[BenDover]

You gotta see this!!!

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/wmv/presaddress.wmv

:D :D

[JamesP]

Thanks, Ben, for a fantasy glimpse at Bush teling the truth for a change. Both amusing & chilling.

[FDRfollower]

As far as the speech goes, break out the barf bags.:p

[sweetpea]

Did you barf during this part, or did you just sit on your hands like the putrid Dems did?

"In recent years, America has become a more hopeful nation. Violent crime rates have fallen to their lowest levels since the 1970s. Welfare cases have dropped by more than half over the past decade. Drug use among youth is down 19 percent since 2001. There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades, and the number of children born to teenage mothers has been falling for a dozen years in a row. " (Applause.)

I would imagine that having fewer abortions doesn't sit well with "progressives". Tell me where I'm wrong.

[BenDover]

You're wrong everywhere. The assertion that pro-choice individuals are in favor of more abortions is patently ridiculous and totally without foundation.

[sweetpea]

You're wrong everywhere. The assertion that pro-choice individuals are in favor of more abortions is patently ridiculous and totally without foundation.

Then why sit on your hands. Seems to me this is good news.

[BenDover]

A reaction to his original statement that "Today, America is a more hopeful nation".

You're taking a snippet of what he said out of context. Cite one example for me of anyone anywhere who has gone on record as saying they are in favor of more abortions being performed.

[Jane of Arc]

I'm happy Bush is so optimistic. I'm just thrilled for the guy. And if says our economy is booming ... hell, who am I to doubt him. I'm just a little concerned though that maybe he's basing his economy optimism on the Dow which just reflects a handfull of international corporations, and not the real economic health of the nation. I mean afterall, why wouldn't Exxon/Mobil be optimistic with record breaking profits from screwing the American people during Katrina.

The truth is:

1. America has a crippling burden of debt from these BIG SPENDING REPUBLICANS of $8,196,070,437,599.52.

2. The wages and the incomes of average Americans are down.

3. More and more people are deeper and deeper in debt.

4. Job creation has not kept up with population growth, and the employment rate has fallen sharply.

5. Poverty is on the rise.

6. Rising health care costs are eroding families' already declining income.

7. The indebtedness of U.S. households, after adjusting for inflation, has risen 35.7% over the last four years.

8. The level of debt as a percent of after-tax income is the highest ever measured in our history.

9. The debt-service ratio (the percent of after-tax income that goes to pay off debts) is at an all-time high of 13.6%.

10. The personal savings rate is negative for the first time since WWII.
http://www.epi.org

[sweetpea]

A reaction to his original statement that "Today, America is a more hopeful nation".

You're taking a snippet of what he said out of context. Cite one example for me of anyone anywhere who has gone on record as saying they are in favor of more abortions being performed.
---
Nothing is out of context. It is verbatim with no lead ins. The Dems sat on their hands. Positive news and they sit. Do they (you) enjoy self-loathing?

Quotes:

"Society does not need more children; but it does need more loved children. Quite literally, we cannot afford unloved children - but we pay heavily for them every day. There should not be the slightest communal concern when a woman elects to destroy the life of her thousandth-of-an-ounce embryo. But all society should rise up in alarm when it hears that a baby that is not wanted is about to be born. ~Garrett Hardin , population control freak and socialist.


"One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its meaning. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives." - Ayn Rand (I'm sure you know her)

"Ask me about my abortion!" - Pro-Choice T-Shirt

""Service to the unmarried minor on her terms should be expanded. If we don't do it, no one else can or will. Abortion-referral services, and in some instances performance of abortion, is our special responsibility."
-- Dr. Alan Guttmacher (Planned [Un]Parenthood)

http://www.hrtl.org/SantorumBoxer.doc - Senator Barbara Boxer

"more children from the fit, less from the unfit."
--Margaret Sanger ( u know who she is?)

"The most merciful thing a large fa m i ly can do for one of its infant members is to kill it." -- Margaret Sanger

----------------

But back to topic at hand. GWB rattled off some good news for teh country, credited both parties/ and yet the Dems sit there. why? Are they that vested in failure?

