President George W. Bush [Archive] - Broadlands Homeowners Association Forums

gammonbabe

11-03-2004, 03:27 PM

I'm sorry, I can not accept this man as my president. I chose to be a citizen of this country five years ago. I did so because I love this country. America was the good guys, the country that does the right thing.

Four years ago we elected Bush. We are not the good guys anymore, and we are not doing the right thing anymore. I have never been as pained as I was when we marched into Iraq. I had the same pain this morning when I realized that 51% of my fellow americans see nothing wrong with us being an agressor that has killed many many people, sees nothing wrong with being lied to and manipulated, and sees nothing wrong with having someone elses morals shoved down their throats. It made me physically ill to find out that I am party of a minority. I was convinced that the polls were wrong, and that most americans could not stomach the idea of us having killed all those people for no reason.

I will suffer through the next four years, feeling helpless watching this man destroy everything this nation stands for ... life, liberty, and justice for all. But I won't accept him as my president. He is the president of this country, he will never be my president. And while I watch him trying to clean up his mess I will keep up the fight to get someone into the White House that will reinstate our status in the world, that will make us who we were ... strong and proud because we are a country lead by reason, not by emotional and religious zealots.

~M.

upa

11-03-2004, 03:33 PM

quote:Originally posted by Azsweepay

Attention gays, pro-choice, non-WASP people of the world, the Bush Reich is coming to instill "moral-values" on you...And if you have oil, you get our very special attention.

Gregg

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Well, it's good to see at least someone is trying to by a moral role model.

Not a Gregg

Pats_fan

11-03-2004, 03:35 PM

quote:Originally posted by upa

quote:Originally posted by Azsweepay

Attention gays, pro-choice, non-WASP people of the world, the Bush Reich is coming to instill "moral-values" on you...And if you have oil, you get our very special attention.

Gregg

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Well, it's good to see at least someone is trying to by a moral role model.

Not a Gregg
It is one thing to be a moral role model. It is another to use your power to change one of our country's most sacred documents to affirmatively discriminate against those who don't fit your "model."

Azsweepay

11-03-2004, 03:39 PM

It is sad that we are really a nation that is broken into two major divisions; the rural conservatives (majority) that are living in a fantasy land about how if everyone would just be like us the world would be a better place, and the urban progressives (minority) who understand that it's the fact that we are not all the same that makes this country truly great. There are only two options for the enlightened (the current minority)...education or natural selection.

:)

Gregg

Zansu

11-03-2004, 03:43 PM

Personally I mourn the moderate middle that seems to have disappeared.

tyger31

11-03-2004, 03:46 PM

Gammonbabe - I agree with you 100%...it's going to be a long four years!

jaeris

11-03-2004, 03:52 PM

Well said gammonbabe - I agree with you 100 per cent as well. I really cannot understand why any intelligent person would reelect this man or what good he's done for this country while in office.

jaeris

hornerjo

11-03-2004, 04:00 PM

Thats too bad, because 58.8+ million Americans understand - and I'm proud to be one of them!

W2!

John

---------------
Got Broadband?

cricket

11-03-2004, 04:03 PM

At least when clinton lied nobody died!

quote:Originally posted by upa

quote:Originally posted by Azsweepay

Attention gays, pro-choice, non-WASP people of the world, the Bush Reich is coming to instill "moral-values" on you...And if you have oil, you get our very special attention.

Gregg

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Well, it's good to see at least someone is trying to by a moral role model.

Not a Gregg

exrook

11-03-2004, 04:18 PM

quote:Originally posted by Pats_fan
It is one thing to be a moral role model. It is another to use your power to change one of our country's most sacred documents to affirmatively discriminate against those who don't fit your "model."

Last time I checked, the last constitutional amendment ratifed was in 1992.

We have a nice system of checks and balances that prevent one branch from doing just what you seem to imply above. And although a number of states passed measures that "affimatively discriminate against those who don't fit their 'model'", that is a long way from the two-thirds needed to call a convention, let alone the three-quarters needed to ratify an amendment.

exrook

11-03-2004, 04:19 PM

quote:Originally posted by cricket

At least when clinton lied nobody died!

Ever see 'Black Hawk Down'?

Mearen

11-03-2004, 04:21 PM

quote:Originally posted by cricket

At least when clinton lied nobody died!

quote:Originally posted by upa

quote:Originally posted by Azsweepay

Attention gays, pro-choice, non-WASP people of the world, the Bush Reich is coming to instill "moral-values" on you...And if you have oil, you get our very special attention.

Gregg

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Well, it's good to see at least someone is trying to by a moral role model.

Not a Gregg

Vince Foster.

exrook

11-03-2004, 04:26 PM

quote:Originally posted by Azsweepay

It is sad that we are really a nation that is broken into two major divisions; the rural conservatives (majority) that are living in a fantasy land about how if everyone would just be like us the world would be a better place, and the urban progressives (minority) who understand that it's the fact that we are not all the same that makes this country truly great. There are only two options for the enlightened (the current minority)...education or natural selection.

:)

Gregg

Interesting article: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041103/pl_nm/election_democrats_dc

A couple excerpts:

"I think this is a realigning election. The Democrats are going to have to get used to permanent minority status for a generation or two," said Tom Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

"The party doesn't know what it stands for any more. The Republicans have built majorities around their ideas, which can be boiled down to a few simple statements. The Democrats fish around for issues where they think there already are majorities," said Schaller, a Democrat.

.....

"The Democrats' positions on guns, God and gays has alienated millions of suburban and rural voters. The party needs to find a way to talk to them again if it is going to win national elections but it won't be easy," said University of Texas political scientist Bruce Buchanan.

Republican political consultant Bill Greener said people in the nation's "heartland," where Republicans racked up one victory over another, often saw urban Democrats on the East and West Coasts as smug and elitist.

.....

In the immediate term, the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is likely to be between those on the left led by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (news - web sites), who will argue that the party needs to sharpen its differences with Republicans, and those who would like to see the party find a way to appeal again to middle class and rural voters who appear to have written the party off.

"We're sick and tired of losing," said Steve Achelpohl, head of the Nebraska Democratic Party. "There are a lot of angry candidates out here because our candidates were better qualified, and they didn't win."

Brooks5

11-03-2004, 04:29 PM

I've been kind of missing the good old fashioned "republicans are stupid and evil" line of intelligent reasoning that level-headed citizens like Chris, Mary Jo, et al. used to grace us with, but I see her/their/its spirit lives on. Not quite the same level of spunk, but humorous nonetheless.

Pats_fan

11-03-2004, 04:40 PM

quote:Originally posted by exrook

quote:Originally posted by Pats_fan
It is one thing to be a moral role model. It is another to use your power to change one of our country's most sacred documents to affirmatively discriminate against those who don't fit your "model."

Last time I checked, the last constitutional amendment ratifed was in 1992.

We have a nice system of checks and balances that prevent one branch from doing just what you seem to imply above. And although a number of states passed measures that "affimatively discriminate against those who don't fit their 'model'", that is a long way from the two-thirds needed to call a convention, let alone the three-quarters needed to ratify an amendment.
Wow. We've got a constitutional scholar on our hands, ladies and gentlemen! Thanks for enlightening me about...what did you call them..."checks and balances?" Thanks. I had never heard of those (;)).

I find it interesting that you chose to attack my (admittedly exaggerated) statement rather than defend what GWB would do if he had the power to change the constitution on his own. Maybe a constitutional amendment won't be necessary, after all, though. With a Republican President, a solidly Republican Congress, and a Supreme Court that looks to get even more conservative over the next four years, GWB could probably introduce discriminatory legislation, get it passed, and then have it blessed by the Supremes.

What would you think of that??? Do you endorse GWB's efforts to codify discrimination into our constitution?

Dutchml

11-03-2004, 04:44 PM

The democrats would have been blown out if not for the voters in the big cities...New York, Philadelphia, DC, San Francisco, Denver, Atlanta, Chicago, LA. It's their own fault they can't appeal to the other 95% of the country that can't identify with big city issues. That's what Mayors are for, not Presidents.

Brooks5

11-03-2004, 04:49 PM

quote:Originally posted by greggbroadlands

Maybe someone can help understand what Bush has done in the last 4 years that has been so great as to want to re-elect him. A short list even.

For starters, had enough basic decency to keep his pants on while on the phone ordering troops into battle; freed millions of people from oppression (I thought the idea of liberty was kind of our thing); decided to seek out and destroy terrorists before they kill us; never bowed to the pressures of a bunch of corrupt foreign governments (I'm thinking oil-for-food scam here) who have no interest whatsoever in their own people's security, let alone ours, etc.

Oh, and just a guess, but I think he has enough of a basic understanding of what America's devotion to freedom means so that he would likely never send government thugs to raid the home of an innocent family at gunpoint (on Easter weekend) to kidnap a 6-year old boy and send him back to the communist prison he had just miraculously escaped from. (I'll take John Ashcroft over Janet Reno any day).

But that's just a short list.

exrook

11-03-2004, 05:03 PM

quote:Originally posted by Pats_fan

quote:Originally posted by exrook

quote:Originally posted by Pats_fan
It is one thing to be a moral role model. It is another to use your power to change one of our country's most sacred documents to affirmatively discriminate against those who don't fit your "model."

Last time I checked, the last constitutional amendment ratifed was in 1992.

We have a nice system of checks and balances that prevent one branch from doing just what you seem to imply above. And although a number of states passed measures that "affimatively discriminate against those who don't fit their 'model'", that is a long way from the two-thirds needed to call a convention, let alone the three-quarters needed to ratify an amendment.
Wow. We've got a constitutional scholar on our hands, ladies and gentlemen! Thanks for enlightening me about...what did you call them..."checks and balances?" Thanks. I had never heard of those (;)).

I find it interesting that you chose to attack my (admittedly exaggerated) statement rather than defend what GWB would do if he had the power to change the constitution on his own. Maybe a constitutional amendment won't be necessary, after all, though. With a Republican President, a solidly Republican Congress, and a Supreme Court that looks to get even more conservative over the next four years, GWB could probably introduce discriminatory legislation, get it passed, and then have it blessed by the Supremes.

What would you think of that??? Do you endorse GWB's efforts to codify discrimination into our constitution?

"Attack"? I called you on what you describe as an "(admittedly exaggerated) statement" and you interpret that as an attack. Wow, you must have a very thin skin.

As far as your other questions - it will be an interesting four years, though not as bleak as you seem to paint. Republicans have a majority in the Senate, but not the super majority required confirm Justices. I expect a long drawn-out process as the Democrats exert their influence.

I don't see how my personal views on gay marriage matter to this discussion - I'll just say that the issue had very little influence on how I voted.

Dutchml

11-03-2004, 05:07 PM

By the way, did Lockhart's extreme optimism late last night remind anyone of the Iraqi information minister when Baghdad was being overrun?

Brooks5

11-03-2004, 05:17 PM

quote:Originally posted by Dutchml

By the way, did Lockhart's extreme optimism late last night remind anyone of the Iraqi information minister when Baghdad was being overrun?

Good observation. But my favorite "whistling past the graveyard" moment had to be Susan Estrich trying to explain the accuracy of the exit polls. That was downright entertaining.

neilz

11-03-2004, 08:08 PM

quote:Originally posted by Zansu

Personally I mourn the moderate middle that seems to have disappeared.

For once, I agree with my wife !!

Neil Z.
Resident since 1999

Dkukrer

11-03-2004, 08:16 PM

Gammonbabe - I agree with you. Well said.

Denise

greggbroadlands

11-03-2004, 08:45 PM

quote:Originally posted by Brooks5

quote:Originally posted by greggbroadlands

Maybe someone can help understand what Bush has done in the last 4 years that has been so great as to want to re-elect him. A short list even.

For starters, had enough basic decency to keep his pants on while on the phone ordering troops into battle; freed millions of people from oppression (I thought the idea of liberty was kind of our thing); decided to seek out and destroy terrorists before they kill us; never bowed to the pressures of a bunch of corrupt foreign governments (I'm thinking oil-for-food scam here) who have no interest whatsoever in their own people's security, let alone ours, etc.

Oh, and just a guess, but I think he has enough of a basic understanding of what America's devotion to freedom means so that he would likely never send government thugs to raid the home of an innocent family at gunpoint (on Easter weekend) to kidnap a 6-year old boy and send him back to the communist prison he had just miraculously escaped from. (I'll take John Ashcroft over Janet Reno any day).

But that's just a short list.

Hmmm, ok, here we go. Kept his pants on, but attacked a country to defend his Daddys name, because GHB didn't finish the job. Freed millions of people from oppression, hmmm, I thought we went to Iraq because there were WOMD, and a link to Al Queda, oh I guess it was to free people from oppression. Seek out and destroy terrorists?? Where's Osama? The terrorists are now flooding into Iraq and killing US soldiers everyday, if we weren't there, they couldn't kill us. And you shouldn't mention GWB and oil in the same breath, funny how the oil fields in Iraq were protected and the tons of weapons are gone, in the hands of the terrorists. I thought we were fighting terrorism there??

Maybe we should just invade Cuba and release them from their oppression too, what do you think? Still no reasons in my book to vote for him.

vweisenburg

11-03-2004, 08:48 PM

quote:Originally posted by gammonbabe

I'm sorry, I can not accept this man as my president. I chose to be a citizen of this country five years ago. I did so because I love this country. America was the good guys, the country that does the right thing.

Four years ago we elected Bush. We are not the good guys anymore, and we are not doing the right thing anymore. I have never been as pained as I was when we marched into Iraq. I had the same pain this morning when I realized that 51% of my fellow americans see nothing wrong with us being an agressor that has killed many many people, sees nothing wrong with being lied to and manipulated, and sees nothing wrong with having someone elses morals shoved down their throats. It made me physically ill to find out that I am party of a minority. I was convinced that the polls were wrong, and that most americans could not stomach the idea of us having killed all those people for no reason.

I will suffer through the next four years, feeling helpless watching this man destroy everything this nation stands for ... life, liberty, and justice for all. But I won't accept him as my president. He is the president of this country, he will never be my president. And while I watch him trying to clean up his mess I will keep up the fight to get someone into the White House that will reinstate our status in the world, that will make us who we were ... strong and proud because we are a country lead by reason, not by emotional and religious zealots.

~M.

How was liberating Iraq from one of the most brutal dictators of the past 3 centuries not the right thing? This country (and a slect few allies with courage and integrity) have accepted the hard job of defeating the murderous thugs whose single purpose is to destroy the freedom that our nations enjoy and hold dear. Part and parcel of the campaign to eliminate those who practice terrorism is the destruction of the nation states that both harbor and materially support terrorists. The destruction of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from Iraq were vital to securing the future of the free world.

Exactly who did we kill for no reason? The Taliban, the Republican Guard, the Fedayeen, al-qaeda members, the terrorist thugs killing our soldiers who are trying to stabilize and rebuild Iraq.

