On Republicans.

[ski2bfree]

I've noticed that many of the posts on most of the politics threads have been right-wing. Lot's of Democrat bashing going on. Which is fine I guess. So, in response, I'm starting this thread to return the favor.

To start, one of my favorite quotes on conservatives:
"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward."Franklin D. Roosevelt, radio address, Oct. 26, 1939
32nd president of US (1882 - 1945) And now, the rant:

I can't stand how hypocritical Republicans are. It seems like every political stance they take is contrary to another one of their stances. Let's call ourselves "pro-life" and fight against abortion, but promote the death penalty as vehemently as possible. Let's create a "no child left behind" policy on education that denies children of educational programs. Let's call ourselves moral and just promoters of family values, but then immorally and unjustly invade a foreign country on false pretenses. Let's declare a war against muslim fundamentalists, but put a Christian fundamentalist in the White House.
The majority of the opinions expressed openly by Republicans are so incredibly selfish it makes me want to vomit. Everything is just "me, me, me." I'm offended by gay couples, so I don't want them to be allowed to marry (this homophobia crap is a whole other topic that I could go off on for hours). I want to keep all my money and screw everyone else who needs it, so let's cut taxes enough that we have to get rid of lots of valuable programs that other people rely on, including education and drug rehab programs. Social Security is going to collapse, so I want to devise a new system that will help me out in retirement, but why the hell should I care that it ****s over low-income families in the long run?

I think that's a good start. Let's get the ball rollin on this one Democrats!

[jaws]

Warning: It's hard to cast all republicans under one description. Same goes for Democrats.

Some of us, while republicans, mostly have very libertarian views towards the controversal social issues (or there are people like me, who've yet to make up their mind on a position). And yes, there are many Republicans who are weary of the far-right Christian Fundimentalists. While we may ally with them, we do keep an eye open so to speak to make sure we don't get screwed.

Many conservatives believe as an underlying philosophy that government isn't the answer to society's problems. They believe in the generosity of others to help out those in need. A major emphasis is also on self reliance. An example, rather than having someone who is able to work live off the government's dole (welfare) they should get themselves back into work.

Regarding tax-cutting--there's two theories at work here. Originally cutting taxes was a move designed to accompany a decrease in gov't outlays and in turn decrease the size of government. The other theory at work is supply-side economics, coupled with the idea of the laffer curve--which states that as tax rates decrease to a certain level, the economy is stimulated, and gov't revenues increase (which happened in the 80s and today)

Another traditional republican stance is the whole idea of Federalism--things not listed in the constitution for the Federal Gov't should be left to the states. For example, Education should be something left to the States, adn not the Federal Gov't, but that's another thread in and of itself.

I'll let others chime in as well.

[Sicander]

I've noticed that many of the posts on most of the politics threads have been right-wing. Lot's of Democrat bashing going on. Which is fine I guess. So, in response, I'm starting this thread to return the favor.



To start, one of my favorite quotes on conservatives:"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward."Franklin D. Roosevelt, radio address, Oct. 26, 1939

32nd president of US (1882 - 1945)
And now, the rant:


I can't stand how hypocritical Republicans are. It seems like every political stance they take is contrary to another one of their stances. Let's call ourselves "pro-life" and fight against abortion, but promote the death penalty as vehemently as possible. Let's create a "no child left behind" policy on education that denies children of educational programs. Let's call ourselves moral and just promoters of family values, but then immorally and unjustly invade a foreign country on false pretenses. Let's declare a war against muslim fundamentalists, but put a Christian fundamentalist in the White House.
The majority of the opinions expressed openly by Republicans are so incredibly selfish it makes me want to vomit. Everything is just "me, me, me." I'm offended by gay couples, so I don't want them to be allowed to marry (this homophobia crap is a whole other topic that I could go off on for hours). I want to keep all my money and screw everyone else who needs it, so let's cut taxes enough that we have to get rid of lots of valuable programs that other people rely on, including education and drug rehab programs. Social Security is going to collapse, so I want to devise a new system that will help me out in retirement, but why the hell should I care that it ****s over low-income families in the long run?

I think that's a good start. Let's get the ball rollin on this one Democrats!

OK Ill start from the begining. Franklin Delenore Roosevelt was a libral in his time. However in this day and age he would be concidered farther to the concervative side than most conservatives today. How do you think he would have responded to abortion and homosexual marriage? The death penalty is in axact parrallel to the problems with abortion. Murder is bad no matter how you cut it. Im not going to argue the abortion issue but lets just remember that republicans support the death penalty for the exact same reason they support pro life. They are not controdictory. I believe anything that results in the death of another human being above the charge of manslaugter should be punishable by a swift and uncerimonious death. You kill someone with will and intent and you sould be killed with will and intent. (Keep in mind I exclude self defence as that falls under the realm of manslaughter.) And you have to understand we republicans are coming from a different mindset, we believe homosexuality is wrong, I belive it is wrong and dont you call me a homophobe, my sister happens to be a lesbian, I do not support her actions but she is still my sister and that will never change. You will find very few republicans that do not realize that no child left behide has some flaws, bear in mind they are working to fix these flaws. Also the "valuable programs" that you say were cut were not valuable. Ive looked into this one, each and every one of those programs was either unused or redundant and only costing the state money that can be redirected to programs that do work (and they are doing that) And on the question of social security the president and his supporters have made it VERY clear that this program will not affect people past a sertain age (I dont recall what it was exactly) Most of the republicans now are old enough that the reform will have little to no effect on the, thusly it will not be lineing thier pockets and the ability to have personal accounts in no way affects the lower classes negatively, it will collectivly boost the economy and that helps everyone!!!! Also I dont see many constuctive critisism coming from the democratic side on this issue. I remember an interview were a democrat was questioned about what they would do to fix it and her exact words were, "Im not here to discuss that, im here to discuss why the presidents plan wont work" It is this reason there is such a schism in this country right now. We need to start working together to solve problems and stop with the generalizations and bikkering.

[GoingNova]

I am gonna go ahead and move this little ditty to the "REPARTEE" Forum. If you wish to agree, and Bash Republicans, by all means proceed here. If you wish to debate this, please do so in the debate forum, where you will find a copy of this thread. Enjoy, and play nice! :eusa_danc

[Angry White Man]

Thank you Nova! :eusa_ange Now, where to begin.....

Let me start by quoting Winston Churchill, "If you are young and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and not a conservative, then you have no head."

I can't stand how hypocritical Republicans are. It seems like every political stance they take is contrary to another one of their stances. Let's call ourselves "pro-life" and fight against abortion, but promote the death penalty as vehemently as possible.

Two COMPLETELY different issues. Pro-Life generally stands for being anti-abortion, as in "not killing a baby in the womb of it's mother". You might call it a fetus, but I call it a baby. Fetus or baby, it matters not, it is a living entity and is completely innocent of any crime, other than being an inconvenience, nuisance, or in some cases the result of a horrible crime committed against it's mother committed by some sick bastard. Regardless of the circumstances of the child's creation, it is still innocent of any crime, and nothing warrants it being killed. That IS NOT the same as killing someone who has already killed another human being(s).

