quote Originally posted by fierogtowner: I think you should be one of those, at least. Since being independent or whatever won't do a god damn thing when the country is split in the majority of the two. The only vote that will really matter is if you're one of those. I'm democratic and will always will be no matter if I had $ millions. I know white people have a hard time expressing themselves with this question, I am white, so just tell me so I know which side you're on.

Grew up in a Dem household and in later life became an independent. Neither side is correct on every issue and since I think there should be a balance between the two, I chose the Independent route and try to find (and vote for) those individuals (either side of the aisle) who most nearly represent my values and sense of what should be done when and how. That never happens of course, but sometimes comes close. All that being said, I have to admit that in recent years my voting choices have been predominantly Republican. Not because of Party, but because of individuals vying for office. And yes, I voted for GW both times and would again. Americans have short memories and too often are swayed in their thinking by media hype. Dig out the facts (the real facts, not what somebody says they are) and do a little critical thinking. I don't agree with everything GW does but I shudder to think where we'd be with the likes of a Kerry, or Kennedy (voted for JFK BTW), or Reid. Unfortunately the Dems have become the "Obstructionist" Party. If it's not their idea, it's no good. Too easy to sit back and criticize and yet never (repeat never) offer a solution of their own. Either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

quote Originally posted by jconnor34: Grew up in a Dem household and in later life became an independent. Neither side is correct on every issue and since I think there should be a balance between the two, I chose the Independent route and try to find (and vote for) those individuals (either side of the aisle) who most nearly represent my values and sense of what should be done when and how. That never happens of course, but sometimes comes close. All that being said, I have to admit that in recent years my voting choices have been predominantly Republican. Not because of Party, but because of individuals vying for office. And yes, I voted for GW both times and would again. Americans have short memories and too often are swayed in their thinking by media hype. Dig out the facts (the real facts, not what somebody says they are) and do a little critical thinking. I don't agree with everything GW does but I shudder to think where we'd be with the likes of a Kerry, or Kennedy (voted for JFK BTW), or Reid. Unfortunately the Dems have become the "Obstructionist" Party. If it's not their idea, it's no good. Too easy to sit back and criticize and yet never (repeat never) offer a solution of their own. Either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

You're a Republican, just say so.

quote Originally posted by jconnor34: And yes, I voted for GW both times and would again.

I'd just like to know what you approve of GW and what you approve the most to have made you vote GW for the second term.

Rarely have I seen so much ignorance cluttered into one badly written paragraph.

Where to begin...?

quote Originally posted by fierogtowner: I almost guarantee the next election in 2008 will be a democrat in office

You almost guarantee? You sound awfully tentative for someone so sure...

Most presidents recieve both accolades and condemnation for things they have little control over...ignorant people need figureheads on which to pin their hopes or condemnations. If you will criticize a President, do it for things that have basis in fact.

quote and just watch how smooth things will go for our economy, no uselss unaccomplished wars, lower gas prices, and I would say fix the deficit but Bush pretty much keeps spending money, so he's accomplished ****ing up that part.

Our economy is going very smoothly...

Unemployment is 4.7%, economy grew at 4.8% the first quarter this year, the dow is pushing 11,000.

War is always divisive, but you are saying the removal of two inhuman dictatorships and the freedom of millions is "unaccomplished". By what standards?

You blame gas prices on the President because you obviously don't even have a rudimentary grasp of economics. The President has advocated building refineries and drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico, which would increase worldwide supply, thereby driving down prices. Tell me, if you know, why it hasn't happened yet.

In the short term, the President (along with Congress) can get prices in this country down by repealing or suspending gas taxes and seasonal/regional formulation requirements.

Other than that, worldwide crude prices are set by commodities/futures traders...they are completely out of the hands of the President and the oil companies.

You are correct when you blame the President for overspending (he does), but incorrect when you blame only him. Congress conceives and passes bills to his desk...he fails to use his veto pen.

quote Oh and did I mention Bush is probably the worst President EVER, in my opinion he IS the worst and hate his smirk and laugh and how he handles things no exit strategy and there was never any mission accomplished so he lied again, but that's Bush so it doesn't surprise me.