Restore our status in the world? As what? The world hates us because we do not bow to the will of the UN. France hates us because we screwed up their sweetheart deals with Iraq for oil and arms. Germany opposed the invasion for the same reasons. Who else in the world is it that we need to "regain status" with? Last time I looked the UK, Israel, Italy, Poland, Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, India, Austrailia, Japan, Uzbekistan, and several other east european nations are with us in how we are prosecuting the war on terrorist and their host nations. I could care less that France, Germany, China, Syria, Egypt, et al. are unhappy with our policies. The President of the United States takes an oath to defend America first and foremost, that does no include taking an opinion poll to determine whether the world community supports our actions. I thank God that the American people understand that protecting the nation we have fought and sacrificed to build sometimes will result in us being unpopular in the halls of the UN or the capitals around the world and there is nothing wrong with that.

L0stS0ul

11-03-2004, 08:54 PM

vweisenburg,

Well Said!

vweisenburg

11-03-2004, 09:11 PM

quote:Originally posted by greggbroadlands

quote:Originally posted by Brooks5

quote:Originally posted by greggbroadlands

Maybe someone can help understand what Bush has done in the last 4 years that has been so great as to want to re-elect him. A short list even.

For starters, had enough basic decency to keep his pants on while on the phone ordering troops into battle; freed millions of people from oppression (I thought the idea of liberty was kind of our thing); decided to seek out and destroy terrorists before they kill us; never bowed to the pressures of a bunch of corrupt foreign governments (I'm thinking oil-for-food scam here) who have no interest whatsoever in their own people's security, let alone ours, etc.

Oh, and just a guess, but I think he has enough of a basic understanding of what America's devotion to freedom means so that he would likely never send government thugs to raid the home of an innocent family at gunpoint (on Easter weekend) to kidnap a 6-year old boy and send him back to the communist prison he had just miraculously escaped from. (I'll take John Ashcroft over Janet Reno any day).

But that's just a short list.

Hmmm, ok, here we go. Kept his pants on, but attacked a country to defend his Daddys name, because GHB didn't finish the job. Freed millions of people from oppression, hmmm, I thought we went to Iraq because there were WOMD, and a link to Al Queda, oh I guess it was to free people from oppression. Seek out and destroy terrorists?? Where's Osama? The terrorists are now flooding into Iraq and killing US soldiers everyday, if we weren't there, they couldn't kill us. And you shouldn't mention GWB and oil in the same breath, funny how the oil fields in Iraq were protected and the tons of weapons are gone, in the hands of the terrorists. I thought we were fighting terrorism there??

Maybe we should just invade Cuba and release them from their oppression too, what do you think? Still no reasons in my book to vote for him.

Can you seperate yourself from the Kerry talking points for one second? September 11th changed the way America has to respond to potential and realized threats to the security of America. President Bush gets criticized for not figuring out the plot to attack us and preventing it. Let's say that the CIA walked into the Oval office 30 days before 9/11 and told Bush that they were fairly certain that Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan were planning a large scale attack on the US in the near future. So Bush launches an invasion of Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and capture/kill Osama and his thugs.
How would you have reacted to that? At that point the Taliban had never attacked us. Using your logic, the US can only respond when we have been attacked. Fast forward to today. You may be comfortable with the US waiting until there is 100% verifiable proof that a nation state/group is going to atttack us before we attack them. Unfortunatley, to get to the 100% threshhold the attaack will have to have already occured. As far as I am concerned, I would prefer my President to attack and destroy any person/group/country for which any portion of intelligence shows that they are a immediate or potential threat.

Your comments on the protection of the oil field vs. securing the weapons are baseless. Exaclty how many soldiers have you spoken to that confirm they were told to secure the oil fields and abandon the weapon depots? If you talked to the soldiers both in Iraq today as well as those who have rotated back, like I do, you would know just how ridiculous those accusations are and they are percieved by the troops as criticizing how they performed during and after the invasion.

By the way, if the BS about the 380 tons of explosives (MDX, HTX) being looted from the ammo dump was true, they would be useless to the terrorists who are attacking our troops. These explosives were stored in granular form and are useless unless combined with several other compounds. MDX and HTX are not like C5 (which is being used by the terrorists to build their bombs).

vweisenburg

11-03-2004, 09:32 PM

quote:Originally posted by gammonbabe

America will get what she deserves.

Saddam Hussein killed 300,000 people in 34 years. He is a monster.
We killed 100,000 people in 18 months. We are liberators.

We have brought efficiency to Iraq.

~M.

The US killed more than 100K in 18 months, however, it is disingeuous and disgusting to compare the death tolls of Saddam to the US. The vast majority of Saddam's victims (and they were well more than 300K of his own people he murdered and tortured, since that number does not reflect the innocent Kuwaitis, Iranians, Kurds, and Turks he killed in his various wars) were innocent civilians. Contrast that to the breakdown of casualties caused by the US since the first day of the invasion

Civlians - 17K (this number includes the terrorist thugs called "insurgents" that have been killed by the coalition forces as well as the Iraqis killed in attacks by insurgents)

Iraqi Soldiers - 45K to 140K (estimates vary)

Does it suck that even a few innocent civlilians are killed? Absolutely, but unfortunately this is a war. If you read your history books, we killed hundreds of thousands of innocent German citizens during the firebombing of Dresden toward the end of WWII. Today's military conducts operations designed to minimize the possibility of collateral damage and civilian casualties, usually at the cost of the lives of American soldiers.

greggbroadlands

11-03-2004, 09:57 PM

vweisenburg, I take you think the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with GHB. Exactly how was Saddam a threat to the US? I understand he was a brutal dictator to the people under him, just why was he suddenly a threat to our National security? Our intelligence told us he had WMD. Why not let the inspectors finish their jobs? Why the rush? Saddam wasn't going anywhere. We had control of the skies over Iraq at the time. I just think we're now in a bad position made by bad decisions made by a bad President. Your comment "attack and destroy any person/group/country for which any portion of intelligence shows that they are a immediate or potential threat." paints pretty broad strokes. I'm all for weeding out of terrorism where it grows. But taking over large countries with no exit strategy is going too far. Bush thought the Iraq people were going to welcome us with open arms and we'd just say, "your welcome" and leave. Guess it hasn't worked out that way. Why aren't we going after Osama with the same gusto?

US soldiers did not secure oil fields? I didn't accuse anyone of abandoning weapon depots. Are you saying there are not missing explosives? If so, what happened to them?

And I'm certainly not criticizing US soldiers. They're the best. They do what they're ordered to do and do it well. Orders come from the top.

vweisenburg

11-03-2004, 11:29 PM

quote:Originally posted by greggbroadlands

vweisenburg, I take you think the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with GHB. Exactly how was Saddam a threat to the US? I understand he was a brutal dictator to the people under him, just why was he suddenly a threat to our National security? Our intelligence told us he had WMD. Why not let the inspectors finish their jobs? Why the rush? Saddam wasn't going anywhere. We had control of the skies over Iraq at the time. I just think we're now in a bad position made by bad decisions made by a bad President. Your comment "attack and destroy any person/group/country for which any portion of intelligence shows that they are a immediate or potential threat." paints pretty broad strokes. I'm all for weeding out of terrorism where it grows. But taking over large countries with no exit strategy is going too far. Bush thought the Iraq people were going to welcome us with open arms and we'd just say, "your welcome" and leave. Guess it hasn't worked out that way. Why aren't we going after Osama with the same gusto?

US soldiers did not secure oil fields? I didn't accuse anyone of abandoning weapon depots. Are you saying there are not missing explosives? If so, what happened to them?

And I'm certainly not criticizing US soldiers. They're the best. They do what they're ordered to do and do it well. Orders come from the top.

Let the inspectors finish what jobs? The same ones he lied to over the past 10+ years? Yes I do not believe it had anything to do with Bush 41. There was no one prior to the invasion who believed that Iraq did not have WMD's and Saddam had not fufilled the commitments he agreed to in either the cease fire he signed after the first gulf war nor was he in compliance with the 13 previous UN resolutions. So given the intelligence we had at the time (which included British intelligence suggesting that Iraq was rebuilding their nuclear weapons program), just how long should we have waited? Until he had nukes like North Korea? America can no longer wait and err on the side of caution when it comes to adressing potential threats to our security.

Iraq is also part of a larger strategy to eliminate the roots of fanatical terrorism, the opressive regimes thoughtout the world. Free societies do not breed entire generations of hate. Establishing an example of democratic freedom in the middle east will help in the destabilization of the regimes in Iran, Syria, and others, allowing the moderate factions of those populations to grow and thrive.

The problems with the rebuilding and stabilization of Iraq post-combat have very little to do with the planning by the White House. What happened is that the military did not expect the Iraqi Army and especially the Republican Guard to disband and blend into the population almost immediately. It was assumed the march to Baghdad would take longer and we would kill many more of the Saddam loyalists before the end of major combat operations. Instead, they fled into the cities and unfortunately are now a large portion of the so called insurgency.

Yes, I do paint with a broad brush. I mean to. In my opinion, we need to finish the job in the mideast by invading Syria, destroying the nuclear capabilites of Iran and North Korea, helping Israel destroy Hezbollah, and pressuring Pakistan into allowing us to deploy sufficent troops in the nothern provinces where Osama is more than likely hiding.

According to the soldiers I have spoken too, we secured every possible ammo dump, museum, government building, port, and yes oil field (since Iraq's only exportable product is oil, ensuring that they could resume production as quickly as possible was key to the rebuilding process). I don't know if the explosives were destroyed, stolen, or moved before the war. What I do know is that we have destroyed over 400K tons of weapons since the start of the war, so if all the UN can find missing is 380 tons of explosives that are useless to terrorists I am not that concerned about it.

jaeris

11-04-2004, 12:09 AM

Clichés are especially prone to scrambling because they become meaningless through overuse. In this case an expression which originally meant “it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all” is rendered senseless by being transformed into the now-common “I could care less.” Think about it: if you could care less, that means you care some. The original already drips sarcasm, so it’s pointless to argue that the newer version is “ironic.” People who misuse this phrase are just being careless.

jaeris

vweisenburg

11-04-2004, 12:45 AM

quote:Originally posted by jaeris

Clichés are especially prone to scrambling because they become meaningless through overuse. In this case an expression which originally meant “it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all” is rendered senseless by being transformed into the now-common “I could care less.” Think about it: if you could care less, that means you care some. The original already drips sarcasm, so it’s pointless to argue that the newer version is “ironic.” People who misuse this phrase are just being careless.

jaeris

Are you serious? What I meant to say was "I couldn't care less" as in "I don't give a rats A** what France, Germany, etc.. think". But hey thanks for the lesson in proper usage of cliches. I shudder to think about how many more times I would've carelessly used the language if you hadn't corrected me.

neilz

11-04-2004, 12:47 AM

quote:Originally posted by vweisenburg

Yes, I do paint with a broad brush. I mean to. In my opinion, we need to finish the job in the mideast by invading Syria, destroying the nuclear capabilites of Iran and North Korea, helping Israel destroy Hezbollah, and pressuring Pakistan into allowing us to deploy sufficent troops in the nothern provinces where Osama is more than likely hiding.

And who's sons and daughters are you going to be sending to do all this ?

quote:According to the soldiers I have spoken too, we secured every possible ammo dump, museum, government building, port, and yes oil field (since Iraq's only exportable product is oil, ensuring that they could resume production as quickly as possible was key to the rebuilding process). I don't know if the explosives were destroyed, stolen, or moved before the war. What I do know is that we have destroyed over 400K tons of weapons since the start of the war, so if all the UN can find missing is 380 tons of explosives that are useless to terrorists I am not that concerned about it.

Somehow I don't think every possible dump was secured, we have GI's being blown up daily by these secured weapons. And its not the UN saying that the 380 tons are missing, its the UN Atomic Regulatory Commission, the one is that charged with insuring that atomic weapons are not proliferating. Big difference between this explosive, which can be used to trigger nuclear weapons, and a 20 inch arty shell. Yes the RDX is in granular form, so was the 2 tons of aluminum nitrate that was used to blow up the Federal building in Oklahoma City. BTW ... its C4 that is the explosive, C-5 is an aircraft !!

Goverment buildings secured ?, the oil ministry maybe, while others were looted daily by Iraqis. Sure the soldiers you talked too did what they could, when they could, but they could only do so much with the amount of troops available, which was secure the Green Zone which was Saddam's govenment center, walled off from the rest of Baghdad.

When Gen Shinseki said to Congress that he thought it would take a few hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq, he was publically dressed down by his civilian superiors. A heck of a good way to insure that you'll only get the answers you want to hear. And sure enough, they did.

There are alot of great GI's serving in Iraq, I know of one young man who's served two tours there already. In his first tour, he was in the original group of Marines who fought through Iraq. In his second, he was with the group that was supposed to head into Fallujah in April. His attitude is great, I'll go where I'm sent. However, that attitude is more that he wants to go to protect other Marines, than 'liberate' Iraqis. Based on what he told me, its as bad as it was in the late 60's in Vietnam. You have no idea who is friend or foe on the street.

We had 500,000+ troops in Vietnam at the height of the war, along with some South Vietnamese army. Many of the SVA officers and men collaborated with the NVA and VietCong. You never knew who was friend or foe.

Today it sounds much the same, except in this case, the country is much bigger, and we have less troops.

But things are getting better!!

I have no problem with us going into Iraq, however, I have alot of problems with the fact that no one in this administration admits to this day, they should have done things differently, and that they made mistakes in judgement.

Neil Z.
Resident since 1999

neilz

11-04-2004, 12:51 AM

quote:Originally posted by neilz

quote:Originally posted by vweisenburg

Yes, I do paint with a broad brush. I mean to. In my opinion, we need to finish the job in the mideast by invading Syria, destroying the nuclear capabilites of Iran and North Korea, helping Israel destroy Hezbollah, and pressuring Pakistan into allowing us to deploy sufficent troops in the nothern provinces where Osama is more than likely hiding.

And who's sons and daughters are you going to be sending to do all this ? Where are they coming from, I seriously doubt that we're going to be able to keep the all-volunteer military at full strength. Call up the Reserves and Guard ?? Been there, tried that, not enough of them. Put in Stop Loss ?? Sure, I've done my 20 years, now I can retire .. NOPE .. think again. Been out for 5 years, well, get back in uniform ... !!

Draft .. hell no .. the House of Representatives said it wasn't going to happen. Oh well ... we'll send those volunteers back and back again as many times as we have to.

quote:According to the soldiers I have spoken too, we secured every possible ammo dump, museum, government building, port, and yes oil field (since Iraq's only exportable product is oil, ensuring that they could resume production as quickly as possible was key to the rebuilding process). I don't know if the explosives were destroyed, stolen, or moved before the war. What I do know is that we have destroyed over 400K tons of weapons since the start of the war, so if all the UN can find missing is 380 tons of explosives that are useless to terrorists I am not that concerned about it.

Somehow I don't think every possible dump was secured, we have GI's being blown up daily by these secured weapons. And its not the UN saying that the 380 tons are missing, its the UN Atomic Regulatory Commission, the one is that charged with insuring that atomic weapons are not proliferating. Big difference between this explosive, which can be used to trigger nuclear weapons, and a 20 inch arty shell. Yes the RDX is in granular form, so was the 2 tons of aluminum nitrate that was used to blow up the Federal building in Oklahoma City. BTW ... its C4 that is the explosive, C-5 is an aircraft !!

