Kerry has conceded

[jimbo]

People have been calling the guys in the white house the "chicken hawks" because they all dodged the draft when they had the chance to serve in combat, yet they seem so eager to send kids today into harms way in an equally morally questionable, possibly unwinable, war/police-action.

Just replace the term "communism" with "terrorism" and it seems many of the old arguments from the 60s resurface again.

I just keep hoping the two wars only "look" similar. In vietnam we found ourselves trying to keep a country divided that for the most part the citizens wanted to be united.

Now we are trying to keep a country united (under the banner of democracy) that seems for the most part to want to be divided.

What if the majority of people just want to vote themselves into a theocracy (a religious dictatorship)? Can we allow this to happen?

Are we going to try to setup the rules of the election (districting etc.) so that this won't happen? If we're successful in installing a more secular leader will he be accepted by the religious majority?

What will the cost of all this be to the USA? Usama said in his last message that his plan is to bankrupt the United States. While this seems like a desperate hope of a desperate man is there not a true danger of fiscal problems resulting from the war in Iraq?

[jimbo]

mmmmmmm 8 tracks
For years I would anticipate a fadeout where the track was going to switch on my Pink Floyd albums for example.

It was weird listening to a cd and having no fade in the middle of "shine on you crazy diamond". :confused:

[BaM*BaM]

For the Bush administration to accept the real democratic desires of the people in Iraq, the USA would be forced to forever to leave Iraq, without first installing a USA puppet government in place, and secondly, without leaving large, fulltime USA military bases in Iraq,... would mean yet another, 'complete failure,' for this Bush administration.

Under the guise of "terrorist threat", the goal of the Bush Administration has always been to secure, militarily (and hopefully ideologically), the geographic center of the world's known oil reserves, ( including Saudi Arabia and its other oil producing neighbors), as all of the other world powers rise to an economic standard of living where auto use, and oil consumption begin to rival the USA's own, ever growing needs for an endless supply of oil.

Everyone in the world, except for a few fundamental, 'blinded by faith' republicans in the USA, completely understand that the Bush administration and it's big corporations, see that the world has become controlled by four, fairly equal, and very oil hungry geo/economic areas:

1. The enormous economic power of a more unified Europe (and eventually Russia), and it's own powerful world corporations, (including 'British Petroleum', the world's largest oil company)
2. The emerging world giant of China (already the world's leader in oil consumption and oil imports), and the rest of the Orient, including the huge Japanese corporations,
3. India, and it's flood of technically educated youth, and enormous consumer hungry populations,
4. The USA, the PAST leader of liberal thought, education, & research technology, which is sadly fading into an isolated, non secular, intellectual Dark Age, that will leave it's masses without the economic earnings of the past, as the ruling Administration helps it's large USA corporations move most of their employee/labor based functions, overseas to maximize corporate profits, which will benefit the corporations' owners only.

It is from this point of securing oil reserves, that the the USA has made the invasion of Iraq. And if the Bush Administration is forced by the Iraqi will, to exit Iraq without securing their very long term goals, the whole illegal and murderous Iraqi adventure will always been seen by the world, as the USA's greatest imperialist failure.

(and remember, that until the USA PROMISES to the world that the USA will leave completely, other world powers will NOT assist the USA efforts. To do so, would obviously be against their own future economic oil interests.)

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by BaM*BaM




4. The USA, the PAST leader of liberal thought, education, & research technology, which is sadly fading into an isolated, non secular, intellectual Dark Age, that will leave it's masses without the economic earnings of the past, as the ruling Administration helps it's large USA corporations move most of their employee/labor based functions, overseas to maximize corporate profits, which will benefit the corporations' owners only.

It is from this point of securing oil reserves, that the the USA has made the invasion of Iraq. And if the Bush Administration is forced by the Iraqi will, to exit Iraq without securing their very long term goals, the whole illegal and murderous Iraqi adventure will always been seen by the world, as the USA's greatest imperialist failure.




How very sad when hysterical rhetoric and political diatribe as espoused by some far left intellectual derelicts are substituted for reason. It appears that BAM*BAM might be a pseudonymous substitute for Michael Moore another loser.

Oh by the way. VICTORY- VICTORY- VICTORY

Bob F

[jimbo]

Chick Demagnitizer
Mr. Green Dragon : Where do I get me one of these? ;Dy;

[BaM*BaM]

Hey Green Dragon,(Grand Pa Bob),
Thank you so very much for giving me this perfect example for my statement,
The USA, the PAST leader of liberal thought, education, & research technology, which is sadly fading into an isolated, non secular, intellectual Dark Age, ...

The vicious, angry reply that you made says so much more about these kind of people, than I could ever demonstrate.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~pempem/rabbit%20eats%20coyote.jpg
... next?.... LOL!!! http://www.users.qwest.net/~pempem/1penguin5.gif

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BaM*BaM
[B]Hey Green Dragon,(Grand Pa Bob),

The vicious, angry reply that you made says so much more about these kind of people, than I could ever demonstrate.

QUOTE]

I accept your compliment on being " one of these kind of people"

Neither vicious or angry, just victorious. If I was vicious or angry I might have replied with " Never get in a pissing contest with a skunk" but I won't say that.

My last words on the matter.

Bob F

[Dallas4u]

Funny how many in this thread automatically become your enemy because of your opinion. Lots of 'hating' going on when most have never spoken a word to each other.

[jimbo]

It appears that BAM*BAM might be a pseudonymous substitute for Michael Moore another loser.
Michael Moore is not a loser, and neither is Bam Bam. :mad:

Can any one actually say that securing oil reserves is NOT a major reason America is so interested in taking over Iraq?

Given this and our other interests there does any one actually think America will EVER agree to leave Iraq entirely?

Hasn't it become clear to everyone that we are not really welcome by the majority of people in Iraq? Hence to many of them we are hostile occupiers.

I am willing to admit that I don't know enough to really be sure whether our current foreign policy will work or backfire. But shouldn't any thinking, conscientious American be concerned about the direction our country has been heading lately?

Is being concerned and expressing it really 'hysterical political diatribe" or "far left"?

Geeez

[jimbo]

And the thread lives on, like a monster in a 1950s japanese scifi movie. ;eeko;

[johnnyapollo]

Godzilla says:

http://www.bettybowers.com/nl_redorblue.html

Do you live in a red state or a blue state?

-- John

[jimbo]

Hmmmmm, sounds like my next door neighbors actually belong in a red state. LOL

Good one Johnny

P.S. - It looks like this "Jesusland" thing is really sticking.

[StormTROOPER]

We need to really RENAME this thread "CHUCKY" , "JASON", or "ALEX" (Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction) because they wouldn't DIE. Let me give the dems a littlle friendly advice on how to win the next election....DUMP THE FRUMP, Just as I predicted earlier in this thread Michael Moore has announced today that the secquel to 911 is in the works... 911 & 1/2. I say GREAT because there's no doubt in my mind that it was the Democrat party EMBRACING this EXTREMEST hollywood looney leftest at their convention that TURNED OFF just enough of the MAINSTREAM swing voters to re-elect Bush, talk about POETIC JUSTICE. : I now PREDICT that there are enough MOORE-ONS to make 911 & 1/2 a HUGE sucess and the next Republican VICTORY MARGIN will be even greater.;)

[BaM*BaM]

Dallas, I think much of the very heavy emotional element of the right, comes from what the head Bush marketing designer, Frank Luntz, called creating complete "irrational loyalty" into it's party's constituents. Amazingly, he explains that this is done by identifying certain 'power' words thru group testing, and then promoting the usage of these words to constantly be used upon their target market, so that the target market ends up identifying with the words.. These 'power' words hit triggers deep inside the 'reptilian' part of our brains, and when keyed, these people will then act in 'irrational, and strongly emotional ways' on subjects concerning these 'Power' words.. He describes how their target 'Power' words such as 'terror', 'family', 'faith', 'liberal', 'death tax', 'patriotic' were methodically embedded into the republican constituency. They had many demonstrations of the actual use of such 'power' words within test groups, and the results were indeed amazing. It does help to have a target market with a "thems r fighttin' werds" type mentality... But we are all potential victims of this type of manipulation. They use commercial products such as 'Tide' soap, "Marlboro' and 'Camel' cigarretes, and 'Coca-Cola' as products that now have this "irrational loyalty" in many of its customers.

The origins of this 'Power' word control, came from a French consumer marketing specialist, Clotaire Rapaille, who lives in New York, and works closely the U.S.'s biggest corporations. It did NOT come from political studies. And it was employed very heavily by republicans,... or so states the story.



Can marketers really get inside a consumer's head to influence the choice they will make? For market researcher Clotaire Rapaille, the answer is yes. He believes all purchasing decisions really lie beyond conscious thinking and emotion and reside at a primal core in human beings. As chairman of Archetype Discoveries Worldwide, he helps Fortune 500 companies discover the unconscious associations for their products - the simple "code" - that will help them sell to consumers: "When you learn a word, whatever it is, "coffee," "love," "mother," there is always a first time. There's a first time to learn everything. The first time you understand, you imprint the meaning of this word; you create a mental connection that you're going to keep using the rest of your life. …So actually every word has a mental highway. I call that a code, an unconscious code in the brain."

and on Frank Luntzl

A corporate consultant, pollster and political consultant to Republicans, Luntz's specialty is testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate. In this interview, he tells FRONTLINE what it takes to communicate a message effectively, shares some of the advice that he gives clients, and explains why his testing and field research seeks words that move people to act on an emotional level or "irrational loyalty": "It's all emotion. But there's nothing wrong with emotion. When we are in love, we are not rational; we are emotional. When we are on vacation, we are not rational; we are emotional. When we are happy, we are not [rational]. In fact, in more cases than not, when we are rational, we're actually unhappy. Emotion is good; passion is good. Being into what we're into, provided that it's a healthy pursuit, it's a good thing."

ps.... Maybe the Pentagon should enlist the help of this FRENCHMAN, to show them how to actually win this war in Iraq!! LOL !

[SlowPro48]

Jimbo, you know where you got that Falwell quote, and you know it's a complete fabrication, yet you post it as truth.

Why did you do that?

[SlowPro48]

Originally posted by BaM*BaM
....Everyone in the world, except for a few fundamental, 'blinded by faith' republicans in the USA....


I can tell they really chap your *****, but have you ever considered that maybe there's a "blinded by lack of faith" democrat for every "blinded by faith" republican? That they exist to balance each other out in some sort of weird political yin/yang system...?

:D

[azskyrider]

This might be a record for the most posts on a thread :eek: Of course any topic on politics will bring out the debate.;)

[jimbo]

Jimbo, you know where you got that Falwell quote, and you know it's a complete fabrication, yet you post it as truth.
Sorry Slowpro-

I didn't know it was a fabrication. I was worried that it might be (I'll remove it), but the accuracy of the words is not as important as the fact that I've seen these guys (can't remember if it was Jerry or the 700 club) on TV call for people to pray against their political enemies (a few years back), and I remember the big to-do about the praying for death of the supreme court justices. It was in the news for several weeks.

You remember it too I'm sure. The point is I don't think Michael Moore is nearly as hateful, distortful or radical as many of the leaders of the christian right.

I think the second silly quote is accurate.

Anyways quit calling me on things damit!

I'm trying to argue a position here, you keep taking the ez middle ground. LOL

You're no fun.;Dp;

Take care

[Raque Thomas]

I swore off this thread a long time ago, but find that I cannot sit by and not respond any longer. There are some things I do not understand (actually, there a lot of things I don't understand - but let's stick to the point) :

1) I hear (read) a LOT more fervor and emotion in the liberal posts than the conservative posts, but it seems that the liberals are the ones talking about how wacko/radical/unbending/attacking the conservatives are - I don't understand, is my conservative viewpoint making me see their responses as very "hating", or are they that way?

2) The religion thing keeps rearing its head. It is made to sound as if EVERY Republican is Jerry Falwell (as a Republican, I'll tell you that Jerry Falwell is not ANYWHERE near who I identify with), and EVERY Democrat is Joe Atheist. There are many non-believing Republicans, and many believing Democrats. MANY, MANY on both sides. It's not about religion - it's about what we believe is right for this country. Let me repeat that in case you didn't get it - it is not, and never has been about religion, or the lack thereof. The role of government was designed by the forefathers of this country to be minimal intrusion. Minimal intrusion into the rights of the people, and to represent the majority of the people. The reason they came to this country was to escape the intrusive governments in England and the rest of Europe. If you take time to examine what the liberal perspective TRULY represents, you will see that it is counter to this philosophy. True liberals embrace socialist view points - things such as redistribution of wealth, government as "care-taker" of the population, and removal of free property rights. In case you are not aware, socialist view points are VERY intrusive - the government is Big Brother. I personally think that most so-called liberals are really only mis-informed, not truly liberals. I feel if they took time to research what their party stands for, and the repercussions of those beliefs, they would not want to label themselves as "liberals".