Stupid statements stand on their own and don't deserve the effort of refutation.

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

iUsted no puede!

[This message has been edited by fogglethorpe (edited 05-04-2006).]

Between Bush and Kerry, I choose Kerry only because of character. Kerry appears to be for what is right. Bush on the other hand, says Americans are addicted to oil, give me a ****ing break. We really don't have a choice when we use our vehicles for work etc. Bush is addicted to oil, if any. I don't have to read facts or news. Just it seems things have gone to **** when Bush came along. Ask most people if they'd want Clinton back, most would agree. I wonder why.

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: Rarely have I seen so much ignorance cluttered into one badly written paragraph. Where to begin...? Stupid statements stand on thier own and don't deserve the effort of refutation.

Accolades! for a very good post!

You will probably only receive a new nickname for your efforts though.

No more radical left or radical right in government. That is what's needed.

Your probably right Wichita, but I won't say I hate the people who agree with Bush but I don't like the people that don't get it. Look around you. People make fun of Bush daily. He lied about WMD's being in Iraq. He may have good intentions to free the people under Saddam's regime but it wasn't our place to invade.

quote Originally posted by fierogtowner: Between Bush and Kerry, I choose Kerry only because of character.

You mean like when he came home from Vietnam and threw his fellow soldiers under the bus by telling vicious lies about them?

quote Bush on the other hand, says Americans are addicted to oil, give me a ****ing break. We really don't have a choice when we use our vehicles for work etc.

You don't sound convincing when you contradict yourself.

quote I don't have to read facts or news. Just it seems things have gone to **** when Bush came along.

No need for comment here.

quote Ask most people if they'd want Clinton back, most would agree. I wonder why.

Which poll are you citing?


I am by no means a Bush apologist. I have more than a few issues with him, including his inexplicable border enforcement policies (or lack of them), his spending sprees (prescription drug bill, Katrina handouts, transportation bill, etc), and his unwillingness to dump this "new tone" BS and play hardball over key issues (energy bill, social security, etc.) in his second term when he clearly has nothing to lose. I could go on...

The point is, though, that I refuse to propagate ignorance by letting fierogtowner post his rant-tarded pap without reprisal.

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: The President has advocated building refineries and drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico, which would increase worldwide supply, thereby driving down prices. Tell me, if you know, why it hasn't happened yet.

Who's fault is it, not enough Cheney & Co. secret closed door energy policy meetings? Having a tough time passing pork filled energy legislation even the Republican majority can't agree on?

[This message has been edited by Tigger (edited 05-04-2006).]

currently i'm a non-practicing democrat. i will always vote for the best person reguardless of political party. however considering current events, i might just join the majority of Americans and not vote at all. i'm tired of voting against the person i don't like instead of voting for someone i really support.

quote Originally posted by fierogtowner: He may have good intentions to free the people under Saddam's regime but it wasn't our place to invade.

I think we should have gone in sooner and with a lot less warning. I bet if Bush senior had won a second term Saddam would not have given the UN inspectors (I hate the UN) one lick of trouble. In fact the Clinton administration should have taken care of it in the long long ago.

I hear that you don't think it was OUR place to go in, and in an ideological way I agree. I don't think we should bother with much outside the US myself. Unfortunately that is really not possible or the least bit realistic.
In fact an opinion is only worth what somebody else's opinion of the opinion is! and that's my opinion. heh.

This really should be separate topic, probably has been too.

quote Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: I am a Fiscal and Social Conservative by philosophy Republican as a matter of practicality (The platform more closely matches my worldview). I don't much care who you sleep with as long as you don't push it in my face, or, my children's. Both sides of story: The "gay" side The family side EDIT: I own page 2!

It's not about "pushing it in your face". It's about teaching acceptence. If you had any idea of the amount of hate crimes that happen every year to the lgbt community, it would probably change your mind.