I am reminded of something an elderly man once told me, "Women complain about men going to war, but remember, men go to war to kill other men. Women kill innocent babies." Personally, I believe abortion is UNDERSTANDABLE in certain circumstances, particularly rape or incest, however, even in those cases, I still believe it is morally wrong. But, we are all human, and we all do wrong things sometimes, and it is not my place to judge women who have abortions. If you have an abortion, I believe when you die you will have to answer to God. I do not condemn women who have abortions, because it is none of my business. It is between them and God. But I do take offense when people try to say it is not wrong. It is ALWAYS the killing of an innocent.

Let's create a "no child left behind" policy on education that denies children of educational programs.

If you are going to criticize, please be more specific. This past line is like me saying Democrats are dumb. Where are your facts to make this last statement? Also, what is the Democratic answer? MORE MONEY? All the money in the world is not going to fix this country's educational system. Most of the blame is placed on the schools, when it is the lack of parental input that deserves more of the blame. Liberals would have you believe that the schools are filled with little angels, whose sole purpose is to learn and they are denied this opportunity by the "Evil Republicans" who horde all the money that should be given to them. That could not be farther from the truth. If that were true, why is that some public schools in NYC do incredibly well, while others are horrible? Could it be that the good schools have parents who actually care, and discipline their children do well, while the bad schools have a majority of kids who are out of control with parents that either can't or won't disicipline them? The main problem in the schools is that the kids in the bad schools are out of control, but when you try and discipline them, the parents hire lawyers and sue! Yes, there are children in bad schools with WONDERFUL parents and who really want to learn, but they can't because of the animals in their schools. Republicans came up with SCHOOL VOUCHERS which would allow the GOOD KIDS in BAD SCHOOLS to leave and go to a better school, but the DEMOCRATS are in bed with the teacher's unions, and they simply will not allow this. Like I said, their solution is to through more money into the problem. It's won't work.

Let's call ourselves moral and just promoters of family values, but then immorally and unjustly invade a foreign country on false pretenses. .

I LOVE THIS ONE! It was MORALLY WRONG to remove a dictator that cut off people's limbs, threw people off the roof of buildings, used weapons of mass destruction to kill his own people by gassing them, who had sons who raped college women at whim? These are just a few things Sadaam did. That covers the moral part.

The legal part is much more simple. Sadaam signed a treaty of surrender to end the Gulf War. When you do not abide by a treaty of surrender, you make it null and void, and thereby revert back to a state of war. Sadaam had 12 years to make amends, but repeatedly refused to abide by the treaty he signed. The UN, the most corrupt organization in the world bar none, passed resolution after resolution after resolution condemning him, but did nothing to actually enforce the treaty because most of the other members of the Security Council, France, Russia, China, were too busy making BILLIONS off of the corrupt "Food For Oil" program. They could not care less that Sadaam was brutalizing his own people and not abiding by the treaty of surrender because they were too busy making BILLIONS OF DOLLARS! President Bush was the first leader to FINALLY have the balls to tell him, comply or face consequences. Do not say he simply "invaded" because he did not: he enforced the original treaty. Period.

And for your reading pleasure, please read an earlier thread regarding he misinformation abou WMDS (http://www.bashanything.com/showthread.php?t=119).

Let's declare a war against Muslim fundamentalists, but put a Christian fundamentalist in the White House.

When was the last time a "Christian Fundamentalist" flew planes into a building, killing 3000 COMPLETELY INNOCENT people? When was the last time you saw a "Christian Fundamentalist" tie up a man, and cut off his head with a dull knife? When was the last time a "Christian Fundamentalist" dragged a dead body threw the streets, burned it, and then hung it from a bridge? When was the last time a "Christian Fundamentalist" took over a SCHOOL AND MACHINE GUNNED INNOCENT CHILDREN AS THEY FLED FOR THIER LIVES? When was the last time you saw a group of Christians do something beyond reproach, and then other Christians dance and celebrate in the streets over this unspeakable act? In the past two hundred years, when has any Christian Religion done anything even REMOTELY HORRIBLE as the things I just mentioned? THAT is why it is ok for a Chrisitan to be in the White House.

The majority of the opinions expressed openly by Republicans are so incredibly selfish it makes me want to vomit. Everything is just "me, me, me." I'm offended by gay couples, so I don't want them to be allowed to marry (this homophobia crap is a whole other topic that I could go off on for hours).

Ah, gay marriage. You are right, this is another entire topic but let say this, Democrats are so in bed with the gay lobbyist groups they don't think ahead. Who cares, if two adults want to marry, let em marry. Two consenting adults have the right to be married, and the government has no right to deny them the right. Ok, how do you say no to polygamy? How can you deny a brother and sister who can not have children the right to marry? How can you deny a man whose wife died from marrying his daughter? On what grounds, LEGALLY, would you be able to deny the aforementioned people the right to get married?

I want to keep all my money and screw everyone else who needs it, so let's cut taxes enough that we have to get rid of lots of valuable programs that other people rely on, including education and drug rehab programs.

What right do you have to take people's hard earned money and give it to individuals instead of using it on things that benefit EVERYONE? You want to tax me for libraries, roads, bridges, schools, fine. All of those things benefit the WHOLE of society. But when you start giving out money to INDIVUALS that is where the government is WRONG. The government, as defined by the founding fathers (since there are no mention of any taxes of any kind in the Constitution), has no business being in the CHARITY BUSINESS. We have churches, charities, and private organizations in this country that are more than suffice to help the people WHO ARE REALLY IN NEED. Are you a communist that you think all the money should be put into a pot, and divided among everyone equally? If not, who decided how much money is fair? Instead of people "RELYING" on money from other people, how about they take responsibility for themselves. I have said it many times, I don't have a college degree, a rich family, or any other "privilege" as liberals call it and neither does my wife, yet we managed to work hard, save money, and buy a house in NYC, one of the most expensive places to live in the country. IF WE CAN DO IT, SO CAN ANYONE WHO IS NOT MENTALLY ILL!

Social Security is going to collapse, so I want to devise a new system that will help me out in retirement, but why the hell should I care that it ****s over low-income families in the long run?

What are you talking about? You think Social Security HELPS us? So let me get this straight, you think allowing people to actually CONTROL their money is a bad thing? What, are we too stupid that we need other people to do it for us? Social Security is the WORST INVESTMENT EVER! You put money into it all your life and might not even live to collect it! If I had the money I have been FORCED to put into Social Security since I was 18, I would have more than 5 times the amount I MIGHT GET if I live to 85. President Bush has the right idea: PRIVATE ACCOUNTS! I put $50000 in, when I hit retirement age, I take $50000 out, or draw from it monthly. Over the course of my working career I should be able to invest it as I see fit: if I want to keep it like a bank account, fine, pay me 4% interest. But to say Social Security is fine the way it is simply not accurate.

[ski2bfree]

Thank you Nova! :eusa_ange Now, where to begin.....

Let me start by quoting Winston Churchill, "If you are young and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and not a conservative, then you have no head."

Remember this: Thinking, in and of itself, is inherently a liberal quality. The word conservative refers to a preference for the status-quo, which requires no thought.