3) The other argument I'm not following is the whole "Bush is trying to build an empire in the Middle East, and it's all about the oil". Have we forgotten that W is on his last term in office. So with four years to go, how does he benefit? And that begs the question that when he got into this and had only a year to go, he had more to lose than gain politically by this action, so why would he go on an Alexander the Great mission. We do not have a king or dictator, we have an elected President with a four year term - he has nothing to gain by "growing his empire".

I would like to see more non-inflamatory discussion on this topic, and less of the senseless insulting comments. You will not agree with everything I have said here, hell you may not agree with any of it. But tell me why (with facts please) you feel the way you do. I am not close minded, but I am very sure of my beliefs - for those of you who think that is a contradiction - you are mistaken. I will listen to your arguments (if presented in a logical manner) and I will examine your facts, if presented - but I will not abandon my beliefs based on emotion.

[Raque Thomas]

Other than over night - this is the longest time between posts on this thread to date. It's OK though, liberals - take all the time you need to come up with the appropriate rebuttals.

[jimbo]

Raque-

Good to see you stopped in again. I guess this thread's like a bad car wreck, everyone just has to take a peek now and then.

1) I can't speak for the other guys but I don't "hate" at all. It bothers me that people keep thinking that. We are just discussing things and I personally have had fun and made a few friends (I hope). I also don't think I am particularly emotional about these things, although I have always been very opinionated.

2)The religion thing seems to be at the root of why some people (me included I guess) really object to this administration. The country seems very divided as to whether religion should have anything to do with public policy.

I've watched peices of Bush speeches to born again christian groups and it seems to me that unless he is simply pandering (doubtful) he actually believes that his presidency is a calling from God. He seems to have acted on this belief.

I know many born again christians (my family background) and they seem very happy (thrilled even) and feel quite safe with bush as president. Secular friends who are more like me are very, very uncomfortable with someone like that in the white house. This is why I guess it has come up so much.

3) I don't think posters like "Bam Bam" who wrote about "Empire" meant Bushes empire.

They meant America's empire. Basically many people object to us using the "war on terror" as an excuse for running roughshod over the world, trying to remake governments by force to be more like "us".

I personally am not sure whether this is a problem or not. It sure hasn't helped our image in the world. I think American's are despised more than ever, but perhaps more respected.

I think the thread has run its course and will attempt to shut up now.

Like I said before it has been fun.

[jimbo]

Other than over night - this is the longest time between posts on this thread to date. It's OK though, liberals - take all the time you need to come up with the appropriate rebuttals.
Funny, I was typing while you posted.

(man I don't get this whole "liberal" thing, I would never call myself that)

[SGT.BATGUANO]

Raque-

"The other argument I'm not following is the whole "Bush is trying to build an empire in the Middle East, and it's all about the oil". Have we forgotten that W is on his last term in office. So with four years to go, how does he benefit? And that begs the question that when he got into this and had only a year to go, he had more to lose than gain politically by this action, so why would he go on an Alexander the Great mission. We do not have a king or dictator, we have an elected President with a four year term - he has nothing to gain by "growing his empire".".




Don't forget that there are more Bush's with political proclivities waiting in the wings.

Will there be some kind of award for the millionth post on this thread?:)

[StormTROOPER]

Originally posted by SlowPro48
I can tell they really chap your *****, but have you ever considered that maybe there's a "blinded by lack of faith" democrat for every "blinded by faith" republican? That they exist to balance each other out in some sort of weird political yin/yang system...?

:D Excellent point, we keep hearing how we (U.S.) are so DIVIDED but it is the yin/yang principle alive and working very WELL as the gas pedal and brake pedal (just as one analogy) Guess which political party is the yin (child) gas pedal and which one is the yang (adult) brake pedal?

[jimbo]

Guess which political party is the yin (child) gas pedal and which one is the yang (adult) brake pedal?
It would have to be the Republicans who are tromping on the gas (and acting like children).

We have a republican controlled congress that even some republicans like John McCaine say is the most fiscally irresponsible in modern times. During the first 6 years of the Clinton administration the Dems had pay as you go strategies and had virtually eliminated the deficits (of course the stock market was boomimg then so it was easier). Now deficits are at scary record highs.

Bush is going to put the pedal to the metal in the coming months in his attempt to "save" social security by stripping half the life out of it, eliminating its traditional safety net role, and turning it into nothing more than a retirement savings account (which we already had). We have been running for decades, and are still running surpluses in social security funds and both Reps and Dems have irresponsibly "borrowed" these surpluses for other government spending programs, with no intent of ever paying them back.

Al Gore wanted to put the brakes on this 'stealing" from social security (the lock box) but he was not elected and the stealing has gone on every month. I think social security is a safety net for everybody and should be saved but not turned into a savings account that just funnels money from a government program into the stock market.

There are hundreds of other examples of the republicans wanted to radically change our country as fast as possible.

Some of them :

Faith based initiatives (giving churches free federal money), pre-emptive war, withdrawing from major treaties like Kyoto global warming, geneva conventions and arms control with russia. Stopping American's ability to burn the flag in protest, overturning Roe vs Wade, allowing prayer in public schools, writing discrimination against gays into the constitution. Setting up their own shadow defense dept (office of special plans) run by Dick Cheney - the first time this has been done I believe, most aggresive tax cuts for millionares in modern history. Blocking scientific advancement by withholding federal funds from types of science that they "morally" object to. Pushing the Patriot act down America's throat and now pursuing passing Patriot 2 ....

And on and on and on ... they got the pedal down (on aggresive change) and they aint letting up for at least four more years.

[vxkween]

Wow...I have been reading this thread along with many of you, I'll have to say that I have been pleasantly surprised at the "progressive" beliefs that a majority of you hold. I hate labels, they are restrictive and in discussions like this many will jump to conclusions just because one is a "liberal","conservative", "Democrat" or "Republican". I think that we can all have far-ranging beliefs on any number of subjects and don't have to be pinned in to some all encompassing set of rules that have been set by the label makers.

I will admit that we (my partner and I) have considered attending some of the events but weren't quite sure if we would be welcomed with open arms as we have an "alternative lifestyle" (whatever that means!). We have both been lucky enough to have families that support us 100% and work enviroments that were inclusive and diverse, but wasn't sure if a car club of any kind would be so open....a clear breakage of my don't pre judge rule!!

So again I'm warmed by the general fair and open-minded opinions I've read in this thread.......any group should have a token lesbian couple anyway!!

[jimbo]

Yippeee! Welcome to the party vxkween.

I feel so bad that anybody in America has to worry about whether they would be accepted in any group, with open arms.

I wish the people who voted in the recent state referendums would have been more tolerant and accepting. What's with people? :mad:

My next door neighbor just lost his partner to aids and I can't believe the sh#t he went through in additional paperwork, estate taxes and just plain heartache, because they were not permited to be married the same as everyone else. I'm afraid he is going to lose his house.

Please chime in on this thread ... I've already broken my promise to shut up. LOL

[Capri]

Briefly skimmed through a few posts, there is a particular one I'd like to add/respond, per Raque's 2nd point about:
"2) The religion thing keeps rearing its head. It is made to sound as if EVERY Republican is Jerry Falwell (as a Republican, I'll tell you that Jerry Falwell is not ANYWHERE near who I identify with), and EVERY Democrat is Joe Atheist. There are many non-believing Republicans, and many believing Democrats. MANY, MANY on both sides. It's not about religion - it's about what we believe is right for this country. Let me repeat that in case you didn't get it - it is not, and never has been about religion, or the lack thereof..... "

You can't separate religion and what we 'believe' for the majority of the population, since they are mostly theists. Religion plays a HUGE role in this election, the Republicans realized that by targeting their campaigns to Churches and other institutions since 2002, and remember the great speech Bush gave back when he was running in 2000? "Jesus is my idol" that caught people by surprise. It's no secret that this election has to do with religious issues that tie in with a LOT of moral values of both candidates. Abortion and stem cell research were brought up many times, exit polls show that moral values were a huge deciding factors for many, (as well as economy, Iraq, homeland security). Gay marriage was also significant, as evident by 11 states passing the law at the same time of the election. There were stories how Pastors and Ministers were telling people not to vote for Kerry, because he is not an authentic Catholic, radio talk shows have callers calling about how important it is to have their religious believes on the same page as their nation's leader.

There's just too much overwhelming aspects that religion has played a huge role in this election and Bush's administration. I would also like to add that Kerry's no different in this, except he didn't aggressively talk about his Catholic background until the final push in the election run.

[Dallas4u]

I hate labels as well. I don't like to consider myself a "Liberal", "Conservative", "Democrat", "Repbulican", "Liberitarian", "Green Party", ... whatever. I just consider myself able to make a decision the way I want to. I have never voted down the party lines, and usually take MUCH time deciding who I want for a particular local, state, or federal office, or what items I want to pass through the county, state, or federal system. Many of the people and items on the ballot, this year in particular, were tough to decide on for me.

I think what bugs me most is seeing how far many of us here lean one way or another and care not a bit what the others have to say. Thumbs up for those of you who can look past the party labels.

Oh, and hey vxkween... you're always welcome to a meet in the northwest ;) !

[vxkween]

Thanks Dalllas for the invite.....we actually travel that way every now and then...we took our first VX (Ebony w/ red and black) to a large number of the National Parks. We quit our jobs and camped all over the country for 6 months.....if we are near your neck of the woods we will most certainly give you a shout.

Jimbo thanks for you supports as well and between errrands I will gladly jump back into this thread...I think we can all learn from each other...seems like an intelligent group!!

[carlymac]

I just wanted to be a part of this, most likely the longest in vehicross.info history post.
My father always told me politics and religion were bad conversation topics but we are family here...right?
All I can say in response to the political situation in america is that I will support the president the american people elected... even though he wasn't my choice. I will say, that in four years the republican party will be solely responsible for the state of the union. Because now they control the executive office, the senate, the house, and will control the supreme court before this term is over. That covers the political gamut. Any change to america now is clearly in republican hands...Time will tell.

Now back to the VehiCROSS ;Dy;

[jimbo]

Regarding religion and the past election here is the viewpoint I agree with, articulated far better than I could:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111204E.shtml

Last night on the news I saw that evangelist James Dobson was telling people to pray against Arlen Specter because Arlen said it was unlikely that Roe vs Wade would be overturned just because the White House and the evangelists want it to.

Man did that p#ss them off. Because that is just what they intend to do (for a start).

This goes to the point I was trying to make yesterday about the Bush White house, the christian radicals and praying for harm to come to your political enemies.

Arlen backed down and recanted, (proves the power of the christian theocracy that is taking hold in our country).

I think millions of well meaning people voted for Bush for non-religious reasons, not really being aware of what he actually is trying to do to the country (religion-wise) and how dangerous of a movement this could turn out to be.

Another link I found interesting about the red & blue election maps.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Emejn/election/

I so looove this site (checkout the gallery):

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

[BaM*BaM]

Evangelicals Want Payback


Evangelical leaders apparently buy the argument that Bush owes his re-election victory to them, and according to this Los Angeles Times piece today, they are demanding results.

Jerry Falwell has spoken to Karl Rove three times since the election, and Arlen Specter even called Falwell to assure him he won't block Bush's court nominees. Falwell is now working to shoot down the rising stars of Republicans like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani -- they are too moderate for Falwell's GOP. Evangelicals think Andy Card is too moderate, too, the Times' Peter Wallsten reports; perhaps Card is who Bob Jones III was referring to when he told Bush in a letter to "shed" himself of "weaklings who do not share his biblical values."

How much power will evangelicals really have in shaping Bush's second-term agenda and the judicial nominee process? Unclear, but they're sure talking tough. From the Times piece:

"Business as usual isn't going to cut it, where the GOP rides to victory by espousing traditional family values and then turns around and rewards the liberals in its ranks," said Robert Knight, who heads an affiliate of Concerned Women for America, a Christian conservative advocacy group. Knight also said: "The president has to stop endorsing homosexuality indirectly by supporting civil unions and called the Specter issue "a very big test" to see if the GOP leadership understood "the depth of what occurred on Nov. 2."

"If they decide to elevate Specter anyway, they will alienate millions of people who counted on them to begin pushing back liberalism instead of aiding and abetting it," he said.

The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, warned that "if Republican leaders in Congress allowed Specter to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, their political futures could be at risk."

-- Geraldine Sealey

[t2p]

The Sgt makes some valid points ....
.
No - I did not forget that Iraq had 'nothing' to do with the terrorist act that occurred here ...... and I certainly did not forget that this admin did not stop it before it happened - just as I did not forget that many prev admins (all the way back to Reagan and Carter) did little to prevent previous attacks. Again, this country did basically 'nothing for 20 years'.
.
There were *many* reasons to invade Iraq. They did not find WMD's. So I guess many would feel better if we had found WMD's .... ???
.
Maybe it was primarily 'personal' - and maybe siblings ....... relatives ........ should not be allowed to sit in the Oval Office ?