Goverment buildings secured ?, the oil ministry maybe, while others were looted daily by Iraqis. Sure the soldiers you talked too did what they could, when they could, but they could only do so much with the amount of troops available, which was secure the Green Zone which was Saddam's govenment center, walled off from the rest of Baghdad.

When Gen Shinseki said to Congress that he thought it would take a few hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq, he was publically dressed down by his civilian superiors. A heck of a good way to insure that you'll only get the answers you want to hear. And sure enough, they did.

There are alot of great GI's serving in Iraq, I know of one young man who's served two tours there already. In his first tour, he was in the original group of Marines who fought through Iraq. In his second, he was with the group that was supposed to head into Fallujah in April. His attitude is great, I'll go where I'm sent. However, that attitude is more that he wants to go to protect other Marines, than 'liberate' Iraqis. Based on what he told me, its as bad as it was in the late 60's in Vietnam. You have no idea who is friend or foe on the street.

We had 500,000+ troops in Vietnam at the height of the war, along with some South Vietnamese army. Many of the SVA officers and men collaborated with the NVA and VietCong. You never knew who was friend or foe.

Today it sounds much the same, except in this case, the country is much bigger, and we have less troops.

But things are getting better!!

I have no problem with us going into Iraq, however, I have alot of problems with the fact that no one in this administration admits to this day, they should have done things differently, and that they made mistakes in judgement.

Neil Z.
Resident since 1999

Neil Z.
Resident since 1999

vweisenburg

11-04-2004, 01:01 AM

vweisenburg

11-04-2004, 01:43 AM

quote:Originally posted by neilz

And who's sons and daughters are you going to be sending to do all this ?

How about my wife, who is an officer in the Air Force reserves? How about the 5 friends I have already lost in Iraq and Afghanistan? I see the casualty reports every day and it breaks my heart, but the sacrifice of those young men and women is the price we must pay to protect the ideals of America as we know it. Failure to win this war (not just Iraq, but the destruction of those who would destroy us and their safe havens) will only result in a greater cost of American lives futher down the road.

quote:
Somehow I don't think every possible dump was secured, we have GI's being blown up daily by these secured weapons. And its not the UN saying that the 380 tons are missing, its the UN Atomic Regulatory Commission, the one is that charged with insuring that atomic weapons are not proliferating. Big difference between this explosive, which can be used to trigger nuclear weapons, and a 20 inch arty shell. Yes the RDX is in granular form, so was the 2 tons of aluminum nitrate that was used to blow up the Federal building in Oklahoma City. BTW ... its C4 that is the explosive, C-5 is an aircraft !!

Excuse my poor typing, meant to say C4. I never said that every possible ammo dump was secured before any looting could have occured. My point was that this particular report (last time I checked the UN ARC was still part of the UN so how was I wrong on that) does not pinpoint when the material disappeared, and that the explosives that are possibly missing cannot be used in typical truck bombs (it cannot be used like fertilizer bombs) or roadside bombs. So it is not accurate to state that any of the 380 tons of explosives are being used against the troops.
quote:
Goverment buildings secured ?, the oil ministry maybe, while others were looted daily by Iraqis. Sure the soldiers you talked too did what they could, when they could, but they could only do so much with the amount of troops available, which was secure the Green Zone which was Saddam's govenment center, walled off from the rest of Baghdad.

When Gen Shinseki said to Congress that he thought it would take a few hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq, he was publically dressed down by his civilian superiors. A heck of a good way to insure that you'll only get the answers you want to hear. And sure enough, they did.

It wasn't just the civlians who thought Shinseki was full of S***. A large majority of the field officers also thought his numbers were high by a factor of 2. The problem with the "we need more troops" clamor is that when you put 100k addtional troops in country, only 20k to 25k of that number will be actual combat troops. I am not saying that I agreed with the force projections that were used in the inital planning. My preference would have been to level all of Baghdad to rubble with Air Strikes.
quote:
There are alot of great GI's serving in Iraq, I know of one young man who's served two tours there already. In his first tour, he was in the original group of Marines who fought through Iraq. In his second, he was with the group that was supposed to head into Fallujah in April. His attitude is great, I'll go where I'm sent. However, that attitude is more that he wants to go to protect other Marines, than 'liberate' Iraqis. Based on what he told me, its as bad as it was in the late 60's in Vietnam. You have no idea who is friend or foe on the street.

We had 500,000+ troops in Vietnam at the height of the war, along with some South Vietnamese army. Many of the SVA officers and men collaborated with the NVA and VietCong. You never knew who was friend or foe.

Today it sounds much the same, except in this case, the country is much bigger, and we have less troops.

But things are getting better!!

I have no problem with us going into Iraq, however, I have alot of problems with the fact that no one in this administration admits to this day, they should have done things differently, and that they made mistakes in judgement.

Neil Z.
Resident since 1999

No one can say this war has been perfect or has gone exactly to plan. And I hear some of the same sentiments from the soldiers I talk to about the ambivalence of the Iraqis, but I hear more often that they feel we are doing the right thing and that the majority of the Iraqi people they love this country and are thankful we removed Saddam from power.

Who do you want to admit to mistakes and which mistakes? I heard Gen. Franks say that the military did not anticpate the dissolution of the elite Iraqi forces before we even engaged them in combat. I heard the Army leadership state that based on their intelligence, they advised the President that there absolutely were WMD's still in Iraq and that they were completely surprised not to find any. I heard Rumsfeld say that we underestimated the level of the "insurgent" resistance.

veronicasmommi

11-04-2004, 07:22 AM

I think many of you need to pull out the tapes and watch the footage again of September 11th, the first world trade center bombing, the us cole bombing, the embassy bombings, etc. There are people in this world who just want to kill Americans, not just soldiers, civilians. They want to kill mothers, fathers children. Do you think the people who lost family members in these terror attacks are questioning our President? I am grateful that for once we have a president who will take the fight to terrorists or supporters of terrorists versus having the fight on our homeland. In case you all forget, Saddaam paid the families of palestinian suicide bombers for a job well done. That makes him a terrorist supporter. Aside of the WMDs, we should have gone into Iraq along time ago just for the human rights issues alone. Its very easy for you all to say what Bush has done wrong, but what would you do if you were in his shoes? His job is to do all that he can to protect America at all cost. Its a tough decision to make and I think he is making the right one. I for one do not want to have to worry about my child growing up in a world where she has to worry about someone wanting to kill her just because she is an American.

Homer Simpson

11-04-2004, 08:18 AM

quote:Originally posted by veronicasmommi

I think many of you need to pull out the tapes and watch the footage again of September 11th, the first world trade center bombing, the us cole bombing, the embassy bombings, etc. There are people in this world who just want to kill Americans, not just soldiers, civilians. They want to kill mothers, fathers children. Do you think the people who lost family members in these terror attacks are questioning our President? I am grateful that for once we have a president who will take the fight to terrorists or supporters of terrorists versus having the fight on our homeland. In case you all forget, Saddaam paid the families of palestinian suicide bombers for a job well done. That makes him a terrorist supporter. Aside of the WMDs, we should have gone into Iraq along time ago just for the human rights issues alone. Its very easy for you all to say what Bush has done wrong, but what would you do if you were in his shoes? His job is to do all that he can to protect America at all cost. Its a tough decision to make and I think he is making the right one. I for one do not want to have to worry about my child growing up in a world where she has to worry about someone wanting to kill her just because she is an American.

Yep Gays are a threat to America, Not! Howard Stern another threat! If it weren't for this stuff I would sleep easier.

Mearen

11-04-2004, 08:54 AM

All you have to do is take a look around you and see how the lack of moral integrity in this country does indeed harm America.

Homer Simpson

11-04-2004, 09:02 AM

quote:Originally posted by Mearen

All you have to do is take a look around you and see how the lack of moral integrity in this country does indeed harm America.

What business is it of your what consenting adults do behind closed doors, none. How would you like me to tell you that your religion is stupid and should be outlawed because it cause more problems then it solved? You wouldn't.

The push is already starting for a constitutional amendment. It wont happen thankfully due to the Northern states and cities but it scares me to see that America is going down this road where Rightest Fundamentalists think they can impose their religion and morals on everyone. To me there is no difference from that and what the Islamist extremist do. It's this close to the code of Hammurabi and Sharia law.

And before you say, how do you know I'm a christian, blah blah blah. If you believe your morals are better then everyone elses then 99.9% you're probably Southern Baptist or some other sect.

Farscape

11-04-2004, 09:05 AM

Mearen - Do you feel that gay people lack moral integrity? Do you honestly think that forcing ones beliefs on others is the right thing to do? What do you care what someone does as long as they do not harm anyone?

Some of the most hypocritcal people are highly religious and it is my opinion they are the ones who tend to lack moral integrity. Look at the Catholic priests who molested little boys- how moral is that? quote:Originally posted by Mearen

All you have to do is take a look around you and see how the lack of moral integrity in this country does indeed harm America.

Homer Simpson

11-04-2004, 09:07 AM

Yeah, and what about the sniper who was killing all the abortion doctors? Same as the death threat on Rushdie!

vweisenburg

11-04-2004, 09:28 AM

quote:Originally posted by Homer Simpson

quote:Originally posted by Mearen

All you have to do is take a look around you and see how the lack of moral integrity in this country does indeed harm America.

What business is it of your what consenting adults do behind closed doors, none. How would you like me to tell you that your religion is stupid and should be outlawed because it cause more problems then it solved? You wouldn't.

The push is already starting for a constitutional amendment. It wont happen thankfully due to the Northern states and cities but it scares me to see that America is going down this road where Rightest Fundamentalists think they can impose their religion and morals on everyone. To me there is no difference from that and what the Islamist extremist do. It's this close to the code of Hammurabi and Sharia law.

And before you say, how do you know I'm a christian, blah blah blah. If you believe your morals are better then everyone elses then 99.9% you're probably Southern Baptist or some other sect.

The Federal Marriage Amendment does not ban gay marriages. In fact, since it seems everyone wants to blame the Republicans as anti-gay, it was the democratic controlled Senate who passed and Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. The aim of DOMA or the FMA is not to ban gay marriages, FMA as originally proposed would bar state courts from requiring local governments to allow same-sex partners marriage or domestic partnership, or civil union status ("the legal incidents thereof"). This might prohibit any court from ordering that equal civil rights be granted among homosexual couples, such as these spousal exemptions and benefits.

What FMA does not preclude is the ability of the state legislatures to enact laws allowing gay marriage. So if a state wants to allow gay marriages they can, but it keeps federal and state judges from creating laws out of thin air (as the federal judges in Mass. did). It also addresses what some have interpreted as a legal problem with the original DOMA which is that the "full faith and credit clause" which requires states to recognize the "acts, records, and proceedings" of other states applies to marriages. Which would in effect allow a single state to determine the recognition of marriage for all other states.

For me this is not a morals issue, but a states rights vs. federal rights issue. Why shouldn't we let the indiviual states determine how they wish to interpret and apply marriage laws.

Homer Simpson

11-04-2004, 09:39 AM

quote: From Yahoo! News
Republicans also plan another crack at winning approval of a proposed White House-backed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

quote: from yahoo! News

Council of Churches: God Has No Place in U.S. Politics

GENEVA (Reuters) - God has no place in politics and should not have been used by churches in the United States to influence the presidential election, a council representing 342 Christian groups around the world said.

veronicasmommi

11-04-2004, 10:17 AM

You are focusing on one thing and one thing only, the gay issue. I agree with let the states decide. I did not say one thing about that issue. As for mearens comment, did he say gays were immoral? No he said morality is lacking in this world. You need to stop putting words in other peoples mouth. Everyone is allowed to their own opinion but be careful in trying to interpret it. There is a big lack of morality in this world and a big lack of responsibility. If you cannot see that this is an issue in every race, background or religion, than no one can make you see what you seem to not want to see.

veronicasmommi

11-04-2004, 10:19 AM

Oh, and the news is always right.

thndrkats

11-04-2004, 10:30 AM

I just read this entire thread and it's a confusing whining mess. I can't help but truly wonder what a democrat's "perfect" America would be. So far this much is clear about what they believe:

1) Middle americans are dumb hicks that can't think for themselves
2) The war in Iraq is a mistake, a failure, and pointless
3) We need to be pals with France and Germany
4) Morals should not be a part of governing the country
5) Standing up for freedom militarily is never justified unless we have France and Germany on our side.

Democrats: I'm interested in understanding what would your present-day America be like? (Keep in mind that 9/11 did happen and we are at war)

Thanks!

Farscape

11-04-2004, 10:32 AM

Veronica- I think you should let Mearen speak for his/herself. You are putting words into [u]my</u> mouth. I just asked a simple question stemming from a response that brought up the gay issue. Mearen's direct response to that implied that gays lack moral integrity. I asked Mearen the question to see if that was what he meant. I never said that homosexuality was the only issue. I also never said that the world is a perfect place. Practice what you preach and stop puttin words in other people's mouths. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I am speaking mine, sorry that you cannot handle it.
quote:Originally posted by veronicasmommi

You are focusing on one thing and one thing only, the gay issue. I agree with let the states decide. I did not say one thing about that issue. As for mearens comment, did he say gays were immoral? No he said morality is lacking in this world. You need to stop putting words in other peoples mouth. Everyone is allowed to their own opinion but be careful in trying to interpret it. There is a big lack of morality in this world and a big lack of responsibility. If you cannot see that this is an issue in every race, background or religion, than no one can make you see what you seem to not want to see.

veronicasmommi

11-04-2004, 10:37 AM

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including me. I don't have a problem with that. I have just found that alot of people on this site are focusing on the homosexual issue, hence the response I got from my earlier post. As for me stating that mearen did not put gay in his statement, I just stated a fact, he did not say gay is immoral and I was only posting what he said. I apologize if I took your post the wrong way and interpreted your post incorrectly.

Mearen

11-04-2004, 10:39 AM

quote:Originally posted by Farscape

Mearen - Do you feel that gay people lack moral integrity? Do you honestly think that forcing ones beliefs on others is the right thing to do? What do you care what someone does as long as they do not harm anyone?

Some of the most hypocritcal people are highly religious and it is my opinion they are the ones who tend to lack moral integrity. Look at the Catholic priests who molested little boys- how moral is that? quote:Originally posted by Mearen

All you have to do is take a look around you and see how the lack of moral integrity in this country does indeed harm America.

Do you understand what moral integrity really is? Do you really think moral integrety is in any way tied to organized religion? Do you really think society doesn't force it's views on everyone already? Do you really think there is no such thing as a victimless crime?

Farscape

11-04-2004, 11:04 AM

I fully understand what moral integrity is and organized religion is not it. People who lack moral integrity sometimes use organized religion to further their own causes through manipulation and brainwashing. Religion itself is not supposed to be that way, it is supposed to be something to believe in, something good, but it is often used for manipulation and hate.

Moral integrity does not equal organized religion, moral integrity is an individual thing. Do [u]you</u> know what moral integrity is? I never said that religion was the only negative force out there, all I asked was a question from your post that you have not answered.