Two COMPLETELY different issues. Pro-Life generally stands for being anti-abortion, as in "not killing a baby in the womb of it's mother". You might call it a fetus, but I call it a baby. Fetus or baby, it matters not, it is a living entity and is completely innocent of any crime, other than being an inconvenience, nuisance, or in some cases the result of a horrible crime committed against it's mother committed by some sick bastard. Regardless of the circumstances of the child's creation, it is still innocent of any crime, and nothing warrants it being killed. That IS NOT the same as killing someone who has already killed another human being(s).
Bottom line: if you are "pro life" then you are against killing. The death penalty IS killing. No way around that. The title "pro-life" is, in and of itself, a title that states you are against killing. To be against abortion and for killing others IS a contradictory stance. Both are killing something, whether it be a fetus or a defunct member of society. Call yourself "pro-birth" if you think differently, because that would be a true title for that stance.

If you have an abortion, I believe when you die you will have to answer to God. I do not condemn women who have abortions, because it is none of my business. It is between them and God.
Good. Lots of people believe in a God. However, we have something in the United States that's called "separation of church and state," which should make that irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Extremist Republicans are out of line when they try to put God in the law. This does not apply to the basic rules, sich as no killing, stealing, etc. because it is generally agreed among the populace that these things are wrong. However, taking vague rules from scripture that do not apply to the general populace and attempting to force them on people who do not believe in it is wrong no matter how you put it.

Liberals would have you believe that the schools are filled with little angels, whose sole purpose is to learn and they are denied this opportunity by the "Evil Republicans" who horde all the money that should be given to them. That could not be farther from the truth. If that were true, why is that some public schools in NYC do incredibly well, while others are horrible As innocent and angelic as, say, those unborn fetuses that Republicans love so dearly? Bottom line: The no child left behind policy is wrong because it attempts to improve education by denying children of educational programs. Does no one else see the incredible hypocracy in this?

Could it be that the good schools have parents who actually care, and discipline their children do well, while the bad schools have a majority of kids who are out of control with parents that either can't or won't disicipline them? The main problem in the schools is that the kids in the bad schools are out of control, but when you try and discipline them, the parents hire lawyers and sue! Yes, there are children in bad schools with WONDERFUL parents and who really want to learn, but they can't because of the animals in their schools. Wonderful. I was hoping someone would say this. Making a generalization to contradict a generalization. So stereotypical. Hitler made generalizations as well, which he used to execute thousands of innocent people. Generalizations may be justified in certain circumstances, but they can not be used in government policies because they are inherently discriminatory.

It was MORALLY WRONG to remove a dictator that cut off people's limbs, threw people off the roof of buildings, used weapons of mass destruction to kill his own people by gassing them, who had sons who raped college women at whim? These are just a few things Sadaam did. That covers the moral part.
Yes, it was, for the simple fact that we are not the world police. We have to abide by the laws laid out by the treaties we hold. Such as the UN and NATO. Both of which opposed this war. As did the Catholic Church, which our "esteemed" leader holds in such high regard.

When was the last time a "Christian Fundamentalist" flew planes into a building, killing 3000 COMPLETELY INNOCENT people? When was the last time you saw a "Christian Fundamentalist" tie up a man, and cut off his head with a dull knife? When was the last time a "Christian Fundamentalist" dragged a dead body threw the streets, burned it, and then hung it from a bridge? When was the last time a "Christian Fundamentalist" took over a SCHOOL AND MACHINE GUNNED INNOCENT CHILDREN AS THEY FLED FOR THIER LIVES? When was the last time you saw a group of Christians do something beyond reproach, and then other Christians dance and celebrate in the streets over this unspeakable act? In the past two hundred years, when has any Christian Religion done anything even REMOTELY HORRIBLE as the things I just mentioned? THAT is why it is ok for a Chrisitan to be in the White House. A FUNDAMENTALIST is a FUNDAMENTALIST regardless of WHICH religion he praises. These are all unfair generalizations. Muslims have acted out in violent mediums because of the unfair treatment they have received at the hands of others, so CLAIM some ****ing responsibility for once. The Crusades were not a friendly game, and they would probably have been perceived as acts of terrorism from the other side. Put yourself in another person's shoes before you attack a point of view.

Onto a more reasonable route of discussion, are there no other liberals here who are going to join me in this? Come on Democrats! Put down the joint and rant with me! *sigh*

This is the true problem with my party. No organization. I've always been damn proud to be a Democrat because of all the progressive stances it stood for. My uncle was JFK's campaign manager, so it's in family tradition. If this party could organize and find some half decent candidates instead of some jerk-off and an ambulance chaser, we'd be golden.

[ski2bfree]

OK Ill start from the begining. Franklin Delenore Roosevelt was a libral in his time. However in this day and age he would be concidered farther to the concervative side than most conservatives today. How do you think he would have responded to abortion and homosexual marriage? Mark Twain made a statement on this subject: "The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them."
The death penalty is in axact parrallel to the problems with abortion. Murder is bad no matter how you cut it. Im not going to argue the abortion issue but lets just remember that republicans support the death penalty for the exact same reason they support pro life. They are not controdictory. If they are not contradictory, then the executioner deserves the same fate as the person executed. Eye for an eye does not say that another person should take the responsibility to punish one who has harmed another, just that the person who has harmed should receive a punishment befitting of the crime. Along those lines, since we've been quoting, Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

And you have to understand we republicans are coming from a different mindset, we believe homosexuality is wrong, I belive it is wrong and dont you call me a homophobe, my sister happens to be a lesbian, I do not support her actions but she is still my sister and that will never change That does not make it right that Republian policies infringe on the liberties that should be afforded to other citizens. People should be free to do what they want so long as it does not interfere with the liberties and rights of others. That's what a liberty is. And that is what is being denied to homosexuals. That in itself is discriminatory and immoral. Besides, most people are unable to control their sexual orientation because there is a genetic component to it. It's not complete because there is influence of both nature and nurture, but it is in part a product of genes.

[Angry White Man]

Remember this: Thinking, in and of itself, is inherently a liberal quality. The word conservative refers to a preference for the status-quo, which requires no thought.

Bottom line: if you are "pro life" then you are against killing. The death penalty IS killing. No way around that. The title "pro-life" is, in and of itself, a title that states you are against killing. To be against abortion and for killing others IS a contradictory stance. Both are killing something, whether it be a fetus or a defunct member of society. Call yourself "pro-birth" if you think differently, because that would be a true title for that stance.


Good. Lots of people believe in a God. However, we have something in the United States that's called "separation of church and state," which should make that irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Extremist Republicans are out of line when they try to put God in the law. This does not apply to the basic rules, sich as no killing, stealing, etc. because it is generally agreed among the populace that these things are wrong. However, taking vague rules from scripture that do not apply to the general populace and attempting to force them on people who do not believe in it is wrong no matter how you put it.

You can play symantics with word "pro-life" all you want. Killing an innocent baby is not the same as killing a convicted killer, plain and simple. Maybe in the world of liberalism, that wonderful fantasy land where everyone is a victim and guiltless of everything they do, you might be correct. In the REAL WORLD, killing babies is not the same as killing murderers.

As innocent and angelic as, say, those unborn fetuses that Republicans love so dearly? Bottom line: The no child left behind policy is wrong because it attempts to improve education by denying children of educational programs. Does no one else see the incredible hypocracy in this?