[t2p]

.
... and maybe I chose to find ways to justify the attack on Iraq ...
.
because I REALLY get hot when I see the visions of the people in that country jumping up and down with joy when the Twin Towers were bombed.
.

[Dallas4u]

Originally posted by t2p

because I REALLY get hot when I see the visions of the people in that country jumping up and down with joy when the Twin Towers were bombed.
.

Are you talking about Iraq or Afghanistan... or even Pakistan?

[StormTROOPER]

Paranoia comes from the yin (child) side of our brain.;)

[jimbo]

Paranoia comes from the yin (child) side of our brain.
I don't believe you StormTROOPER .... I'm sure you're out to get me !!!!!! ;eekr;

[StormTROOPER]

TOOSHAY ! LMAO :p Happiness also comes from the yin, so........dont worry,.....be happy:dance:

[SlowPro48]

Originally posted by jimbo
Sorry Slowpro-

I didn't know it was a fabrication. I was worried that it might be (I'll remove it), but the accuracy of the words is not as important as the fact that I've seen these guys (can't remember if it was Jerry or the 700 club) on TV call for people to pray against their political enemies (a few years back), and I remember the big to-do about the praying for death of the supreme court justices. It was in the news for several weeks.

You remember it too I'm sure. The point is I don't think Michael Moore is nearly as hateful, distortful or radical as many of the leaders of the christian right.

I think the second silly quote is accurate.

Anyways quit calling me on things damit!

I'm trying to argue a position here, you keep taking the ez middle ground. LOL

You're no fun.;Dp;

Take care

OK let me get this straight - you were worried it might be false but you posted that sucker anyway, eh? Yeah - I'd say you're arguing a position alright - and not letting the facts get in the way! :rolleyes:


I see you deleted the quote but left the other one about that rapture stuff that some people believe in. What was the purpose of that? Are you trying to show everybody how ignorant christians must be to believe something so outlandish? Don't be so mean bro! Their hope isn't hurting you one bit. And who knows - they might be right! Do you know FOR SURE it isn't going to happen? I personally don't think people will be riding along in cars and just disappear - but I know there's more to this world than meets the eye, and won't rule out the possibility of it happening. I also personally know christians - some of whom believe there will be a rapture - and they are not one bit wacky. They are quite intelligent as well as being very, very nice people. They would never, ever pray for someone to die.

Live and let live, man!

As far as the middle ground being "ez" - have you ever tried to ride a unicycle?



;Dy;

[SlowPro48]

Originally posted by vxkween
Wow...I have been reading this thread along with many of you, I'll have to say that I have been pleasantly surprised at the "progressive" beliefs that a majority of you hold. I hate labels, they are restrictive and in discussions like this many will jump to conclusions just because one is a "liberal","conservative", "Democrat" or "Republican". I think that we can all have far-ranging beliefs on any number of subjects and don't have to be pinned in to some all encompassing set of rules that have been set by the label makers.

I will admit that we (my partner and I) have considered attending some of the events but weren't quite sure if we would be welcomed with open arms as we have an "alternative lifestyle" (whatever that means!). We have both been lucky enough to have families that support us 100% and work enviroments that were inclusive and diverse, but wasn't sure if a car club of any kind would be so open....a clear breakage of my don't pre judge rule!!

So again I'm warmed by the general fair and open-minded opinions I've read in this thread.......any group should have a token lesbian couple anyway!!

Is this vehicross.info's first 'outing'?! Damn I've seen it all now! Is this an awsome thread or what? Is there anything we haven't covered?

VXkween, I'm sure you and your partner would be welcomed at any gathering. And I agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts on labels. My very best friend in this whole wide world is queer as a three dollar bill - but he's also a conservative, straight-ticket republican. And I don't mean your typical conservative - we're talking about an I-just-sent-a-check-to-Jesse Helms type conservative. Stick a label on that!

[jimbo]

Slowpro - I removed the post you found offensive.

Sorry

I think you know the point I was trying to make (about the president and his powerful friends), it wasn't about the christians you know, or the christians I know (my family).

I think you know I wasn't trying to be mean.

Please lighten up. :(

[SlowPro48]

Originally posted by jimbo
Slowpro - I removed the post you found offensive.

Sorry

I think you know the point I was trying to make (about the president and his powerful friends), it wasn't about the christians you know, or the christians I know (my family).

I think you know I wasn't trying to be mean.

Please lighten up. :(

Hey it wasn't offensive (it didn't offend me anyway), I just think it's kind of mean to poke fun at somebody's religious beliefs. I don't think you should have deleted it - the management is the only censor here and thankfully they're pretty tolerant of all this free speech. I say put that sucker back if it's the way you feel! Let this thread stand as it is! Hell, if we deleted every post that offended somebody there wouldn't be anything left of it!!! :p

As far as "the point" you've been trying to make - you started out bashing Bush and his administration (and I don't blame you for that!) but the more you talk, the more I'm of the opinion that your angst is actually caused by conservative Christians and their beliefs and Bush just happens to be their figurehead and thus the focal point of your anger. (And I don't mean to pick on you - I don't think you're the only one doing this by any means - it's just that you seem like you're thick-skinned and vocal so I can shoot straight with you).

I find this curious for two reasons.... but it's 10pm and I gotta hit the road to A-ville. Time to lighten up! No PC, no TV, no phone and if I don't do some midnight plumbing tonight, no water in the morning either! So this conversation will have to continue Monday - or not! We'll see if this magnificent beast lives a couple more days...

Have a good weekend!

[SGT.BATGUANO]

Originally posted by t2p
Again, this country did basically 'nothing for 20 years'.
.

We did nothing to Iraq because Saddam (who was not a threat) was our supported puppet of choice. We even went so far as to supply him with chemical and other wmd's ( that's why dumbya was sooo damn sure we would find wmd's there) .

Osama was our ally too. He was pissed because we supplied him with weapons and "guerilla/ terrorist" training to fight our war with the soviets, but no manpower or more importantly, no funding to help rebuild poverty riddled Afghanistan after they turned the soviets back and the dust settled. A good number of his people died to advance our cause, and for what?

I think this may have been the beginnings of overseas outsourcing of U.S. jobs (jk).

As a sidenote we helped install the Shah of Iran as our puppet there and now, years later, that too is coming back to bite us in the nether regions.

There were *many* reasons to invade Iraq. They did not find WMD's. So I guess many would feel better if we had found WMD's .... ???

Actually, there was only 1 reason "national (ahem) security", but when that didn't pan out our leaders "hatched" a few more.

I wouldn't have felt better, but at least our "attack/ invasion" would have been legitimately justified in the eyes of Americans and our allies throughout the world.
.
Maybe it was primarily 'personal' - and maybe siblings ....... relatives ........ should not be allowed to sit in the Oval Office ?

I won't go that far. Especially with Hillarity (sic) being eyed as a contender ( yeah, right) Lmao. Just a little disappointed that the congress and citizens here were tricked into backing an agenda of revenge and uninvited overtaking of another country, with a side order of economic windfalls for corporate cronies.

We're going to be stuck there for years and billions, if not trillions of dollars, which could both serve a better purpose here at HOME.

As far as the Iraqi cheering goes, you'd cheer too if the option was cheer or get a bullet in the head, but before you say that is a good reason for us to be there, let me just say that there are other , more hostile, threatening and repressive countries out there that are begging for our help.

Did someone say "wag the dog"?

[jimbo]

(Slowpro) As far as "the point" you've been trying to make - you started out bashing Bush and his administration (and I don't blame you for that!) but the more you talk, the more I'm of the opinion that your angst is actually caused by conservative Christians and their beliefs and Bush just happens to be their figurehead and thus the focal point of your anger. You have a tendency to try to psychoanalyze everything. I've been around long enough to know there's no point in going down that road.

I've never picked apart your posts and metaphors (the train et al) and tried to somehow discount your arguments (and in the process miss the point entirely)based on your personal beliefs, mistakes in logic or flaws in who you quote or how you say something.

It's as if you believe if you dig deep enough you can figure out why somebody holds the beliefs they do and then you can go "Aha!" and put them in a box with a label like "liberal with a grudge against christians". Then if you could only bring said "liberal with a grudge" around to understanding this "angst" that they have you could help them recover from their ungrounded delusions and the argument would be settled.

Come on man, you can do this kind of analysis with anybody if you get to know them well enough. Half the time you would be totally wrong (it's probably not that simple) and the other half it wouldn't matter at all as far as the main points of the argument are concerned.


It gets in the way of the logic.

It just makes the discussion personal.

I was just trying to say something pretty simple and straight forward:

A prevoius poster said the reason Kerry lost was because of Michael Moore. (that he attended the convention)

I was trying to say that if Kerry was aligned with Michael Moore, Bush is like-wise aligned with Jerry Falwell and his kin. These folks seem equally as extreme, prone to stretch their case and hostile in their approaches and messages.

I just don't think it was real likely that large numbers of swing-voters voted against Kerry because Michael Moore was at the convention. Nor do I think large numbers of folks voted against Bush because he is aligned politically with Jerry Falwell.

I hope that's clearer.

Take care, it's the weekend yippee! :D

[BaM*BaM]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/041112/davies.gif

[SlowPro48]

Jimbo - I'm embarrassed to even mention this but as it turns out, my analysis of your psyche may have been based on invalid data. I've been very busy the last couple weeks and my mental sieving/sorting/pigeonholing process has been malfunctioning and I may have accidentally attributed some of BaMBaM's messages to you...


Sorry about that!

[jimbo]

Thanks for being so cool about it slowpro. ;Db;

It seems our little thread is dead however. :(

Well, it definitely had a run, didn't it?

I think it helped me get over my post-election blues.

[SlowPro48]

Well, Jimbo, I gave that one a few hours but it looks like the fish aren't biting today so here's my real response...



Originally posted by jimbo
You have a tendency to try to psychoanalyze everything. I've been around long enough to know there's no point in going down that road.

I've never picked apart your posts and metaphors (the train et al) and tried to somehow discount your arguments (and in the process miss the point entirely)based on your personal beliefs, mistakes in logic or flaws in who you quote or how you say something.

I'm not trying to psychoanalyze you and I'm not trying to push my views on you any more than you're pushing your views on me. I DO have a tendency to pull for the underdog though - and if I see someone bashing someone else's beliefs in an unwarranted fashion then I'll say something about it - even if they're not my beliefs.

If you post inaccurate info and attempt to pass off false quotes in order to make someone else's beliefs (religious or otherwise) look silly - I'm going to call you on it - and I'd expect you to do the same for me. It's called peer review. BTW, if you've got a problem with my space-time as train metaphor, then derail that sucker - please! It was generated rather hastily for this thread and sounded good at the time but if there are flaws I won't ever use it again.



Originally posted by jimbo
It's as if you believe if you dig deep enough you can figure out why somebody holds the beliefs they do and then you can go "Aha!" and put them in a box with a label like "liberal with a grudge against christians". Then if you could only bring said "liberal with a grudge" around to understanding this "angst" that they have you could help them recover from their ungrounded delusions and the argument would be settled.

So... uhhh.... who's the psychoanalyst....? Look - I am a very curious person who likes to ask questions (that apparently nobody wants to answer) but I don't ask for the purpose of labeling or judging anyone. I'm genuinely interested in what other people think - it's part of the Search For Truth. I feel no need whatsoever to pigeonhole people though. (Other than putting them into the two very broad categories of "Those Who Want To Kill My Joy" and "Those Who Leave Me Alone And Let Me Do My Thing") Are you sure you aren't projecting..? (jk)

Jimbo, I guess I owe you an apology. I shouldn't have offered up my opinion regarding the root cause of your angst. You haven't spent nearly enough time on my couch for me to have said something like that. I am sorry.

Also...I must confess that it was actually just a cheap stunt to increase the page count of this thread. Thanks for your cooperation.



Originally posted by jimbo
I just don't think it was real likely that large numbers of swing-voters voted against Kerry because Michael Moore was at the convention. Nor do I think large numbers of folks voted against Bush because he is aligned politically with Jerry Falwell.

Agreed. What I want to know is why didn't more people vote Badnarik? And again - I'm not trying to psychoanalyze - I really want to know!!!

