to heat your house exclusively with the energy generated from burning american flags.

in fact, this could be the solution to the looming oil crisis!


And we will subjugate the billionaires of America and innocent white children to sew American flags while being paddled by "welfare queens" and depraved homosexual anti-Zionist Jews; Tracy Chapman will be played on the PR system.

And we will subjugate the billionaires of America and innocent white children to sew American flags while being paddled by "welfare queens" and depraved homosexual anti-Zionist Jews; Tracy Chapman will be played on the PR system.


Oh gawd no, how can you be so cruel?

Tracy Chapman????  Shoot me please!

I used to generalize it this way:

Conservatives want to go back to the way we never were.
Liberals want to move ahead to the way we can never be.
:D

I used to generalize it this way:

Conservatives want to go back to the way we never were.
Liberals want to move ahead to the way we can never be.
:D
that's effin' nice man. i like that.

so...

found the hippie=militia post and also a couple of the more interesting posts that i thought might be conducive to reasonable conversation.


    The left/right or conservative/liberal, I tend to use the terms interchangably, social positions as I have understood them to be...

  To clarify, liberals are open to all views, regardless of opinions about right and wrong, while conservatives take a stand on which view is the moral view...

  One not need be a hippy-militant to see that conservatism is concerned primarily with the individual (eg competition).  Liberalism, the way I see it, is concerned with a society composed of individuals (eg. cooperation)...

  Something confuses me:  Both Mushroom and Rice Cube state that Conservatism, to paraphrase, aspires to be progressive.  I just don't see this in practice in the real world in the US today groove ;) on...

  Before someone points it out to me...

  Social conservatives oppose the abortion of unborn babies.  Has no place in civilised society...

  Social conservatives oppose euthenasia as it devalues human life.  Every life has worth...

  And stem cell research should only be carried out on adults...

  Generally speaking.  Correct..?



  I oppose the death penalty, but support a woman's right to decide what happens in and to her body.  Figure that one out groove ;) on...

 

   

 

 

  Before someone points it out to me...

  Social conservatives oppose the abortion of unborn babies.  Has no place in civilised society...

  Social conservatives oppose euthenasia as it devalues human life.  Every life has worth...

  And stem cell research should only be carried out on adults...

  Generally speaking.  Correct..?



I feel that's accurate.  I'm at the other end though, as I see myself as a social liberal.  And I don't necessarily see an issue in being anti-death penalty but pro-abortion.  I think the majority of people against the death penalty aren't against it because of any "sanctity of life" issues, but because it is not applied correctly and there's no room for error.  Just speaking about the people I know, they'd support the death penalty if there were heavy reforms in the way it is applied. 

I feel that's accurate.  I'm at the other end though, as I see myself as a social liberal.  And I don't necessarily see an issue in being anti-death penalty but pro-abortion.  I think the majority of people against the death penalty aren't against it because of any "sanctity of life" issues, but because it is not applied correctly and there's no room for error.  Just speaking about the people I know, they'd support the death penalty if there were heavy reforms in the way it is applied. 
i don't like the death penalty because i'm not down with the government having power over life and death. only god is supposed to have that.

and yet the religious right... usually all about the death penalty. go figure.

I think the "religious right" that makes itself fodder for the TV news and the cameras all the time, are the people who are more likely to believe in the sanctity of life, so long as they get to choose the life that is sacred.  They have no problem with bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors, patients and innocent people.... but they have a problem with the act of abortion itself.  The unborn have a right to live, but the already born do not.  Explain that to me.


The death penalty kinda goes under the same header.  President Bush has often been lumped in with the people I referred to above and when he was Governor of Texas, they were pretty much putting an express lane in the death chamber to make the damn line move faster.  More people were executed when he was governor than during any other time.  And the war?  Yeah well, those lives are expendable....all in the name of freedom, after all.


I think there are people who are religious and who are conservative who don't feel this way, and I think those that do give them a black eye. 

the people who are more likely to believe in the sanctity of life, so long as they get to choose the life that is sacred. 

Q
F
T

  Something confuses me:  Both Mushroom and Rice Cube state that Conservatism, to paraphrase, aspires to be progressive.  I just don't see this in practice in the real world in the US today groove ;) on...


Being "progressive" doesn't mean we should allow people to do whatever the hell they want without fear of consequences.  I leave it to another debate for you to figure that out.

I just realized that the two times I wrote a long list of facts -- in this very thread ... they were ignored for the whining you all prefer.... You ask for them, both times you just ignore them ... wow... stimulating!  


I still haven't seen a list of "facts", only a opinion filled rant about how Liberals are anti-God ???

I guess Jesse Jackson better give back that degree in Divinity since there's NO WAY he can be *gasp* a liberal AND a reverend ::)

I still haven't seen a list of "facts", only a opinion filled rant about how Liberals are anti-God ???

I guess Jesse Jackson better give back that degree in Divinity since there's NO WAY he can be *gasp* a liberal AND a reverend ::)


^ With all due respect, Jesse Jackson isn't my idea of a shining example of liberalism :D :D

^ With all due respect, Jesse Jackson isn't my idea of a shining example of liberalism :D :D
But, he calls himself a democrat and we're all anti-God ;)

Being "progressive" doesn't mean we should allow people to do whatever the hell they want without fear of consequences.  I leave it to another debate for you to figure that out.


  Okay, there you go, all you soi-disant Liberals... ;)

I have to say that when it comes to the US you can't really identify left with liberals and right with conservatives, at least not in the same sense as we talk about left/right in South America and in Europe, in my opinion both your major parties would be considered right,maybe democrats can be seen as centrists,but that's the further it can go.

But what i find interesting is that the left/right dichotomy is really only valid to the voters not to the politicians.
I'll give you the e.g of my country,our current President,Lula da Silva is this natural born leader that for more than 20 years has been running for presidential elections,he was a factory worker that left school after 4th grade(later i think he got a GED), he positioned himself as far left as one can be,his agenda was all about the non-land people,the poor and needy,fixing the gap between the "filthy rich and the extremely poor" because there's no such thing as a middle class in Brazil, and he used to raise a flag against corruption,the big corporations,etc.
Now he become president,and we have this government that could be define as the worst of the right wing All the so called socialist radical views were drop in the name of the economic growth and progress,that don't seem to be more than empty promises.
My point they all turn into the same monkey-suits once they get there.Power turns them into what they used to condemn.
Most analysts have this big theory that left wing parties make great opposition but have to completely moderate their views when they become government.
I just have a another word for them...sellouts ::)

Being "progressive" doesn't mean we should allow people to do whatever the hell they want without fear of consequences.  I leave it to another debate for you to figure that out.


I'm a Progressive Democrat, (actually I'm what they call a Wellstone Democrat)  Your right Rice, it's not a Political Philosophy of "Anything goes".  The Progressive Dems are pretty much a throwback to the Progressive Era in the early 20th Century.