Incredible! You managed to through in no child left behind with abortion! Once again, maybe in the liberal fantasy land all children are angels and want to learn, but here is a shocker, in the real world, distruptive children only ruin the educational system for everyone else, and when they are out of control, what do you suggest we do with them? Just keep trying at the expense of others? You say no child left behind, which I might add was developed BY TED KENNEDY, denies children of educational programs, be specific instead of continually repeating the same old democratic mantra. HOW does it do this? LIST EXAMPLES.


Wonderful. I was hoping someone would say this. Making a generalization to contradict a generalization. So stereotypical. Hitler made generalizations as well, which he used to execute thousands of innocent people. Generalizations may be justified in certain circumstances, but they can not be used in government policies because they are inherently discriminatory.

Now I am just like Hitler because I dare to say the truth. Go interview REAL TEACHERS, oh, I don't know, maybe like the two to three dozen teachers that I know PERSONALLY, and see what they say. Not a teacher who is a union lackey mind you, but a real teacher. They are going to tell you that the MAIN PROBLEM IS the kids are out of control, and the parents are no help at all. They are then going to say that they are not paid enough, which is a valid point, but the mainstay of their arguement is the KIDS ARE WILD ANIMALS and the PARENTS CAN'T OR WON'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT! To think that throwing more money at this abysmall failure is going to help is ludicrous. And nice dodging of the school vouchers program. Republicans want to give people a CHOICE to send their children to a better school. Democrats do not. Plain and simple.

Also, if I am generalizing, what is the difference between the good schools and the bad schools, when they are both part of the same school system, they both have access to the same teacher pool, and they both have the same alotted budget. Why doe some do well, and others fail so miserably? You tell me what the problem is, since my "generelaziation", which makes me like Hilter, is so wrong? Please answer that questions SPECIFICALLY.

Yes, it was, for the simple fact that we are not the world police. We have to abide by the laws laid out by the treaties we hold. Such as the UN and NATO. Both of which opposed this war. As did the Catholic Church, which our "esteemed" leader holds in such high regard.

Sadamm did not abide by his treaty. We were simply enforcing the will of the world. The UN's opinion on the matter does not apply to this case, since we have learned the REAL reason the were against the war was they were making BILLIONS from the corrupt Food for Oil program. Please ADDRESS THIS, SPECIFIALLY. Also, are you suggesting that because we can not help EVERYONE we should not help anyone? Taking out an evil dictator who brutalizes his people is wrong because we can not take out ALL EVIL DICTATORS?

The Catholic Church, specifically the Pope, was not privy to the information about the UN corruption. He, like the rest of the world, was unaware of the fact of what was going on. Also, please do not, on one hand use the Church to further your argument while on the other hand you are ingnoring them. The Church is AGAINST abortion, but you conviently do not mention that, then you turn around and bring them up on the next issue. Don't use the Church like that, it is offensive.

A FUNDAMENTALIST is a FUNDAMENTALIST regardless of WHICH religion he praises. These are all unfair generalizations. Muslims have acted out in violent mediums because of the unfair treatment they have received at the hands of others, so CLAIM some ****ing responsibility for once. The Crusades were not a friendly game, and they would probably have been perceived as acts of terrorism from the other side. Put yourself in another person's shoes before you attack a point of view.

Oh my GOD! Muslims were "acting out against unfair treatment"? That justifies MACHINE GUNNING INNOCENT CHILDREN AS THEY RUN AWAY? I need to claim reposibility for treating people unfairly? BE SPECIFIC! WHAT JUSTISFIES MURDERING CHILDREN?! Please be specific. Tell us all what justifies all the things I mentioned, but specifically, as a father of a small child, I would like to know what justifies some ANIMAL THAT SHOULD BE HUNG BY HIS BALLS, tell me what makes it ok for him to kill my child. Please. Enlighten us all.

This is the true problem with my party. No organization. I've always been damn proud to be a Democrat because of all the progressive stances it stood for. My uncle was JFK's campaign manager, so it's in family tradition. If this party could organize and find some half decent candidates instead of some jerk-off and an ambulance chaser, we'd be golden.

No organization? Are you kidding me? They have MoveOn.org, MoveOn.pac, Air America, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post, and a plethora of other outlets, and you say they have no organization? Wrong, they have EXCELLENT organization, they just have the WRONG MESSAGE!

[ski2bfree]

We have the right message. It's one of compassion and understanding, a belief that people are inherently good. We lack organization because of the vast group that the opinions expressed by the Democratic party encompasses. It leaves ample room for people like Michael Moore to release all sorts of extremist crap that creates a disenfranchisement with the party.
I'm not going to make the same arguments continuously because this is just becoming a circular debate, but I will address some of those issues you've put forward.

The war in Iraq: Where do you get this information that the world community wanted us to overthrow Saddam? If you've traveled abroad anytime within the past 5 years, you've probably received some harsh comments about being an American. I got it constantly when I was in Italy last year. My friends in the International Student Association, from Panama, Chile, India, Spain, and Greece, all have opposed the war in Iraq.

No Child Left Behind: Some un-unionized teachers support this policy because the budget cuts it employs do not really take away from the base salary that teachers earn normally. I actually agree with your statement on the teacher's union in NY, but it doesn't apply to most other states where the teacher's unions hold much less power than they do in NY. What the policy does is it cuts funding for extracurricular programs, such as music and art, when a school fails to meet certain standardized testing scores. Some may say this is reasonable because art and music aren't necessary while math, social studies, english, etc. are all integral parts to a well-rounded and useful education. However, I've studied the effects of music education as a part of my senior research, and it's generally agreed in the scientific community that music and art education promotes education in other disciplines. The brain actually restructures itself when learning to play an instrument or paint on a canvas. This is why music students tend to perform better in math and science courses than students with no music education. Oh, and as a side note, Ted Kennedy's a rotten P.O.S. who would have no place in politics if it weren't for the family name, so I really don't care that he helped draft the policy.

Death penalty/abortion: If you're a true believer in the Christian faith, you don't think that unborn babies are innocent. Everyone is born of original sin. However, since I've argued that religion does not have a place in the law, I'll follow a different line of reasoning. An abortion within the first trimester is just getting rid of a little cluster of cells that would, eventually, have grown into a human child. That cluster of cells is just a cluster of cells. It is not a person yet. It has no innocence or guilt. The woman carrying it should be allowed to decide whether she wants to continue carrying it so that it may grow to become a child.
I agree, the death penalty is killing those who have been convicted as guilty of some heinous crime. That does not make it right to kill the guilty party. It costs more money, on average, to execute an individual than to carry out a life sentence. And besides that point, the whole practice is barbaric.

[Sicander]

Ok I cant respond to this one anymore, Im either going to get mad or start rolling on the floor laughing I dont know which. Angry I leave this one on your capable hands.

[Sicander]

That does not make it right that Republian policies infringe on the liberties that should be afforded to other citizens. People should be free to do what they want so long as it does not interfere with the liberties and rights of others. That's what a liberty is.