:confused:

[V-Twin hiCROSS]

Wow, this thread has reached many aspects of the political divide in this country. I have not written anything in this post for a while, so I thought that I would give some comment on a bumper sticker that I saw this weekend.
It was one of the bumper stickers with the little guy peeing on "W. Bush". I was outraged!!! I understand, and have no problem with folks not agreeing with the politics and all. But to say "Piss on our President", thems fightin' words. It's not just that it's George W., it is the office and the position that gets me fired up.
Whether you support and agree with him or not, we are all stuck with him for the next four years. Do Not, I repeat, do not hold these grudges for the remainder if his term. It will end up just eating you up inside. The man has a job to do, and he wants to do what will benefit our country. Why would you want to act like a sore loser for the next four years, there is just nothing to gain from it.
If the results of the next four years are not positive, we can all vote for a Democrat next time around. But, I would really like to see this country pull together and get this country back on track. I was talking to some liberal friends over the weekend. I think that there were six of us sitting around (several union guys). They were complaining that the economy and jobs were their main objection to Bush. So, my question was, "how many people do you know who are out of work right now, of those who want to work?". Not a single person knew anyone who is out of work at this moment. My next question was, "which of you is making less money today, than you were 4 or 5 years ago?". The answer was only 1 guy, and that is because he lost his local truck driving job due to DWI's. Anyhow, I think that I got these guys to understand that life isn't so bad right now.

[SlowPro48]

Jimbo-

Haha! We were posting at the same time. Switched bait too soon. Should have been more patient and maybe could have reeled BaMBam back in!

Yeah you're right this thread is disintegrating now. Oh well - like you say - it had a good run. I don't think we missed flogging a single topic!

;Dy;

[jimbo]

Welcome v-twin, maybe the thread isn't as dead as we thought slowpro.

V-twin, good thought, I think you bring up a great point. I hope you don't mind if I run with it.

We are stuck with Bush for four years. My wife (who always votes republican) and I were talking about this weekend while watching James Carvelle and his republican wife argue on a Sunday morning talk show. My wife said she would not have been that upset if Kerry had won. She didn't see the election as any big deal, just another Presidential election.

And that goes to the heart of why some folks that voted for Kerry are so angry. They might not even be able to articulate why ... but they can just feel that something important is going on here. There's something about this guy that makes them afraid ... afraid for the future of our great liberal individualistic country.

They sense something is wrong, and they feel that the last chance to reverse the trend just passed.

This is my point:

Some of us (who voted for Kerry) think this was not an ordinary election. This election was a one of a kind because it was about the neccesity of removing a very dangerous and unqualified man who had somehow gotten into power in the USA.

Obviously many folks (you and my wife included) did not feel that way. Most of the good folks who voted for Bush acted like it was just another political decision based on economics, the war on terror etc. and after the election think that it should get back to business as usual.

I don't think that's going to happen. Change is in the air and some of us see things (besides a perpetual war) coming that we never thought we would see again in America.

The past 60 years in my opinion has been a revolution of individual freedoms and rights unmatched in the history of the human race. This revolution was lead by the USA and we were only part-way done, but the brakes have been slammed on and now it seems we are doomed to go backwards.

Rights have already been restricted, and not just for terrorists ... for us all. If we start putting the individual freedoms we have garnered in the past decades up to a popular vote (for example if Roe vs Wade is overturned and abortion becomes a state legislature issue) then many states will vote away those rights.

Another example : Some states in the south might even today vote away civil rights for blacks and race equality if the federal government and courts let them do it.

Where will this "voting on values" trend stop?

A trend away from individual freedoms in favor of public "morality" can become especially aggresive when fear, religious ferver and flag-waving patriotism gets attached to an issue. This is how the Nazi's took charge in the 30s, only then it was a communist threat in germany that the people feared instead of Islamic terrorism. Nazism was seen as a patriotic movement by the German people. Under these fearful conditions people will often vote against things they find objectionable in other people's lives, impose their morals on other folks and limit freedom of personal choice. Without the protection of the federal government and the courts the country may regress.

Example of this backward trend : If I have a daughter, and she screws up and gets pregnant while a straight A student in college, will she have to drop out to have the baby, perhaps set herself back just enough so that she don't get that scholarship to grad school (that a male student gets because he does not have this same potential problem due to his superior "maleness")?

Can a woman truely be equal, in every way, if she can be forced by society and law to give birth to an unwanted child?

Would this situation be moving forwards or backwards? Do you really think there is no chance of this happening in the future, because of the politics of next four years?

I think Bush has no intention of upholding or perpetuating the all-important activist courts we have come to rely on in the past decades to protect the minority opinion from the majority rule, and (if his first term is any indication) he will use the power of the federal government to retrict personal freedom, not increase it as has been the trend over administrations before his.

Where will these restrictions stop? By the time enough folks agree it may have gone too far, will it be too late? Will the constitution be ammended to define marriage in narrow terms? Will many more conservative (or extreme right wing christian) judges be appointed, for life? Will laws be passed restricting free speech that some find offensive? Will the effects of the second term of the bush administration be felt for decades to come?

Four years from now will our country still be on the road upward, bravely leading the world towards more and more choice and personal freedom and bold scientific advancement in genetic engineering, rather than less? Will the USA still be the liberal, progressive leader of the world?

Don't forget the Muslims lead the world in science and thearts until 700 years ago they mistakenly turned away from the future and regressed away from individualism into fundalmentalist religion. They have never recovered as a society.

So anyway, this is why I think this election is different and many people are afraid and angry. I don't think there is going to be any 'business as usual" for the next four years. Some people see the danger that is starting here, a danger that reared its head in europe 70 years ago, and they going to fight it any way they can (even the stupid sticker you mentioned).

For the good of our country.

Hold on, it's going to be a bumpy ride. ;Db;

[V-Twin hiCROSS]

Hey Jimbo, thanks for the reply. I love these discussions, it helps me to better understand my own reasoning and to make better imformed decisions. I am not sure why so many Americans are scared to discuss their beliefs. In my mind, I would have a hard time making a rational decision without knowing all of the facts.
I am not sure why so many Democrats are under the impression that we (folks who voted for Bush) want to overturn Roe vs. Wade??? I am very "in the middle", especially when talking about many of the social issues. I agree that a woman should have the right to choose.
However, here are the main reasons that I usually vote Republican for president:
1) I would like to limit the size of government. Traditionally, Republicans are for a more "Laissez Faire" society.
2) Economic momentum - Most of us in this country work for larger corporations. I need for my company to do well in order for my pocket-book to do well. Not to mention, I need for large public companies to do well in order for my 401-k and stocks to do well.
3) It burns my blood that I get up and go to work everyday, knowing that my tax dollars pay for some losers to sit at home and collect a free check form the government when they are perfectly able to work. I do not mind paying for what welfare programs were set up for, which is SHORT term assistance. Nor do I mind giving the helping hand to those individuals who need it.
4) I often feel that as of late, many laws/rulings have been in support of certain minorities, as opposed to the majority of the American public. For instance, the pledge of allegiance and the removal of the 10 commandments.
5) In this election, I support our troops and our Presidents decisions as far as the current war is concerned. Yes, there have been mistakes along the way. But, tell me a war/conflict where there were not mistakes. By definition, it is a time of much uncertainty. Further, the liberation of those two countries will have far reaching affects on that hemisphere that will hopefully impact my childrens future in a positive manner (meaning less dangerous).
6) I have no issue with gays/lesbians. As a matter of fact, some of our best friends are a lesbian couple. I also think that a gay couple should have similar rights to a married hetero couple. However, I do support the idea of distinguishing between a "marriage" between a man and woman, and a committed relationship between a couple of the same sex.

[Capri]

I voted for Bush back in 2000, and I voted for Kerry this year. Fortunately I'm not a die-hard Republican or Democrat, those as this thread has repeatedly said, are just labels.

I don't like a leader who's not willing to admit their mistakes. Clinton after months and years of "wasteful" investigation on his affiar, did fed up his relationship. Bush on the other hand, repeatly said in 2002 that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, upped their chemical weapons facilities, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons. But the investigation so far?

- Bush responded that the dictator had a history of using weapons of mass destruction, it's just a matter of time before he developes them.
-"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq..."
-Colin Powell admitted for the President that we were wrong about biological weapons (oct 1st, 2004)

Mistakes DO happen in every war, but good leaders admit and fix their mistakes, not to pretend it wasn't a mistake and try to persuade the rest of the public that Iraq somehow has more weapons than North Korea or other countries that have credible evidence of weapons.

Other issues I didn't like include the Patriot act, which everyone loved and rejoiced about after 9/11 happend. The amount of lawsuits challenging it must not have gotten to Bush's table, what's the point of violating our own rights and say to the world "how good we have it"

What I love about the US is how we try to include diversity and allow equal rights to minority groups. If 70% of the nation is Christian, we don't necessary have to declare it's a Christian nation. If 10 commandments are allowed to be shown in government properties and public schools, then all other religious and non-religious slogans should be used. This goes the same for pledge of allegiance.

If I was a teacher at a public school, and decided to put a plaque that says "Top 10 mistakes about the Bible", I'm sure parents will complain. Displaying one's faith by wearing a cross or dressing a certain way is fine, but promoting it is a different story. 10 commandments and pledge of allegiance do just that.

This nation is not ready to allow gays and lesbians to get married, but civil unions should be allowed. What I disliked about the Bush administration is to include both marriage and civil union in the same language on the proposal, so it's a lose-all situation, especially in a religious country such as the US.

[biju]

http://www.sorryeverybody.com

-biju.

[jimbo]

I love that site and posted a link to it a few days back on here.

My wife thinks I'm a baby for feeling this way. I really am sorry to the world that Bush won. :(

My wife says this sentiment makes people like her who voted for bush feel that we are looking down on them, like they missed the point and screwed up the country by voting for Bush.

I feel bad about this perception as well so I try not to talk about it, no sense hurting people's feelings, and I admit afterall that I may be totally wrong about Bush.

Man, I hope I am. ;Db;

P.S.- Good response V-twin, I agree with MOST, especially the economic ones, but think there really is not quite so much difference anymore between the dems and reps regarding most of the economic issues you mentioned.

I think these issues would have been fine for both of us under Kerry as well. After all (and I'm no big Clinton fan) but the economy and stock market were great under the Clinton administration and he passed the most sweeping welfare reform in history.

[jimbo]

Capri - It is funny how Clinton was illegally pursued by a Republican witch-hunt his entire presidency, but Bush and his father seem immune from investigation on far more serious matters. (Iran contra - "I was out of the loop" Iraq WMD -"It was the CIA's fault")

I know better than to post contraversial quotes here (hi slowpro) so I will have to let all those interested in the following do their own research. But I believe (just my opinion Slowpro) that the following alleged activity happened, and am curious as to whether the bush administration will ever be investigated and held responsible for triggering the chain of event s that led to it.

The story goes, based on a documentary made in great britain, that during the routing of the taliban from afganistan 4000 common taliban soldiers were shipped by our allies (the northern alliance) hundreds of miles in closed container cars. Some suffocated, some bled to death when bullet holes shot in the sides, and the remainder had to resort to sucking the blood of their dead comrades to stay alive.

Upon arriving at the prison where American Special forces were waiting to try to separate out any al queda from the masses, the trucks were open revealing the carnage and death. A decision was taken to drive the trucks out into the desert, dig a big trench, shoot any survivors and bury the whole mess.

A war crime ... if it really happened.

The story goes that American Special forces were present in the desert and watched (helped?) as this was done. The northern alliance took video of this atrocity, apparently to protect themselves from future war crime trials.

Will we ever hear more about this? Who knows. Apparently all the drivers who drove the trucks, and afterwords cooperated with the documentary, are dead or missing now.

Everyone else is being hush-hush.

Who knows if it is true. Worth checking into though.

I just mention it because I believe the Bush administration has set up an atrocity generating situation (similar to vietnam - young american men with almost unlimited destructive power at their fingertips - unwelcomed, frustrated, afraid and surrounded by a ruthless civilian enemy who are picking off their friends) in Iraq now and eventually we may here more horror stories come out of there.

Black and white / good and evil thinking is dangerous in modern warfare. What would have happened if George had been in charge during the Cuban missle crisis? Would he have showed the restraint and diplomatic prowess of JFK? Would he have plunged us into the abyss because the USSR were "evildoers" who had to be dealt with harshly in black or white terms?

[BaM*BaM]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20041115/capt.dccd20211151632.bush_cabinet_powell_dccd202.j pg

The USA foreign policy failure:

WE ARE MAKING ENEMIES FASTER THAN WE CAN KILL THEM!!!!

[jimbo]

Ah .... there's that pompous little smirk we all love so dearly.

What a guy. ;Db;

In Sunday's Dallas Daily news: the extreme republican social agenda is starting to be pushed, first the ultra-conservatives and evangelicals have to get the moderate republican's who helped them win out of the way:

The elephant in the room: GOP schism

Many moderates say they no longer feel invited to the party

09:35 PM CST on Sunday, November 14, 2004

By COLLEEN McCAIN NELSON / The Dallas Morning News

A win doesn't mean that all is well in the Republican Party.

Though their candidate came out ahead on Nov. 2, some moderate Republicans are as despondent as Democrats. While Christian conservatives have been credited with turning out like-minded voters in crucial swing states, many moderates say they have been marginalized.

"There is no future for moderate and progressive Republicans in the Republican Party," said Jim Scarantino, president of the centrist GOP group Mainstream 2004. "The far right wing and the fanatics have seized control."