I have to say that when it comes to the US you can't really identify left with liberals and right with conservatives, at least not in the same sense as we talk about left/right in South America and in Europe, in my opinion both your major parties would be considered right,maybe democrats can be seen as centrists,but that's the further it can go.

But what i find interesting is that the left/right dichotomy is really only valid to the voters not to the politicians.
I'll give you the e.g of my country,our current President,Lula da Silva is this natural born leader that for more than 20 years has been running for presidential elections,he was a factory worker that left school after 4th grade(later i think he got a GED), he positioned himself as far left as one can be,his agenda was all about the non-land people,the poor and needy,fixing the gap between the "filthy rich and the extremely poor" because there's no such thing as a middle class in Brazil, and he used to raise a flag against corruption,the big corporations,etc.
Now he become president,and we have this government that could be define as the worst of the right wing All the so called socialist radical views were drop in the name of the economic growth and progress,that don't seem to be more than empty promises.
My point they all turn into the same monkey-suits once they get there.Power turns them into what they used to condemn.
Most analysts have this big theory that left wing parties make great opposition but have to completely moderate their views when they become government.
I just have a another word for them...sellouts ::)


Great point there, girl.

  thereshegoes, good post...

  Few things in this world are as dangerous as an embittered leftist surrendering to the cause of his chosen enemies.  I see what American conservatives have feared - intrusive government, expansionist zeal - the creation of an "Iron Curtain" of sorts in the Middle East is not beyond possibility - and a commitment to cause and label ("Party") that outweighs commitment to human beings, in "neoconservatism."  And guys, please remember, I'm making a distinction between between "con" and "neo-con"...

  Those leftists-cum-neocons have done the same thing.  And who knows?  Perhaps neoconservatism suits them better.  As one of the principal identifiers of a strong left, to me, is compassion and a message of positive hope. ("We will kick their asses," is not a "positive hope.") Might-is-right is an archaic superstition, and better suited to this warped conservatism that is, in fact, a new standard of spite and greed wrapped up in a Republican suit.  Only in the paranoia of a senile and belligerent actor-turned-politician could those disgruntled Trotskyists and McGovern refugees find any new pastures polarized enough for their satisfaction groove ;) on...

american flags will actually be piped into your house. you will be forced to heat your house exclusively with the energy generated from burning american flags.

in fact, this could be the solution to the looming oil crisis!


See? I knew it - even wrote a parody about it! That was one of the reasons I was going to vote for liberals to win - I knew I was right, thanks for the confirmation friend!

You apparently don't know sarcasm when you read it.  Shame.

;D

some folks are so weird about the flag-burning thing. it's like the right's version of political correctness. can't even joke about it.

but when it comes to the actual LIBERTIES the flag represents, ah, then things get an awful lot more complicated...

;D

some folks are so weird about the flag-burning thing. it's like the right's version of political correctness. can't even joke about it.

but when it comes to the actual LIBERTIES the flag represents, ah, then things get an awful lot more complicated...



If you want to burn the flag, I don't care.  I haven't been driven or compelled to do so, but I wouldn't stop someone from doing it if they wanted to.  It's their right.


Isn't flag-burning considered free speech, anyway?  If so, these people are exercising their 1st amendment rights. 

;D

some folks are so weird about the flag-burning thing. it's like the right's version of political correctness. can't even joke about it.

but when it comes to the actual LIBERTIES the flag represents, ah, then things get an awful lot more complicated...


I always thought that was weird too.  It's like the fall back cause when they get tired of gay-bashing.

Arresting someone for burning a flag goes against everything the flag represents.  So stupid.

It's like the fall back cause when they get tired of gay-bashing.


Ooooh, don't even get me started on that topic. 

Ooooh, don't even get me started on that topic. 


I think you should start.  It will be fun.  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/diablotin.gif

a flag you can't burn is a flag worth burning, as the old saying goes.

I think the "religious right" that makes itself fodder for the TV news and the cameras all the time, are the people who are more likely to believe in the sanctity of life, so long as they get to choose the life that is sacred.  They have no problem with bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors, patients and innocent people.... but they have a problem with the act of abortion itself.  The unborn have a right to live, but the already born do not.  Explain that to me.



That's untrue! No one should kill abortion doctors & innocent people, that's done only by a few loony & there are loons all over the place on the right and the left. That is an over-the-top & simply wrong statement.



 

Ooooh, don't even get me started on that topic. 


Please!!!  I stick around for that. :)

I think you should start.  It will be fun.  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/diablotin.gif



The very idea that someone would attack, both verbally and physically, another human being because of their sexual orientation is beyond mind-blowing to me.  It's utterly contemptuous.  It's the same level of anger I feel toward racists and bigots.  What was the name of that group that picketed that one soldier's funeral because he was gay?  It was all over the news at the time.....they were screaming "God hates f*gs".....what a bunch of monkeys.  I just want to sucker-punch every one of those moronic fools.


One of my very best friends is gay and so help me God, if someone laid a hand on him in hatred because he was gay......they better learn to fear my face.  I don't put up with human toxic waste dumps like that.

That's untrue! No one should kill abortion doctors & innocent people, that's done only by a few loony & there are loons all over the place on the right and the left. That is an over-the-top & simply wrong statement.


I was only referring to the over-the-top loony people, dear.  I was not lumping all conservatives or even liberals who are against abortion in with those proto-losers.  I thought I made that very clear.

You apparently don't know sarcasm when you read it.  Shame.



ditto!

ditto!



If that was supposed to be sarcasm, you need to change your approach. 

ditto!



..es, rush!

The very idea that someone would attack, both verbally and physically, another human being because of their sexual orientation is beyond mind-blowing to me.  It's utterly contemptuous.  It's the same level of anger I feel toward racists and bigots.  What was the name of that group that picketed that one soldier's funeral because he was gay?  It was all over the news at the time.....they were screaming "God hates f*gs".....what a bunch of monkeys.  I just want to sucker-punch every one of those moronic fools.


One of my very best friends is gay and so help me God, if someone laid a hand on him in hatred because he was gay......they better learn to fear my face.  I don't put up with human toxic waste dumps like that.


I heard of a group who pickets all soldier's funerals, but never a group that is exclusively picketing gay soldier's funerals. That's wrong! I think picketing any funeral is really incredibly insensitive & hateful.

The very idea that someone would attack, both verbally and physically, another human being because of their sexual orientation is beyond mind-blowing to me.  It's utterly contemptuous.  It's the same level of anger I feel toward racists and bigots.  What was the name of that group that picketed that one soldier's funeral because he was gay?  It was all over the news at the time.....they were screaming "God hates f*gs".....what a bunch of monkeys.  I just want to sucker-punch every one of those moronic fools.