[BenDover]

Again....your assertion absolutely is deduced from a soundbite taken from GWB's statement about America being more hopeful. His claim....especially coming on the heels of Alito's confirmation was a not-so-subtle dig at pro-choice supporters so a rousing ovation could hardly be expected.

I stand by my original statement. The definition of when life begins is the central issue here and likely will never be resolved. It is a very difficult debate, no doubt about it. My stance as being pro-choice is based on the fact that I don't feel I have a right to dictate what a woman can do with her body and the overwhelming majority of like-minded individuals feel the same way. Quote from your link to Sen. Boxer's exchange with Rick Santorum:

Boxer: I don't believe in killing any human being. That is absolutely correct. Nor do you, I am sure..

I guess this sums it up....unless we want to debate the death penalty of which I would suppose Sen. Santorum is a supporter....but that's another issue altogether.

You are obviously convinced that your deductions are true so there's probably nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree but hey that's what America is all about.

[sweetpea]

Again....your assertion absolutely is deduced from a soundbite taken from GWB's statement about America being more hopeful. His claim....especially coming on the heels of Alito's confirmation was a not-so-subtle dig at pro-choice supporters so a rousing ovation could hardly be expected.

I stand by my original statement. The definition of when life begins is the central issue here and likely will never be resolved. It is a very difficult debate, no doubt about it. My stance as being pro-choice is based on the fact that I don't feel I have a right to dictate what a woman can do with her body and the overwhelming majority of like-minded individuals feel the same way. Quote from your link to Sen. Boxer's exchange with Rick Santorum:

Boxer: I don't believe in killing any human being. That is absolutely correct. Nor do you, I am sure..

I guess this sums it up....unless we want to debate the death penalty of which I would suppose Sen. Santorum is a supporter....but that's another issue altogether.

You are obviously convinced that your deductions are true so there's probably nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree but hey that's what America is all about.
----

Maybe you should read the speech. The quote (given in full context) came BEFORE the Alito reference. Before. So why did the Dems sit on their hands? Keep searching for excuses. Teh bottom line is spme good news about your country was given and both political parties were credited yet the Dems are silent. Why? defeatism, pessimism, vested in failure are terms that come to my mind.

You asked for Pro-Abortion statements and I gave them. Got more if you want them. I guess you didn't like them, but it is what it is. You ever figure out who Margaret Sanger is?

Talk about context. Boxer would not state when she thought a baby was provided protection under the Constitution. First she alluded to when the baby is at home / then she alluded to when the baby is in the mother's arms / then she changed her mind again and simply said she would not answer the questions. She and other so-called progressives are in a corner when it comes to partial birth abortion and she knows it. If she sooooo believes in the choice to kill a third trimester baby why doens't she just make it part of her platform?

Agree to disagree? Not really. I agree that the Democrats are more and more marginalized and out of touch with the country. Recent elections hvave proven it and them sitting noticebly silent when good news is spoken of your country is another prime example.

You wanna debate the death penalty? I'll be glad to.

[FDRfollower]

"In recent years, America has become a more hopeful nation. Yes, for economic looters.

Welfare cases have dropped by more than half over the past decade. They've dropped, because people are simply being dropped out of the system. It's Herbert Hoover all over again.

[BenDover]

Sweetpea,

I never said anything about Bush making a reference to Alito. It goes without saying that everyone knew Alito had just been confirmed and his probable effect on Roe v. Wade was lurking in the minds of everyone. And your reference to Boxer's comments just goes to prove my point that words taken out of context can be twisted any way you want.

There are extremists on every side of this issue....all the way from nutballs who want to blow up abortion clinics to wackos who may want to wear the t-shirt you alluded to (I'd like to see where you saw one of those by the way). As I stated, this is a difficult issue for this nation and it's not going away. Even if Roe v. Wade is tossed out, the issue will be revisited at the state level.

Personally, I am fundamentally opposed to abortion but as I stated I don't believe it is right for me to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. I believe that this viewpoint is consistent with what most pro-choice individuals think. If you want to believe that there is some vast, diabolical conspiracy on behalf of all liberals to work toward increasing the abortion rate, Ok by me. I know it isn't true. And to that end....yes, we will have to agree to disagree. Sorry if you can't accept that.