Ok I just saw this one, and that is the biggest pile of hogwash ever. You know what that kind of thinking gets you? ANARCHY!!!!! First of all what kind of rights do you think you have? There is a bill of them and we don't have much more than is listed there. People make up "Rights" WAY too much. Read my post in Bash Politics called "How to Topple an Empire" It explains my views on this.

[ski2bfree]

Ok I just saw this one, and that is the biggest pile of hogwash ever. You know what that kind of thinking gets you? ANARCHY!!!!! First of all what kind of rights do you think you have? There is a bill of them and we don't have much more than is listed there. People make up "Rights" WAY too much. Read my post in Bash Politics called "How to Topple an Empire" It explains my views on this. Whether you like it or not, that's what a civil liberty is. A civil right is different. It's the rights that are entitled to people, such as the right to bear arms. The liberties ensure that the government does not infringe on our freedom, encompassing things such as freedom of speech, religion, etc. I never claimed that marriage is a right, I claimed that it is a liberty, which it is. Protecting civil liberties does not equate to promoting anarchy. Policies that are aimed at infringing upon those civil liberties are the real "hogwash."

[Sicander]

So Im free to do whatever i want as long as it doesnt hurt anyone. Sooo suicide is legal now? So making pipe bombs and drugs are fine as long as i dont use or sell them? Its only one more step to say im expressing myself by blowing up that bulding, im exersizing my right to marry my sister, im exersizing my right to murder rape and pillige. I need to make a thread out of this.

[ski2bfree]

So Im free to do whatever i want as long as it doesnt hurt anyone. Sooo suicide is legal now? So making pipe bombs and drugs are fine as long as i dont use or sell them? Its only one more step to say im expressing myself by blowing up that bulding, im exersizing my right to marry my sister, im exersizing my right to murder rape and pillige. I need to make a thread out of this. Whoa, what? How the hell can you equate freedom to marry with blowing up a building? That argument is just plain asinine. It's a hell of a lot more than one step between a civil liberty and expressing yourself with violence. An Olympian couldn't make that leap. Besides that point, you're still confusing rights with liberties. Try reading a passage before criticizing it.

[GoingNova]

And now, a message from your Admin. <Nova breaks into song>

"Everything is beautiful.... in it's own way"

So far folks, you have been doing a GREAT job :eusa_clap keeping it civil. Let's keep up the good work! :eusa_ange

We now take you back to your regularly scheduled debate.

[ski2bfree]

OK. So, the title is a little misleading. But anyway, I'm gonna put the fire back in this thread with some bashing of the famous Anne Coulter, author of How to Speak to a Liberal. I've heard Republicans boasting this book, saying all sorts of things about how great it is, what an intellectual Coulter is, blah blah blah. According to the hype, we should all believe that she is truely a public intellectual because she is usually not paid for her TV appearances, but earns her wages solely from her publications. It's probably a good thing that she doesn't. Last time she earned wages from a TV station, as a commentator for MSNBC, she was fired.
I also can't stand how conservatives keep putting her on a pedestal because of her legal history. She gave legal advice to Paula Jones in the case against Clinton, and we all know how that case turned out. The funny thing is, she basically admitted that her involvement in the case was not to protect her client's interest: "We were terrified that Jones would settle. It was contrary to our purpose of bringing down the President." She's such a moral, intellectual person that she also felt it absolutely necessary to distribute information to the press regarding the distinguishing characteristic of Clinton's penis.
Many Republicans do admit that she can be coarse at times. Well, at times she has been noted to acuse the Democratic party of supporting killing, lying, adultery, thievery, envy. She has stated that a baseball bat is the most effective way to talk to a liberal. That her only regret with Timothy McVeigh is that he did not go to the New York Times building. Those last two statements sound like support of killing. Just a shot in the dark there.
I want this woman to GET OFF MY NEWS, along with the Catholic Church, Michael Jackson, and our shamefully ignorant president.

[Angry White Man]

Last time she earned wages from a TV station, as a commentator for MSNBC, she was fired.

Do you even know WHY she was fired? She was fired because she refused to allow an editor dictate to her what she could and could not say. She stood up to someone and lost her job on principle. Last time I checked, standing up for your principles was an admirable thing to do.

I also can't stand how conservatives keep putting her on a pedestal because of her legal history. She gave legal advice to Paula Jones in the case against Clinton, and we all know how that case turned out. The funny thing is, she basically admitted that her involvement in the case was not to protect her client's interest: "We were terrified that Jones would settle. It was contrary to our purpose of bringing down the President." She's such a moral, intellectual person that she also felt it absolutely necessary to distribute information to the press regarding the distinguishing characteristic of Clinton's penis.

Sure, because as we all know, there is nothing wrong with a man in a postition of power forcing himself on a woman. It is amazing how you gloss over what Clinton did, simply amazing. You LAMBAST Bush for messing up a sentence, yet you gloss over abuse of authority. Clinton was a rapist, a sexual predator, and he abused his power in a horrible way. Did you know that more young teenagers, ages 12 and up, have oral sex than ever before, and why do you think that is? Could it be the fact that President Clinton said "oral sex isn't sex". THAT is part of the TRUE CLINTON LEGACY. How would you feel if you came home and your mother or sister said a man tried to have his way with her? How would you feel if some woman you loved had a boss that made unwanted advances towards her? Would you gloss over that? But hey, I forgot, we now know that Paula Jones was a liar, and she made it all up because, after all, "we all know how that case turned out"! Just like we all thought OJ was guilty! HECK, weren't we just silly! Of course OJ was innocent, because, after all, "we all know how that case turned out"!


Well, at times she has been noted to acuse the Democratic party of supporting killing,

That would be abortion.

lying,

That would be by supporting Bill Clinton.

adultery,

That would be, again, by supporting Bill Clinton.

thievery

That would be the entire state of New Jersey, :laughing3 but I think she was referring to Sandy Berger, you know, the guy who "accidently" put the documents in his socks, and then, oppps again, "accidently" shredded them.

envy

That would be the so typical "angry democratic speech", which shows quite plainly how jealous, angry, and upset the democrats are since losing the White House, the Senate, and the House of Represenatives. Oh, and the majority of Governorships. I guess that would be because George Bush is so stupid, that his "ignorance" must have magically rubbed off on the popultation of the United States.

She has stated that a baseball bat is the most effective way to talk to a liberal. That her only regret with Timothy McVeigh is that he did not go to the New York Times building. Those last two statements sound like support of killing. Just a shot in the dark there.

Quite a blind shot in the dark I might add. When she says this, she means it figuartively, not literally. I guess she just thinks most people would be intelligent enough to figure it out. Maybe she is wrong to think that.

I want this woman to GET OFF MY NEWS, along with the Catholic Church, Michael Jackson, and our shamefully ignorant president.

So, the first amendment does not apply to anyone who annoys you? Ms Coulter does not have the right to speak because you disagree with her?

Oh, just a note to people who call Bush "ignorant", it really makes YOU seem ignorant. The man has done more in his lifetime than most people could do in 10 life times. I hate Clinton. I despise Clinton. But I know the man is not stupid. Just because President Bush is not a good orator, stop saying he is stupid. He is a REAL PERSON, not some polished snob. On second thought, keep thinking he is stupid, and he will keep succeeding at everything he does.