Do you believe that gay people lack moral integrity?
quote:Originally posted by Mearen
[quote][i]Originally posted by Mearen
Do you understand what moral integrity really is? Do you really think moral integrety is in any way tied to organized religion? Do you really think society doesn't force it's views on everyone already? Do you really think there is no such thing as a victimless crime?

greggbroadlands

11-04-2004, 11:08 AM

quote:Originally posted by thndrkats

I just read this entire thread and it's a confusing whining mess. I can't help but truly wonder what a democrat's "perfect" America would be. So far this much is clear about what they believe:

1) Middle americans are dumb hicks that can't think for themselves
2) The war in Iraq is a mistake, a failure, and pointless
3) We need to be pals with France and Germany
4) Morals should not be a part of governing the country
5) Standing up for freedom militarily is never justified unless we have France and Germany on our side.

Democrats: I'm interested in understanding what would your present-day America be like? (Keep in mind that 9/11 did happen and we are at war)

Thanks!

1) Middle America? By geography or status?
2) Yes, the war in Iraq is a pointless mistake and a failure brought to you by our wonderful President.
3) We don't need to be pals with France and Gremany
4) No, religion should not be a part of governing our country.
5) We should not kill and invade anyone the President deems is a threat, if so we'd be into North Korea and Iran next. Well why not, kill them all and let God sort them out, right??

It wouldn't have a multi-trillion dollar debt like it has now....

thndrkats

11-04-2004, 11:18 AM

Thanks for the non-answer.

4) My liberal statement was that morals should not play a part in governing. And you said No, Religion should not be a part of governing. Here's the problem, there is a difference between morals and religion, even if sometimes they are tied. Should morals be a part of governing the country?

5) Remember, the president does not unilaterally send troops to war.

Homer Simpson

11-04-2004, 11:19 AM

quote:Originally posted by veronicasmommi

You are focusing on one thing and one thing only, the gay issue. I agree with let the states decide. I did not say one thing about that issue. As for mearens comment, did he say gays were immoral? No he said morality is lacking in this world. You need to stop putting words in other peoples mouth. Everyone is allowed to their own opinion but be careful in trying to interpret it. There is a big lack of morality in this world and a big lack of responsibility. If you cannot see that this is an issue in every race, background or religion, than no one can make you see what you seem to not want to see.

Puhlease! It was a direct response to my quote which did include gays. One can only conclude that Mearen is Homophobic and views it as immoral. Correct me if I'm wrong Mearen.

L0stS0ul

11-04-2004, 11:23 AM

hahaha this thread is cracking me up.

It's obvious how pissed the democrats are that they lost the election and by golly this thread proves it. They are not the majority and it pisses them off. There's no reasoning with a pissed off democrat. :D

Anyway I find it funny that gregg here answers a question on morality by stating that religion should not be involved. So I ask then, you can't be moral without religion? I was unaware of that lol. If morality = religion then yes I would hope that our governing body is religious. No matter what religion they are. But that's just by your definition...

thndrkats

11-04-2004, 11:34 AM

Ya know I'm probably appealing to the wrong group of people here cuz I haven't seen a rational democrat posting yet, but I'd like a democrat to describe what morality means to them. Good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral. In what capacity do you think these things should play a part in our society?

greggbroadlands

11-04-2004, 11:45 AM

The statement was, "4) Morals should not be a part of governing the country". NO means morals are fine to be part of the governing, but religion should not. How is it that is so difficult to understand. Oh gee there's a difference between morals and religion? Does Bush know that?

What's so moral about GWB? His policy on the environment or the war he started?

L0stS0ul

11-04-2004, 11:49 AM

lol read your post again, that's not what it says.

marielaveau

11-04-2004, 11:50 AM

to me, morality is how you treat others, and conversly the example you set in doing so. In short, the golden rule, which has nothing to do with organized religion.

thndrkats

11-04-2004, 11:54 AM

Seriously dude, you're still not answering the question. I'm not talking about GWB's morals! I'm talking about you explaining your position about morality.

greggbroadlands

11-04-2004, 12:00 PM

OK, morality, how you conduct yourself, knowing the difference between right and wrong. What's your take on it?

Homer Simpson

11-04-2004, 12:05 PM

It's funny how you assume that everyone who does not think the way you do is a Democrat. I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican.

I support the military and the war on Terror. I supported the Iraq war at first but I don't like the lack of planning in this stage or the fact Osama is still putting out tapes.

I support people upholding higher principles such as kindness, compassion, etc all attributes you would think apply to organized religion but then you have loonies like Fallwell saying its ok to kill gays and doctors who perform abortions.

It's ok to be religious, just keep it to yourself and in the church. If you think its ok to impose your morality on me then I will do likewise. There are so many religions, so many cults. How can you chose one based on a simple majority. You do that and I'll laugh my butt of when you're flavor of religion becomes the minority and becomes persecuted. In case you didn't know Hindus outnumber both Islam and Christians in the world and they are immigrating through our non-existent borders.

I'm not for abortions, but it's not my choice nor is it my burden. If you don't like what's on the TV or radio turn it off and for god sakes, take responsibility for raising your own children and stop blaming the radio, tv, video games for your failure as a parent.

afgm

11-04-2004, 12:19 PM

Homer, did you actually write this?:) It makes a lot of sense!

quote:Originally posted by Homer Simpson

It's funny how you assume that everyone who does not think the way you do is a Democrat. I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican.

I support the military and the war on Terror. I supported the Iraq war at first but I don't like the lack of planning in this stage or the fact Osama is still putting out tapes.

I support people upholding higher principles such as kindness, compassion, etc all attributes you would think apply to organized religion but then you have loonies like Fallwell saying its ok to kill gays and doctors who perform abortions.

It's ok to be religious, just keep it to yourself and in the church. If you think its ok to impose your morality on me then I will do likewise. There are so many religions, so many cults. How can you chose one based on a simple majority. You do that and I'll laugh my butt of when you're flavor of religion becomes the minority and becomes persecuted. In case you didn't know Hindus outnumber both Islam and Christians in the world and they are immigrating through our non-existent borders.

I'm not for abortions, but it's not my choice nor is it my burden. If you don't like what's on the TV or radio turn it off and for god sakes, take responsibility for raising your own children and stop blaming the radio, tv, video games for your failure as a parent.

Homer Simpson

11-04-2004, 12:30 PM

quote:Originally posted by afgm

Homer, did you actually write this?:) It makes a lot of sense!

quote:Originally posted by Homer Simpson

It's funny how you assume that everyone who does not think the way you do is a Democrat. I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican.

I support the military and the war on Terror. I supported the Iraq war at first but I don't like the lack of planning in this stage or the fact Osama is still putting out tapes.

I support people upholding higher principles such as kindness, compassion, etc all attributes you would think apply to organized religion but then you have loonies like Fallwell saying its ok to kill gays and doctors who perform abortions.

It's ok to be religious, just keep it to yourself and in the church. If you think its ok to impose your morality on me then I will do likewise. There are so many religions, so many cults. How can you chose one based on a simple majority. You do that and I'll laugh my butt of when you're flavor of religion becomes the minority and becomes persecuted. In case you didn't know Hindus outnumber both Islam and Christians in the world and they are immigrating through our non-existent borders.

I'm not for abortions, but it's not my choice nor is it my burden. If you don't like what's on the TV or radio turn it off and for god sakes, take responsibility for raising your own children and stop blaming the radio, tv, video games for your failure as a parent.

:D

Mearen

11-04-2004, 12:32 PM

quote:Originally posted by Homer Simpson

It's ok to be religious, just keep it to yourself and in the church. If you think its ok to impose your morality on me then I will do likewise.

A person's religion is demonstrated on how they treat others, that's not scomething you can keep to yourself. Society imposes it's morality on everyone every single day in the form of laws.

marielaveau

11-04-2004, 12:36 PM

how people treat each other has nothing to do with what faith your practice. You can be an athiest and treat others with kindness and respect. You can also be the biggest church go-er ever and be a total jerk ... ie the trouble the catholic church has now with the pedophiles in its midst.

Homer Simpson

11-04-2004, 12:38 PM

quote:Originally posted by Mearen

quote:Originally posted by Homer Simpson

It's ok to be religious, just keep it to yourself and in the church. If you think its ok to impose your morality on me then I will do likewise.

A person's religion is demonstrated on how they treat others, that's not scomething you can keep to yourself. Society imposes it's morality on everyone every single day in the form of laws.

Like Islamic law? Like Hammurabi's code? An eye for an eye? Which religion should it be?

So shooting doctors who perform abortions is an expression of christianity? Having multiple wives, some under legal age, is ok to express as well? What if my religion says its ok to sacrifice goats in public? Some people never learned anything from the Crusades. History is doomed to repeat itself.

This nation is founded on freedom of religion. Not just your religion. There are many religions, which one is the right one? Yours of course.....

sj445

11-04-2004, 12:40 PM

I don't really consider myself a democrat or republican, I have honestly voted for both but I do disagree with some of Bush's policies and so currently probably lean a little to the left (please don't crucify me for it!).

1) Middle americans are dumb hicks that can't think for themselves

Of course not!! I grew up in middle America my parents are still there and they are not dumb hicks! But I feel the campaign focused too much on social issues and not enough on other important issues. It is easier to get emotional (on both sides) over social issues than over issues such as the budget deficit, foreign policy, health care and jobs. Many of the questions I had were not asked even in the debates. The questions were so staged that BOTH candidates could dance around the answers. I used to really support the republicans on their stand on controlling spending but Bush has not done this. Now that they are in control of all 3 branches and Bush does not have to worry about reelection I hope they go back to that stand!

2) The war in Iraq is a mistake, a failure, and pointless

I do believe it was a mistake. I think it is a rallying call for more terrorists. We can't fight our way out of the hatred for America. Terrorism is a poor man's way of waging war and they will just strike back. They are willing to die to get us, this will be hard to stop! We need to take a look at foreign policy and what it is that is breeding this hatred besides taking military action. But now that we are there I feel we must do our best to not have it be a failure or pointless. We were told it was because of WMD but none have been found. The war was not sold as liberating people which is what it is now. Why Iraq anyway, other countries sponsor terrorism. Why does Saudi Arabia get a pass? They pay terrorist's family survivors also. Most of the 911 hijackers came from that country. They breed hatred of the west in their schools even! What about Iran and Syria? How many countries should we invade and won't this just cause even more hatred so we will be even more at risk of terrorism? I am not pretending to know the answer but we certainly can't send troops to every country that supports terrorism unless we are all going to sign up and willing to sacrifice our kids.

3) We need to be pals with France and Germany

We don't need to be "pals" with anyone but we do need to work with the rest of the world as terrorism is a global problem. I don't want to pay all the costs in terms of lives and money I want others to help. Bush Senior built a coalition when we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait thus other countries shouldered some of the burden of this. I supported and voted for his reelection.

4) Morals should not be a part of governing the country

Of course they should be. But my moral values include much more than the ones talked about in the campaign. What about helping the less fortunate, making sure Americans have access to health care (but this is a tough one to solve because I don't really think the government should take this over), leaving a clean environment for our children and most of all leaving them opportunity and not a huge debt. What should we do about Social Security and other expensive programs? I consider a lot of the pork spending immoral! While we all have different opinions on HOW to solve these problems I think we can all agree we WANT to solve them. The gay marriage and stem cell issues have their roots in religious morals. There is disagreement over these. I do not think we should amend the US Constitution over gay marriage. This is too important of a document to amend without good reason. Leave it to the states. If gay people want to get married they can suffer through it just like us heterosexuals!! They might regret this right when they suffer through their divorces! (this is a joke I actually have a great spouse!) Looks like California will go ahead with stem cell research.

5) Standing up for freedom militarily is never justified unless we have France and Germany on our side.

What do you mean by "standing up for freedom militarily"? Do you mean it is our obligation to send our children and shed our blood to free people in other countries? How did a small country like Iraq even threaten our "freedom"? No one could ever take away our freedom no matter how much they attack us because WE want it! The terrorists can attack us all they want but we will never take our freedom unless we let them by being paralyzed with fear! Let's hope the Iraqi people want freedom that badly also so that our actions in Iraq will not be in vain! If you are talking about using our military to protect our SECURITY than of course we can do that without the permission of other countries but I would still prefer if at all possible to cooperate with the world so we don't have to pay the entire cost.

I think it is perfectly fair that many of us will disagree on these issues after all that is why I love America, I can have an opinion even if it is right or wrong. And who know my opinions could be wrong because that is all they are, my opinions. I try to listen to what others think and grow if possible. I think what was disturbing about the last election is all the name calling on both sides. I think we can agree to disagree without getting nasty.

Bush is the president now and he says he wants to reach out to democrats. I am willing to give him that chance even if I disagree with some of his former policies. I really think what the democrats lacked is a good candidate that can connect with the people. I knew from the start Kerry could never connect with the heartland. I hope the democrats have learned and can choose wiser next time. However if McCain were to run in 2008 I could seriously consider voting for him. I really prefer a moderate whether it be a democrat or republican. Wouldn't it be great if we could have two good candidates in 2008 to choose from?

Mearen

11-04-2004, 12:42 PM

quote:Originally posted by Farscape

I fully understand what moral integrity is and organized religion is not it. People who lack moral integrity sometimes use organized religion to further their own causes through manipulation and brainwashing. Religion itself is not supposed to be that way, it is supposed to be something to believe in, something good, but it is often used for manipulation and hate.

On that we can agree.

quote:Do you believe that gay people lack moral integrity?

Leviticus 20:13 states “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" Does that seem ambiguous or something that can even be remotely considered out of context?

This is a great thread, religion and politics combined. Nothing bad can come from this now can it. :D

brim

11-04-2004, 12:44 PM

Frankly, this is a big waste of time. One side's sanctimonious drivel isn't going to trump the same thing from the other side...and no mater how much you post, regardless of which side you're on, you're not going to change the minds of people on the other side. The election is over, agree to disagree and get on with life, regardless of who you voted for...

Homer Simpson

11-04-2004, 12:44 PM

When I was going to high school, I had to ride the bus with a Jehovah's witness. This guy tried to convert me every day and told me every day I was going to hell. Never mind that I told him that if he truly believed only 14400 people will go to heaven then it stands to reason Heaven must be full by now but that is besides the point.

I have a right not to be subjected to wierdos, cultists, other peoples religion if I don't want to. Unfortunately, alot of religions base their faith on expansion. You must convert the Heathens!!! This lead to wars, death, suffering over what? Which book that was written a thousand years ago was the correct one all the while ignoring that if they truly read the book they would see how wrong the actually are.

You want to express your religion. Go help someone. Do something good. And do it without trying to convert the people you are helping. Cause if you don't it's just tit for tat. I helped you ergo you must convert. And that's not what Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, was about.

Homer Simpson

11-04-2004, 12:47 PM

quote:Originally posted by Mearen

quote:Originally posted by Farscape

I fully understand what moral integrity is and organized religion is not it. People who lack moral integrity sometimes use organized religion to further their own causes through manipulation and brainwashing. Religion itself is not supposed to be that way, it is supposed to be something to believe in, something good, but it is often used for manipulation and hate.