One of my very best friends is gay and so help me God, if someone laid a hand on him in hatred because he was gay......they better learn to fear my face.  I don't put up with human toxic waste dumps like that.


The thing that kills me the very most is when people say that gay people "choose" to be gay.  It is the most moronic justification I've ever heard for blatant bigotry.  How in the world can you choose who you're attracted to?  I never ever ever woke up one morning and "chose" to be attracted to men...I just am.  And why would you want to choose in the first place?  You're this "normal" straight man who is all about the ladies, and one day you just decide to forfeit your natural instincts and go for men instead?  No one would ever do that.  

Whether they were picketing solely because he was gay, or because they were bored and had nothing else better to do.....who knows.  Either way, they're jackasses.

I heard of a group who pickets all soldier's funerals, but never a group that is exclusively picketing gay soldier's funerals. That's wrong! I think picketing any funeral is really incredibly insensitive & hateful.




Phelps group also tried to picket the funerals of the Amish girls who were killed at Nickel Mine PA.  The only way they could be stopped was when a local Christian radio station gave them a half an hour for their verbal vomit. 

The thing that kills me the very most is when people say that gay people "choose" to be gay.  It is the most moronic justification I've ever heard for blatant bigotry.  How in the world can you choose who you're attracted to?  I never ever ever woke up one morning and "chose" to be attracted to men...I just am.  And why would you want to choose in the first place?  You're this "normal" straight man who is all about the ladies, and one day you just decide to forfeit your natural instincts and go for men instead?  No one would ever do that. 


Hey Ash go to yahoo there's an article about that.

  What was the name of that group that picketed that one soldier's funeral because he was gay? 



Fred Phelps - Westboro Baptist Church (I just read an article). He protested the gay soldier's funeral and many others as well. I guess that is the cowardly was to face people, after they are dead.... GAD!

Hey Ash go to yahoo there's an article about that.


I can't find it...

Got it!!  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070315/ap_on_re_us/baptist_gay_babies;_ylt=AomivKkX9SjAvw7SUQNqZ7k7Xs8F

The thing that kills me the very most is when people say that gay people "choose" to be gay.  It is the most moronic justification I've ever heard for blatant bigotry.  How in the world can you choose who you're attracted to?  I never ever ever woke up one morning and "chose" to be attracted to men...I just am.  And why would you want to choose in the first place?  You're this "normal" straight man who is all about the ladies, and one day you just decide to forfeit your natural instincts and go for men instead?  No one would ever do that.  


I personally do not believe anyone chooses to be gay. Once they know they are, they can choose to try a relationship with the opposite sex and be miserable all their lives or they can choose a partner that they can be comfortable with and be happy. People who tell us that gay people choose to be gay are just really ignorant - and having never been in their shoes to really know, should just keep quiet about that theory.

Got it!!  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070315/ap_on_re_us/baptist_gay_babies;_ylt=AomivKkX9SjAvw7SUQNqZ7k7Xs8F


*Bangs head against desk.*


So they find proof that it's biological, but instead of admitting they were wrong to be so cruel, and do the Christian thing (like accepting people for who they are) they decide to try and "fix' it.  Unbelievable.

Phelps group also tried to picket the funerals of the Amish girls who were killed at Nickel Mine PA.  The only way they could be stopped was when a local Christian radio station gave them a half an hour for their verbal vomit. 



wow. I didn't know that either. I don't understand some people, I really don't. What makes people go so off the deep end, for real, and stay there?

*Bangs head against desk.*


So they find proof that it's biological, but instead of admitting they were wrong to be so cruel, and do the Christian thing (like accepting people for who they are) they decide to try and "fix' it.  Unbelievable.






Disgusting, pathetic, abominable.

*Bangs head against desk.*


So they find proof that it's biological, but instead of admitting they were wrong to be so cruel, and do the Christian thing (like accepting people for who they are) they decide to try and "fix' it.  Unbelievable.




Maybe I shouldn't have shown you that.  *hands Ash two aspirin* :-\\

Maybe I shouldn't have shown you that.  *hands Ash two aspirin* :-\\


:)

No, I'm glad you did.  Very interesting, to say the least.

wow. I didn't know that either. I don't understand some people, I really don't. What makes people go so off the deep end, for real, and stay there?


Yeah, there was no way in hell we wanted them here.  We had enough of a hard time dealing with what had just happened without those inbreds causing more chaos.  Phelps son said it himself.  "If it wasn't gays, he'd find something else to hate.

wow. I didn't know that either. I don't understand some people, I really don't. What makes people go so off the deep end, for real, and stay there?
I remember hearing about that guy, the DJ. A lot of people hassled him for giving those maniacs air time but he was like, look, they were gonna picket that poor family’s funeral, and it was in my power to distract them so that the family could bury their loved one in peace. I think the guy’s a hero.

Phelps needs his ass beat.

I remember hearing about that guy, the DJ. A lot of people hassled him for giving those maniacs air time but he was like, look, they were gonna picket that poor family’s funeral, and it was in my power to distract them so that the family could bury their loved one in peace. I think the guy’s a hero.
 

He didn't want to have them on.  It was what had to be done to keep them away from the funeral.  Yeah, the guy should be considered a hero.  Thankfully I didn't hear the broadcast that morning.

Phelps needs his ass beat.


Put him in a dress and high heels, then beat his ass!!!! ;)

The problem with people like Phelps, yes they have the right to speak-however we have the right not to listen. Unfortunately, there are people who do listen to him (and others like him) and that is what makes him dangerous. I think it should be illegal to protest ANY funeral-military, civilian, gay, streight, etc. But that is another story.

When Vermont enacted the Civil Unions law back in 2000, Phelps and his gang came up here to protest on the state capital steps. Yes, that was his right to do so-no one questioned that. Vermonters basically ignored him. He never came back again because no one was listening to his hate-mongering.


Cat

NEW YORK - The president of the leading Southern Baptist seminary has incurred sharp attacks from both the left and right by suggesting that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified.

This is absolutely disgusting.  ::)

WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!




I just.....wow. 

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usgays135128510mar13,0,66814.story

then of course, there's general pace with his rather annoying comments of not too long ago. (i love how on that link i'm getting this beefcakey guy's picture right next to the article! ;D)

as more than one commentator has pointed out, gay men and women in the service have paid the ultimate price to defend mr. pace’s right to say such ignorant things. >:(

I have yet to find one person who can tell me why gays cannot or should not serve in the military.  I don't mean tell me with homophobic reasons like, "oh they might try and rape me".  I mean actual legitimate reasons.  I sense there is a good reason why they can't pony up.  That reason being, there are no good reasons why. 