Fundamentally I am opposed to the death penalty for the same reason I am fundamentally opposed to abortion so if you want to shoot holes in that feel free.

[Jane of Arc]

----
Teh bottom line is spme good news about your country was given and both political parties were credited yet the Dems are silent. Why? defeatism, pessimism, vested in failure are terms that come to my mind.


Remember when "liberal" became a dirty word? Was it because Americans were changing? Hell no. There's more registered Democrats than ever before. It's the successful results of well-oiled Regressive think tanks for the last 20 years. The art of regressive propaganda is at an all time high as was witnessed by Bush's State of the Union address where he mention "freedom" 17 times, while in reality, he's done more damage to American freedom than any other president. The fine-tuned skill of Regressive propagnada would make Joseph Goebbels proud. Here's a list of words Newt Gingrich put together to bombard liberals. He encouraged Regressives to keep rhetoric simple and when describing liberal Democrats to use the following list of words repeating them over and over and over and over again.

abuse of power
anti- (issue): flag, family, child, jobs
betray
bizarre
bosses
bureaucracy
cheat
coercion
"compassion" is not enough
collapse(ing)
consequences
corrupt
corruption
criminal rights
crisis
cynicism
decay
deeper
destroy
destructive
devour
disgrace
endanger
excuses
failure (fail)
greed
hypocrisy
ideological
impose
incompetent
insecure
insensitive
intolerant
liberal
lie
limit(s)
machine
mandate(s)
obsolete
pathetic
patronage
permissive attitude
pessimistic
punish (poor ...)
radical
red tape
self-serving
selfish
sensationalists
shallow
shame
sick
spend(ing)
stagnation
status quo
steal
taxes
they/them
threaten
traitors
unionized
urgent (cy)
waste
welfare

[BenDover]

Insightful take, Joan. It's a case of classical conditioning. Ring the bell and the dog starts salivating.

[sweetpea]

BD and Jane,

If there are so many Democrats then why do they keep losing elections? The question begs.

Is it your position that conservatives / Republicans (those folks taht have been winning elections) are just dumb ole hayseed, herd mentality people that cannot htink for themselves. We've all been conditioned by NEwt, et.al.? is that it?

Keep telling yourselves that and keep losing more and more elections and keep losing more and more of your stances.

[BenDover]

Sweetpea,

Not at all (although living in Texas I do know quite a few of those hayseed types of which you speak)! I know plenty of conservatives who present rational, well-though-out and informed points of view. I think Jane's (sorry Jane, I Freudian slipped by calling you Joan) point is that buzzwords like Newt Gingrich was referring to are very effective for people who don't reflect those qualities. Ill-informed liberals can fall prey to the same tactic.

Why do Democrats keep losing elections? That's a great question. First, the election of 2000 was not lost, it was stolen but hey that's water under the bridge so I won't go there. They lost in 2004 because Bush and Rove did a very good job of scaring the shit out of the electorate and Kerry represented a weak challenger. So, losing one election doesn't really seem like a protracted losing streak to me.

The Dems biggest problem is that they don't have a truly outstanding leader who can unify them and attract independent voters. Perhaps someone will rise to the top before 2008. Interestingly, I feel the repubs face the same issue once GW's term is up so maybe a change will be in order by then.

[sweetpea]

Sweetpea,

Not at all (although living in Texas I do know quite a few of those hayseed types of which you speak)! I know plenty of conservatives who present rational, well-though-out and informed points of view. I think Jane's (sorry Jane, I Freudian slipped by calling you Joan) point is that buzzwords like Newt Gingrich was referring to are very effective for people who don't reflect those qualities. Ill-informed liberals can fall prey to the same tactic.

Why do Democrats keep losing elections? That's a great question. First, the election of 2000 was not lost, it was stolen but hey that's water under the bridge so I won't go there. They lost in 2004 because Bush and Rove did a very good job of scaring the shit out of the electorate and Kerry represented a weak challenger. So, losing one election doesn't really seem like a protracted losing streak to me.

The Dems biggest problem is that they don't have a truly outstanding leader who can unify them and attract independent voters. Perhaps someone will rise to the top before 2008. Interestingly, I feel the repubs face the same issue once GW's term is up so maybe a change will be in order by then.

