Both sides are stubborn - don't put everything on one side
Posted By: just me on 2008-10-01
In Reply to: Filibustering is what repubs do best. - Sounds like congress
I'm independent (I don't like either McCain or Obama and have even thought about voting for Barr) and I can see as plain as day. The democrats say the republicans monopolize and everything is their fault and the republicans say the same thing about the democrats. What I found out is that there are some decent democrats who know by passing the bill it would have been wrong so they stood up against their fellow democrats. So there is good and bad on both. The reason I hope Obama does NOT win is the complete arrogance by some of the democrats. The ones who won't accept that there are flaws with their candidate. I'm hearing republicans say, sure McCain has flaws, but not as many as Obama. The obama supporters are just coming out say Obama is perfect. So for all the arrogant democrats and news media I hope Obama loses and for all the democrats who know right from wrong God help us if Obama gets in. We'll need it.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
One stubborn King.
Looks like we're stuck in Iraq, folks. But wait a minute, you mean there is no connection between between Iraq and 9/11? And I thought the insurgency was in its final throes a year ago? Oh right, it's the *suiciders*. A God-fearing Christian war king wouldn't lie, right? Uh, kind of, uh, I guess, uh, duh, I would surmise, uh, uh.
Bush Tells Press U.S. Won't Leave Iraq While He Is President -- And Says He Won't Campaign in Connecticut
By E&P Staff
Published: August 21, 2006 11:55 AM ET
NEW YORK At a press conference this morning in Washington, D.C., President Bush declared, We’re not leaving [Iraq] so long as I’m the president. That would be a huge mistake.” Bush leaves office in January 2009.
He also said, in response to a question about backing the Republican candidate for Senate in Connecticut --against Democrat Ned Lamont and Independent Joe Lieberman -- that he is going to stay out of Connecticut.
Reminded that a reporter that this was his native state (he was born there), Bush replied, to laughter, Shhh.
He explained further, And by the way, we're -- I'm staying out of Connecticut because the -- the -- you know, that's what the party suggested, the Republican Party of Connecticut, and plus there's a better place to spend our money, time and resources.
Bush also tied Iraq to 9/11, and then backed off, when asked about the effects of the U.S. invasion as witnessed today.
You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the 'stir up the hornet's nest' theory, Bush said. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
Asked by a reporter what Iraq had to do with 9/11, Bush replied, Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.
Also on Iraq, Bush explained, The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve the objectives and dreams which is a democratic society. That’s the strategy. The tactics — now — either you say yes it’s important we stay there and get it done or we leave. We’re not leaving so long as I’m the president. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably, you know terrible, signal to reformers across the region. It would say we’ve abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror.
Bush also said at the news conference -- held at the temporary press quarters while the old White House briefing room is being rebuilt -- that if the government in Iraq fails, it could turn the country into a safe haven for terrorists and extremists and give them revenues from oil sales.
He said he agrees with a top military commander that if the U.S. were to do so, the terrorists will follow us here. Bush added those who want an immediate pullout from Iraq are absolutely wrong. He says it takes time to defeat the extremists, but that the U.S. is going to stand with the government of Iraq, and with reformers across the region.
Despite all the grim news, Bush often acted in a very jocular manner. He also had a rare exchange with reporter Helen Thomas on the Lebanon conflict.
Asked by another reporter if he was frustrated by lack of progress in Iraq he replied: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated, rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. You know, this is -- this is a -- it's -- but war's not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times. And they're difficult times. And they're straining the -- the psyche of our country. I understand that.
You know, nobody likes to see innocent people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see the havoc wrought by terrorists.
A partial transcript follows. To watch a full video of the President's press conference, click here
***
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. More than 3,500 Iraqis were killed last month -- the highest civilian monthly toll since the war began. Are you disappointed with the lack of progress by Iraq's unity government in bringing together the sectarian and ethnic groups?
BUSH: No, I -- I am aware that extremists and terrorists are doing everything they can to prevent Iraq's democracy from growing stronger. That's what I'm aware of. And therefore we have a plan to help them -- them, the Iraqis -- achieve their objectives.
Part of the plan is political; that is, to help the Maliki government work on reconciliation and to work on rehabilitating the community.
The other part is, of course, security. And I have given our commanders all the flexibility they needed to adjust tactics to be able to help the Iraqi government defeat those who want to thwart the ambitions of the people. And that includes, you know, a very robust security plan for Baghdad. We -- you may or not know, Terry -- have moved troops from Mosul Stryker Brigade into Baghdad, all aiming to help the Iraqi government succeed.
You know, the -- I hear a lot of talk about civil war. I'm -- I'm concerned about that, of course. And I've talked to a lot of people about it. And what I've found from my talks are that the Iraqis want a unified country, and that the Iraqi leadership is determined to thwart the efforts of the extremists and the radicals and al Qaeda, and that the security forces remain united behind the government. And one thing that's clear, the Iraqi people are showing incredible courage.
The United States of America must understand it's in our interests that we help this democracy succeed. As a matter of fact, it's in our interests that we help reformers across the Middle East achieve their objectives. This is the fundamental challenge of the 21st century.