On that we can agree.

quote:Do you believe that gay people lack moral integrity?

Leviticus 20:13 states “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" Does that seem ambiguous or something that can even be remotely considered out of context?

This is a great thread, religion and politics combined. Nothing bad can come from this now can it. :D

That's from a book that has been rewritten hundreds of times by hundreds of people over thousands of years. I'm sure it's very apt and exactly what the author intended. The Bible is a book written by men who used it to control the dumb populace.

Philan

11-04-2004, 12:55 PM

Just wanted to give my opinion on the gay marriage issue. There is a separation of church and state and must be as freedom of religion is important in our country. If you take religeous opinions out of the issue, marriage becomes a leagle contract between adults. Because it's unfair to say these two adults can enter into a contract, but these two can't, though republicans and dems fought about it blacks and whites as well as asians and whites are now allowed to marry. I assume someday the gays will. And I don't think they want your church to change it's stance or perform a ceremony, it's about the legal rights that married people have.

boomertsfx

11-04-2004, 01:06 PM

It's pretty ironic how religion is the cause of the majority of the wars on this planet. History shows this.

To me, I think we should stop supporting Israel since they inflame the whole situation, yet we still support them. I think Israel had more UN resolutions against them than Iraq did.

You have to address the root cause of the issue, and stay focused on what that is. Iraq definately is not the cause of terrorism, but ironically it is now a breeding ground for more anti-US hate. This is not good, but apparenly a majority of voters are ignorant enough to beleive that our current administration deserves four more years of putting us deeper in the hole of insularity. You can say "Saddam was a bad bad man, he killed alot of people in his country!". If you recall, the same thing was done to our native americans. I'm not saying this is right, but there are many other countries where many people have died, but we did not go nation-building there...

Hindsight will be 20/20, and I hope republicans will finally see the light... if we're not all dead by then.

Congratulations republicans!!

thndrkats

11-04-2004, 01:36 PM

Seriously, I've enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts the last 2 pages. I appreciate ya'll sharing your perspectives. I don't think there's enough constructive discourse in our society. I think we have a responsibility to each other as citizens of a wonderful country to hear each other out regardless of where we stand. What I can't stand are complainers who offer no real view point or vision for improving the country.

I think we all want to keep America strong, safe, and prosperous, we just have different ways of getting there. If we objectively communicate, regardless of party affiliation, we might find a better way.

Four years will pass in a flash, and again a choice will be made. :)

Azsweepay

11-04-2004, 01:55 PM

I have been out of the loop for a bit and I see this thread has really grown!

First, I would like to apologize about my inflametory comment around mid-west america. I should have stated my concern more like the adult that I am(my wife still has doubts about that). The concern I have with many mid-west voters not in urban environments is their lack of direct exposure to foreign cultures. We all live in a very diverse area and we understand better that just because others aren't like us doesn't mean that they are bad. If these people were reduced to pictures on the news or articles in the paper, I would probably see the rest of the world as the enemy and want my government to make them good (like us).

As for the oil comment, there are a lot of bad nations in the world that have the power to do major harm to us, what made Iraq so special?

Gregg

Pats_fan

11-04-2004, 01:56 PM

Interesting (and timely) excerpt from washingtonpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/administration/whbriefing/

quote:
The Moral Issues

Exit polls showed 21 percent of voters said moral values were the most important issue -- and 78 percent of them voted for Bush.

But what are "moral values"?

Joel Achenbach writes in The Washington Post: "The term wasn't defined, and Democrats spent much of yesterday protesting that they have morals and values, too. The term is basically a code phrase for abortion and gays. For some people, particularly religious evangelicals, these issues are even more important than Iraq, terrorism, the economy, health care, the environment and education. Moral issues gnaw at the guts of people who think they know right from wrong and normal from sick. The reelection of George W. Bush as the 43rd president of the United States appears to be at least in part because of a fear that liberals favor marital unions among sodomites."

Azsweepay

11-04-2004, 01:59 PM

Farscape

11-04-2004, 02:49 PM

Those who lack the ability to think for themselves and are afraid to make their own decisions rely on other people to tell them what to believe. Taking to heart the words of a book written by a bunch of men many, many years ago is not only sad, but ignorant.

Some religious people have this misconception that because they go to church they are good people. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is who you are as a person that matters. Compassion, selflessness, giving, non-judgemental, forgiving, non-violent - those qualities help define a good person-not who you sleep with. Your line of thinking only spreads hate, and there is no moral integrity in that.
quote:Originally posted by Mearen
Leviticus 20:13 states “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" Does that seem ambiguous or something that can even be remotely considered out of context?

I guess those catholic preist were not reading their bible correctly when they decided to molest children.

marielaveau

11-04-2004, 03:43 PM

quote: Some religious people have this misconception that because they go to church they are good people. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is who you are as a person that matters. Compassion, selflessness, giving, non-judgemental, forgiving, non-violent - those qualities help define a good person-not who you sleep with. Your line of thinking only spreads hate, and there is no moral integrity in that.

very well said farscape!

Mearen

11-04-2004, 05:28 PM

quote:Originally posted by Farscape

Those who lack the ability to think for themselves and are afraid to make their own decisions rely on other people to tell them what to believe. Taking to heart the words of a book written by a bunch of men many, many years ago is not only sad, but ignorant.

Some religious people have this misconception that because they go to church they are good people. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is who you are as a person that matters. Compassion, selflessness, giving, non-judgemental, forgiving, non-violent - those qualities help define a good person-not who you sleep with. Your line of thinking only spreads hate, and there is no moral integrity in that.
quote:Originally posted by Mearen
Leviticus 20:13 states “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" Does that seem ambiguous or something that can even be remotely considered out of context?

I guess those catholic preist were not reading their bible correctly when they decided to molest children.

What do you think your laws are based on? They're based on some book by some guys written long ago. Your most basic principle thou shall not kill was writting in some book by some guys long ago. What's truly ignorant is thinking you know better simply because you're current. Assuming people that have faith in right and wrong and religion are blind followers is what's truly ignorant. And THAT is how the lack of moral fortitude has truly hurt this country.

Homer Simpson

11-04-2004, 05:50 PM

Whatever Mearen, go to Utah or some other Theocracy you crave. Ideas evolve much like Man did from the early primates hundreds of thousands of years ago. You can have morality and not religion. Just like you can be religious without being moral.

Dutchml

11-04-2004, 05:57 PM

This note fell out of a Gideon's in some hotel I once stayed at: "Do not argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

veronicasmommi

11-04-2004, 07:18 PM

Amen Mearen!

veronicasmommi

11-04-2004, 07:25 PM

gammonbabe

11-04-2004, 09:11 PM

quote:Originally posted by Brooks5

quote:Originally posted by greggbroadlands

Maybe someone can help understand what Bush has done in the last 4 years that has been so great as to want to re-elect him. A short list even.

For starters, had enough basic decency to keep his pants on while on the phone ordering troops into battle;

If he had ordered them into battle against an enemy I would have had no problem if he had been naked while doing it.

[/quote]
freed millions of people from oppression (I thought the idea of liberty was kind of our thing);
[/quote]

Yes he did. One bullet at a time. My way or the highway. You either have the government that we want you to have, or we kill you by the thousands. Something to be truly proud of.

"decided to seek out and destroy terrorists before they kill us;"

And stopped in the middle of it to go after a country that has not done anything to us.

"never bowed to the pressures of a bunch of corrupt foreign governments (I'm thinking oil-for-food scam here) who have no interest whatsoever in their own people's security, let alone ours, etc."

Did you count the number of american companies involved in that scam? Mobile, Exxon, you name them, they profited. Sure, smear the countries that stood up to us and did not kiss our asses because they knew that we were acting on outdated intelligence. I for one have never been as impressed with Germany as I was then ... and I thought the current chancellor would side with the US.

"Oh, and just a guess, but I think he has enough of a basic understanding of what America's devotion to freedom means so that he would likely never send government thugs to raid the home of an innocent family at gunpoint (on Easter weekend) to kidnap a 6-year old boy and send him back to the communist prison he had just miraculously escaped from. (I'll take John Ashcroft over Janet Reno any day)."

Instead he outsources torture of prisoners to other countries. That's the ticket ...

Great list. Nice and short. Paints a clear picture of the man that will run this country in the next four years.

Marianne
(who is a fiscal conservative, and a social liberal, and can't stand partisan politics)

gammonbabe

11-04-2004, 09:16 PM

quote:Originally posted by vweisenburg

Exactly who did we kill for no reason? The Taliban, the Republican Guard, the Fedayeen, al-qaeda members, the terrorist thugs killing our soldiers who are trying to stabilize and rebuild Iraq.

Thousands and thousands of women and children. For the WMDS that are not there. For the ties to terrorism. For all the lies we have been told and that you believed.

"Restore our status in the world? As what? The world hates us because we do not bow to the will of the UN."

Bow to the will of the UN? The UN can't enforce ****. They will place us on the list of rogue nations if we keep up going the way we are, and for a damn good reason. We are aggressors. We are going to war against nations that have not done anything to us. We are killing innocent people. Why don't you get that? What is so hard to understand about that? Is it that you refuse to see the reality of dead people? Does it make you feel better to believe that we did it for a good cause ... they are better off dead then living in a dictatorship?

Ask those families that lost their husbands, wifes, children if they think they are better off dead.

Marianne

gammonbabe

11-04-2004, 09:18 PM

"o Bush launches an invasion of Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and capture/kill Osama and his thugs.
How would you have reacted to that? "

The same way I react to our invasion of Iraq. It is WRONG to invade a country that has done nothing to us. Next thing we know we put people to jail for planning a murder.

"Using your logic, the US can only respond when we have been attacked. "

Absolutely

"Fast forward to today. You may be comfortable with the US waiting until there is 100% verifiable proof that a nation state/group is going to atttack us before we attack them. Unfortunatley, to get to the 100% threshhold the attaack will have to have already occured. As far as I am concerned, I would prefer my President to attack and destroy any person/group/country for which any portion of intelligence shows that they are a immediate or potential threat."

I'm sure you would be. After all, we are more important and better than other nations.

Marianne

gammonbabe

11-04-2004, 09:21 PM

quote:Originally posted by vweisenburg
The enlightend? Please, I have had enough of the constant blather about how conservatives (especially those in the rural midwest) are too stupid to understand the "nuanced" reality of the real world. Why is it that liberals always assume they hold the monopoly on education and "enlightenment"? That condescending attitude is one of the main reasons Republicans "rolled" the Democrats yesterday.

Well, it is a fact that almost 50% of the people in this country are of below average intelligence. Throw in a few unenlightened people, and you come out with a majority.

Marianne

vweisenburg

11-04-2004, 09:25 PM

quote:Originally posted by gammonbabe

"o Bush launches an invasion of Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and capture/kill Osama and his thugs.
How would you have reacted to that? "

The same way I react to our invasion of Iraq. It is WRONG to invite a country that has done nothing to us. Next thing we know we put people to jail for planning a murder.

"Using your logic, the US can only respond when we have been attacked. "

Absolutely

"Fast forward to today. You may be comfortable with the US waiting until there is 100% verifiable proof that a nation state/group is going to atttack us before we attack them. Unfortunatley, to get to the 100% threshhold the attaack will have to have already occured. As far as I am concerned, I would prefer my President to attack and destroy any person/group/country for which any portion of intelligence shows that they are a immediate or potential threat."

I'm sure you would be. After all, we are more important and better than other nations.

Marianne

Wow. So are you actually saying that if we could have prevented 9/11 by invading Afghanistan prior to the attack we would have been wrong to do it, and instead we should have waited until after 3000 of our citizens were killed?

vweisenburg

11-04-2004, 09:30 PM

gammonbabe

11-04-2004, 09:32 PM

quote:Originally posted by Mearen
Leviticus 20:13 states “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" Does that seem ambiguous or something that can even be remotely considered out of context?
This is a great thread, religion and politics combined. Nothing bad can come from this now can it. :D

And what do I care what is in that book? My morals are not based on a book, they are based on who I am and what I do every day of my life. I am not a christian, not a muslim, not a buddhist. I am not gay, had four children and would never have had an abortion. But I believe that everyone has the right to be treated equally under the law, that abortion is a choice a woman makes, and that your religion is your choice ... just keep it out of my life and out of the laws that govern my life. And keep the laws out of my bedroom, what I do in there is nobodies business.

If you don't want gays to be allowed to get married, lets make marriage a church only thing, create civil unions for all. People choose to have a civil union, they have the protection of the law, if they want their god to bless the union they have a marriage ceremony in addition. If their church does not do gay marriage ceremonies, the couple finds a church that better suits their needs.

Marianne

gammonbabe

11-04-2004, 09:37 PM

quote:Originally posted by vweisenburg
Wow. So are you actually saying that if we could have prevented 9/11 by invading Afghanistan prior to the attack we would have been wrong to do it, and instead we should have waited until after 3000 of our citizens were killed?

Yes. We would have been wrong to do it. If we had known an attack would occur we should have stopped the attack, not invade a country. Arrest those people that we knew were here for a long time. Stop keeping intel in the desk drawer and use it to protect america. And for crying out loud .. interrupt your vacation long enough to take action on information you are getting from the CIA and the NRO.

Marianne

vweisenburg

11-04-2004, 09:45 PM

quote:Originally posted by gammonbabe

quote:Originally posted by vweisenburg

Exactly who did we kill for no reason? The Taliban, the Republican Guard, the Fedayeen, al-qaeda members, the terrorist thugs killing our soldiers who are trying to stabilize and rebuild Iraq.

Thousands and thousands of women and children. For the WMDS that are not there. For the ties to terrorism. For all the lies we have been told and that you believed.

"Restore our status in the world? As what? The world hates us because we do not bow to the will of the UN."

Bow to the will of the UN? The UN can't enforce ****. They will keep us on the list of rogue nations if we keep up going the way we are, and for a damn good reason. We are aggressors. We are going to war against nations that have not done anything to us. We are killing innocent people. Why don't you get that? What is so hard to understand about that? Is it that you refuse to see the reality of dead people? Does it make you feel better to believe that we did it for a good cause ... they are better off dead then living in a dictatorship?

Ask those families that lost their husbands, wifes, children if they think they are better off dead.

Marianne

How about you ask those families who lost their wives, husbands, children, mothers, father, etc.. on 9/11, and when the USS Cole was bombed, and when the American embassies in Africa where bombed, and when the WTC was bombed in 91. America didn't start this (please spare me the diatribes about how our support for Israel or our stance in the mideast is the root cause of terror) in fact stupidly we turned a blind eye to the fanatical terrorists for more than 20 years.