------

Fair enough.

However, if there is part of the Democratic Party that still dwells on 2000 then it will do nothing but aid in more losing. Further, when I said elections I was also referring to Senate and House and Governors.

Can you tell me a Democrat who runs on gun control or welfare un-reform? Ya'll have lost those issues adn still use the 1970's class warfare, old style liberalism playbook. It want be long that militant anti-capitalist environmentalism will go the way of the welfare state in my opinion.

[sweetpea]

The truth is:

1. America has a crippling burden of debt from these BIG SPENDING REPUBLICANS of $8,196,070,437,599.52.
---I could not agree more. Out of control spending mainly due to entitlemetn spending and a broken Social Security system. Add onto it these irresponsible eramarked aditions to spending bills. R's and D's alike shouild get tossed to the curb.

2. The wages and the incomes of average Americans are down.
--Wrong. Stock market had a couple of down days recently. Inflation worries. wanna know why? wages are growing faster than productivity. http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/03/business/03econ.html

3. More and more people are deeper and deeper in debt.
---Yep. Please explain to me how that is any President's fault and/or how that somehow overrides any other good news related to crime, abortion, teenagae pregnancy.

4. Job creation has not kept up with population growth, and the employment rate has fallen sharply.
Wrong again. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/03/D8FHLP800.html
Unemployment is 4.7%. any historical economic look into our history will tell you below 6% is good adn below 5% is damned good.

5. Poverty is on the rise.
---Really? Got a link? as defined by whom?

6. Rising health care costs are eroding families' already declining income.
---Health care inflation is up. The later half of this statement is disproved in two of my links.
I am beginning to detect a pattern here. Woe, misery, self loathing and a penchant toward harping and exagerating any and all bad news.

7. The indebtedness of U.S. households, after adjusting for inflation, has risen 35.7% over the last four years.
Yep. Looking forward to your explanation as to why any President is to blame and to when this trend started.

8. The level of debt as a percent of after-tax income is the highest ever measured in our history.
--Ditto from #7 above.

9. The debt-service ratio (the percent of after-tax income that goes to pay off debts) is at an all-time high of 13.6%.
--Ditto from above #7.

10. The personal savings rate is negative for the first time since WWII.
http://www.epi.org
--Ditto from above # 7.

[BenDover]

------

Fair enough.

However, if there is part of the Democratic Party that still dwells on 2000 then it will do nothing but aid in more losing. Further, when I said elections I was also referring to Senate and House and Governors.

Can you tell me a Democrat who runs on gun control or welfare un-reform? Ya'll have lost those issues adn still use the 1970's class warfare, old style liberalism playbook. It want be long that militant anti-capitalist environmentalism will go the way of the welfare state in my opinion.

Whoa there....I am NOT a democrat so don't go hanging that "y'all" label on me. I'm a libertarian and haven't supported a winning candidate EVER so I'm pretty used to losing elections. I AM a social liberal but that doesn't make me a democrat.

Both major parties have been taken over by extremists who are way out there in left (uhh...maybe I should say "right"....LOL) field. Those in the center will swing one way or the other depending on the candidate and the general state of the union at the time, but you won't see any "centrists" being big fans of either party. Bush was elected in 2004 for the reasons I stated before. The Senate and House have been leaning right ever since Bush was first "elected" in 2000. I see the pendulum swinging back the other way this fall as more and more voters become concerned about the direction this country is heading.

Liberalism headed for oblivion as you suggest? Well, 49% of the voters in 2004 chose to reject Bush so I don't see that as some sort of overwhelming swing to the right. All it will take is a slight swing in the independent voting bloc to put the dems back in.

One thing for sure....this country hasn't been as divided as it is now since the Civil War and whoever runs for President in 2008 damned sure needs to be someone who can unite us again. A big reason (and there are many) that Bush disappoints me is that he had a monumental opportunity to do exactly that after 9-11 and instead chose to stubbornly impose his Neocon agenda without any regard for the opinions of those who dared to disagree with him.

[sweetpea]

Whoa there....I am NOT a democrat so don't go hanging that "y'all" label on me. I'm a libertarian and haven't supported a winning candidate EVER so I'm pretty used to losing elections. I AM a social liberal but that doesn't make me a democrat.