There is a growing amount of violence toward gays and it mostly the younger community committing these acts. Education to dispel stereotypes and teach acceptence are extremely important.

I'm not saying you should glorify homosexuality, but kids should be taught that it exists and not to fear it.

[This message has been edited by Spektrum-87GT (edited 05-04-2006).]

quote Originally posted by fierogtowner: I almost guarantee the next election in 2008 will be a democrat in office and just watch how smooth things will go for our economy, no uselss unaccomplished wars, lower gas prices, and I would say fix the deficit but Bush pretty much keeps spending money

...and the radical muslims will give up and sit with us around the campfire and hold hands and sing songs, and all the nasty people in the world will turn nice, and there will be pretty flowers growing everywhere, and everyone will have a warm fuzzy bunny to cuddle with, and the sun will shine all the time, and lollipops will grow on trees, and...and...and...noooo, really, it's truuuuuuue!

quote Originally posted by fierogtowner: I don't have to read facts or news.

I coulda written an entire paragraph ripping this poor fellow, but I'll just let his own words tell the tale.

quote Originally posted by Spektrum-87GT: It's not about "pushing it in your face". It's about teaching acceptence. If you had any idea of the amount of hate crimes that happen every year to the lgbt community, it would probably change your mind. There is a growing amount of violence toward gays and it mostly the younger community committing these acts. Education to dispel stereotypes and teach acceptence are extremely important. I'm not saying you should glorify homosexuality, but kids should be taught that it exists and not to fear it.

It is exactly pushing it your face (no pun intended) The key word here is kids, but it is really children. This agenda is being taught long before "normal" behavior is explained.
No one HAS to except these things if they do not want to. Having an authority figure giving things of this nature a stamp of approval without the parents consent is just plain wrong. I do not have to "except" anyone! but I am more than willing to ignore them.
All crimes that are violence related are hate crimes and should be dealt with for the crime at hand, which is either assault or murder. The punishment should be swift, harsh and even. Motivation should not be a consideration.

This kind of crap is one of the reasons the Dems have lost so much of their support base.

This statement is was not race related but is behavour related only.

Whig.

Tippacanoe and Tyler too in 2008.

quote Originally posted by Telegram Sam: Whig. Tippacanoe and Tyler too in 2008.

John Kricfalusi and Jim Smith in 2008!

quote Originally posted by Telegram Sam: Whig. Tippacanoe and Tyler too in 2008.

Tyler died a traitor...

If proper grammar (should have been "The word you wanted) and spelling were a prerequisite for participating on a net forum most of us would not be here. In fact "except" for rare occasions pointing them out is considered in poor taste. Oh and don't forget the run on sentence. :-)

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Word you wanted was accept, not except, here is a quick lesson :-) I actually made this mistake in a post on another forum correcting someone there... and outted myself after noone noticed. As to the crimes against people because of a sexual orientation, I feel because of idiots that can't accept someone's simple right to peaceful existance, youth should be taught that yes they are different and they might one day be one of those people, you probably have a relative that is one of those types, or a friend, so don't be one of the jerks that attacks people because they are different. That's the agenda... not grow up and be gay. Adding on time for a 'hate' crime? Thats is a grey area... if someone is targetting a group for damage based on being a member of a group, should they be treated different than anyone else? I'm guessing you'd say no... but what about the guy just convicted of targetting america... or rather not revealing he knew information that would be self incriminating. He got 6 life sentences for what exactly? Not revealing information that would have saved lives... something lawyers and priests do all the time. Something anyone with a lick of sense being interviewed by the authorities would do when guilty of attempting to do something that horrible. Do you think he should get death for 'conspiracy'? being that it was definitely a hate crime. Or was it not a hate crime because we had the choice to be muslim and didn't take it...

Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself, it is called the golden rule! They probably can't teach that anymore either!

The agenda IS that it is ok to be gay, and "acceptance". I don't know if you have kids but I have seen this crap first hand! They even went as far as to tell our boy that he was not aloud to defend/hit back when he was being attacked by other kids!. I handled that one in person.