Don' lecture me on the realities of the dead. I lost 3 friends on 9/11, and 5 friends in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know all to well the cost of ignoring pending threats as well as confronting threats before they are realized. We has war declared on us, and if you care to examine history, wars always result in the deaths of innocent civilians (either by accident as in Iraq or deliberate such as Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Dresden in WWII). To be honest I feel the Bush administration has been too timid in prosecuting the war on terroists, I would've leveled Fallujah months ago. We lose far too many of our troops in the process of trying to avoid the deaths of civilians.

vweisenburg

11-04-2004, 09:51 PM

quote:Originally posted by gammonbabe

quote:Originally posted by vweisenburg
Wow. So are you actually saying that if we could have prevented 9/11 by invading Afghanistan prior to the attack we would have been wrong to do it, and instead we should have waited until after 3000 of our citizens were killed?

Yes. We would have been wrong to do it. If we had known an attack would occur we should have stopped the attack, not invade a country. Arrest those people that we knew were here for a long time. Stop keeping intel in the desk drawer and use it to protect america. And for crying out loud .. interrupt your vacation long enough to take action on information you are getting from the CIA and the NRO.

Marianne

Arrest them? This is not a law enforcement issue. This is a military issue (remember they declared war on us) and the proper way to deal with such a threat is to destroy it. Unless we are willing to face the fact that ensuring the safety of America and other free nations requires not only the elimination (killing them not imprisoning them) of terrorists, but the destruction of regimes and nation states that provide the with safe harbor, then we will never win the war.

Homer Simpson

11-04-2004, 09:52 PM

quote:Originally posted by veronicasmommi
I hear Salt Lake is beautiful this year.

Utah would be a beautiful state if it weren't for all the cultists there.

boomertsfx

11-04-2004, 10:06 PM

quote:
Arrest them? This is not a law enforcement issue. This is a military issue (remember they declared war on us) and the proper way to deal with such a threat is to destroy it. Unless we are willing to face the fact that ensuring the safety of America and other free nations requires not only the elimination (killing them not imprisoning them) of terrorists, but the destruction of regimes and nation states that provide the with safe harbor, then we will never win the war.

I bet you're one of those ****y neocons that says "turn the middle east into a sheet of glass!", aren't you?

vweisenburg

11-04-2004, 10:31 PM

quote:Originally posted by boomertsfx

quote:
Arrest them? This is not a law enforcement issue. This is a military issue (remember they declared war on us) and the proper way to deal with such a threat is to destroy it. Unless we are willing to face the fact that ensuring the safety of America and other free nations requires not only the elimination (killing them not imprisoning them) of terrorists, but the destruction of regimes and nation states that provide the with safe harbor, then we will never win the war.

I bet you're one of those ****y neocons that says "turn the middle east into a sheet of glass!", aren't you?

Uh no. I think our approach in Afghanistan is the way to change the face of the middle east. Removing the corrupt, totalitarian regimes from power while finding and eliminating terrorist groups will provide the oppressed populations of the middle eastern countries a chance to establish free governments. Free governments do not harbor and support terrorists.

However, if the only option we had to ensure the saftey of the US was to "nuke" one of the cities in the mis-east, I would support that action.

Since everyone seems to be so good at criticizing the policy of the US as it relates to the war on terrorism, what exactly are your suggestions as to how we can guarantee the safety of America?

gammonbabe

11-04-2004, 11:15 PM

quote:Originally posted by vweisenburg
Arrest them? This is not a law enforcement issue. This is a military issue (remember they declared war on us) and the proper way to deal with such a threat is to destroy it. Unless we are willing to face the fact that ensuring the safety of America and other free nations requires not only the elimination (killing them not imprisoning them) of terrorists, but the destruction of regimes and nation states that provide the with safe harbor, then we will never win the war.

And that is where your are wrong. Terrorism is nothing that is done by a nation, it is a crime. It should be treated as such. There are nations that have more terrorists then others, and nations that suffer from more terrorists then others.

In the 1970s there were many many terrorists in Germany. Germans. It was treated as a crime. They were arrested, put to jail, and that's where they died .. in solitary confinement. Germany did not attack Syria for allowing them to train there, they did not attack any nation that supported the Red Army Faction and gave them weapons. They arrested the bastards and the legal system took care of them.

Terrorism that kills one person is the same kind of terrorism that kills 3000. It is a crime and it needs to be seen as a crime. The war on terrorism is a joke, it will never end. And who defines what a terrorist is? The insurgents in Iraq? Are they terrorists? They are fighting against the people that occupy their country, with the only weapons that they have. Just like the french resistance fought against the Nazis with the weapons that they had. What is YOUR definition of a terrorist?

Marianne

neilz

11-05-2004, 12:36 AM

vweisenberg ...

I respect your wife's service, and was making a rhetorical question.

Having served 23 years on Active Duty, I tend to look at people ready to send our armed forces to war, with some skepticism.

However, my point in the post is that unless we increase the size of the military there won't be enough troops to cover the areas we're currently fighting in, let alone add additional areas. We have a fighting force that is ready to follow orders, but we are not increasing the available forces. National Guardsmen and Reserves are not going to make up for the lack of actual active divisions.

About some officers disagreeing with Shinseki, these officers did not review the plan for Iraq created by Gen Zinni when he was CmdrCENTCOM. This plan included a force of 200,000 to invade and pacify, and was not based on faulty information given by our pet Iraqi exiles.

I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan, however, we did not finish the job completely. That is the failure of this administration. One of the mistakes that Pres Bush will not own up to. Bin Laden is still loose, perhaps a paper tiger, perhaps not.

Neil Z.
Resident since 1999

vweisenburg

11-05-2004, 12:46 AM

quote:Originally posted by gammonbabe

quote:Originally posted by vweisenburg
Arrest them? This is not a law enforcement issue. This is a military issue (remember they declared war on us) and the proper way to deal with such a threat is to destroy it. Unless we are willing to face the fact that ensuring the safety of America and other free nations requires not only the elimination (killing them not imprisoning them) of terrorists, but the destruction of regimes and nation states that provide the with safe harbor, then we will never win the war.

And that is where your are wrong. Terrorism is nothing that is done by a nation, it is a crime. It should be treated as such. There are nations that have more terrorists then others, and nations that suffer from more terrorists then others.

In the 1970s there were many many terrorists in Germany. Germans. It was treated as a crime. They were arrested, put to jail, and that's where they died .. in solitary confinement. Germany did not attack Syria for allowing them to train there, they did not attack any nation that supported the Red Army Faction and gave them weapons. They arrested the bastards and the legal system took care of them.

Terrorism that kills one person is the same kind of terrorism that kills 3000. It is a crime and it needs to be seen as a crime. The war on terrorism is a joke, it will never end. And who defines what a terrorist is? The insurgents in Iraq? Are they terrorists? They are fighting against the people that occupy their country, with the only weapons that they have. Just like the french resistance fought against the Nazis with the weapons that they had. What is YOUR definition of a terrorist?

Marianne

First off. If we treat terrorist and terrorism simply as a crime, then our only option is to arrest the terrorists after they have commited an act. How exactly do we prevent an attack.

Second, there is a distinct difference between countries in which terrorists live and operate (pretty much every country) and those who are willingly complicit in the support, training, and protection of terrorists (Syria, Iran, Chechnya, etc..) So you are wrong. There are nations who are part and parcel of the global terror picture.

Third. I agree the war against muderous fanatical thugs who pratice terrorism will never truly end, but if we destroy the regimes that provide them with material support and safe haven, it will make it extremely hard for them to operate. I think society pretty well understands what the definiton of a terrorist is and the "insurgents" in Iraq are terrorists. Fighting against the poeple that occupy their country. Bull***t. Many of the so called "insurgents" are foreign fighters from Syria, Iran, Pakistan, etc.. and how exactly is kidnapping and executing 40+ Iraqi guards on their way home for leave part of the "resistance".

How do I defined terrorist? Those who would use premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant targets, violence that is usually intended to influence an audience.

Am I reading you correctly? You are comparing the American soldiers to the Nazi occupiers of Fracnce?

vweisenburg

11-05-2004, 01:13 AM

quote:Originally posted by neilz

vweisenberg ...

I respect your wife's service, and was making a rhetorical question.

Having served 23 years on Active Duty, I tend to look at people ready to send our armed forces to war, with some skepticism.

However, my point in the post is that unless we increase the size of the military there won't be enough troops to cover the areas we're currently fighting in, let alone add additional areas. We have a fighting force that is ready to follow orders, but we are not increasing the available forces. National Guardsmen and Reserves are not going to make up for the lack of actual active divisions.

About some officers disagreeing with Shinseki, these officers did not review the plan for Iraq created by Gen Zinni when he was CmdrCENTCOM. This plan included a force of 200,000 to invade and pacify, and was not based on faulty information given by our pet Iraqi exiles.

I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan, however, we did not finish the job completely. That is the failure of this administration. One of the mistakes that Pres Bush will not own up to. Bin Laden is still loose, perhaps a paper tiger, perhaps not.

Neil Z.
Resident since 1999

Neil,

First, let me thank you for your service. If you don't mind me asking in which branch did you serve?

Coming from a military family (both grandfathers were chief petty officers and dad was a petty officer) I understand the sacrifices made by the men and women in our armed forces. I too share a natual reluctance to send our troops into harms way. However, there comes a time and place when the use of military force is the only and best option. To me Iraq presented just such a case.

I would have to argue whether we need to increase the size of the military to adress the current and future conflicts. Part of the problem in Iraq today (and it was the problem with the Zinni plan, and the troop projections used by Shinseki) is that the Army is always fighting the last war. What was really needed in Iraq is smaller, highly trained, highly mobile, and rapidly deployed units. The success of the Stryker brigades demonstrated that with the right equipment and training, you can accomplish more faster with less troops.

I know a couple of the special forces guys that were part of the hunt for Bin Laden and talked to 2 of them fairly regularly. Their story does not match what we have been hearing in the media. Yes we did use locals in the recon or Tora Bora, but we had to since they were the only one who knew the locations of the caves and tunnels. Some of the SF guys believe that Osama had already crossed over into Pakistan before the operations in Tora Bora began.

Did we get the post-major combat planning in Iraq wrong? To a certain extent yes. We overestimated the quality of the Iraqi infrastructure. No one anticpiated that the "war" would end so quickly and that the Iraqi army regulars and Republican guard would disband and then join with foreign fighters to create an "insurgency".

The problem with the President admitting to a mistake in either Iraq or Afghanistan, is that the press was not genuinely asking the question but was trying to set up a trap.

gammonbabe

11-05-2004, 08:36 AM

[quote]Originally posted by vweisenburg

"First off. If we treat terrorist and terrorism simply as a crime, then our only option is to arrest the terrorists after they have commited an act. How exactly do we prevent an attack."

It simply is a crime. This administration has elevated it to something else, given it a status that it does not deserve. You don't defend evil with evil.

"Second, there is a distinct difference between countries in which terrorists live and operate (pretty much every country) and those who are willingly complicit in the support, training, and protection of terrorists (Syria, Iran, Chechnya, etc..) So you are wrong. There are nations who are part and parcel of the global terror picture."

There are and there always will be. What are we going to do? Take over the world so we can kill all terrorists? Who gives us the right? And don't tell me we have the right because we have the bigger bombs.

"Third. I agree the war against muderous fanatical thugs who pratice terrorism will never truly end, but if we destroy the regimes that provide them with material support and safe haven, it will make it extremely hard for them to operate. I think society pretty well understands what the definiton of a terrorist is and the "insurgents" in Iraq are terrorists. Fighting against the poeple that occupy their country. Bull***t. Many of the so called "insurgents" are foreign fighters from Syria, Iran, Pakistan, etc.. and how exactly is kidnapping and executing 40+ Iraqi guards on their way home for leave part of the "resistance". "

What we are doing right now is breeding new terrorists. We have opened Iraq to terrorists, a country that did not harbor terrorists before. Were there terrorist cells in Iraq? Sure were, just like in most every country of the world. Were they supported by Hussein? No, they were not. So we go in there, kill their people, and expect them to thank us. That's not going to happen. The children of the people we have killed will come back to haunt us for the rest of our lifes. We have turned them into terrorists, they will hate us for ever, and they have a good reason to.

"Am I reading you correctly? You are comparing the American soldiers to the Nazi occupiers of Fracnce?"

What do you think the Iraqis think?

Marianne

Wick

11-05-2004, 08:56 AM

Please. How can you compare our involvement in Iraq with the Nazis? Crap like that is why John Kerry lost this election. More people would have voted for John Kerry (possibly, including myself) if Michael Moore and George Soros were locked in a closet. The left fringe brought down John Kerry this election. George Bush was ripe for defeat, but the ultra-liberal mindset was too prominent in Kerry's campaign.

gammonbabe

11-05-2004, 09:05 AM

The elections are over. I won't convince anyone that America has suffered a defeat, bush supporters won't convince me and others that feel like me that four more years of him will be good for this country.

History will tell. Our children and grandchildren will judge. And there is a lot of work ahead. This country is bigger than one man, and when all is said and done, we fix what was broken and hopefully we can go back to be the great nation that I still believe in.

But for now it's over, and I had my say and did my part in the election.

Marianne

veronicasmommi

11-05-2004, 09:58 AM

quote:Originally posted by vweisenburg

quote:Originally posted by gammonbabe

quote:Originally posted by vweisenburg

Exactly who did we kill for no reason? The Taliban, the Republican Guard, the Fedayeen, al-qaeda members, the terrorist thugs killing our soldiers who are trying to stabilize and rebuild Iraq.

Thousands and thousands of women and children. For the WMDS that are not there. For the ties to terrorism. For all the lies we have been told and that you believed.

"Restore our status in the world? As what? The world hates us because we do not bow to the will of the UN."

Bow to the will of the UN? The UN can't enforce ****. They will keep us on the list of rogue nations if we keep up going the way we are, and for a damn good reason. We are aggressors. We are going to war against nations that have not done anything to us. We are killing innocent people. Why don't you get that? What is so hard to understand about that? Is it that you refuse to see the reality of dead people? Does it make you feel better to believe that we did it for a good cause ... they are better off dead then living in a dictatorship?

Ask those families that lost their husbands, wifes, children if they think they are better off dead.

Marianne

How about you ask those families who lost their wives, husbands, children, mothers, father, etc.. on 9/11, and when the USS Cole was bombed, and when the American embassies in Africa where bombed, and when the WTC was bombed in 91. America didn't start this (please spare me the diatribes about how our support for Israel or our stance in the mideast is the root cause of terror) in fact stupidly we turned a blind eye to the fanatical terrorists for more than 20 years.

Don' lecture me on the realities of the dead. I lost 3 friends on 9/11, and 5 friends in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know all to well the cost of ignoring pending threats as well as confronting threats before they are realized. We has war declared on us, and if you care to examine history, wars always result in the deaths of innocent civilians (either by accident as in Iraq or deliberate such as Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Dresden in WWII). To be honest I feel the Bush administration has been too timid in prosecuting the war on terroists, I would've leveled Fallujah months ago. We lose far too many of our troops in the process of trying to avoid the deaths of civilians.

Well Said.

vweisenburg

11-05-2004, 10:07 AM

quote:Originally posted by gammonbabe

[quote]Originally posted by vweisenburg

"First off. If we treat terrorist and terrorism simply as a crime, then our only option is to arrest the terrorists after they have commited an act. How exactly do we prevent an attack."