Mr. Scarantino isn't sure where his brand of Republican politics fits into the GOP. Some Christian conservatives say it doesn't.

"If they can't agree and support the president and the platform, then they ought to go over to the Democrats," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for the conservative group Concerned Women for America.

After President Bush's re-election, evangelicals were quickly branded the "it" political group. They have taken a two-week victory lap, appearing around the clock on cable news networks while touting a conservative social agenda.

Out of the spotlight and largely overlooked, some moderates said they feel like politicians without a party.

Issues such as gay marriage and abortion have exposed fissures in the majority party, as conservatives push for what they call "pro-family" policies and moderates urge renewed focus on fiscal conservatism.

Evangelicals have been quick to seize on their moment in the spotlight, launching efforts to expand their influence and criticizing Republicans who don't toe the conservative line on social issues.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell announced plans last week for an "evangelical revolution," forming the Faith and Values Coalition, which he described as a resurrection of the Moral Majority.

And conservatives accused Sen. Arlen Specter of disloyalty when the Pennsylvania Republican suggested that the Senate might reject anti-abortion judicial nominees. Evangelical groups urged Mr. Specter's colleagues to reject his bid to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

'Ruthlessly exploited'

For years, moderate and conservative Republicans have coexisted, albeit somewhat awkwardly, agreeing to disagree on issues including abortion, gay rights and the environment. But this year's Republican convention made clear that moderates wield little or no influence, said Mr. Scarantino, whose group was launched by former Republican governors and other officials concerned that the GOP had taken a hard right turn.

While big-name moderates such as John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudolph Giuliani took the stage in New York, conservatives controlled the party platform.

"The party has ruthlessly exploited moderate Republicans," Mr. Scarantino said. "I think they're deluding themselves thinking they're ever going to get anything more than the opportunity to be on the stage."

Dennis Sanders, a gay minister who runs The Moderate Republican blog, has written in recent days about the tough questions facing his wing of the party. Many moderates likely are "considering leaving the GOP this morning after a Bush win," he wrote on Nov. 3. "I've considered it myself. I can only say this: Don't give up."

Some moderates remain optimistic, predicting that the president will take a measured approach, striking a balance by doing just enough to satisfy evangelicals without raising the ire of other groups.

The Bush administration "wants to have a positive legacy," said Ann Stone, chairwoman of Republicans for Choice. "They're going to figure out what they can give these guys that's not going to alienate everybody else."

Political scientist John Green said that the president and his allies are adept at counting votes.

"Evangelicals and other conservative Christians were clearly an important part of that coalition, but they were not the only people in the coalition," said Dr. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. Mr. Bush "needs the support of all the Republicans in the coalition to get his agenda passed."

Ms. Stone attributed the attention on evangelicals to a journalist-generated frenzy. "It's always sexier to talk about the Christian right. It's something that fascinates the media."

Evangelicals' pull

Regardless of what landed conservatives in the limelight, they are a powerful group.

"Evangelicals are in a very strong position right now, and they'll demand a lot," said Geoffrey Layman, associate professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland.

Religious conservatives have become for the GOP what labor unions have been for Democrats – a ready and reliable pool of activists, he said.

"The Republicans have never really had that until the Christian right came along," said Dr. Layman, author of The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics.

After laboring behind the scenes for years, conservatives are front and center. And they want the president to move quickly to address their agenda.

The to-do list includes defending traditional marriage, banning human cloning, reforming Social Security, passing more-restrictive abortion laws and stepping up enforcement of obscenity laws, said Ms. LaRue of Concerned Women for America.

And if moderates don't agree with those objectives, perhaps they don't belong in the GOP, she said.

Ms. LaRue calls Mr. Specter a RINO – Republican In Name Only – and questions why politicians such as Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island remain in the Republican Party when they didn't even vote for Mr. Bush.

"Get real," she said. "These are Democrats in Republican clothing."

Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy for the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, said the Republican tent is large enough to accommodate moderates. But he's not suggesting that conservatives are willing to compromise.

"If you read the platform, it's clearly a pro-life party," he said. "I'm sure anybody is welcome to be a Republican as long as they understand the direction the party is headed in."

[SlowPro48]

Originally posted by jimbo
I know better than to post contraversial quotes here (hi slowpro) so I will have to let all those interested in the following do their own research. But I believe (just my opinion Slowpro) that the following alleged activity happened, and am curious as to whether the bush administration will ever be investigated and held responsible for triggering the chain of event s that led to it.



Quote away Jimbo! People don't mind controversy - they just don't like to have their time wasted by fabricated crap. That's a very serious allegation you tossed out there.

Can you get us a link or two to some proof (i.e., something other than your opinion) that this war crime actually happened? A video clip from the British documentary showing those American Special Forces watching (helping?) as the innocent Taliban soldiers were slain and buried in the desert would be peachy. As much as the world hates us, it seems like something of that nature would be all over the net but google can't seem to find it....

Thanks.

[StormTROOPER]

Man you guys can type, I wish I had your energy & passion, I probally would if that snowboarding, windsurfing, indecisive, yin-minded peterpan was elected.;eekb; Glad to see it wasn't any of you trying to commit hari-kerry in front of the whitehouse. ;)

[SlowPro48]

Originally posted by jimbo
Another example : Some states in the south might even today vote away civil rights for blacks and race equality if the federal government and courts let them do it.

Simply unbelievable.... Where do you come up with this shyte, Mr. Fearmonger?

I give up. You are beyond the fringe. Give my regards to your sources on the dark side of the moon or wherever it is they reside...

[SlowPro48]

Originally posted by StormTROOPER
Man you guys can type, I wish I had your energy & passion,....

Dragon Naturally Speaking. It rocks once it's properly trained. Only downside is you can't listen to the radio and pick on Jimbo at the same time.

Do you want to see the Dragon's translation of an NPR broadcast?


;Dy;

[jimbo]

Hi Slowpro, as I said in my post :

The story goes that the northern alliance has the video (if it even exists). The only way it will get out is if the pressure is on them because the they have been accused of war crimes (they are blackmailing the united states in other words) or if someone leaks it for vengeful or monetary gains.

I'm not saying there is tons of evidence, but like many of these things it sometimes takes years for the truth to surface.

It's either an elaborate hoax, or there is some truth to it and I don't think it has been settled yet.

I thought you guys might be interested.

I mainly just pointed it out as the type of thing we may be seeing more of in the future.

Decide for yourself:
Scroll down to site #8
http://www.phrusa.org/research/afghanistan/report_graves.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=taliban+container+massacre&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Mazar-e-Sharif+massacre&btnG=Search

[jimbo]

Dragon Naturally Speaking. It rocks once it's properly trained. Only downside is you can't listen to the radio and pick on Jimbo at the same time.
I had that program years ago, I trained it for days and it was hilarious the sh#t it would come up with. Sometimes it wasn't even recognizable as anything close to what I had just said.

I gave up and learned to type fast. LOL

[jimbo]

Jimbo: Another example : Some states in the south might even today vote away civil rights for blacks and setback racial equality if the federal government and courts let them do it.

Slowpro: Simply unbelievable.... Where do you come up with this shyte, Mr. Fearmonger? I give up. You are beyond the fringe. Give my regards to your sources on the dark side of the moon or wherever it is they reside...

Again you are missing the main point I'm trying to make about the dangers of putting "rights" issues up for a popular vote rather than handling them in the courts at the federal level.

My point is not that this will happen, setbacks in racial equality. I think you misread me again. I was using it as an example.

Besides: you have to admit the statement I made is probably true today in some parts of the country. (comon you know it is)

Put it up for a vote whether blacks and whites can marry, same as the gay lesbian thing that just came up in 11 states, and it would fail in some places.

More importantly there WERE laws on the books making inter-racial marriage illegal in many places up until the civil rights movement of the 60s. If it wasn't for the "activist" courts (brown vs board), and the Johnson administration's subsequent legislative efforts there might still be laws against interacial marriage, integrated schools etc. (well, unless someone else came along and tackled the problem)

In other words if we just left these decisions to the states.

The main point is that similar issues (gay marriage, abortion etc.) are likely to get kicked back to state legislatures in the coming years if the federal courts (especially the supreme court) become more conservative.

And it's likely that they will become more conservative now.

Then there will likely be a large descrepency between states. Abortion will be legal in Pa, illegal in West Virginia. Gay marriage legal in California and Mass., illegal elsewhere.

We could have the same craziness that currently exists with the death penalty. Kill someone in a drunken barfight: in California you might walk free in 15 years, in Texas you fry.

We could see wide variations between states on all these "rights" issues. I don't think that would be good.
------------------------------------

Storm TROOPER -
yin-minded peterpan=paranoid child

See Im learning;Do;

[StormTROOPER]

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

LOL , Yes Graushoppa very good, maybe soon you have yin-yang epiphany.:D .........Confucius say... Kerry voter so distraut Bush re-elected doesn't commit hari-kerry, but instead commits hari-bush. :mbrasd

[jimbo]

Ah graushoppa, when you can snatch pebble from my hand ... you ready vote for the Dubya. ;Dp;

[BaM*BaM]

The Unfeeling President By Doctorow

I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.

He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.

They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life . . . they come to his desk as a political liability, which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that, rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice.

He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to.

Yet this president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing -- to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends.

A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children. He is the president who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead, he does not feel for the 35 million of us who live in poverty, he does not feel for the 40 percent who cannot afford health insurance, he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills - it is amazing for how many people in this country this president does not feel.

But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is relieving the wealthiest 1 percent of the population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we breathe for the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the quality of air in coal mines to save the coal miners' jobs, and that he is depriving workers of their time-and-a-half benefits for overtime because this is actually a way to honor them by raising them into the professional class.

And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and the flag and democracy, when just what he and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of it.

But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I remember the millions of people here and around the world who marched against the war. It was extraordinary, this spontaneous aroused oversoul of alarm and protest that transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After all, this was not the only war anyone had ever seen coming. There are little wars all over the world most of the time.

But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the classic archetype of democracy was morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war.

The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into, is his characteristic trouble.

Finally, the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail. How can we sustain ourselves as the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective warmaking, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.

[t2p]

Sgt:
.
Again, you make some valid points ........
.
information that I 'casually forgot' ....... omitted ....or never knew .......
.
I'm basically in the same boat as you ..... and hoping this all works out .......

[t2p]

Jimbo .........
.
I may be in the minority, but I felt the 'witch hunt' campaign against Pres Clinton *was* legitimate .......
.
I felt (again - my opin) he was a loose cannon ....... he had baggage when he first stepped into the oval office and it continued. His behavior was reckless ...... with actions that could lead to issues with national security .... etc.
.
I thought he should have been removed from office.
.

[MrCrowley]

Thought I would pass this funny along...


Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding
God's Law. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both
male and female, provided they are purchased from
neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this
applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as
sanctioned in Exodus 21:7 In this day and age, what do you
think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while
she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15:
19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking,
but most women take offense

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know
it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The
problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not
pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.
Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am
I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the
police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish
is an abomination Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination
than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Are there 'degrees' of abomination? Oh, sorry. IS there
degrees ..

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of
God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I
wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or
is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though this
is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead
pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I
wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting
two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by
wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread
(cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and
blaspheme lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all
the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone
them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at
a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep
with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus
enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am
confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal
and unchanging.

In Jesus' name,
Consolidated Dumbasses of America

[V-Twin hiCROSS]

Wow Bam Bam, that was pretty heart-wrenching.
Now then, let's hear how you would have acted at the time if you were in charge. From what I remember, the House and Senate both voted in support of the war. At the time, all information pointed to Iraq having/making terrible weapons. Not to mention, the past history of Saddam killing off his own people with chemical weapons. When we made the move into Afghanistan, we essentially moved on all of the terrorist countries in that part of the world.
I look at our President and see a man doing the necessary evils that I would not have the Kahoni's to do. Believe me, he feels the pain and mourns the death of those soldiers much more intensely than you or I could ever imagine.
Get off of you high horse and tell us just exactly how you would have proceeded at that time of national unrest. I would be interested to hear how the families of those KILLED in the attack on 9/11 would react to your "go hug the terrorists" response.

[johnnyapollo]

Cajones? sorry - the spelling just struck me as funny.

-- John

[BaM*BaM]

V-Twin,
No prob. Here is what I would have done in Feb. 2002..

If anyone was really paying close attention to the UN negotiations that were going on back when Bush said he had 'finally had enough' .... and decided to no longer listen to any dialogue with UN Security Council members, ... Germany, France and Russia had agreed to demand that Iraq accept fully armed UN forces into Iraq to assist the inspectors in their investigations. To back this up, France and Germany had agreed to setting a military ultimatum for 6 months (Sept. or Oct, which was a much better time to start military actions) to force Iraq to accept these UN military forces. If one combined these demands with the USA's own passion to invade, these would NOT have been idle threats. And it would have resulted in a true multi national power, military police force entering Iraq and securing any threat that Iraq represented to the USA, the Middle East, and the world as a whole..