I thought I was pretty clear on my views in my previous post. There are laws in place already for any crime you can put a "hate" in front of. Whether it is conspiracy to commit murder or mass murder or simple assault or whatever.
I don't care if the person is a homo or a different race, maybe the offender just didn't like the hat the other guy was wearing or the color of his necktie. It just doesn't matter, the crime is what it is. There is no grey area.
The hate crime laws are just feel good politics! Here is a good quote from one of my guilty pleasure TV shows, South Park.

" Let this be a lesson to everyone!, if you choose to harm another human being you had better make dam sure he is the same color as you!"

It is a felony in itself to know about a felony crime and not report it. Talk and plan it with three people and it is conspiracy. In on the planning but did not take part? guilty of the crime.

I personally do not care if you are a homo or not, or of another ethnic background, you should have the SAME constitutional rights as I, NOT MORE. Of course this assumes you are a LEGAL us citizen.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself, it is called the golden rule! They probably can't teach that anymore either!

Before some body calls me on that I think a worded the golden rule incorrectly. Maybe it is, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Hmmm been along time.
By the way Scott it is " no one" not noone. heh

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself, it is called the golden rule! They probably can't teach that anymore either!

Of course not. That's a concept straight out of a religion, which is not allowed in our society anymore. Unless it's Atheism, of course.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Of course not. That's a concept straight out of a religion, which is not allowed in our society anymore. Unless it's Atheism, of course.

Get over yourself. Were Native Americans following our western religious philosophy when they lived by those same rules? No I think not. The right to a peaceful existence was developed out of a need to end violence within society. Religion was a tool developed to help meet that end. It was also used to wage wars and excuse slavery, but don't let that ruin your internal view of the perfect religious past.

What year was "under God" added to the pledge of allegience?

When was "In God we trust" added to our money?

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 05-05-2006).]

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Get over yourself. Were Native Americans following our western religious philosophy when they lived by those same rules? No I think not. The right to a peaceful existence was developed out of a need to end violence within society. Religion was a tool developed to help meet that end. It was also used to wage wars and excuse slavery, but don't let that ruin your internal view of the perfect religious past. What year was "under God" added to the pledge of allegience? When was "In God we trust" added to our money?

As usaul you miss the point.

quote Originally posted by pokeyfiero: As usaul you miss the point.

Yeah, only if the point was that you have nothing to contribute to any debate. Because I keep thinking you're going to wake up someday. Silly me.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Yeah, only if the point was that you have nothing to contribute to any debate. Because I keep thinking you're going to wake up someday. Silly me.

Conn you don't debate.

It is true that I rarely pipe up and when I do it is because I have a weakness for picking on the helpless. It isn't my fault that you are a totally biased person nearly incapable of reason but sometimes it is my pleasure to point it out..

As far as me waking up well from your perspective don't count on it. I pay attention to everyones veiws. I have learned tremendez amounts from people on both sides of the extremes here but I can honestly say if you said it I know the chances of it being worth a shlt are damn near nill.

I still listen though" Because I keep thinking you're going to wake up someday. Silly me."

------------------
PLAY HARD-DIE FAST
"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten, that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."
-- H. L. Mencken

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Before some body calls me on that I think a worded the golden rule incorrectly. Maybe it is, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Hmmm been along time. By the way Scott it is " no one" not noone. heh

Pointed it out because it was more than a spelling error, the words are diametrically opposed. I thought it might be of value to you in the future not to say the opposite of what you mean. I wasn't attempting to be the grammar nazi although I have my pet peeves. It grates on me when I see lose spelled loose... but I already dragged this off topic in the off topic section. That one doesn't get caught by spell check software either since both are real words.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Get over yourself. Were Native Americans following our western religious philosophy when they lived by those same rules? No I think not. The right to a peaceful existence was developed out of a need to end violence within society. Religion was a tool developed to help meet that end. It was also used to wage wars and excuse slavery, but don't let that ruin your internal view of the perfect religious past.