I have yet to find one person who can tell me why gays cannot or should not serve in the military.  I don't mean tell me with homophobic reasons like, "oh they might try and rape me".  I mean actual legitimate reasons.  I sense there is a good reason why they can't pony up.  That reason being, there are no good reasons why. 
Don’t they always cite “unit cohesion�? in that there are lots of homophobes in the military who won’t be comfortable taking showers with gay dudes? I mean yeah, it’s pretty stupid but there it is. That’s really pretty much their only reason.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usgays135128510mar13,0,66814.story

then of course, there's general pace with his rather annoying comments of not too long ago. (i love how on that link i'm getting this beefcakey guy's picture right next to the article! ;D)

as more than one commentator has pointed out, gay men and women in the service have paid the ultimate price to defend mr. pace’s right to say such ignorant things. >:(


I read that yesterday, it's ridiculous. His reasoning for why they shouldn't be allowed to serve openly is "I think it's immoral". They either say "umm...because the bible says so" or "it's wrong because...i think it's wrong", they have no valid defense for their views. I went to school with some people like this and I know exactly how they think, they literally take everything in the Bible word for word, and they want to be able to force their religion on everybody else in public schools.

Don’t they always cite “unit cohesion�? in that there are lots of homophobes in the military who won’t be comfortable taking showers with gay dudes? I mean yeah, it’s pretty stupid but there it is. That’s really pretty much their only reason.


I think there's some of that going on with women in the armed services.  I know a woman who was in the Army and got married to a guy just so no one would find out she's a lesbian. When she left the Army she divorced him.  She was afraid of being Killed for being gay.

The problem with people like Phelps, yes they have the right to speak-however we have the right not to listen. Unfortunately, there are people who do listen to him (and others like him) and that is what makes him dangerous. I think it should be illegal to protest ANY funeral-military, civilian, gay, streight, etc. But that is another story.

When Vermont enacted the Civil Unions law back in 2000, Phelps and his gang came up here to protest on the state capital steps. Yes, that was his right to do so-no one questioned that. Vermonters basically ignored him. He never came back again because no one was listening to his hate-mongering.


Cat
I knew there was a reason I love you guys :)


NEW YORK - The president of the leading Southern Baptist seminary has incurred sharp attacks from both the left and right by suggesting that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified.

This is absolutely disgusting.  ::)
Wait.....if God created Man in his own image and they now want to "change" what God has created, wouldn't that mean they think they're "above" God?  What a bunch of hypocrites ::)

Wait.....if God created Man in his own image and they now want to "change" what God has created, wouldn't that mean they think they're "above" God?  What a bunch of hypocrites ::)
i guess you can succumb to temptation even in the womb.

If you want to burn the flag, I don't care.  I haven't been driven or compelled to do so, but I wouldn't stop someone from doing it if they wanted to.  It's their right.


Isn't flag-burning considered free speech, anyway?  If so, these people are exercising their 1st amendment rights. 


Note that if you allow the American flag to be banned that you must also allow the Southern Cross/Star and Bars to be blown...

BTW, in 8th grade I did a speech for speech class about why gays should not be prevented from serving in the military.  As you may have guessed, it didn't go over too well with the other kids.  I think I got an A though :P

BTW, in 8th grade I did a speech for speech class about why gays should not be prevented from serving in the military.  As you may have guessed, it didn't go over too well with the other kids.  I think I got an A though :P
if your classmates had looked like this

http://www.ikeepadiary.com/diary/2001/sarah_lawerence/11.jpg

i'm sure everything would have been fine.

if your classmates had looked like this

http://www.ikeepadiary.com/diary/2001/sarah_lawerence/11.jpg

i'm sure everything would have been fine.


I think some actually DID look like that, but they stayed mostly in the closet :D

Then I found out that some of the ones I thought were gay, really WERE gay.  Go fig.

I think some actually DID look like that, but they stayed mostly in the closet :D

Then I found out that some of the ones I thought were gay, really WERE gay.  Go fig.


Ever notice that some of the most homophobic people are actually in the closet?

If you really want to know if certain people are gay.  Just use one of your gay friends gaydar.  It works better than guessing on your own and it's fun. :)

I guess I'd be gay too if I weren't such a fan of the vagina.

I guess I'd be gay too if I weren't such a fan of the vagina.


The thoughts of an open-minded individual. :)

BTW, in 8th grade I did a speech for speech class about why gays should not be prevented from serving in the military.  As you may have guessed, it didn't go over too well with the other kids.  I think I got an A though :P

An A? Damn secular progressive teachers!  If you'd presented the traditionalist point of view, you would have been sent to sensitivity training!

--Bill O'Reilly
New York, NY

I remember hearing about that guy, the DJ. A lot of people hassled him for giving those maniacs air time but he was like, look, they were gonna picket that poor family’s funeral, and it was in my power to distract them so that the family could bury their loved one in peace. I think the guy’s a hero.


Good point, I agree!

I have yet to find one person who can tell me why gays cannot or should not serve in the military.  I don't mean tell me with homophobic reasons like, "oh they might try and rape me".  I mean actual legitimate reasons.  I sense there is a good reason why they can't pony up.  That reason being, there are no good reasons why. 



I think people who are homophobic have huge egos. For instance, if the person who is homophobic is a man who fears a gay man will be attracted to him & go for it - then he must think that all women who are not gay are attracted to him, right?

Anyway, maybe the military doesn't know how to house people who are gay. Men & women do not share barracks - maybe it is the same concept.

I was in the Navy & there were gay women in the Navy, many of them. So if the Navy wants to keep the sex thing out of the barracks, then what to do? We never had that problem, no where where I was - NAH, I can't think of a good reason either.

I think people who are homophobic have huge egos. For instance, if the person who is homophobic is a man who fears a gay man will be attracted to him & go for it - then he must think that all women who are not gay are attracted to him, right?

Anyway, maybe the military doesn't know how to house people who are gay. Men & women do not share barracks - maybe it is the same concept.

I was in the Navy & there were gay women in the Navy, many of them. So if the Navy wants to keep the sex thing out of the barracks, then what to do? We never had that problem, no where where I was - NAH, I can't think of a good reason either.

dude in my band, nice guy, real laid back and funny dude for the most part, right? but he's got that thing, he gets really uptight if some guy hits on him. right? like it's not like it's not happened to me a time or two, if you don't want to you just say no. but for him it's like this issue, i guess he feels like his masculinity gets undermined if a gay guy makes a play on him. that's the part i think people need to get over, and i think you're dead right, it's about ego.

Some people say homophobes are closeted gays.  I think they tend to be straight and afraid they're closeted gays.  Maybe they feel an inkling of attraction or affection for a buddy or just guys in general and it scares the crap out of them.  If they didn't resist the feeling, they'd see it doesn't go any further, and they're indeed not sexually interested in another men.  Phobia = fear.  So often fear is irrational.

I think some actually DID look like that, but they stayed mostly in the closet :D

Then I found out that some of the ones I thought were gay, really WERE gay.  Go fig.