President Bush is a moral man, who does things that he believes to be right. I respect that. Time after time he does things that DESTROY him politically, yet he does them anyway. You might call that being "ignorant", I call it being a LEADER! Standing up for one's principles is an admirable thing. It shows backbone. It shows guts. It shows courage. President Bush, unlike Clinton, does not let a poll dictate policy.

[Sicander]

Most impressive angry, Im gonna have to read that book now. Hmm Baseball bat, I must confess I never thought of that. *Gets in car drives to walmart*

[ski2bfree]

Do you even know WHY she was fired? She was fired because she refused to allow an editor dictate to her what she could and could not say. She stood up to someone and lost her job on principle. Last time I checked, standing up for your principles was an admirable thing to do.
And I would think the editor was doing a good thing by firing someone with a blatant bias from a media position.



Sure, because as we all know, there is nothing wrong with a man in a postition of power forcing himself on a woman. It is amazing how you gloss over what Clinton did, simply amazing. You LAMBAST Bush for messing up a sentence, yet you gloss over abuse of authority. Clinton was a rapist, a sexual predator, and he abused his power in a horrible way. Did you know that more young teenagers, ages 12 and up, have oral sex than ever before, and why do you think that is? Could it be the fact that President Clinton said "oral sex isn't sex". THAT is part of the TRUE CLINTON LEGACY. How would you feel if you came home and your mother or sister said a man tried to have his way with her? How would you feel if some woman you loved had a boss that made unwanted advances towards her? Would you gloss over that? But hey, I forgot, we now know that Paula Jones was a liar, and she made it all up because, after all, "we all know how that case turned out"! Just like we all thought OJ was guilty! HECK, weren't we just silly! Of course OJ was innocent, because, after all, "we all know how that case turned out"!

Last time I checked, the rule was innocent until proven guilty. If he was proven innocent before a jury of his peers, that makes him innocent in the eyes of the law and undeserving of personal judgements placed on him by others. Unconvicted sexual predators are not required to register, just convicted ones. Clinton was not a rapist. He was never charged with nor convicted of rape. Those were sexual harassment suits, which is much different. Also, sexual predator is a term used to label men who rape minors, which is just not applicable to Clinton. As far as little girls giving head at a younger age, maybe the parents should take responsibility for the actions of their children rather than blaming the influence of someone else. Ever think of taking a look at the demographics for the number of 12 year old girls who watch the news on a regular basis?
Back to Clinton and Jones, check out the actual case information before calling Clinton a rapist http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/jones/updates.html
"Jones failed to show that the President engaged 'in egregious sexual conduct' such as physically forcing himself upon her. The judge also felt that Jones did not prove the basis of her defamation allegations against Clinton."



That would be abortion.
The death penalty is also killing.

That would be the so typical "angry democratic speech", which shows quite plainly how jealous, angry, and upset the democrats are since losing the White House, the Senate, and the House of Represenatives.
Read The Vast Liberal Conspiracy, which was written by a conservative as a means of analyzing liberal political maneuvers, and you'll understand that that argument is as preposterous as the statement that the war in Iraq was justified.

Quite a blind shot in the dark I might add. When she says this, she means it figuartively, not literally. I guess she just thinks most people would be intelligent enough to figure it out. Maybe she is wrong to think that.
No. But she is wrong to assume that using Timothy Mcveigh's name to denounce a newspaper is proper. I'm sure the families of victims killed in the Oklahoma City bombing are just thrilled that she can downplay this tragedy for the purpose of poking fun at a newspaper.

So, the first amendment does not apply to anyone who annoys you? Ms Coulter does not have the right to speak because you disagree with her?
If that were true, I would have stopped replying to your posts on this thread a long time ago.

Oh, just a note to people who call Bush "ignorant", it really makes YOU seem ignorant. The man has done more in his lifetime than most people could do in 10 life times. I hate Clinton. I despise Clinton. But I know the man is not stupid. Just because President Bush is not a good orator, stop saying he is stupid. He is a REAL PERSON, not some polished snob. On second thought, keep thinking he is stupid, and he will keep succeeding at everything he does.
The man has done so much in a lifetime because he has inherited success. I have much more respect for someone who has earned a college education and career than someone who rides on his father's name to get into college and ****s around for 4 years.

President Bush is a moral man, who does things that he believes to be right.
I suppose that driving while intoxicated is one of those moral things (1976).

I respect that. Time after time he does things that DESTROY him politically, yet he does them anyway. You might call that being "ignorant", I call it being a LEADER! Standing up for one's principles is an admirable thing. It shows backbone. It shows guts. It shows courage. President Bush, unlike Clinton, does not let a poll dictate policy.
No, I wouldn't call that ignorant. But I would say that it's in defiance of the interests of our country. The President is supposed to represent the people. The opinions of the people are fairly accurately represented in polls (they're not all perfect, but much better than they used to be statistics-wise). I think it's pretty arrogant to ignore those views.

And anyways, these views are rapidly shifting toward the left side. Read the book I mentioned earlier, The Vast Liberal Conspiracy, and you'll see how the Democratic party is gaining much more support in recent years, while the Republican party is starting to lose it. The next election will be much different than this past one.

[Angry White Man]

[/font]
And I would think the editor was doing a good thing by firing someone with a blatant bias from a media position.

She was not writing NEWS she was writing COMMENTARY. That means, she refused to roll over. When you hire someone to write an opinion, but then want to edit that opinion, why bother hiring someone, just write it yourself. BRAVO to someone who is prinicipled.


Last time I checked, the rule was innocent until proven guilty. If he was proven innocent before a jury of his peers, that makes him innocent in the eyes of the law and undeserving of personal judgements placed on him by others. Unconvicted sexual predators are not required to register, just convicted ones. Clinton was not a rapist. He was never charged with nor convicted of rape. Those were sexual harassment suits, which is much different. Also, sexual predator is a term used to label men who rape minors, which is just not applicable to Clinton. As far as little girls giving head at a younger age, maybe the parents should take responsibility for the actions of their children rather than blaming the influence of someone else. Ever think of taking a look at the demographics for the number of 12 year old girls who watch the news on a regular basis?
Back to Clinton and Jones, check out the actual case information before calling Clinton a rapist http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/jones/updates.html
"Jones failed to show that the President engaged 'in egregious sexual conduct' such as physically forcing himself upon her. The judge also felt that Jones did not prove the basis of her defamation allegations against Clinton."



So funny how all that compassion goes right out the window. Parents don't educate their kids, so if they want to have oral sex, too bad. Anything but blame Clinton. I am sorry friend, I am not even going to argue this point, because, quite frankly, the world knows what Clinton is.



The death penalty is also killing.

Here we go again, comparing the killing of an innocent child with that of killing a convicted murderer.


Read The Vast Liberal Conspiracy, which was written by a conservative as a means of analyzing liberal political maneuvers, and you'll understand that that argument is as preposterous as the statement that the war in Iraq was justified.