Both major parties have been taken over by extremists who are way out there in left (uhh...maybe I should say "right"....LOL) field. Those in the center will swing one way or the other depending on the candidate and the general state of the union at the time, but you won't see any "centrists" being big fans of either party. Bush was elected in 2004 for the reasons I stated before. The Senate and House have been leaning right ever since Bush was first "elected" in 2000. I see the pendulum swinging back the other way this fall as more and more voters become concerned about the direction this country is heading.

Liberalism headed for oblivion as you suggest? Well, 49% of the voters in 2004 chose to reject Bush so I don't see that as some sort of overwhelming swing to the right. All it will take is a slight swing in the independent voting bloc to put the dems back in.

One thing for sure....this country hasn't been as divided as it is now since the Civil War and whoever runs for President in 2008 damned sure needs to be someone who can unite us again. A big reason (and there are many) that Bush disappoints me is that he had a monumental opportunity to do exactly that after 9-11 and instead chose to stubbornly impose his Neocon agenda without any regard for the opinions of those who dared to disagree with him.
--------

Just what is GWB's "neocon" aganda?

[BenDover]

--------

Just what is GWB's "neocon" aganda?

In general, to enact policies to further develop the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about and to conduct foreign policy with a "big stick" mentality having little or no regard for diplomacy or world opinion.

I like this quote from Pat Buchanan....

"The conservative movement has been hijacked and turned into a globalist, interventionist, open-borders ideology, which is not the conservative movement I grew up with" - The New York Times, September 8, 2002.

[sweetpea]

In general, to enact policies to further develop the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about and to conduct foreign policy with a "big stick" mentality having little or no regard for diplomacy or world opinion.

I like this quote from Pat Buchanan....

"The conservative movement has been hijacked and turned into a globalist, interventionist, open-borders ideology, which is not the conservative movement I grew up with" - The New York Times, September 8, 2002.

Oh. I see.

Now Pat Buchannan is making arguments for libertarians. THAT is funny.

Diplomacy and world opinion....hmmmmm. You mean like waiting on the UN to issue 14 more useless resolutions. or the would it be let Germany and France dicate our foreign policy. The kind of diplomacy and world opinion that gave us Haiti and Darfur. Is that the kind of world opinion you are referring to?

Please inform me as to exactly what this military industrial complex is made of. Are there some shadowy figures jetting around pulling the strings or is it a bunch of rich white guys trying to make us all work for the man? I am dying to know.

[BenDover]

I am trying to have a dialogue with you but it seems that all you want to do is put words in my mouth. Real simple here....we had a chance to get the entire free world behind us after 9-11 and, through a little diplomacy, we could have built a strong coalition. Instead, we thumbed our nose at everyone and did whatever we wanted. No one can argue that our standing in the court of world opinion has not declined immensely sinced Bush took office. If you don't care about that that's fine with me but it nonetheless remains the fact.

Surely someone with your intelligence knows what the military-industrial complex is but I'll give you a concise definition...

The term military-industrial complex usually refers to the combination of the U.S. armed forces, arms industry and associated political and commercial interests, which grew rapidly in scale and influence in the wake of World War II, although it can also be used to describe any such relationship of industry and military. It is sometimes used to refer to the iron triangle that is argued to exist among weapons makers/military contractors, The Pentagon and the United States Congress.

Sounds pretty much like the little game we have going on right now I would say.

Oh...and Pat Buchanan? Sure, I read him. How else can one form rational opinions if one doesn't hear what both sides have to say? I will admit I do not agree with him philosophically but as far as his credentials as a conservative go I would say he is an unimpeachable source. Who would you expect me to quote that would carry any credibility with you....Susan Sarandon? LOL

:D :D

[Jane of Arc]

Please inform me as to exactly what this military industrial complex is made of. Are there some shadowy figures jetting around pulling the strings or is it a bunch of rich white guys trying to make us all work for the man? I am dying to know.

http://www.gwu.edu/~ww2/pics/eisenhower.gif

Click the link below and hear what Eisenhower had to say about the military industrial complex, afterall ... he was the one who coined the term:

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

Eisenhower answers your Regressive question perfectly.

