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.