Well, since the war in Iraq was justified, and I have only documented why more times than I wish to count, I am just going to move on. But, just in case you forgot, here is the simple version:

Sadaam Starts War
Sadaam Loses War
Saddam Signs Peace Treaty
Saddam does not abide by Treaty over 12 year period
Treaty is voided
Bush has every legal right to return to state of war with Iraq

Simple as that.

the man has done so much in a lifetime because he has inherited success. I have much more respect for someone who has earned a college education and career than someone who rides on his father's name to get into college and ****s around for 4 years.

Class warfare at it's best. He is a scumbag because he was born into a rich family. Sounds like jealousy to me. Why don't you chastice the Kennedy's for the same thing? Or the Kerry's for that matter?


I suppose that driving while intoxicated is one of those moral things (1976).

I love this one. Clinton is using cigars on interns, and you excuse that, but have a drink and drive, HANG HIM! At least when he was drinking and driving, he didn't drive off a bridge and walk away from a drowning woman.

No, I wouldn't call that ignorant. But I would say that it's in defiance of the interests of our country. The President is supposed to represent the people. The opinions of the people are fairly accurately represented in polls (they're not all perfect, but much better than they used to be statistics-wise). I think it's pretty arrogant to ignore those views.

We live in a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. You elect an official based on his views, and if he does not do what you like, you don't re-elect him. What you are suggesting is a Democracy, where you simply choose a side based on majority. That is not how a Republic is supposed to work, and we don't do that specifically because of "Mob Rule". A leader who strictly follows polls to make up his/her mind on the issues, is not a leader.

And anyways, these views are rapidly shifting toward the left side. Read the book I mentioned earlier, The Vast Liberal Conspiracy, and you'll see how the Democratic party is gaining much more support in recent years, while the Republican party is starting to lose it. The next election will be much different than this past one.

Not sure I would agree with you about the "rapidly shifting toward the left side". In the last election, the left caused the Democratic Party to lose all branches of the government, and the majority of the governorships. That is why the liberals are so against Bush's judges, because the courts are the only place they can get their agenda through, because they keep losing at the ballot box.

[ski2bfree]

She was not writing NEWS she was writing COMMENTARY. That means, she refused to roll over. When you hire someone to write an opinion, but then want to edit that opinion, why bother hiring someone, just write it yourself. BRAVO to someone who is prinicipled.
Coulter was fired when she told a disabled Vietnam veteran, "people like you caused us to lose that war." She was fired from the National Review when she turned in a column offering a final solution to the Muslim problem: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Bravo to principles, indeed. I especially love her principle in support of nuclear warfare: "I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning. ... They’re a major threat. I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning to the rest of the world." Yes, let's instigate a nuclear holocaust and piss off every other nation in the world. I think that would be very smart and principled.

So funny how all that compassion goes right out the window. Parents don't educate their kids, so if they want to have oral sex, too bad. Anything but blame Clinton. I am sorry friend, I am not even going to argue this point, because, quite frankly, the world knows what Clinton is.
Not that I'm not compassionate about little girls giving head, but consider the source. I'd blame it more on pop culture than a president that many of these girls know little to nothing about. 12 years old is outside most demographics that keep track of news-watchers, but the lowest demographic is 14-17 year olds, with the highest being 35-49. Don't assume a causal relationship that can't be proven.

Here we go again, comparing the killing of an innocent child with that of killing a convicted murderer.
The death sentence stops the heart of a convicted killer from beating. The fact that s/he is a convicted killer is irrelevent. Killing is still killing, no matter who is being killed. When you kill a killer, it makes you a killer just the same. If we were to kill every person who has killed another, we would have no executioners left.

Well, since the war in Iraq was justified, and I have only documented why more times than I wish to count, I am just going to move on. But, just in case you forgot, here is the simple version:

Sadaam Starts War
Sadaam Loses War
Saddam Signs Peace Treaty
Saddam does not abide by Treaty over 12 year period
Treaty is voided
Bush has every legal right to return to state of war with Iraq

Simple as that.
Funny how you leave out the false pretense that they possessed weapons of mass destruction that were aimed at our country. And that there are many other worse humanitarian crises around the globe that we should have been involved in long before Iraq. Sudan is just one example.

Class warfare at it's best. He is a scumbag because he was born into a rich family. Sounds like jealousy to me. Why don't you chastice the Kennedy's for the same thing? Or the Kerry's for that matter?
I would never be jealous nor envious of Bush. He is not someone to be admired. I am envious of people who succeed despite the conditions they are born into because of the determination that it takes. I liked the Kennedy's a long time ago because of what they stood for, but I've never supported Kerry. He's a gold-digger.
I'd say class warfare would be more accurately described by many wealthy families that are too selfish to share a little bit of their money with people less fortunate. Look at Bill Gates. He has billions, yet he spends much of his time and energy giving back to the global community by speaking out for solutions to world hunger, donating a substantial amount of money for Autism research.
Bush, on the other hand, has never done any charity work aside from that assigned to him at Project P.U.L.L. in a deal that was made between his parents and local police when he was allegedly arrested in 1972 for cocaine possession.

Clinton is using cigars on interns, and you excuse that, but have a drink and drive, HANG HIM! At least when he was drinking and driving, he didn't drive off a bridge and walk away from a drowning woman.
DWI is just a little bit different than getting a quickie with an intern. One puts peoples' lives in jeopardy, the other's just a sexual encounter. I don't condone what Clinton did, but it's not even comparable to DWI.

We live in a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. You elect an official based on his views, and if he does not do what you like, you don't re-elect him. What you are suggesting is a Democracy, where you simply choose a side based on majority. That is not how a Republic is supposed to work, and we don't do that specifically because of "Mob Rule". A leader who strictly follows polls to make up his/her mind on the issues, is not a leader.
This is not a democratic republic. It is a democracy. Just not a direct democracy. But it is a democracy, which has been established by the system of checks and balances between the branches of the government. What I proposed is an informed democracy in which polls can be taken into account to make important decisions that will effect the people. Utlizing polls to make informed decisions constitutes a conscientious leader.

Not sure I would agree with you about the "rapidly shifting toward the left side". In the last election, the left caused the Democratic Party to lose all branches of the government, and the majority of the governorships. That is why the liberals are so against Bush's judges, because the courts are the only place they can get their agenda through, because they keep losing at the ballot box.
As much as I hate to say it, the elections would have been a landslide in favor of the Republican party if it weren't for left-wing publications like "Fahrenheit 9/11". Michael Moore's a total ass, who I've always thought of as doing more harm than good, but according to Byron York that isn't true. He spoke a little bit about it during his appearance on The Daily Show, while promoting his book The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (I had the wrong name for the title in my previous post). Check it out. The book's being hailed by both sides as a great documentary piece about how liberals are building the largest, richest, and soon to be best organized political movement in American history.

[jaws]

I don't wnat to interupt the debate betwee Ski2bfree and AngryWhiteMan, but just a few quick thoughts on Ann Coulter.

Yes, I read her column, I'll admit that. Do I take it totally seriously--no. Do I often laugh at how over the top it is--yes. I take it with grains of salt. I treat it more as humor. As for her books, I've read Slander and Treason; and the most valuble part of those books are often the footnotes, as they're good "jumping off points" into the primary sources.