Overstated, as usual. What was that term one of your compatriots used? Ad Absurdium or something like that?

You aren't religious, so of course, you don't see what's happening.

quote What year was "under God" added to the pledge of allegience? When was "In God we trust" added to our money?

I can tell you approximately when religion started to be virtually removed (some time in the last 5 years). Separation of Church and state does not mean the complete removal of religion from our society.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: What year was "under God" added to the pledge of allegience?

1954

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: When was "In God we trust" added to our money?

1864 see http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

There's a prize, like a framed certificate, or something, for this, isn't there???

the prize is a 2 or 3 cent coin. it i had one i'd give you your prize.

Politics; ...life, mainly because of a biblical proscription.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I can tell you approximately when religion started to be virtually removed (some time in the last 5 years). Separation of Church and state does not mean the complete removal of religion from our society.

Interesting, when was that? When the faith based Inititives started handing our tax money to church groups? Or was it when bible study sessions became quasi-mandatory for the presidents administration? Ohh... removed, not become one and the same.

Maybe you meant when support for boycotts of corporations began for having the nerve to wish you a happy holiday instead of a merry christmas. Attempts to force private corporations to recognize your religous holiday in a manner you deem appropriate while ignoring the other ones celebrating the season.

Or was that when "In God We Trust" was deemed unconstitutional, as it never should have been on our money in the first place, or when "Under God" was taken back out of the pledge of allegiance where it never belonged. Those are both cases where religous zealots got their way by pushing their beliefs into the public domain of government. In the case of the Pledge it was part of the communist witch hunt that allowed the Knights Of Columbus to get that through against the intent of it's original author... a priest.

Seperation of church and state has always swayed back and forth in this country, sometimes way to far in favor of specific religons to the disadvantage of those not of those faiths. Jewish owned businesses being fined and arrested for NOT being open on Saturdays, others for being open for business on Sunday. People being hung as witches, run out of town for being non christian.

Seperation is there for a reason. I don't want to see this country become the western equivalent of what is going on in the muslem world where religon as defined by the self proclaimed leaders becomes law. We've already had, and continue to have self rightous asses declare they know better than the rest of us and what they say should be law... and god is on their side. Same self righteous asses that get caught with prostitutes, doing drugs, abusing children, burning down their own churches for the insurance money, ripping off old people so they can get richer... but we are under god!

Explain to me why your religon belief in god has to be recognized by others through a pledge or printed on money (now there is something interesting... I'm sure Jesus would love the irony). Why the government should be putting up christmas trees etc?

What does any of that have to do with anyone's personal belief in god? Do you really believe that coin? That god has a special interest in this country? That without it being printed on money of all things we will recieve his wrath? Are we more under God than Israel? England? Afganistan?

quote Originally posted by fierogtowner: I think you should be one of those, at least. Since being independent or whatever won't do a god damn thing when the country is split in the majority of the two. The only vote that will really matter is if you're one of those. I'm democratic and will always will be no matter if I had $ millions. I know white people have a hard time expressing themselves with this question, I am white, so just tell me so I know which side you're on.

I'm an American.

------------------
Ron
Freedom isn't Free, it's always earned.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

Scott,

The Salem Witch Trials were in the late 1600's. I don't recall in United States history there ever being anyone hung as a witch.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Seperation of church and state has always swayed back and forth in this country, sometimes way to far in favor of specific religons to the disadvantage of those not of those faiths. Jewish owned businesses being fined and arrested for NOT being open on Saturdays, others for being open for business on Sunday. People being hung as witches, run out of town for being non christian.

[This message has been edited by jstricker (edited 05-06-2006).]

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Scott, The Salem Witch Trials were in the late 1600's. I don't recall in United States history there ever being anyone hung as a witch. John Stricker

There has been innocent blacks that have been hung. By racist leftist backwards people in the past. What a shame in American History.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: There has been innocent blacks that have been hung. By racist leftist backwards people in the past. What a shame in American History.

Everyone is a leftist that does something bad apparently... were they commie clansmen?
Are the gaybashers leftists also?