This UN force would NOT have been perceived as an INVADING and CONQUERING power of the Iraqi homeland. The USA military would have then been free to pursue the true Al Queda threat in Afghanistan and in the rest of the world.. (please remember that Sadam, ( a fanatic of Joseph Stalin,... not Mohammed) had been responsible for killing over 2 million Moslem fundamentalists in the Iran- Iraq war. Al Queda hated him as much as they hate the USA.)

The reason that this plan was not forwarded by the Bush Administration, was because Bush NEVER wanted a combined UN force to invade Iraq. If the invasion, or policing of Iraq was done under the command and authority of the UN Security Council, the USA would NOT have been in position to establish their own permanent US puppet government in Iraq, and it would NOT have been able to permanently secure the Iraq oil reserves for the long time future of USA corporations.

[jimbo]

Johnny- It's spelled Kahonis in Hawaii ;)

[valenki]

dam! this post survived a while!

[V-Twin hiCROSS]

Reasonable response Bam Bam, but hadn't we been in the ongoing cycle of inspections, get thrown out of Iraq, return for inspections, etc....... for the previous 15 or so years. During which time Saddam attempted to take over Kuwait and committed many Atrocities (especially against his own people). Another issue not taken into account in your plan (which sounds very plausable, thank you for actually responding) is that Saddam's sons would have taken power as soon as the old man was not capable. That is when the real trouble would have brewed. Your plan does not relieve that dispicable family of its reign of terror. It was very necessary in order to ever have peace of mind. Another key piece of information that you are forgetting is that France was regularly accepting large sums of cash form Saddam and the Iraq gov't. France had many reasons to support not throwing that family out of power, including: cash, gas, freedom from attack, etc..
I hope that in a few years from now, we can take some pride in the fact that a whole country will be liberated and freed from a fanatical so called "leader".

As far as the spelling of Cajones, Kahonis, or whatever, I usually just call 'em "Nads".

[jimbo]

Two points:


I may be in the minority, but I felt the 'witch hunt' campaign against Pres Clinton *was* legitimate

t2p - I wanted Clinton to resign, it would have been better from the country and the democrats .. but I think it was a witch hunt. Nothing at all ever came from whitewater, filegate etc. etc. Ken Star et all is to blaim for that period of history. Put any politician (including Bush) under that kind of microscope and stuff will come up that's disturbing.

There was a right wing conspiracy to tear down Clinton's presidency and they finally caught him in a lie (which they forced by putting his back to the wall) about getting a BJ.



I would be interested to hear how the families of those KILLED in the attack on 9/11 would react to your "go hug the terrorists" response.
I'm not willing to go along with the assumption that the war in Iraq had anything to do with terrorism before we invaded and attracted all the terrorists in from outside the country. I don't think Bam Bam buys into this either. (and neither do many of the 911 families some of whom are very hostile towards a government that they feel failed to protect them)

Even Rumsfeld and Bush, based on solid advice and intelligence, felt Iraq had nothing to do with 911 right after the attacks on the towers and pentagon.

Much of the intelligence they would later use to come to an opposite opinion already existed and had been reviewed at that time.

Why they later totally reversed their position, gave in to Wofowitz, started touting the WMD thing and drug us into this mess is still not very clear.

I think they decided to use 911 as an excuse to make the world better.

Whether it has made the world better is still very much up in the air.

Sept 15th 2001 (quoted from 911 Commision Report):

Secretary Powell recalled that Wolfowitz—not Rumsfeld—argued that Iraq was ultimately the source of the terrorist problem and should therefore be attacked. Powell said that Wolfowitz was not able to justify his belief that Iraq was behind 9/11.

“Paul was always of the view that Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with,” Powell told us.“And he saw this as one way of using this event as a way to deal with the Iraq problem.”

Powell said that President Bush did not give Wolfowitz’s argument “much weight.”

[jimbo]

As far as the spelling of Cajones, Kahonis, or whatever, I usually just call 'em "Nads".
Yes, Nads is the official scientific term.

It is correct that Saddams sons would have taken over. But did we have to invade?

I hear one of them had photos of Bush's daughters on his wall. Couldn't we have just given them Bush's girls to appease them. ;eekr;

Glad it wasn't my call.

[johnnyapollo]

I believe you are referring to "kahunah" - although the Kahunah may have the biggest cajones, please don't confuse the two!
Not to be confused with Chanukka or Hanuka either!

You guys ever see the move Anchorman? One of the characters had his nads named - very funny.

-- John

[Anita]

Originally posted by johnnyapollo
One of the characters had his nads named - very funny.

-- John


Since we are talking terminology, where did "nad" originate.

[BaM*BaM]

From 'gonad'
Pronunciation: 'gO-"nad
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin gonad-, gonas, from Greek gonos
: a reproductive gland (as an ovary or testis) that produces gametes
- go·nad·al /gO-'na-d&l/ adjective

Slang term started in early 80's within the Cal Rad earth/sufers/snowboaders

[jimbo]

from Greek gonos
Gonos .. Ah yes ... the ancient Athenean god who shrunk up when he was cold. ;)

[Anita]

Duh!! :homer:

[insert brain back in head]

[t2p]

jimbo ........
.
actually, something *did* come out of whitewater ... filegate ....... travelgate ........
.
what was unveiled ....... to those that were not already aware of it ..... was just how bad Mrs Pres - Hill Rod Clinton - was/is ........
.
Mr Bill had the problems with the sexual harrassment ...... the other scandals - the majority (or all) of them - were primarily attributed to Hill Rod ......
.

[t2p]

.
did anybody .......... has anybody ......... noticed ......
.
that Johnny Apollo is having fun with this thread ........
.

[t2p]

jimbo ......
.
can't argue with the slant on P Wolfowitz ........
.
appears to be an opinion shared by many ..... and fairly well documented .........

basically traces back to the comment I made about 'nothing was done for 20+ years'. The 'nothing' was diplomacy. Weinberger, Powell, others on one side - favoring diplomacy, etc. Shultz, Wolfowitz, plus others on the opposite side - with more hardline views.
.
9-11 tipped the scales in the favor of the hardliners. Diplomacy .... etc .... was moved aside - and replaced with pre-emption ..... and/or the threat ........

[t2p]

.
hmmm ............ Is this where George (Constanza - on Seinfeld) yells 'SHRINKAGE' ........

[SlowPro48]

Originally posted by jimbo

I'm not saying there is tons of evidence, but like many of these things it sometimes takes years for the truth to surface.

It's either an elaborate hoax, or there is some truth to it and I don't think it has been settled yet.


Man - mass graves are disturbing aren't they? I checked out those links. It's definitely not a hoax as far as the existance of the graves but it looked like the most reliable source was the physicians' site - and none of their witnesses mentioned Americans being involved. That angle only showed up in the google search results such as wsws.org - the World Socialist Web Site and AlterNet. Don't know how accurate they are. Could possibly have a little bias. ;)

Like you said - time will tell. That's a grisly story though. Hope it's not true.

Hey thanks for posting those links!

[SlowPro48]

Originally posted by jimbo
Again you are missing the main point I'm trying to make about the dangers of putting "rights" issues up for a popular vote rather than handling them in the courts at the federal level.

<<<major snippage>>>>

We could see wide variations between states on all these "rights" issues. I don't think that would be good.



Whohoo! Look out boys the viking's been in the akavit tonight and this kind of talk fires me up so this might be trip down Faque Lane!

Jimbo, I'm sorry I missed your main point but... well... it got buried under the heaps of dung you foisted off on me! Come on man - you toss out something as outrageuos as Souhern states doing away with civil rights for minorities and expect to get away with it by saying it's just an "example"? You are freakin' pegging my bull**** meter dude! Ha! I love it! I was actually laughing out loud as I read your post. I really admire a good BS'er and I am 100% serious about that. You probably reeled in a lot of strange as a single man didn't you?

And NO - A BIG FAT NOOOO - I DON'T think your racism statement is true in ANY part of the country, but I DO think it gives us some insight into what the "Proud Members of the Intellectual Elites" living in "The United States of Liberty and Education" think of us backward saps in "Jesusland". I'm sure you've seen the button that says "Dear Red States, to be honest, we DO think you are ignorant rednecks" There's a bunch of funny items on that Betty Bowers site. Too bad the button designers weren't intellectual enough to realize "elites" is not a word...

What the heck - it's all good. In the future, you might consider leaving the scare tactics to blowhards like Limbaugh and Carville though. You're good - but not THAT good. They are professional BSers/entertainers whose livlihood depends on keeping the country divided with all that trash talking.

OK - enough of that - got kind of sidetracked there. We've got our own trash talking to do! Let's get to your MAIN POINT which was, in your words, "the dangers of putting "rights" issues up for a popular vote rather than handling them in the courts at the federal level".

Aha! The Democracy part of that Democratic Socialist thing you Democrats have been cramming down our throats for the last 40 years is now biting you in the ***** isn't it? It was looking pretty good for a while there - when you were the majority. The "proselytizers of a new faith" were on a roll - but then Shazzaam! Gomer wants his country back! SO - now you're looking to the Judicial Branch to impose your morality on the entire country through activist courts. Last time I checked, our government was a Constitutional Republic, relying on a system of checks and balances (the three branches of government and the Constitution) to protect us from just such a thing. It also protects us from what you NOW fear - majority rule - also known as pure democracy or "mob-ocracy" if you will - so buck up little camper - your civil liberties are safe. Have faith in the system. It will be rough for a few years because you won't get exactly what you want - but it will work out in the end.

In the meantime, lie down on my psychoanalyst couch and let's talk about converting you to Libertarian!

Do you not see the beauty of a federal government limited by Constitutional checks and balances? Do you think we should exchange a system of government that has worked just fine for 200 years for an Orwellian, we-must-all-think-alike Democratic Socialist form of government?

What disturbs you so much about states having different laws? To me it seems like a good solution to intolerance. If you just can't stand to be around those who think/act differently than you, then you can MOVE to a state where the philosophical and political leanings (and thus the state laws) are more to your liking. Can't stand tobacco smoke? Move to NY! Love those cigs? Move to NC and smoke up Johhny! Banjo music get on your nerves? Stay the hell out of the South! Go see Le Nozze di Figaro at the Met instead...

And yes, I'm substituting less controversial issues for the ones you always mention in order to cut down on the red herring factor but I think you'll get the point.

I think it's a damn fine sign that both the Republicans and the Democrats are wailing about "activist judges". Sounds like the balance of power is just about right for a change.

OK - your turn. With a little help from BaMBaM's massive cut and paste effort I think we can get 30 pages out of this baby.


;Dy;

[Maverick]

wow, i swore off this thread, but its like coffee, cant have just one cup...the 'problems have been debated and beat to death, that horse is nothing but bone fragments now....but im a solution oriented dude...and i simply dont see any coming with the current administration..
already Bush has ousted any voice of dissent in administration.. Colins' gone,replaced by a "yes" woman.. Rumsfield on his way out, not to mention a host of others..from my point of view, basically everyone who has challenged Bushs reasoning is being replaced. yet another example of his "im right, period!" policy making... Ofcourse, thats his perogotive, and it wasnt unexpected..
Already hes pushing to open up the Alaskan wilderness for drilling and mining, im not convinced that can be done with out severe environmental consequences, and its pretty scarry...
Already weve seen the largest battle since the war "ended" in Iraq, conducted by better than a 75% majority of US troops..what happened to those 140,000 Iraqi troops he was telling us about? why couldnt we support them and let them take the high casualty rates? And how the heck did we let 'the rebels" concentrate to that strength in one place to begin with??
Already, were seeing the far right wing religious factions making threats if their agenda isnt brought fourth as they were promised...
oh , and if the lame duck governemt session doesnt increase the spending cap this week, further increasing the deficit (or have they already, im not sure), our government will cease to be able to function because were broke...

and i almost forgot, the Brits now have a better than 70% dispproval rate oftheir troops being over there..i dont know how tony is going to be able to continue to help us at this rate, and if they pull out..man..thatll be bad , not just for troop strength, but itll be seen as a victory by the "bad guys" and motivate them..and well be further short handed and have to face an enemy increasing in strength..not good...

i really wish i could see a solution forming , but apparently nothing is broken if you listen to the rhetoric.. ive been carefully scanning the morning paper on a daily basis looking for at least some signs that things will improve now that the election mess is over, but all i see is more problems being added, or current problems deepening..and instead of the country coming together, all i see is the rifts getting wider instead of smaller...i really want to stand behind our president , despite the fact i dont like him, fergadsake, this is America, thats what we do, we come together in a crisis..dont we?? somebody show me something encouraging....

[jimbo]

Slowpro - Something I learned while finding that physicians page you mentioned, that I wasn't aware of, is about the other massacres at Mazar.

Many of the grave sites they visited were from the late nineties and were suspected to have been involved in the mass murders of civilians that took place when the Taliban took charge.