In high school I had a close guy friend who was gay & a close girl friend who was gay. She didn't broadcast it, but wasn't ashamed of saying so if someone wondered. He didn't tell anyone..... a few days after graduation, he killed himself... (and left a note about why).  I don't think that would have happened today, I was in high school a long time ago.

In high school I had a close guy friend who was gay & a close girl friend who was gay. She didn't broadcast it, but wasn't ashamed of saying so if someone wondered. He didn't tell anyone..... a few days after graduation, he killed himself... (and left a note about why).  I don't think that would have happened today, I was in high school a long time ago.


okay....

i'm very sad now. :( i'm sorry that happened and i'm sorry that you lost your friend.

I guess I'd be gay too if I weren't such a fan of the vagina.


I dunno about that... there is nothing to play with really in that. If I were a guy I'd be gay.

Some people say homophobes are closeted gays.  I think they tend to be straight and afraid they're closeted gays.  Maybe they feel an inkling of attraction or affection for a buddy or just guys in general and it scares the crap out of them.  If they didn't resist the feeling, they'd see it doesn't go any further, and they're indeed not sexually interested in another men.  Phobia = fear.  So often fear is irrational.



That's pretty interesting. So homobhobes don't fear gay people, they fear what the gay people bring out in themselves..... wow..... a learning moment (that's always good - thanks!)

okay....

i'm very sad now. :( i'm sorry that happened and i'm sorry that you lost your friend.



I am sad & sorry too. I didn't realize it still hurt so much, but apparently it does; thank you for your comment, a lot.

That's pretty interesting. So homobhobes don't fear gay people, they fear what the gay people bring out in themselves..... wow..... a learning moment (that's always good - thanks!)



You might notice homophobia is most rampant among men who get together and do manly things together, such as football or hunting.  They form a bond of friendship with their buddies that includes affection---but they don't realize you can have affection that feels like a "crush," but still have it be platonic.  You really think your friend Fred's a swell guy and there's something special between the two of you, but it doesn't mean you want to **** his ****.  (NOT that there's anything wrong with that!)  Ironically, when homosexuality was taboo--even illegal--guys used to walk down the street with their arms interlocked.  You don't see that anymore!

  The ghost of GW is alive and well at Decades...

You might notice homophobia is most rampant among men who get together and do manly things together, such as football or hunting.  They form a bond of friendship with their buddies that includes affection---but they don't realize you can have affection that feels like a "crush," but still have it be platonic.  You really think your friend Fred's a swell guy and there's something special between the two of you, but it doesn't mean you want to **** his ****.  (NOT that there's anything wrong with that!)  Ironically, when homosexuality was taboo--even illegal--guys used to walk down the street with their arms interlocked.  You don't see that anymore!



Women can have a bond like that without going further. I guess women are more evolved than men.

We won the war.  This is now an occupation.  It is a great transfer of public wealth to private hands via bogus military contracting.  The Kool Aid-drinking neo-cons who actually believed destabilization the SW Asia would be an effective way to maintain American global hegemony (their 50-cent word, not mine) were delusional think tank eggheads, not military men.  

Zbigniew Brzezinski was one of those hellbent for global domination war hawks (people forget this because he worked for Carter), and even he declared the current administration is spoiling for a 40-year conflict with Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan and this would be the end of America as a world power.

Our foreign affairs are being directed by loonies.

The only people who call critics of the Iraqi occupation "Tokyo Rose" are clowns who work for Roger Ailes.  

There is no comparison to WWII here.  It doesn't work.  To be more relevant, you can talk about our imperial adventures in the Phillipines, Indonesia, Indochina, and Latin America,  but that's not so romantic.

Women can have a bond like that without going further. I guess women are more evolved than men.



Uh, when it does go further it's considered chic and sexy.  When two guys take their shirts off and start necking at a drunken party, reactions are quite different!
:D

We won the war.  This is now an occupation.  It is a great transfer of public wealth to private hands via bogus military contracting. 
funny thing is, i'm dialed in on that at the moment.

funny thing is, i'm dialed in on that at the moment.


  Have you gained a new perspective as a result of this DoD gig, Tia..?

  Have you gained a new perspective as a result of this DoD gig, Tia..?
i'm very obviously getting my cut off of the war on terror. and you know what's f**ked? i like it.

thing is, i'm curious how the machine works. i find this fascinating. it's bad, but i'll dig all up in it. and that's just the way it is.

folks at the office talk about the appropriations available for iraq and afghanistan. a few billion for afghanistan, something like 60, 70 BILLION dollars in appropriations for iraq up for grabs in the bid process. and that leaves out the cash available no-bid, which i don't know anything about -- company i work for is legit, i think, and has none of those back-channel connections with the administration that would get you the sugar contracts that halliburton can get with its personal connections. but even where i work, people's eyes light up when you talk about iraq, they're raising their families on that. it's unfortunate how the world works.

You might notice homophobia is most rampant among men who get together and do manly things together, such as football or hunting.  They form a bond of friendship with their buddies that includes affection---but they don't realize you can have affection that feels like a "crush," but still have it be platonic.  You really think your friend Fred's a swell guy and there's something special between the two of you, but it doesn't mean you want to **** his ****.  (NOT that there's anything wrong with that!)  Ironically, when homosexuality was taboo--even illegal--guys used to walk down the street with their arms interlocked.  You don't see that anymore!


I think I need that part explained to me. I love my friends. I would do anything for them. And I can always count on them to be there for me. BUT, there is definately a difference between loving a friend, and having a crush on him. No?

Out of my friends there is one that stands out from the rest. I hang out with him more than any of my other friends. We go camping and fishing together. We've exchanged the drunken "I love you man". But a crush? I don't think so. In all of my life I can only remember having crushes on women.

wasn't tokyo rose an american spy? i remember hearing a story on the radio about that/

wasn't tokyo rose an american spy? i remember hearing a story on the radio about that/


Tokyo Rose was actually not a spy,she was treated as an enemy by Japan and later wrongly blamed of treason by the US.
I watched a documentary about her years ago,not a happy story at all.

I think people who are homophobic have huge egos. For instance, if the person who is homophobic is a man who fears a gay man will be attracted to him & go for it - then he must think that all women who are not gay are attracted to him, right?

Anyway, maybe the military doesn't know how to house people who are gay. Men & women do not share barracks - maybe it is the same concept.

I was in the Navy & there were gay women in the Navy, many of them. So if the Navy wants to keep the sex thing out of the barracks, then what to do? We never had that problem, no where where I was - NAH, I can't think of a good reason either.




When I was in the A.F. I had a supervisor (female) who was gay. This was before the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. If you were gay, you were out of the service. Everyone knew she was but never made an issue of it. She was the BEST supervisor I had in the entire time I was in and not only that, she also helped me out during a personal crisis I was going through-going well above the call of duty.