[sweetpea]

I am trying to have a dialogue with you but it seems that all you want to do is put words in my mouth.
--Take it easy. I did no such. I used your anssers as they were. Repeating 'out of context' is not having a dialogue, especially when it is not out of context.

Real simple here....we had a chance to get the entire free world behind us after 9-11 and, through a little diplomacy, we could have built a strong coalition.
---real simple here.....we could have waited years and yeras for the UN to issue some more useless resolutions and we didn't. For that I'm thankful. I happen to understand taht there are Islamic fundamentalists whose entire goal in life is for the US to be elimintated. 9-11 was a not-so-gentle reminder of that. So we can sit back - caht with the UN - have some more endless dialogue - allow dicatators to pay suicide bombers - discuss teh feelings of Muslims - try to understand why they hate us - etc, etc. OR we can act. We did, and for that I'm thankful.

Instead, we thumbed our nose at everyone and did whatever we wanted.
---Who is everyone? The UK, Spain, Poland. Do they count? How about the women in Iraq adn Afghanistan...do they count? When you refer to everyone....do you mean the liberals in Germany who just lost an election or maybe Hamas...is that who you are concerned about? Frankly, I am glad we don't have to wait endlesly on world opinion(whatever the hell that is) to change with the current winds before we can act.

No one can argue that our standing in the court of world opinion has not declined immensely sinced Bush took office.
---Again. what is it with you and the 'world opinion'. I travel internationally and this world opinion you keep referring to is different in each place I go to. There is no such thing as a uniformed world opinion....not even a semi uniformed world opinion. Not even a kinda sorta uniform world opinion. Keep believing that if you want, though. Additionally, when it comes to the interests of this country most AMericans don't care about this so-called world opinion.

If you don't care about that that's fine with me but it nonetheless remains the fact.
--In lala land.

Surely someone with your intelligence knows what the military-industrial complex is but I'll give you a concise definition...

The term military-industrial complex usually refers to the combination of the U.S. armed forces, arms industry and associated political and commercial interests, which grew rapidly in scale and influence in the wake of World War II, although it can also be used to describe any such relationship of industry and military. It is sometimes used to refer to the iron triangle that is argued to exist among weapons makers/military contractors, The Pentagon and the United States Congress.
---So who runs this complex? Is it Cheney on a throne somewhere calling all the shots? do they have smokey back room meetings to dicuss world domination?
What is your alternative to having a strong military, defense contractors, a Congress and a Pentagon?

Sounds pretty much like the little game we have going on right now I would say.

Oh...and Pat Buchanan? Sure, I read him. How else can one form rational opinions if one doesn't hear what both sides have to say? I will admit I do not agree with him philosophically but as far as his credentials as a conservative go I would say he is an unimpeachable source. Who would you expect me to quote that would carry any credibility with you....Susan Sarandon? LOL
-- I find it amusing that you quote a conservative as some undeniabkle source that another conservative is wrong. It's absurd. It's like me quoting Joe Lieberman to prove to you taht Hary Belafonte is off his kilter.

[Jane of Arc]

Everyone needs to get their hands on the Sundance Film Festival winner "Why We Fight". Here's the trailer:

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

[BenDover]

Wow. I don't know where we go from here if I can't even get you to agree that Pat Buchanan is a good example of a conservative authority figure. I find your Joe Lieberman - Harry Belafonte comparison bizarre to say the least. It'd be like me contending that Teddy Kennedy is unqualified to speak about what it means to be a liberal.

I think it would be interesting to see how much we truly have in common as far as a belief system is concerned and to try to determine at exactly what juncture we separate ourselves. Answer these questions for me if you would:

- Do you believe it is a primary responsibility of government to protect the lives, safety and security of its citizens?

If yes then....

- Do you believe that we should risk the lives of our military personnel in combat only when absolutely necessary and there is no other recourse?

If yes then....

- Do you believe the situation immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq represented a scenario that left the US with no recourse other than to commit our troops to combat?