This sounds to me like a possible motive for the alledged mass killings of the Taliban soldiers by the northern alliance during the USAs route of the Taliban.

In other words a little payback (in a grissly sort of way).

The other thing that seems up in the air for me about the eyewitness reports on the physicians website is that it was not clear (I don't think?) whether any of the Taliban were still alive at the grave site, and subsequently shot, or whether it was just a hurried attempt to hide the results of a terribly botched transfer of prisoners.

In either case the USA supported, and to a large extent directed, the Northern Alliance during this incursion so it makes sense to me that America should be held at least partially responsible for any human rights abuses that may have occured.

What do you think of the prisoner shootings in Fallujah?
---------------------------------------
I mostly agree with your other assertions (and am tired of arguing about them) except to say that I think the so called "red herring" issues are different than the other issues you mentioned. I see the issue of gay marriage (for example) being about being able to marry the person you love, to possibly fall under the "pursuit of happiness" clause in the constitution and would expect the judicial branch to disagree with the legislative branch and at least attempt to over-ride them as they try to disallow this new (and long overdue) change in our society.

In other words I am far more comfortable with a strong and liberal leaning judicial branch. A progressive minded bench to balance out the other branches and make sure that the rights of minority groups of all kinds are protected.

I am afraid this strong protection will be less likely now as the federal appeals courts seem to be becoming more and more conservative, thus becoming simply a rubber stamp of the conservative legislative branches agenda. And the legislative branch seems to be becoming more and more a rubber stamp of the executive branches wishes (at least right now).

Example: I read a decision by Alberto Gonzales from his days in Texas in which he made a pretty good argument that judges (even at these high appeal levels) should attempt to stick to the "original intent" of the law that the legislature intended. A fairly narrow view that if implemented would reduce the powerful role that courts like the supreme court have played in the last 50 years or so. (to say our governement has functioned in the same way for 200 years is just not accurate)

I like the way our country has grown and changed in the last 50 years and want that trend to continue. (obviously sense I am such a liberal elitist bullsh#tter) LOL

Bush admits he has not had to veto one piece of legislation because there was total agreement between the conservative powers in congress and his office. That doesn't seem like the checks and balances are in place currently to me.

Anyway, got to get to work now. ;Db;

Bam Bams turn, then T2P

[jimbo]

Originally posted by t2p
.
hmmm ............ Is this where George (Constanza - on Seinfeld) yells 'SHRINKAGE' ........
That episode was so funny!!!!

[V-Twin hiCROSS]

Maverick,
Just a few comments to your recent post:
1) It is very common for a second term president to make changes in his cabinet. Especially in the turbulent times that we have seen over the past few years. In several of the current positions (namely Colin Powell), these individuals needed a break form that life. It is by no means a cake job, many tough decisions.
2) Drilling for oil in the Alaskan wilderness only makes sense. There are currently three other countries that are tapped into that mass of underground liquid gold. They are just getting to it from the oceans. If we do not start tapping that resource, it will be used up before we get ours. I am no expert on the subject, but my understanding is that it is more environmentally safe to drill them from dry land.
3) Recent reports tell us that the Iraqi troops are starting to meld and have some good cohesion. It takes a bit of time to train these new soldiers. Currently they are working closely with our American boys to learn the ropes in "real" situations. Give it a year or so, and those Iraqi's will have some experience and will have seen the impact that they can make if they work as a trained team.
4) Having the Insurgnece all couped up in one town seems to be the best alternative from what I can see. At least we know where they are and that most anyone left in that town needs to be "86'ed".
5) I see much good since the election. My 401K climbed nearly 5% in the last few weeks. In my neck of the woods, everyone seems to be getting along just fine. We do not agree on all issues, but I think that we mostly have the same basic goals for this great land. If you choose to be the pessimist, there are always faults to be found. Things are not perfect, but they are far from dismal.

[vxkween]

And NO - A BIG FAT NOOOO - I DON'T think your racism statement is true in ANY part of the country, but I DO think it gives us some insight into what the "Proud Members of the Intellectual Elites" living in "The United States of Liberty and Education" think of us backward saps in "Jesusland".

I'll have to say that I too believe that racism is alive and well in many parts of the country...although it seems more pronounced in the South. Let's think back to 1998 when 3 "bubbas", for lack of a better word, drug a black man (James Byrd) to his death behind their pick up truck just because of his skin color. I have lived in Texas most of my life and there are parts of this state I would not venture into with my partner for fear of being harmed. I'm not talking about little itty bitty towns, I'm talking about Beaumont, Port Arthur.... I belive if given the chance some people would most defintely opt to turn back the hands of time to segregation.

OK - enough of that - got kind of sidetracked there. We've got our own trash talking to do! Let's get to your MAIN POINT which was, in your words, "the dangers of putting "rights" issues up for a popular vote rather than handling them in the courts at the federal level".


What disturbs you so much about states having different laws? To me it seems like a good solution to intolerance. If you just can't stand to be around those who think/act differently than you, then you can MOVE to a state where the philosophical and political leanings (and thus the state laws) are more to your liking. Can't stand tobacco smoke? Move to NY! Love those cigs? Move to NC and smoke up Johhny! Banjo music get on your nerves? Stay the hell out of the South! Go see Le Nozze di Figaro at the Met instead...

What is unfortunate about "if you don't like it then leave" is that it narrows down the choices dramatically! For instance, my partner and I have been planning to buy 50 or so acres outside the Asheville area for our retirement. That area of NC is very progressive and diverse, but the state itself not so tolerant and I really don't foresee North Carolina passing legislation permitting gay marriages or for that matter civil unions in the near future. So we are presented with the choice of moving to Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, and probably Oregon - do you think that's fair? I certainly would like to have a larger selection, preferebly hmmmmm, North Carolina yeah!!

Do I think America is ready at this point in time to make gay marriage or civil unions recognized in all 50 states? Absolutely not! I think the gay/lesbian community has had many significant victories this past year in getting a few states to recognize our right to love whoever we want and to be able to have the rights that so many straight couples take for granted. I do however understand that it is going to take years for the rest of America to catch up in regard to equality for ALL of its citizens.

[vxkween]

ooops...I didn't get the quotes from slowPro highlighted in there...those of you following the thread will be able to work it out I think.

[Dallas4u]

Originally posted by vxkween
my partner and I have been planning to buy 50 or so acres outside the Asheville area for our retirement.

Not to get too off-track, but where exactly outside of the Asheville area are you looking? My mother and step-father bought some land on a golf course somewhere outside of Ashville, and they are seriously thinking of selling. I know, you probably DON'T care to live on the 8th hole... I was just wondering whereabout you were looking. Oh, and it's probably only an acre or so...

[MachineVX]

I can attest to the fact that racism is alive and well in Chicago. I've worked in the inner city school and schools on the toney North Shore. There's a world of difference . . .

[V-Twin hiCROSS]

Interesting how this thread turns to racism. Being a middle class white guy, I guess it is easy to let that issue slip away when not confronted by it regularly. I would have to agree that racism still bears its teeth in the twenty-first century. But, a BIG but, I believe that it is the exception, not the norm. No matter how hard we try, there will still be idiots in the world. I can say this, throughout my life on several occasions, I have seen diversity and tolerence triumph over hate and racial divides. I understand many folks concerns on this issue, but I feel that most Americans are pretty well past those small-minded divides. Let me know if I am off base here, I would be interested to know if you all think I might be inside some sort of bubble.

[vxkween]

Dallas....we are looking around Black Mountain and any other areas around Asheville were we can get a significant parcel of land. We are looking for "off the grid" land, or some might call it "dog land"...we are going to build a self-sustaining home whatb I like to call THE HUT. The home is made of old tires filled with dirt and pounded in for the load supporting walls and then layered with adobe like material. The power is DC and is supplied via wind, solar, and water stored in batteries......sound earth muffinish I know but we've stayed in one near Taos NM and they are really cool! We would basically have no reliance on city water, electric.......

[jimbo]

The thing I was trying to say, when I brought up the race thing, was that I believe that if you put any of these civil rights issues up for a vote you are making a big mistake.

I consider gay marriage to be a civil rights issue.

If men and woman are truely equal than it makes no sense, absolutely no sense, that marriage should be defined in a sexist way. Why should the fact that it was that way for thousands of years make any difference? Men and woman did not have equal rights for thousands of years, but they do now.

Don't be afraid, move forward boldly.

Marriage should not be defined by religious persuasion, race, age (above age of consent) or sex. Marriage is a basic right not owned by any one group.

I don't think it should matter where you live, civil rights should be protected by the courts, not dictated by the majority by referendum.

I think the topic of gay marriage is long overdue, it should have been settled during the civil rights era. Why wait another 30 years to fix this inequity?

VXkween I'm glad you showed up. Sometimes I feel like very few here agree with me at all.

On a broader topic, at the core of how I feel about all these issues we've discussed so far is that I think we should keep moving forward, change things boldly without fear.

For example: Why waste time blocking embryonic stem cell research? Wouldn't it be more constructive to be focusing on creating a new set of foreward looking laws to govern the ethics of genetic engineering; issues like stem cell research, gene engineering, and human cloning rather than being fearful and trying to block them from happening?

I wish the debate in the country only revolved around how to give indviduals even more rights and freedoms not less. How to move science ahead faster and faster rather than how to hold it back.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by V-Twin hiCROSS
Maverick,
Just a few comments to your recent post:
1) It is very common for a second term president to make changes in his cabinet. Especially in the turbulent times that we have seen over the past few years. In several of the current positions (namely Colin Powell), these individuals needed a break form that life. It is by no means a cake job, many tough decisions.
2) Drilling for oil in the Alaskan wilderness only makes sense. There are currently three other countries that are tapped into that mass of underground liquid gold. They are just getting to it from the oceans. If we do not start tapping that resource, it will be used up before we get ours. I am no expert on the subject, but my understanding is that it is more environmentally safe to drill them from dry land.
3) Recent reports tell us that the Iraqi troops are starting to meld and have some good cohesion. It takes a bit of time to train these new soldiers. Currently they are working closely with our American boys to learn the ropes in "real" situations. Give it a year or so, and those Iraqi's will have some experience and will have seen the impact that they can make if they work as a trained team.
4) Having the Insurgnece all couped up in one town seems to be the best alternative from what I can see. At least we know where they are and that most anyone left in that town needs to be "86'ed".
5) I see much good since the election. My 401K climbed nearly 5% in the last few weeks. In my neck of the woods, everyone seems to be getting along just fine. We do not agree on all issues, but I think that we mostly have the same basic goals for this great land. If you choose to be the pessimist, there are always faults to be found. Things are not perfect, but they are far from dismal.


Im not a pessimist (see my sig) , i often am accused of being overly optomistic in fact..so i suppose for me to come off as a pessimist just underlines my concerns.

i had a long response, i deleted it.. those items dont encourage me though.. i find theres a fine line between being and optimist, and turning a blind eye..i see just fine, and maybe thats my problem.... maybe someone else can show me something encouraging.. a picture of a kitten perhaps??;Db;

[jimbo]

Yeah Maverick, with the exception of # 5 that list of things sounds like the standard line from a white house press conference.

I hope they're true.

Let me tell ya, around philly people aren't feeling overly optimistic these days.

Some folks are talking about sending lots of pretzels to the white house. ;Db;

[t2p]

Maverick ......

There are some reasons to be optimistic - just like there are two sides to each story .... and statistics can be 'turned up' or 'down'.
.
I don't think Powell was 'ousted' ...... I think he had (just about) enough ........... ditto for a few others ........
.
Rumsfeld leaving ..... ? I have seen no confirmation of this ........ many would feel this step would be a positive one ......
.
Bush environment-related policies have issues, but I DONT see an issue with drilling in Alaska .... not in the spot where they plan to drill. Where (else) can we drill ? ........ NYC ? Is there a better spot in the US ? As I stated in an previous post - maybe we should not drill - and only then drill *after* the Middle East oil supply slows to a mere trickle ............
.
'largest battle since the war ended' ...... see 'Rumsfeld' above .....
.
I don't see significant progress with the deficit ...... however, Bush did not generate the 'entire deficit- - his policies may be responsible for 20-25% of it ..........
.
it appears the 'mess' in the Middle East might continue for a while ......... they are dealing with a country that has lived under hostile rule for generations .......
.

[t2p]

Jimbo and Mav:
.
I will recite the tried-and-true GW lines:
.
.
Economy is improving. We are out of recession. Job market is picking up.
.
Market is up.
.
Tax reform in place.
.
'No Child Left Behind' implemented.
.
75% of Al Quaida (or whatever) captured ........
.
Afghanistan and Iraq liberated ........
.
Homeland Security dept established and security improved
.
.
You guyz need to remember this admin inherited a recession and the country was attacked. Serious deficiencies in the security of this country had to be addressed.

[SlowPro48]

Originally posted by jimbo

What do you think of the prisoner shootings in Fallujah?