I knew a few gays when I in. It never bother me one way or the other. I have a lot of gay friends now (including one of my nieces). That being said, I still think it is pitiful when a guy looks better in a dress than I do-and there are many who do.  :-\\



Cat

we should start talking about the comparisons between iraq and vietnam. i'm guessing they're gonna be a little easier to come by than the comparisons between iraq and wwii.

anyhoo, with this mentality we would probably STILL be in vietnam. and if we listened to the administration and the republicans in congress, i'm guessing the iraq war will last, what? twenty, thirty years? maybe longer?

I love how the Right blames the Dems for Pol Pot!  What was our humanitarian outreach program to Cambodia in the early '70s?  What was it?  Hmmm....
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_scratch.gif
Oh, that's right, illegal saturation bombing.  I figure if we'd stuck it out and dropped a few hundred thousand more bombs on Cambodia, that country would have become a free market capitalist democracy!
:D

There is a comparison between Saddam and Hitler.  Both got major backing from U.S. corporations the decade before they went bad!

We won the war.  This is now an occupation.  


Hardly an occupation when the president / government of the country WANT US THERE helping them. Low & behold, it is helping - there is an 80% drop in violence in Bagdad Iraq since the surge. I realize that democrats cannot have success in Iraq because that would hurt them for the 2008 elections, (but that's too bad). I am tired of the whining liberals & their defeatism for the sake of themselves. It's every place you look... making people like you feel terrible so that they can win. It is about time that the democrats stop thinking about what is good for them in 2008 elections and start thinking about what is good of the country.

It is about time that the democrats stop thinking about what is good for them in 2008 elections and start thinking about what is good of the country.

if the repubs had done this six years ago we wouldn't be in he fix we're in now.

That being said, I still think it is pitiful when a guy looks better in a dress than I do-and there are many who do.  :-\\


Cat


Look on the bright side, they have to shave a lot more & that sucks for them!

I love how the Right blames the Dems for Pol Pot!  


Hmmm.. seems just recently that a US Senator, a democrat no less, compared the president to Pol Pot...
I don't blame the Dems for Pol Pot! I do blame Clinton for  letting Osama go after four attacks on the US, a declaration of war by Osama and having him handed to him on a sliver platter without going for it. He was also there for North Korea when they needed the components to make their nuke weapons... other than that, why blame democrats for their icon's errors? Is that right?

 

Look on the bright side, they have to shave a lot more & that sucks for them!




True, true.



Hmmm.. seems just recently that a US Senator, a democrat no less, compared the president to Pol Pot...
I don't blame the Dems for Pol Pot! I do blame Clinton for  letting Osama go after four attacks on the US, a declaration of war by Osama and having him handed to him on a sliver platter without going for it. He was also there for North Korea when they needed the components to make their nuke weapons... other than that, why blame democrats for their icon's errors? Is that right?

 


It seems to me that the Army had him cornered in Afganistan about 3 years ago but then attention was taken off of Afganistan and placed in Iraq.



Cat

not to mention every time clinton tried to do anything about bin laden the repubs would scream "wag the dog" and launch a new criminal investigation into his sex life. :D

not to mention every time clinton tried to do anything about bin laden the repubs would scream "wag the dog" and launch a new criminal investigation into his sex life. :D


"Wag the Dog" was based on a novel that spoofed the fact that Gulf War I was pretty much shown entirely on TV and thus could have been fictionalized.  Just FYI ;)

See?

Hardly an occupation when the president / government of the country WANT US THERE helping them. Low & behold, it is helping - there is an 80% drop in violence in Bagdad Iraq since the surge. I realize that democrats cannot have success in Iraq because that would hurt them for the 2008 elections, (but that's too bad). I am tired of the whining liberals & their defeatism for the sake of themselves. It's every place you look... making people like you feel terrible so that they can win. It is about time that the democrats stop thinking about what is good for them in 2008 elections and start thinking about what is good of the country.



Once again, just because violence is down in Baghdad doesn't mean it's down everywhere else.  We are not and we cannot win this war.  It is over.  We need to admit we effed up and GO HOME.  The longer we stay there, the more like fools we look.  It is not defeatism, it's reality.  This war is Vietnam: The Sequel.....and it's time to GO HOME.  What is good for this country is for our men and women fighting over there to get the hell out.  That's what's good for this country. 

Once again, just because violence is down in Baghdad doesn't mean it's down everywhere else.  We are not and we cannot win this war.  It is over.  We need to admit we effed up and GO HOME.  The longer we stay there, the more like fools we look.  It is not defeatism, it's reality.  This war is Vietnam: The Sequel.....and it's time to GO HOME.  What is good for this country is for our men and women fighting over there to get the hell out.  That's what's good for this country. 


Well, Ann Coulter compared Baghdad to L.A.  You know, just 'coz the Crips and the Bloods have gang wars in South Central doesn't mean California is a dangerous state!  She actually made this comparison!

OK, Ann, now take all your meds and then we'll go to Art Therapy, you get to use the fingerpaints again today!
:D

(If Baghdad is L.A., than I guess San Fran must be...Kirkuk?)

Well, Ann Coulter compared Baghdad to L.A.  You know, just 'coz the Crips and the Bloods have gang wars in South Central doesn't mean California is a dangerous state!  She actually made this comparison!

OK, Ann, now take all your meds and then we'll go to Art Therapy, you get to use the fingerpaints again today!
:D

(If Baghdad is L.A., than I guess San Fran must be...Kirkuk?)



Ann Coulter is a waste of a vagina.  I can't stand that cow.

Ann Coulter is a waste of a vagina. 


Who says she's got one?
???

Who says she's got one?
???



She appears to be an earthling female, so I'm assuming she has one.  If she doesn't.....it explains a lot.

She appears to be an earthling female, so I'm assuming she has one.  If she doesn't.....it explains a lot.

Appearances can be deceptive.  What was that series from the '80s?  "V," "Alien Nation"?
:o

Appearances can be deceptive.  What was that series from the '80s?  "V," "Alien Nation"?
:o



Well, I think she is upset about all these aliens in the country-me thinks she protest too much.  :D ;D ;D


Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intellegent life here.  ;)



Cat

Appearances can be deceptive.  What was that series from the '80s?  "V," "Alien Nation"?
:o
http://www.i-marco.nl/weblog/images/bush_they_live.jpg

http://www.i-marco.nl/weblog/images/bush_they_live.jpg




"They Live" was a great movie.

Ann Coulter is a waste of a vagina.  I can't stand that cow.