[Angry White Man]

Coulter was fired when she told a disabled Vietnam veteran, "people like you caused us to lose that war." She was fired from the National Review when she turned in a column offering a final solution to the Muslim problem: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Bravo to principles, indeed. I especially love her principle in support of nuclear warfare: "I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning. ... They’re a major threat. I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning to the rest of the world." Yes, let's instigate a nuclear holocaust and piss off every other nation in the world. I think that would be very smart and principled.

No point in arguing further, we disagree.

Not that I'm not compassionate about little girls giving head, but consider the source. I'd blame it more on pop culture than a president that many of these girls know little to nothing about. 12 years old is outside most demographics that keep track of news-watchers, but the lowest demographic is 14-17 year olds, with the highest being 35-49. Don't assume a causal relationship that can't be proven.
[/font][/font]

No point in arguing further, we disagree.

The death sentence stops the heart of a convicted killer from beating. The fact that s/he is a convicted killer is irrelevent. Killing is still killing, no matter who is being killed. When you kill a killer, it makes you a killer just the same. If we were to kill every person who has killed another, we would have no executioners left.

No point in arguing further, we disagree.

Funny how you leave out the false pretense that they possessed weapons of mass destruction that were aimed at our country. And that there are many other worse humanitarian crises around the globe that we should have been involved in long before Iraq. Sudan is just one example.

The point is, Bush had legal justification to go into Iraq, plain and simple. Anything after that fact was just that, AFTER THE FACT. The entire WMD reason was just adding to pile of reasons why we went into Iraq, but was not necessary. And, it is not fair in the least to blame the WMD situation on Bush. EVERYONE thought Saddamm had them:



"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

So please, stop trying to make it look as though Bush was the only person who thought there WMDs. Also, consider the following:

A) Saddam had the means to "resume full-scale WMD efforts after the sanctions were eliminated
B) Saddam was pursuing an aggressive effort to subvert the international santions - and we now know the French, Germans, and Russians were helping him
C) Saddam's attempts to remove the sanctions were working . Sanctions – and thus the policy of containment – were eroding.

So, was it not rational to conclude that he WAS GOING TO GET WMDs, and was it not wise to take him out BEFORE he could get them? Throw in the mass murders and the other atrocities he was commiting, I just can not understand how you can say this was an unjust war.

Bush, along with the rest of the world, honestly thought he did, but I would like to pose this question:

If Bush had to make a mistake, is not the mistake he made by taking out an evil tryant better than the mistake that Saddam DID have WMDs, and gave a suitcase nuke (Saddam actually paid North Korea 10 million for Nuclear Missles just before the United States invaded Iraq (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031004-123026-1690r.htm) ) to some nut job to literally wipe off the face of the Earth, one of our cities?

I'd say class warfare would be more accurately described by many wealthy families that are too selfish to share a little bit of their money with people less fortunate. Look at Bill Gates. He has billions, yet he spends much of his time and energy giving back to the global community by speaking out for solutions to world hunger, donating a substantial amount of money for Autism research.

Are you the Pope? What gives you the right to tell someone how to spend their money? What gives ANYONE, including the governement, the right to say how and when I should donate my time and my money to anyone or anything? IT IS MY MONEY! IT IS MY TIME! Bush gives ample amounts of money to various charaties. Who are you to criticize and dictate what he does WITH HIS MONEY?

Bush, on the other hand, has never done any charity work aside from that assigned to him at Project P.U.L.L. in a deal that was made between his parents and local police when he was allegedly arrested in 1972 for cocaine possession.

Parents help their children. Again, stop critizing Bush for what almost everyone, especially politicitians and people in power, due when it comes to helping thier children. Do you need a list of hundreds of politicians who have done the same thing? Come on, be realistic.

DWI is just a little bit different than getting a quickie with an intern. One puts peoples' lives in jeopardy, the other's just a sexual encounter. I don't condone what Clinton did, but it's not even comparable to DWI.

Once again, you are quick to judge. Ever hear of Chapaquitic? If not, look it up. At least in Bush's DWI no one was hurt. He did not walk away from a woman who was drowning. Bush made a mistake, he paid for it. No one was hurt. No one was KILLED.

This is not a democratic republic. It is a democracy. Just not a direct democracy. But it is a democracy, which has been established by the system of checks and balances between the branches of the government. What I proposed is an informed democracy in which polls can be taken into account to make important decisions that will effect the people. Utlizing polls to make informed decisions constitutes a conscientious leader.

Wrong. We are NOT a democracy. From dictionary.com:

United States Government:
Type: federal republic; strong democratic tradition

Also, from dictionary.com:

Leader:
One that leads or guides.
One who is in charge or in command of others.
A-One who heads a political party or organization.
B-One who has influence or power, especially of a political nature.

Why elect an offical who is just going to take a poll and do what the majority wants? Doesn't the elected offical have an opinion on each issue? If he does, what does it say about someone who, just because more people disagree with him then agree with him, rolls over and goes with the majority? I call that a coward. Why bother having leaders than, lets just take a poll on all the issues, and decide that way.

It is also important to note that polls are not reliabe sources of information. Anyone who does polling for a living will tell you, a good poller can skew the outcome simply by asking leading questions. I can make a poll have the outcome I want very easily. So, you think it is could that someone follows polls to make up his/her mind on key issues?

As much as I hate to say it, the elections would have been a landslide in favor of the Republican party if it weren't for left-wing publications like "Fahrenheit 9/11". Michael Moore's a total ass, who I've always thought of as doing more harm than good, but according to Byron York that isn't true. He spoke a little bit about it during his appearance on The Daily Show, while promoting his book The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (I had the wrong name for the title in my previous post). Check it out. The book's being hailed by both sides as a great documentary piece about how liberals are building the largest, richest, and soon to be best organized political movement in American history.

While I agree Michael Moore effected the election in a positive way for Bush, I completely disagree with your statement that the it would have been a landslide. I am sorry, I also disagree with your assessment of the Democratic Party. The REAL Democratic Party is now called Republican. John F. Kennedy, a Democrat I respect, is SO MUCH MORE like a modern day Republican than he is a modern day Democrat. The modern Democratic Party should stop trying to hide it's motives, and simply call itself the American Socialist Party. If they want to be truly honest, they would call themselves Communist. One of the Democratic Party's platforms is Wealth Distribution, be it via Unions, or taxation. That, my friend, is COMMUNIST.

I would like to "tone down the rhetoric" with you Ski. I think you are a bright kid, but I view you as just that, an idealistic youth. That is not meant to be an insult by the way. It shows great moral character to be concerned with the welfare of others, and I respect that in you. I just disagree with you on how it should be accomplished. I agree whole heartedly with Winston Churchill when he said, "If you are young and not a liberal, then you have no heart. If you are old and not a conservative, you have no head."

My vote is, in 10-20 years you will be a conservative. Because you seem to have a head. :eusa_ange

[ski2bfree]

Hahaha. Well stated. Alright, fun debate while it lasted, but I'm too busy with my senior project to counter that one with another essay.
Maybe when I've got more time on my hands I'll bring up Tom Delay... ya know, just for ****s and giggles.
I'm pretty sure I'll be considered conservative when I'm older, as most liberals today will. Hell, even the drafting of our constitution was considered a liberal act at the time, but every person involved would definitely be conservative on present day issues.