I don't think it's right for any person or government to snuff out human life. I suppose one could justify killing on the grounds of self defense or to prevent the death of others but I'm not sure I could do it myself. I'm thankful that I'm almost 100% sure I'll never have to make that choice, since we as a society pay others to do our killing for us.

I like steak - but I would probably be a vegetarian if I had to kill the steer myself instead of picking up a chunk of professionally killed bovine at the supermarket. I hardly ever think about how that animal lived and died when I pay for it at the cash register. Do you hear what I'm saying...? I know Bush doesn't!

(you busted on my train/space-time metaphor so i figure steak/american way of life, butcher/dogs of war won't go over well either but i'm just stupid enough to toss another metaphor out there for ya - have at it)


I see the issue of gay marriage (for example) being about being able to marry the person you love, to possibly fall under the "pursuit of happiness" clause in the constitution

I agree. I've talked to my friend many times about this and for the life of me I still don't know why a man would want to... uh.... do the things he does to another man when women are so beautiful - but if that's what it takes to make him happy then I fully believe there's a place for him in America. We declared our independance from the King of Great Britain by saying "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". A lot of patriot blood was shed so he could persue that happiness.



In other words I am far more comfortable with a strong and liberal leaning judicial branch. A progressive minded bench to balance out the other branches and make sure that the rights of minority groups of all kinds are protected.

Here is where we differ my fellow long-winded foil. I believe Supreme court judges should not "lean" one way or the other when rendering decisions. If we the people decide our representatives in the legislative or executive branches are out of line, we can vote them out of office. We get the chance to oust them for every 4 or 6 years. They can't get TOO out of touch with their public's desires and stay in office long. So don't worry so much about the balance of power in those branches. It is self-correcting. The judiciary isn't like that though. We cannot vote them out of office, therefore they should be non-partisan. Their job isn't to make law but rather to compare it against the Constitution, which should be their standard - not their own personal opinions or even the whims public opinion. And that's my personal opinion.


I like the way our country has grown and changed in the last 50 years and want that trend to continue. (obviously sense I am such a liberal elitist bullsh#tter) LOL ]


Well I may be out of touch, but I'm one of those people who thinks it was better "back in the day". But I'll admit - life's not too bad now. The longing for "the good old days" may be a temporary, phase that's particularly acute right now because I'm trying to get an after school program for at-risk youth started at a local inner-city elementary school where I do some tutoring. Researching for the "needs" part of the grant application has been an eye-opener. I thought it was just this school that was a lot rougher than when I was in elementary school but apparently there's a nation-wide problem. I don't have it with me here at work but I ran across a Time Magazine article at the library comparing the problems schools reported in the 40's with today's problems. Big problems in the 40's were things like chewing gum, talking in class, running in the hall, not throwing trash in the waste basket. Problems today - fighting, drug possession, weapons possession, assault on teachers and staff, pregnancy. And keep in mind we're talking elementary and middle school here. Pregnant 7th graders...

Now you tell me - is that a good trend? What happened in the last 60 years in our nation's school systems? I'm betting you don't want to go down that road!


Bush admits he has not had to veto one piece of legislation because there was total agreement between the conservative powers in congress and his office. That doesn't seem like the checks and balances are in place currently to me.


Those bills didn't make it through congress without a lot of debate and a lot of Democrat votes and you know it. The Republicans only have a very slim majority (in 108th, S = 48D:51R and H= 205D:229R) they don't OWN congress by any stretch of the imagination. I would say the reason Bush hasn't had to veto anything is because the conference committee members and Chairmen have been better this term at resolving differences before the bill ever gets to the prez.


:p

[SlowPro48]

Originally posted by vxkween
I'll have to say that I too believe that racism is alive and well in many parts of the country...although it seems more pronounced in the South.

Jimbo and I were discussing the possibility of a racist southern STATE rolling back civil rights for minorities - not debating whether there are racist individuals WITHIN those states. I personally don't think the south is more racist than any other part of the country - but then maybe I'm just lucky in who I've been privileged to be associated with - starting with my non-racist parents of course. That always helps. :)

Maybe southerners are just too open and honest. Maybe there's racism in northern states but Yankees are just more subtle and sneaky about it. :eek:

Whatever the case, I'm 99.44% sure you won't find enough racists in any Southern state for a rollback of minority rights to happen though - but I also don't think there's anywhere in the WORLD you won't find racist INDIVIDUALS. People who look down on others have always existed and always will. Sad but true! I bet you could even find a few racists in the "blue" states! You might even find one wearing one of those buttons that says "Dear Blue States, to be honest, we DO look down on you."



What is unfortunate about "if you don't like it then leave" is that it narrows down the choices dramatically! For instance, my partner and I have been planning to buy 50 or so acres outside the Asheville area for our retirement. That area of NC is very progressive and diverse, but the state itself not so tolerant and I really don't foresee North Carolina passing legislation permitting gay marriages or for that matter civil unions in the near future. So we are presented with the choice of moving to Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, and probably Oregon - do you think that's fair?

I hate to say this but - yes, I DO think it's fair. As much as I would love to see you and your partner move to NC*, I don't think it's fair for anyone to force their views/lifestyle on a general populace that obviously isn't ready for it. That may sound harsh but just try to see the issue from their point of view. You say it narrows down your choices - but what about their choices? Their whole life may be based on traditions and values that have been the norm for thousands of years - and they want to raise their kids the same way they were raised - with the same traditional values. They don't want to go out to a restaurant and have to explain to little Johhny why there are two men making out in the booth in the corner. Are you saying their values don't matter but yours do? Sorry but that's why I like state's rights instead of the Federal one-size-fits-all solution. We won't ALL get EXACTLY what we want but by golly there's enough variability in the states that you should be able to pursue a reasonable amount of life, liberty and happiness however you define it. Northern Cali ain't bad - Oregon either! You gotta love this country, eh?

BTW, I hope you decide on A-ville. You won't have one bit of a problem anywhere in NC - we are more "progressive" than you might think. Damn, I hate buzzwords and now I'm using that one too. Politically speaking (and I guess that's what this thread is all about) Eastern counties lean Dem, and western NC leans Republican. The west, however is populated by mountain people - Scots-Irish mostly - and although they are generally conservative, mountain people are the most "live-and-let-live" people you will ever meet. They aren't the type to talk about tolerance and then turn around and show no tolerance for those they think are intolerant (!) - they EMBODY tolerance.

Check out this recent Parade article and you'll get a feel for the WNC native's mindset:

http://archive.parade.com/2004/1003/1003_scots_irish.html

*Mostly because I've got a bunch of old tires I need to get rid of. (jk - i'd really like to see that house)



:D

[Maverick]

Originally posted by t2p
Jimbo and Mav:
.
I will recite the tried-and-true GW lines:
.
.
Economy is improving. We are out of recession. Job market is picking up.
.

For every two jobs gained, we loose one, at least that my unofficial count as i browse through the daily business section, and those gained have much lower salary averages than the ones lost..im no expert, but that isnt very encouraging to me...


Market is up.
.
the market always goes up after a presidential election, time will tell if its sustainable..i hope for the best, my few stocks are worth less than one quarter of what they were five years ago. i want them to go up, ill need that money for retirement since there wont be any social security left by the time im ready... sorry i spent little "extra " refund awhile ago, donated it to a family so they could buy winter coats for their daughters for christmas..i wont be able to use thatin 30 years, i guess ill start collecting cans now...


Tax reform in place.
.
sure, if youve got a couple million in the bank, unfortunately, i dont qualify..


'No Child Left Behind' implemented.
.
And grossly underfunded, lets fix that , its important....


75% of Al Quaida (or whatever) captured ........
um, that was just the known leadership, no one knows exactly how many of them are still around, many beleive theyve grown vastly in strength.. a couple of em did a fine job of blowing my freinds face half off a few months back, theyre far from nuetralized.
.

Afghanistan and Iraq liberated ........
the better part of Afgahanistan is still run by fuedal warlords, and Iraq, well, just watch the news..its in chaos. Liberated isnt exactly the word id use to describe it..they dont line the streets and throw roses at our troops, they try and kill them..
.

Homeland Security dept established and security improved
If you feel safer because of this, im happy for you..I know better, im in the protection business, listening to the speeches on how much safer we are today is like listening to a tragic comedy to me..wholely talored to make people who dont know , feel safer..sometimes i wish i was one of them.....
.
.

You guyz need to remember this admin inherited a recession and the country was attacked. Serious deficiencies in the security of this country had to be addressed.

im not an economist, but i know there are cycles for everything. i beleive that the decisions made after 9/11 resulted in much worse conditons than should have been...but like i said, i dont know, i just know i didnt agree with allot of them...


im still waiting for that 'feel good" reply, show me something solid, give me hope, prove im wrong. I really want to believe things will improve, this shouldnt be hard if you guys are right..im easy to convince, but not with party rhetoric, show me steadfast results and youll make me a believer...... or at least post up a nice pic of a kitten so i feel better, kittens make everyone feel better, until they turn into cats anyhow..... ;Db;

[jimbo]

Good post Maverick, and you too Slowpro

This is a really good thread. :)

[SGT.BATGUANO]

Mav,

Here's your feel good news.

Dumbya won't be pushing the "BIG RED BUTTON".......today.
(This notification expires at 2400 hours Central time)

Now where did the pics of the plexiglass-cubed kittens go?

DON'T copy, paste this in the address bar if you like cats

http://www.933flz.com/audio/cat.mpeg

[kpaske]

I'm not your typical "cat hater" but that's gotta be one of the funniest videos I've seen in a while! ;Db; ;Db; ;Db;

[Reg Hinnant]

Solwpro48
"Big problems in the 40's were things like chewing gum, talking in class, running in the hall, not throwing trash in the waste basket. Problems today - fighting, drug possession, weapons possession, assault on teachers and staff, pregnancy. And keep in mind we're talking elementary and middle school here. Pregnant 7th graders...

Now you tell me - is that a good trend? What happened in the last 60 years in our nation's school systems? I'm betting you don't want to go down that road!"

And your blaming the school system??

[OZ VX]

I am glad people are passionate about their country.


us in Australia, "she'll be right".

[SlowPro48]

Originally posted by Reg Hinnant
And your blaming the school system??

No - not sure who to blame - but it's obvious something happened. It's probably a combination of factors. Kind of like the NBA fracas the other day. Would we have seen that kind of behavior out of professional athletes 50 years ago? Or even 15 - 20 years ago out of Dr. J or Larry Bird or MJ? What's different now? What's happened to the morals in this country in the last 50 years? That's all I was asking.


What a tangled web...

[BaM*BaM]

Canada is busy sending back Bush-dodgers.

The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration.

The re-election of President Bush is prompting the exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt animals, pray to jesus and agree with Bill O'Reilly.

Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night.

"I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota.

The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry.

"He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have any, he left. Didn't even get a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"

In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields.

"Not real effective," he said. "The liberals still got through, and Rush annoyed the cows so much they wouldn't give milk."

Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across the border and leave them to fend for themselves.

"A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a drop of drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though."

When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about the Bush administration establishing re-education camps in which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer, be baptised by Rev. Jerry Farwell, stop using four syllable words, and be required to watch NASCAR.

In the days since the election, liberals have turned to sometimes-ingenious ways of crossing the border.

Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers.

"If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we get suspicious about their age," an official said.

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating and organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies.

"I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them," an Ottawa resident said. "How many art-history majors does one country need?"

In an effort to ease tensions between the United States and Canada, Vice President Dick Cheney met with the Canadian ambassador and pledged that the administration would take steps to reassure liberals, a source close to Cheney said.

"We're going to have some Peter, Paul & Mary concerts. And we might put some endangered species on postage stamps. The president is determined to reach out."

http://www.users.qwest.net/~pempem/RedNecksr.jpg

[Raque Thomas]

LOL - very funny Bam-Bam! I thought you were one of those liberals snaking across the border??

[t2p]

.
Don't blame the school system ..... blame the kids and/or parents.
.
Speaking of the 'NBA fracas' ...... while I do not condone the actions of a few of the NBA players, I find the major fault with the fans that were totally out of line. A couple of players went at it - one went over to the scorers table - and that may have been the end of it - had a fan (fans ?) not started throwing beer, etc.
.
I have been to a number of hoops games (college) that had fights -but they were 'diffused' by the refs, etc. But this one featured a few idiots in the stands. If anything, these fans should have realized that they were not fooling with Mr Rogers or Captain Kangaroo. A seasoned B Ball fan will realize the guys out on the court are as competitive as they come.
.
I realize I am (probably) in the minority of this one. However, put yourself in that position (NBA player that gets a cup of beer thrown in his face) - and you may have done the same. I am almost certain I would have. Someone throws a beer on me and I will retaliate.
.
Speaking of Larry Bird ......... etc .......... I would not have been surprised if someone like Larry Bird, etc. would have gone after a fan that threw beer on him.
.