I love it when you're eloquent. ;D

not to mention every time clinton tried to do anything about bin laden the repubs would scream "wag the dog" and launch a new criminal investigation into his sex life. :D


That's just silly, being that his sex life, (well, the Monica time - his 4th public affair in his career), and the lying etc., was after war was declared on our country by Bin, well after four attacks on our country and when Bin was handed to us on a silver platter, that hadn't come out. There is really no excuse for that, none. If he cannot be president and handle his affairs with various women at the same time, maybe he should have kept his zipper up - (had he done so, the country woul.d not have gone through all that crap - so I think that's his fault too)

Once again, just because violence is down in Baghdad doesn't mean it's down everywhere else.  We are not and we cannot win this war.  It is over.  We need to admit we effed up and GO HOME.  The longer we stay there, the more like fools we look.  It is not defeatism, it's reality.  This war is Vietnam: The Sequel.....and it's time to GO HOME.  What is good for this country is for our men and women fighting over there to get the hell out.  That's what's good for this country. 



First, it IS DOWN in IRAQ & in Baghdad - so yes, it DOES mean it is down everywhere else. I know that makes you upset, because liberals count on our failing to move up their ladder and get the presidential win in 2008 – but that is FACT, like it or not.

Your defeatism is not a big help. It is NOT over, not by a long shot. We cannot go home, that is EXACTLY what Bin & Gang told us would eventually happen a long time ago. It means a victory for Bin and it means that we leave our allies, Iraqi's people & government to fend for themselves - that's not something that is a moral or ethical thing to do. This war has very little to do with Vietnam, except that the hippie type democrats want it to be compared. It is NOT time to go home, we need to fight them there & edge our way to ridding our world of terrorists & evil dictators who would chop your pretty little head off in a second if they could reach you. What is good for the country is that we stop sending (to the world) messages that are  A.. Defeatism statements that encourage our enemies and B. Bashing our country and our president so that the world can hate us more and more. That is not the plan of the liberals, but it is the need for our country.

Again, democrats want us to fail, leave, get out now, cut funding, cut and run and leave the country there to get taken over and turned into a breeding ground of terrorists - then they can say "see, Republicans and Bush are wrong, vote for us". They do not care about our troops over there, hell, they want to cut funding - the cowards. They don't care if Iraq, one of our allies is left there without help.... they only care about getting elected & making sure their propaganda works on as many as possible.

Marketers are made richer and richer by those who believe in the propaganda that is shoved down their throats & the democrats count on the weak minds to suck up their constant attacks and hate.

The old saying, if you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes real - even when the truth comes out. That is what the democrats have been doing from Michael Moore (and his film, proven to be made up of misleading lies and  camera tricks) to today’s constant attacking far left wacko liberals. When the facts come out, the conned, tricked, duped dig their heels in and fight for the lies that they have been programmed to believe. Sadly, that's fact.

 

liberals!

Ann Coulter is a waste of a vagina.  I can't stand that cow.



That's really nice - nice thing to say!

..just wondering, how do you feel about; Alec Baldwin, Harry Bellafonte, Al Frankin, Dick Durbin and  bill maher (to name a few)?

^ My perspective is that about 85-90% of the American public wanted us to succeed in every way possible in Iraq and the Middle East, but because the administration had the crappiest plan ever devised as well as an abject failure to find ANY WMDs, they lost any goodwill and political capital they had gained in the short run.

Agreed, can't just pull out now, not because bin Laden would win, but because we essentially messed Iraq up so badly that it would be utterly immoral to just pick up and leave.  Gotta find a good exit strategy eventually though, and that shouldn't include sending in even more troops to be little circus ducky targets.

This has nothing to do with Republicans vs. Democrats except where the politicians are involved.  This has everything to do with the fact that the government was stupid...the Republicans for having a crap plan that a Boy Scout would dismiss, and the Democrats for letting them go along with it.

That's really nice - nice thing to say!

..just wondering, how do you feel about; Alec Baldwin, Harry Bellafonte, Al Frankin, Dick Durbin and  bill maher (to name a few)?


Alec Baldwin = suck.  I'm glad Kim Jong-Il shot him.

^ My perspective is that about 85-90% of the American public wanted us to succeed in every way possible in Iraq and the Middle East, but because the administration had the crappiest plan ever devised as well as an abject failure to find ANY WMDs, they lost any goodwill and political capital they had gained in the short run.

Agreed, can't just pull out now, not because bin Laden would win, but because we essentially messed Iraq up so badly that it would be utterly immoral to just pick up and leave.  Gotta find a good exit strategy eventually though, and that shouldn't include sending in even more troops to be little circus ducky targets.

This has nothing to do with Republicans vs. Democrats except where the politicians are involved.  This has everything to do with the fact that the government was stupid...the Republicans for having a crap plan that a Boy Scout would dismiss, and the Democrats for letting them go along with it.



Nah, it's all political, playing politics with our country. And the democrats didn't "let them go along with it" - they were there voting the whole way. NOW, because they have discouraged and demeaned, they want to cut and run and take funding and put on a good show, (yet another show, which is what they are apparently best at), so they can posture for the 2008 elections. they are playing politics with the country and with the Iraq people, just for their own gain...

^ With all due respect, the Republicans have done enough to embarrass themselves.  The Democrats didn't need any help in gaining the upper hand.

This has nothing to do with Republicans vs. Democrats except where the politicians are involved.  This has everything to do with the fact that the government was stupid...the Republicans for having a crap plan that a Boy Scout would dismiss, and the Democrats for letting them go along with it.

A-men!  The Dems had no cajones!  "Oh, we can't vote against this stupid crap because the Republicans will go on Tim Russert and call us unpatriotic, terrorist-appeasing, obstructionist, cheese-eating surrender monkeys!"

So they voted for the biggest foreign policy blunder in a generation trying to score political points with people who hate them no matter what.

The Republicans went on Tim Russert and called them unpatriotic, terrorist-appeasing, obstructionist, cheese-eating surrender monkeys just the same!

You can't make chicken salad outta chicken sh*t!
::)

The truth is, this war is a frickin' joke, we need to find an exit strategy that works and get the hell out.  I could give two wet farts about Michael Moore or propaganda or hippie Liberals or whatever else you were going on about.  This war IS like Vietnam in that instead of letting the military run the show like they're supposed to, the politicians have taken over and farked it up.  How much longer do we need to stay there and "help" the Iraqis?  How many more people on both sides have to die before people begin to take a good look at reality and realize WE CANNOT WIN THIS WAR.  This shouldn't even be about "winning" or "losing" anymore.  It should be about finding a way for us to get out that makes sense.  Like Kin said, we need an exit strategy that works.  Why don't we try and FIND ONE! 





That's really nice - nice thing to say!

..just wondering, how do you feel about; Alec Baldwin, Harry Bellafonte, Al Frankin, Dick Durbin and  bill maher (to name a few)?



I know it's a nice thing to say.  If it wasn't for site rules, I would have been much nicer. 


As for the list....in order:

Don't like him, haven't heard his music or politics, don't listen to him, don't know his politics, love his HBO show. 

A-men!  The Dems had no cajones!  "Oh, we can't vote against this stupid crap because the Republicans will go on Tim Russert and call us unpatriotic, terrorist-appeasing, obstructionist, cheese-eating surrender monkeys!"