It simply is a crime. This administration has elevated it to something else, given it a status that it does not deserve. You don't defend evil with evil.

"Second, there is a distinct difference between countries in which terrorists live and operate (pretty much every country) and those who are willingly complicit in the support, training, and protection of terrorists (Syria, Iran, Chechnya, etc..) So you are wrong. There are nations who are part and parcel of the global terror picture."

There are and there always will be. What are we going to do? Take over the world so we can kill all terrorists? Who gives us the right? And don't tell me we have the right because we have the bigger bombs.

"Third. I agree the war against muderous fanatical thugs who pratice terrorism will never truly end, but if we destroy the regimes that provide them with material support and safe haven, it will make it extremely hard for them to operate. I think society pretty well understands what the definiton of a terrorist is and the "insurgents" in Iraq are terrorists. Fighting against the poeple that occupy their country. Bull***t. Many of the so called "insurgents" are foreign fighters from Syria, Iran, Pakistan, etc.. and how exactly is kidnapping and executing 40+ Iraqi guards on their way home for leave part of the "resistance". "

What we are doing right now is breeding new terrorists. We have opened Iraq to terrorists, a country that did not harbor terrorists before. Were there terrorist cells in Iraq? Sure were, just like in most every country of the world. Were they supported by Hussein? No, they were not. So we go in there, kill their people, and expect them to thank us. That's not going to happen. The children of the people we have killed will come back to haunt us for the rest of our lifes. We have turned them into terrorists, they will hate us for ever, and they have a good reason to.

"Am I reading you correctly? You are comparing the American soldiers to the Nazi occupiers of Fracnce?"

What do you think the Iraqis think?

Marianne

Fight evil with evil. Killing terrorists before they kill us is evil? Thank God your twisted view of the world is a distinct minority.

Please spare me the "America is breeding terroists because of our actions in Iraq" comments. Our Marine Barracks in Lebanon was bombed in 1983, exactly how did we breed those terrorists? The World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, exactly how did we breed those terrorists? The Khobar Towers was bombed in 1996, exactly how did we breed those terrorists? The US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed in 1998, exactly how did we breed those terrorists? The USS Cole was bombed in 2000, exactly how did we breed those terrorists? September 11, exactly how did we breed those terrorists?

There were no terrorists in Iraq before we got there? So I guess you consider the Mujahedeen-e-Khal,and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (known by its Turkish initials, PKK), and the Abu Nidal organzation as humanitarian groups. The Iraqi government also provided financial support for Hammas and Palestian murder bombers. But hey ithat must be our fault too.

To make a moral equivalency between muderous thugs and our soldiers is disgusting. We are rebuilding schools / they are beheading innocent civilians, we are rebuilding hospitals / they are executing Iraqi police officers, we are rebuilding the Iraqi economy / they are blowin up te soldiers who are protecting their own Iraqi government, we have poured millions of dollars in humanitarian aid for the Palestinians / they are sneaking into homes at night and slaughtering children while they sleep. I can't belive I didn't see the paralells before.

They don't hate us because we invaded Iraq. They don't hate us because because we killed the thugs who would kill us. They hate us because we are. And for that reason we must kill them first.

gammonbabe

11-05-2004, 10:16 AM

quote:Originally posted by vweisenburg
And for that reason we must kill them first.

And then go to church and be christian. Right.

OP_dude

11-05-2004, 10:29 AM

quote:Originally posted by gammonbabe

quote:Originally posted by vweisenburg
The enlightend? Please, I have had enough of the constant blather about how conservatives (especially those in the rural midwest) are too stupid to understand the "nuanced" reality of the real world. Why is it that liberals always assume they hold the monopoly on education and "enlightenment"? That condescending attitude is one of the main reasons Republicans "rolled" the Democrats yesterday.

Well, it is a fact that almost 50% of the people in this country are of below average intelligence. Throw in a few unenlightened people, and you come out with a majority.

Marianne

Looking at the polls you will see the "below average intelligence" argument does not wash.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Kerry had the post grad vote yes but he also had the high school drop out vote. So much for the low intelligence folks voting for Bush.
The demographic of high school grad and college grad went to Bush.
The main reason the dems lost this one was because they were more against Bush than for Kerry. They selected Kerry not because they felt he was a strong leader and good for the country. They selected him solely on the fact that he had the best chance of defeating Bush. If the Democrats had put more effort into promoting Kerry instead of pushing the ABB (anybody but Bush) agenda the results would have been very different.
The race was close indicating people in general aren't overjoyed with the way Bush is running things but when unemployment, interest rates and inflation are low and the economy is relatively strong people tend to stick with the status quo unless the opposition can present a strong candidate whom people can warm up to and rally behind. Frankly John Kerry is not that type of person.

Pats_fan

11-05-2004, 10:33 AM

Well said. From page 1:
quote:Originally posted by Pats_fan

I know hindsight is 20/20, but does anyone else think the Democratic Party should have put forth a candidate that had more on their resume than the word "Vietnam" and the phrase "I'm not George Bush?"

greggbroadlands

11-05-2004, 10:35 AM

quote:Originally posted by vweisenburg
Thank God your twisted view of the world is a distinct minority.

Maybe it's just me and I'm the minority, but your ideas to kill and attack make your views pretty twisted.

When will the new draft start?

gammonbabe

11-05-2004, 11:00 AM

quote:Originally posted by OP_dude
Looking at the polls you will see the "below average intelligence" argument does not wash.

It is called sarcasm. Plain math. A funny.

brim

11-05-2004, 11:00 AM

quote:Originally posted by OP_dude

Looking at the polls you will see the "below average intelligence" argument does not wash.
Kerry had the post grad vote yes but he also had the high school drop out vote. So much for the low intelligence folks voting for Bush.
The demographic of high school grad and college grad went to Bush.

Just because someone has graduated high school and college doesn't mean they're not a jaded, uninformed idiot. Surely reading some of the threads here would have taught you that.

Mearen

11-05-2004, 12:00 PM

quote:Originally posted by gammonbabe

"o Bush launches an invasion of Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and capture/kill Osama and his thugs.
How would you have reacted to that? "

The same way I react to our invasion of Iraq. It is WRONG to invade a country that has done nothing to us. Next thing we know we put people to jail for planning a murder.

"Using your logic, the US can only respond when we have been attacked. "

Absolutely

"Fast forward to today. You may be comfortable with the US waiting until there is 100% verifiable proof that a nation state/group is going to atttack us before we attack them. Unfortunatley, to get to the 100% threshhold the attaack will have to have already occured. As far as I am concerned, I would prefer my President to attack and destroy any person/group/country for which any portion of intelligence shows that they are a immediate or potential threat."

I'm sure you would be. After all, we are more important and better than other nations.

Marianne

Humanitarian aid doesnt start or stop with blankets and food. It's our job as human beings to protect and liberate. It is not ok for dictators to kill millions of people and the rest of us stand idly by. Human life and rights arent bound by lines on a map.

quote:Terrorism is nothing that is done by a nation, it is a crime.

Palestine and Arafat. Terrorism is something that is most definately done by a nation.

Mearen

11-05-2004, 12:03 PM

quote:Originally posted by Homer Simpson

Whatever Mearen, go to Utah or some other Theocracy you crave. Ideas evolve much like Man did from the early primates hundreds of thousands of years ago. You can have morality and not religion. Just like you can be religious without being moral.

My neigbhors would be offended by your snide remark at mormanism. Typical that you attack what you don't understand.

And just to throw some oil on this fire, show us some proof of evolution. Actual proof and not just a theory, hoping you know the difference.

boomertsfx

11-05-2004, 12:19 PM

Angels & Demons is a great book that deals with the science vs. religion debate... I would recommend it.

I don't see how you can not believe in evolution, but instead believe in some fairy tale Adam and Eve story which was written by humans.

brim

11-05-2004, 12:20 PM

quote:Originally posted by Mearen

And just to throw some oil on this fire, show us some proof of evolution. Actual proof and not just a theory, hoping you know the difference.

How about you show some proof of spontaneous creation, as well? You'll be hard pressed to come up with the garden of eden or adam's skeleton.

Homer Simpson

11-05-2004, 12:21 PM

quote:Originally posted by Mearen

quote:Originally posted by Homer Simpson

Whatever Mearen, go to Utah or some other Theocracy you crave. Ideas evolve much like Man did from the early primates hundreds of thousands of years ago. You can have morality and not religion. Just like you can be religious without being moral.

My neigbhors would be offended by your snide remark at mormanism. Typical that you attack what you don't understand.

And just to throw some oil on this fire, show us some proof of evolution. Actual proof and not just a theory, hoping you know the difference.

I could care less about your Mormon neighbors. I take offense to them trying to convert everyone.

And if you don't believe in evolution then you sir, are an idiot. The proof exisits in DNA and the fossil record. The world was not created 5000 years ago by God. If God created the universe it was through a Scientific Process such as the big bang and man was created through evolution of the species. It's all there. If you want to believe a book of superstitions be my guest but Science is fact and indisputible. I'm not saying there is not a God or Creator who used the laws of this particular universe to create. Not at all. I'm saying that what you believe is based off of old data and needs to be rethought and not blindly followed.

OP_dude

11-05-2004, 12:32 PM

Whoa! What is wrong with you people? This thread is turning pretty ugly. These are your neighbors you are talking to. Can't we have a discussion without attacks and name calling?

Homer Simpson

11-05-2004, 12:39 PM

quote:Originally posted by OP_dude

Whoa! What is wrong with you people? This thread is turning pretty ugly. These are your neighbors you are talking to. Can't we have a discussion without attacks and name calling?

Where have you been? Lol

DAD4

11-05-2004, 12:40 PM

President of the United States Annual Salary: $400,000.00
Vice President of the United States Annual Salary: $189,000.00
United States Senators Annual Salary: $158,100.00
Typical Trial Lawyers Annual Salary: $600,000.00

Entertainment Value from starting a thread on "The Broadlands" neighborhood forum with no more than the name of the President elect and a :D PRICELESS!

brim

11-05-2004, 12:58 PM

What do the salaries have to do with anything?

Homer Simpson

11-05-2004, 01:04 PM

quote:Originally posted by brim

What do the salaries have to do with anything?

I think he's highlighting that the President, which one can argue is one of the most powerful, and stressful, jobs in the world makes less then a trial lawyer who profits off of the election. The president also makes much less then Movie stars and professional athletes. Makes you wonder about priorites.

brim

11-05-2004, 01:13 PM

Maybe, but none of the salaries has anything to do with the 'priceless' thing. Usually in those priceless things, they all have at least some vague reference to the last item...I don't see how entertainment value is related to salaries. I digress...

gammonbabe

11-05-2004, 01:20 PM

quote:Originally posted by Mearen
Palestine and Arafat. Terrorism is something that is most definately done by a nation.

Not going to get into Israel and Palestine, a totally different topic. But to clarify ... yes, there are terrorists in Palestine. No, being from Palestine does not mean you are a terrorist.

Homer Simpson

11-05-2004, 01:29 PM

quote:Originally posted by gammonbabe

quote:Originally posted by Mearen
Palestine and Arafat. Terrorism is something that is most definately done by a nation.

Not going to get into Israel and Palestine, a totally different topic. But to clarify ... yes, there are terrorists in Palestine. No, being from Palestine does not mean you are a terrorist.

Except for the ones dancing in the street of Brooklynn when the towers went down. No, not all of them are terrorists but what you do not see happeing is two things:

(1) The ones who do not agree with the terrorists or fanatics are not speaking out on the atrocities they are committing

(2) They are not standing up for themselves.

America overthrew her oppressors. France followed suit. Country after country has followed our example to live free. It's time for the "good" Muslims to stand up to their brethren and take care of their own house.

veronicasmommi

11-05-2004, 02:16 PM

quote:Originally posted by Homer Simpson

quote:Originally posted by Mearen

quote:Originally posted by Homer Simpson

Whatever Mearen, go to Utah or some other Theocracy you crave. Ideas evolve much like Man did from the early primates hundreds of thousands of years ago. You can have morality and not religion. Just like you can be religious without being moral.

My neigbhors would be offended by your snide remark at mormanism. Typical that you attack what you don't understand.

And just to throw some oil on this fire, show us some proof of evolution. Actual proof and not just a theory, hoping you know the difference.

I could care less about your Mormon neighbors. I take offense to them trying to convert everyone.

And if you don't believe in evolution then you sir, are an idiot. The proof exisits in DNA and the fossil record. The world was not created 5000 years ago by God. If God created the universe it was through a Scientific Process such as the big bang and man was created through evolution of the species. It's all there. If you want to believe a book of superstitions be my guest but Science is fact and indisputible. I'm not saying there is not a God or Creator who used the laws of this particular universe to create. Not at all. I'm saying that what you believe is based off of old data and needs to be rethought and not blindly followed.

You know, that comment about converting is very sterotypical. Not all mormons try to convert, some are just your neighbors and friends.

Homer Simpson

11-05-2004, 02:22 PM

quote:Originally posted by veronicasmommi
You know, that comment about converting is very sterotypical. Not all mormons try to convert, some are just your neighbors and friends.

Ummm, yeah, that's why they are required to go door to door harassing people at least once in their lives.

And while we are on the subject. What is up with the Book of Mormon. Jesus supposedly arose in North America and said it's great to have more than one wife and that women are inferior. Wow, that's quite a boon to men who want to dominate women and gives an excellent excuse to keep women down. Thumbs up! [}:)]

Wick

11-05-2004, 02:28 PM

I couldn't agree more. People that go around trying (in a nice manner) to convert people to their way of thinking...well, they are disgusting. I clearly prefer people that resort to nasty attacks and ridicule when trying to convert people to their way of thinking. Right, Homer?

brim

11-05-2004, 02:34 PM

quote:Originally posted by Homer Simpson

[quote]And while we are on the subject. What is up with the Book of Mormon. Jesus supposedly arose in North America and said it's great to have more than one wife and that women are inferior.

There is an excellent South Park about Mormons and the Book Of Mormon.

'I'm going to put these two stones and gold plates in a hat and translate them while you write it down...only I can translate them, you can't look!'

Homer Simpson

11-05-2004, 02:38 PM

quote:Originally posted by Wick

I couldn't agree more. People that go around trying (in a nice manner) to convert people to their way of thinking...well, they are disgusting. I clearly prefer people that resort to nasty attacks and ridicule when trying to convert people to their way of thinking. Right, Homer?

Yep! I ridicule that which should be. That's what social interaction is all about. If you can just put out any opinion as a fact without it being scrutinized we'd still be in the stone age.

As for trying to convert them to my way, it's impossible without deprogramming. So continue to post against me, I care not.

Homer Simpson

11-05-2004, 02:39 PM

quote:Originally posted by brim

quote:Originally posted by Homer Simpson

[quote]And while we are on the subject. What is up with the Book of Mormon. Jesus supposedly arose in North America and said it's great to have more than one wife and that women are inferior.

There is an excellent South Park about Mormons and the Book Of Mormon.

'I'm going to put these two stones and gold plates in a hat and translate them while you write it down...only I can translate them, you can't look!'

South Park hits the mark on soooo many issues!

veronicasmommi

11-05-2004, 02:40 PM

Heathens.