I think it's plain that I will never get anywhere in my arguments with you and you can rest assured that yours will not sway me, so why not make an attempt to at least understand each other better? If you aren't interested and don't want to reply....I understand. In similar situations with other conservatives I have found that they would rather just continue to rail about how wrong I am rather than to make an attempt to see where and why we disagree. I just find the incredible chasm between left and right in this country to be mind-boggling and quite fascinating in a strange sort of way.

I won't be back online until Monday as I too am traveling internationally but, anyway, have a great weekend....

:toast:

[FDRfollower]

Actually guys, I've had a change of heart. I want to apologize to SweetPea and Bush for bad mouthing them on the economy.







I mean, I am very happy that my home heating costs have gone up %75 in the last month. I would feel just awfull, if I wasn't contributing everything I could to help those poor shareholders get the full amount they deserve.

And why should I complain when I pay $2.60 for a gallon of gasoline. Shoot. Wall St. should have the right to raise the prices way past $3.00. They need as much cash as they can get to carry out all those mergers and aquisitions. It takes a lot of work to steal the company pension you know!! Pension? Bah! Who needs it. It's much more fullfilling to scrounge for bottles in the garbage cans.

I really have to send that contribution to the RNC. After all, I have to thank them for having extremely limited, and sometimes no health care coverage whatsoever. Shoot. Why waste money on health care. I should just curl up a corner and die if I get injured. That would save a ton of money for Richard Rainwaters Columbia/HCA HMO system. All the more so that he can give more money to the Republican party.

What would life be, without armies of homeless people to accost you for change, thanks to the free trade policies that have sent all our manufacturing jobs away for slave labor. Why, it would be so boring.

And silly us, accusing Bush of lying about the crime statistics. Why just because 5 of my friends cars have been broken into in the last year, doesn't really mean much. I'm glad that our president had the courage to say the truth. All you horrible liberals should should be REALLY ashamed for impunging the honor of our president.:mad:

[haus]

From Russ's blog at DailyKos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/2/10581/84829)


I've seen some strange things in my life, but I cannot describe the feeling I had, sitting on the House floor during Tuesday's State of the Union speech, listening to the President assert that his executive power is, basically, absolute, and watching several members of Congress stand up and cheer him on. It was surreal and disrespectful to our system of government and to the oath that as elected officials we have all sworn to uphold. Cheering? Clapping? Applause? All for violating the law?

[sweetpea]

Wow. I don't know where we go from here if I can't even get you to agree that Pat Buchanan is a good example of a conservative authority figure. I find your Joe Lieberman - Harry Belafonte comparison bizarre to say the least. It'd be like me contending that Teddy Kennedy is unqualified to speak about what it means to be a liberal.

I think it would be interesting to see how much we truly have in common as far as a belief system is concerned and to try to determine at exactly what juncture we separate ourselves. Answer these questions for me if you would:

- Do you believe it is a primary responsibility of government to protect the lives, safety and security of its citizens?

If yes then....

- Do you believe that we should risk the lives of our military personnel in combat only when absolutely necessary and there is no other recourse?

If yes then....

- Do you believe the situation immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq represented a scenario that left the US with no recourse other than to commit our troops to combat?

I think it's plain that I will never get anywhere in my arguments with you and you can rest assured that yours will not sway me, so why not make an attempt to at least understand each other better? If you aren't interested and don't want to reply....I understand. In similar situations with other conservatives I have found that they would rather just continue to rail about how wrong I am rather than to make an attempt to see where and why we disagree. I just find the incredible chasm between left and right in this country to be mind-boggling and quite fascinating in a strange sort of way.

I won't be back online until Monday as I too am traveling internationally but, anyway, have a great weekend....

:toast:
---

I'll keep it short and sweet.

Yes.
No.
Yes.

A couple of questions for you.

How many more empty UN resolutions would you have been willing to listen to?

How many times should the US threaten the use of force without following through before we lose credibility?

Do you think that there are Islamic fundamentalists in the world that want us dead?

Do you consider elections in Iraq a positive or negative?

Do you see ANYthing positive coming form Iraq?

[BenDover]

I see we've parted ways philosphically really early here. Not a big surprise I suppose.

Your questions:

- None
- No opinion
- Yes
- Positive
- Sure. But nothing that's worth the lives of our troops.