So they voted for the biggest foreign policy blunder in a generation trying to score political points with people who hate them no matter what.

The Republicans went on Tim Russert and called them unpatriotic, terrorist-appeasing, obstructionist, cheese-eating surrender monkeys just the same!

You can't make chicken salad outta chicken sh*t!
::)



Wow....I agree with you on something.  Better check the temperature in hell.  ;)


No one looks good in respect to the war.  Not the Republicans, not the Democrats.  Everyone is to blame.  Now we need to fix it.  The way we fix it is coming up with a workable exit strategy that doesn't include putting more troops over there.

meh, i think the partisanship on this thread is getting overblown. i get the impression lterhume, mushroom and perhaps davester are sorta set in their various positions


And you, Cat, and Maxwell are not set in your positions?

Here is what tends to frustrate me about how politics are normally discussed.  Instead of being a conversation about viewpoints in an attempt to reach a "common ground", it often devolves into an "I'm right and you're wrong" type of bickering. 

The very idea that someone would attack, both verbally and physically, another human being because of their sexual orientation is beyond mind-blowing to me.  It's utterly contemptuous.  It's the same level of anger I feel toward racists and bigots.  What was the name of that group that picketed that one soldier's funeral because he was gay?  It was all over the news at the time.....they were screaming "God hates f*gs".....what a bunch of monkeys.  I just want to sucker-punch every one of those moronic fools.


They picket like that whenever they get a chance.

"Reverend Phelps" is a genuine nutcase.  He is the same one who sues cities to remove 10 Commandments displays (because they will not allow him to erect a statue dedicated to killing "fags").  And he blames everything that has gone wrong in this country from Katrina to 9/11 on "God PUnishing Us", because we allow Fags to live openly in our society.

He is simply put a bigoted religious nutcase, and I wish everybody would just ignore him.  And trust me, I find him very offensive.  But do not get the idea that he is a "Right-Wing Nutcase", his actual goals are steeped in Socialism.  He just wraps them around the "Church Of Phelps".

I have yet to find one person who can tell me why gays cannot or should not serve in the military.  I don't mean tell me with homophobic reasons like, "oh they might try and rape me".  I mean actual legitimate reasons.  I sense there is a good reason why they can't pony up.  That reason being, there are no good reasons why. 


Actually there is one reason, and I have cited it before:  Discrimination.

And I do not mean discrimination against gays, but discrimination against heterosexuals.  Because in the military, Homosexuals would have rights that heterosexuals can't have.

Very few barracks in the military are "Co-Ed".  Whenever possible, the sexes are carefully segregated in their living quarters.  Even when they share the same building, women are normally quartered on seperate floors.  And "cerfew" rules are placed into effect, ranging from allowable times where members of the opposite sex are allowed into private rooms, to even cases where members of the opposite sex are never allowed into a room under any circumstance.

This is done for many reasons.  To prevent fratanization, to help prevent sexual assault and appearance of impropriaty, and other reasons.  And of course, male and female members are never assigned to share a room.  Period.

Now I support "Don't Ask - Don't Tell".  Personally, I feel it is nobodies business what somebodies sexuality is.  If you are gay, if you are bi, if you are straight, I could not care less.  It is none of my business, and I do not want to know who you are (or want to) shag.

One big problem if "Openly Gay" servicemembers were allowed to serve, is that they would be allowed to share barracks.  And to me, it is grossly unfair that Mark & Tom, or Rita & Amy can share a room as lovers, but Marty & Lois or Kevin & Tish can't.  And having this kind of "unfavorable treatment" would only serve to create more anger and resentment towards gay servicemembers.

After all, they would be getting special privlidges (sharing a room with a lover) that nobody who is heterosexual would be able to have.

We won the war.  This is now an occupation.


Is it anything like our Occupation of Germany?  Or our Occupation of Japan?  How about our continued occupation of South Korea?

Even Hillary is saying if she is ellected, she will continue to post US Military in Iraq.  And that she thinks it will be that way for decades.

wasn't tokyo rose an american spy? i remember hearing a story on the radio about that/


There was no one "Tokyo Rose".  There were at least a dozen of them.  And they were of various backgrounds.  Every English Speaking female broadcasting Japanese Propaganda was labled as "Tokyo Rose".  And the most famous was Iva Toguri, who was a Nisei (Japanese born overseas to Japanese Parents).  She was visiting Japan when war broke out, and was "encouraged" to boradcast propaganda (some say forced, some say she volunteered).

This is much the same as "Lord Haw-Haw".  That was the generic name given to English speaking male propaganda reporters for Nazi Germany. 

Is it anything like our Occupation of Germany?  Or our Occupation of Japan?  How about our continued occupation of South Korea?

Even Hillary is saying if she is ellected, she will continue to post US Military in Iraq.  And that she thinks it will be that way for decades.

Always have to go back to WWII, the last war in which there was universal consnensus the U.S. was doing the right thing.

Nope, more like the U.S. occupation of the Phillipines, which went on for an entire century.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1117-11.htm

What's this "even Hillary," as if she's some kind of friend of the anti-occupation Left.  I wouldn't vote for Hillary if my life depended on it!!!

Always have to go back to WWII, the last war in which there was universal consnensus the U.S. was doing the right thing.

Nope, more like the U.S. occupation of the Phillipines, which went on for an entire century.


Actually, the Korean War was pretty unpopular in some quarters as well.  And by the end of WWII, a lot of people were willing to accept peace, even under favorable terms to the Axis powers.  It was only the fast collapse of Germany and Japan that prevented that from happening.

And the situation in PI is not quite what that article states.  When Spain was forced to give it up, it was internally a mess.  They had been "playing one side off against the other" for over a century, and the US ended up stuck with the mess.  And as a side note, one of the most vocal opponants of the Philippine-US war was Andrew Carnegie, president of "US Steel".

By 1935, PI was a "Commonwealth", and already on the way to independence.  They had their own government, and independence was prmoised after 10 years.  And that date was missed by just over a year, because of WWII.

In 1991, the US closed their remaining military bases and left the country.  Those bases were established on a 50 year lease, was established in 1941 (with WWII looming on the horizon - the newly formed "Commonwealth Of the Philippines" knew it did not have the ability to defend itself).  By 1991, the Cold War was winding down, and the new Government simply did not want them any more.  In addition, Mt. Pinitubo did so much damage, that the cost to rebuild Clark AFB was prohibitive.  Most equipment was not even removed from the base, it was simply abandoned to the PI Government.

Of course, there is still a lot of US-PI connections.  PI has long operated as a "Gateway" to China, and there are a large number of expatriate Americans living there to this day (most retired and former military).  While it can be hard to live in the US on a retired military pay, you can live in luxary on that pay in the Philippines.  Especially in the former "Base Towns", which were left pretty much out of business when the bases closed.