Mearen

11-05-2004, 02:40 PM

Homer Simpson

11-05-2004, 02:46 PM

quote:Originally posted by veronicasmommi

Heathens.

You are a heathen (if you are not a muslim) by the definition in Islam. That word can be used for everyone and in fact you may be a good christian and end up in Muslim hell.

Homer Simpson

11-05-2004, 02:48 PM

quote:Originally posted by Mearen

quote:Originally posted by brim

quote:Originally posted by Homer Simpson

[quote]And while we are on the subject. What is up with the Book of Mormon. Jesus supposedly arose in North America and said it's great to have more than one wife and that women are inferior.

There is an excellent South Park about Mormons and the Book Of Mormon.

'I'm going to put these two stones and gold plates in a hat and translate them while you write it down...only I can translate them, you can't look!'

Yes, let's rely on a cartoon created by admitted drug users to defend morality. Talk about dum dum dum dum dum.

Yep, just like the President, good ol G.W. Bush.

brim

11-05-2004, 03:09 PM

quote:Originally posted by Mearen

Yes, let's rely on a cartoon created by admitted drug users to defend morality. Talk about dum dum dum dum dum.

So you're obviously familiar with the episode I'm referring to. I'm not using it to defend morality (where'd that come from?), I'm using it to show the basis of the mormon religion (guy 'finds' gold plates and two 'seer stones' puts them in a hat where they light up and has a friend write the translation, then can't reproduce the translation later).

On a side note, Bush is also an admitted drug user and you're relying on him and his morality to run the country...dumb da dumb dumb dumb!

Wick

11-05-2004, 03:14 PM

quote:Originally posted by Homer Simpson

quote:Originally posted by Wick

I couldn't agree more. People that go around trying (in a nice manner) to convert people to their way of thinking...well, they are disgusting. I clearly prefer people that resort to nasty attacks and ridicule when trying to convert people to their way of thinking. Right, Homer?

Yep! I ridicule that which should be. That's what social interaction is all about. If you can just put out any opinion as a fact without it being scrutinized we'd still be in the stone age.

As for trying to convert them to my way, it's impossible without deprogramming. So continue to post against me, I care not.

I'm not disagreeing with WHAT you are saying/arguing, I am disagreeing with your labels of the people you are talking about. You may be attacking ideas - that is clear and not offensive to me. But you are also attacking the people behind those ideas. I have very good friends that are on polar opposites of certain issues with me. But I don't call them idiots and say they are stupid.

If you can't just put out any opinion without being called names or ridiculed, we'd still be in the stone age. Attack the idea, not the person. I bet you spend a lot of time alone, don't you?

marielaveau

11-05-2004, 03:48 PM

<<<pulls up a chair and gets out the popcorn>>>

exrook

11-05-2004, 04:59 PM

quote:Originally posted by marielaveau

<<<pulls up a chair and gets out the popcorn>>>

Anyone else find it funny that the General Use forum has five topics - four political and one on potty training? Judging from the depths some of the exchanges on this topic has sunk too, I can certainly see the lowest common denominator. ;)

exrook

11-05-2004, 05:00 PM

quote:Originally posted by thndrkats

I predict Clinton vs. Schwarzenegger in '08!

No - it'll be Jeb vs. Hillary [}:)]

Mearen

11-05-2004, 05:00 PM

Mearen

11-05-2004, 05:02 PM

gammonbabe

11-05-2004, 07:11 PM

quote:Originally posted by Homer Simpson
Yep, just like the President, good ol G.W. Bush.

My favorite bumper sticker:

GW Bush. Like a rock. Only dumber.

Homer Simpson

11-05-2004, 07:22 PM

quote:Originally posted by Wick
I'm not disagreeing with WHAT you are saying/arguing, I am disagreeing with your labels of the people you are talking about. You may be attacking ideas - that is clear and not offensive to me. But you are also attacking the people behind those ideas. I have very good friends that are on polar opposites of certain issues with me. But I don't call them idiots and say they are stupid.

If you can't just put out any opinion without being called names or ridiculed, we'd still be in the stone age. Attack the idea, not the person. I bet you spend a lot of time alone, don't you?

No, actually I have many friends. One's even a Menonite who agrees with me. Certain cults really get my ire. Mormons, Jehovah's witness',etc. Any religion that comes to my door and argues with me about my belief's is on my list. I'm not bashing these religions ignorantly. I've had many discussions to come to my conclusions. And since you can only attack me on my tone that indicates that my arguments about certain dogma are indeed true.

If you dispute valid science just because you believe it be so you are ignorant at best. These people can and have tried to change science curriculum to reflect their misconceived belief that the planet sprang from the ether 5000 years ago. These states that had the misfortune of having a majority of mentally chalenged individuals have become the laughing stock of the union and the world. These are the same people who burned Copernicus for daring to say the Earth revolved around the Sun.

The interesting thing is that if these folks would open their minds they may see how the Big Bang and evolution actually fit into their religion as tools of God. But since it was written it can't be so. Hence my scorn and derision.

flynnibus

11-05-2004, 07:26 PM

I find it funny how some people here brand the rural or non-city people and others as the 'dumb' ones who blindly support bush, etc. Yet, if you look in the paper today you'd see loudoun, which most of the population is here in the east.. and I'd say far from rural.. supported Bush.. and not only supported Bush.. but did so at a HIGHER rate in '04 then they did in '00 no less.

-Steve

veronicasmommi

11-05-2004, 07:33 PM

quote:Originally posted by brim

quote:Originally posted by Mearen

Yes, let's rely on a cartoon created by admitted drug users to defend morality. Talk about dum dum dum dum dum.

So you're obviously familiar with the episode I'm referring to. I'm not using it to defend morality (where'd that come from?), I'm using it to show the basis of the mormon religion (guy 'finds' gold plates and two 'seer stones' puts them in a hat where they light up and has a friend write the translation, then can't reproduce the translation later).

Since you seem to be familiar with this episode than you remember what Gary's last line in it was:

"Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don't care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that's stupid, I still choose to believe in it"

Dosen't sound cultish to me.

On a side note, Bush is also an admitted drug user and you're relying on him and his morality to run the country...dumb da dumb dumb dumb!

Brooks5

11-05-2004, 10:41 PM

quote:Originally posted by gammonbabe

quote:Originally posted by Homer Simpson
Yep, just like the President, good ol G.W. Bush.

My favorite bumper sticker:

GW Bush. Like a rock. Only dumber.

Mine:

Anyone who thinks George W. Bush is stupid is not as smart as George W. Bush.

Brooks5

11-05-2004, 10:58 PM

Do these "the President is a dope who's going to destroy the world" posts cause anyone else to have flashbacks to 1984? Because I swear I've heard this song before.

vacliff

11-06-2004, 09:02 PM

Quote from Homer:
"I think he's highlighting that the President, which one can argue is one of the most powerful, and stressful, jobs in the world makes less then a trial lawyer who profits off of the election. The president also makes much less then Movie stars and professional athletes. Makes you wonder about priorites."

Don't forget how much a former president gets paid per speech once they're out of office!!! It puts athletes and movie stars to shame!!

T8erman

11-07-2004, 12:03 PM

Politics and Religion... now there are 2 reasons for people to keep their opinions to themselves!

brim

11-07-2004, 12:36 PM

A wise man once said: Opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one and they all stink.

T8erman

11-07-2004, 01:02 PM

Best concession speach I have ever heard: "The people have spoke - the bastards!" - Dick Tuck, 1968 California Senate race (I think)

brim

11-08-2004, 06:52 AM

Was he a transvestite?

Skins fan

11-13-2004, 11:24 AM

If they admit they used drugs they must be bad and anything
they create has no merit?

That logic covers the more than 70 million people in the US
who have tried illegal drugs. They must all be terrible people.

GW Bush told a British reporter in the 2000 campaign it was
better to lie to your children about past drug use than to admit it:
"If I were you, I wouldn't tell your kids that you smoked pot unless you want them to smoke pot. I think it's important for leaders and parents not to send mixed signals. I don't want some kid saying, 'Well, Governor Bush tried it'."

So I guess its better to lie than to admit you smoked a joint?
What kind of message does that send?

Bush was partying heavily into his 40's. He didn't want to get into
the specifics but admitted: "When I was young and irresponsible,
I was young and irresponsible."

Now there is a real role model for us all.

quote:Originally posted by Mearen

Yes, let's rely on a cartoon created by admitted drug users to defend morality. Talk about dum dum dum dum dum.

Wick

11-13-2004, 02:28 PM

quote:Originally posted by Skins fan

If they admit they used drugs they must be bad and anything
they create has no merit?

That logic covers the more than 70 million people in the US
who have tried illegal drugs. They must all be terrible people.

GW Bush told a British reporter in the 2000 campaign it was
better to lie to your children about past drug use than to admit it:
"If I were you, I wouldn't tell your kids that you smoked pot unless you want them to smoke pot. I think it's important for leaders and parents not to send mixed signals. I don't want some kid saying, 'Well, Governor Bush tried it'."

So I guess its better to lie than to admit you smoked a joint?
What kind of message does that send?

Bush was partying heavily into his 40's. He didn't want to get into
the specifics but admitted: "When I was young and irresponsible,
I was young and irresponsible."

Now there is a real role model for us all.

quote:Originally posted by Mearen

Yes, let's rely on a cartoon created by admitted drug users to defend morality. Talk about dum dum dum dum dum.

Clinton was Bush's role model. I guess it rubbed off of Slick Willy on to W.

neilz

11-13-2004, 03:04 PM

quote:Originally posted by Wick

quote:Originally posted by Skins fan

If they admit they used drugs they must be bad and anything
they create has no merit?

That logic covers the more than 70 million people in the US
who have tried illegal drugs. They must all be terrible people.

GW Bush told a British reporter in the 2000 campaign it was
better to lie to your children about past drug use than to admit it:
"If I were you, I wouldn't tell your kids that you smoked pot unless you want them to smoke pot. I think it's important for leaders and parents not to send mixed signals. I don't want some kid saying, 'Well, Governor Bush tried it'."

So I guess its better to lie than to admit you smoked a joint?
What kind of message does that send?

Bush was partying heavily into his 40's. He didn't want to get into
the specifics but admitted: "When I was young and irresponsible,
I was young and irresponsible."

Now there is a real role model for us all.

quote:Originally posted by Mearen

Yes, let's rely on a cartoon created by admitted drug users to defend morality. Talk about dum dum dum dum dum.

Clinton was Bush's role model. I guess it rubbed off of Slick Willy on to W.

Clinton as Bush's role model ?? I think not ...

Neil Z.
Resident since 1999

latka

11-14-2004, 04:47 PM

Clinton[}:)]

lyo

Dutchml

11-14-2004, 09:20 PM

Everyone help to give Bush a brain:

http://www.imgag.com/product/full/ap/3067907/graphic1.swf

latka

11-15-2004, 09:19 AM

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm

Read it and weep. You have been proven wrong again.

lyo

brim

11-15-2004, 10:11 AM

Just because you have a high IQ doesn't mean you're not a moron. I've seen people in my old high school score perfect scores on the ACT and they're total idiots.

boomertsfx

11-15-2004, 10:20 AM

hahah dutch... four more years!!! w0000. we are the envy of the world.

latka

11-15-2004, 01:43 PM

quote:Originally posted by brim

Just because you have a high IQ doesn't mean you're not a moron. I've seen people in my old high school score perfect scores on the ACT and they're total idiots.

Actually the term moron refers to IQ and mental retardation. So no, you can't have a high IQ and be a moron.

lyo

exrook

11-18-2004, 10:35 AM

The White House

One sunny day in 2005, an old man approached the White House from across
Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to
the Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with
President Kerry." The Marine replied, "Sir, Mr. Kerry is not President and
doesn't reside here." The old man said, "Okay," and walked away.

The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the
same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Kerry." The
Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Kerry is not
President and doesn't reside here." The man thanked him and again walked
away.

The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very
same Marine, saying "I would like to go in and meet with President Kerry."
The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and
said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to
speak to Mr. Kerry. I've told you already that Mr. Kerry is not the
President and doesn't reside here. Don't you understand?"

The old man answered, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow."

:D

greggbroadlands

11-19-2004, 01:11 PM

President Bush Friday signed into law a measure authorizing an $800 billion increase in the credit limit of the United States....woo hoo another 800 million in debt :o)

Pats_fan

11-19-2004, 01:56 PM

quote:Originally posted by greggbroadlands

President Bush Friday signed into law a measure authorizing an $800 billion increase in the credit limit of the United States....woo hoo another 800 million in debt :o)
I suppose you would rather have the U.S. default on its debt, plunging the world economy into economic turmoil?

Oh, and by the way, as you said yourself, it is only a "credit limit increase." We did not automatically increase our debt by $800M. Even with todays outrageous deficits, it will take us well over a year to "spend" to this increased limit.

So let's be fair about this. And for the record, I don't defend our deficits. Given the current state of our budget, I think pushing for more tax cuts borders on criminal activity. Greenspan is not high on the idea, either. Just today, he cautioned about our deficit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62100-2004Nov19.html

Brooks5

11-23-2004, 06:33 PM

Two points worth noting:

1. The debt ceiling always gets raised. Even in times of surplus. Not someting worth losing sleep over.

2. Lowering taxes helps grow the economy, which is the best way to wipe out deficits. The Reagan tax cuts ultimately flooded the treasury with money, more than doubling revenue. Unfortunately, Congressional spending more than doubled during that time. The JFK tax cuts did the same thing. (There is a relatively famous JFK quote discussing this "paradox" as he put it.) The Bush cuts have been rather small (so far) but arguably helped cut short the recession he inherited nevertheless. (I believe the recent Nobel prize winner for economics, among others, has lamented that the Bush cuts were too small and should be expanded). It is particularly popular with the press to try to create the perception that the economy is a zero sum game, but history has repeatedly proven this to be wrong. A dollar cut in taxes does not need to be "made up" somewhere else. Keeping your money away from the government is a good thing for everyone.

Just my two cents, so to speak.

vweisenburg

11-24-2004, 11:18 AM

quote:Originally posted by Brooks5

Two points worth noting:

1. The debt ceiling always gets raised. Even in times of surplus. Not someting worth losing sleep over.

2. Lowering taxes helps grow the economy, which is the best way to wipe out deficits. The Reagan tax cuts ultimately flooded the treasury with money, more than doubling revenue. Unfortunately, Congressional spending more than doubled during that time. The JFK tax cuts did the same thing. (There is a relatively famous JFK quote discussing this "paradox" as he put it.) The Bush cuts have been rather small (so far) but arguably helped cut short the recession he inherited nevertheless. (I believe the recent Nobel prize winner for economics, among others, has lamented that the Bush cuts were too small and should be expanded). It is particularly popular with the press to try to create the perception that the economy is a zero sum game, but history has repeatedly proven this to be wrong. A dollar cut in taxes does not need to be "made up" somewhere else. Keeping your money away from the government is a good thing for everyone.

Just my two cents, so to speak.

"Keeping your money away from the government is a good thing for everyone."

Amen.