You know, it's an interesting debate we're having in America about how we ought to handle Iraq. There's a lot of people -- good, decent people -- saying withdrawal now. They're absolutely wrong. It would be a huge mistake for this country. If you think problems are tough now, imagine what it would be like if the United States leaves before this government has a chance to defend herself, govern herself and listen to the -- and answer to the will of the people....
Helen?
Q: (Chuckles.)
BUSH: What's so funny about me saying Helen? (Laughter.)
Q: Israel --
BUSH: It's the anticipation of your question, I guess.
Q: Israel broke its word twice on the truce. And you mentioned Hezbollah rockets, but it's Israeli bombs that destroyed Lebanon. Why do you always give them a pass? And what's your view on view on breaking of your oath for a truce?
BUSH: Hm. Yeah. Thank you.
I -- I'd like to remind people about how this started, how this whole -- how the damage to innocent life, which -- which -- which bothers me, began; what caused this.
Q: Why drop bombs on -- (off mike)?
BUSH: Wait, let me finish. Let -- let -- may I -- let me -- may I -- please, let me finish the question. It was a great question to begin with. The follow-up was a little difficult, but anyway....I know you're waiting for my answer, aren't you, with bated breath.
(Laughs.) There you go.
It's -- this never would have occurred had a terrorist organization, a state within a state, not launched attacks on a sovereign nation. From the beginning, Helen, I said that Israel, one, has a right to defend herself, but Israel ought to be cautious about how she defends herself. Israel is a democratically elected government. They make decisions on their own sovereignty. It's their decision making that is what leads to the attacks they chose. And -- but the world must understand that now is the time to come together to address the root cause of the problem, and the problem is you had a state within a state. You had people launch attacks on a sovereign nation without the consent of the government in the country in which they are lodged.
And that's why it's very important for all of us, those of us who are involved in this process, to get an international force into Lebanon to help the Lebanese government achieve some objectives. One is their ability to exert control over the entire country. Secondly is to make sure that the Hezbollah forces don't rearm, don't get armed from Syria, or Iran through Syria, to be able to continue to wreak havoc in the region.
Let's see. We'll finish the first line here. Everybody can be patient.
Q: Thank you.
BUSH: It's kind of like dancing together, isn't it? (Laughter.)
Q: Yeah, kind of.
BUSH: If I ask for any comments from the peanut gallery, I'll call on you. (Laughter.)
Q: Mr. --
BUSH: Yeah. By the way, seersucker is coming back. I hope everybody gets it. (Laughter.) Never mind.
Q: It's the summertime east Texas county commissioner look. (Laughter.)
BUSH: (Laughs.) Yes. Yes, Martha. Sorry.
Q: That's quite all right. Mr. President, I'd like to go back to Iraq. You have continually cited the elections, the new government as progress in Iraq, and yet the violence has gotten worse in certain areas. You have to go to Baghdad again. Is it not time for a new strategy? And if not, why not?
BUSH: You know, Martha, you've covered the Pentagon; you know that the Pentagon is constantly adjusting tactics because they have the flexibility from the White House to do so.
Q: I'm talking about the strategy.
BUSH: Well, the strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy.
The tactics -- now, either you say, yes, it's important that we stay there and get it done, or we leave. We're not leaving so long as I'm the president. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably, you know, terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would say we've abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror. It would give the terrorists a safe haven from which to launch attacks. It would embolden Iran. It would embolden extremists. No, we're not leaving. ...
Now, if you say, are you going to change your strategic objective, it means you're leaving before the mission is complete, and we're not going to leave before the mission is complete. I -- I agree with General Abizaid: We leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here.
And so we have changed tactics. Our commanders have got the flexibility necessary to change tactics on the ground, starting with plan Baghdad, and that's when we move troops from Mosul into Baghdad and replace them with a Stryker Brigade so we're not -- we increase troops during this time of instability.
Q: Sir, that's not really the question. The strategy is --
BUSH: Sounded like the question to me.
Q: You -- you keep -- you keep saying that you don't want to leave, but is your strategy to win working, even if you don't want to leave? You've gone into Baghdad before. These things have happened before.
BUSH: If I didn't think it would work, I would change the -- our commanders would recommend changing the strategy.
They believe it'll work. It takes time to defeat these people. The Maliki government's been in power for, you know, less than six months. And, yeah, the people spoke. I've cited that as a part of -- of -- the reason I've cited it is because it's what the Iraqi people want. And the fundamental question facing this government is whether or not we will stand with reformers across the region. It's really -- it's really the task. And we're going to stand with this government.
And, you know, obviously I wish the violence would go down, but not as much as the Iraqi citizens would wish the violence would go down. But incredibly enough, they showed great courage, and they want our help. And any sign that says we're going to leave before the job is done simply emboldens terrorists and creates a certain amount of doubt for people so they won't take the risk necessary to help a civil society evolve in the country.
And this is the campaign -- I'm sure they're watching the campaign carefully. There are a lot of good, decent people saying, get out now. Vote for me. I will do everything I can to, I guess, cut off money is what they're trying to do to get our troops out. It's a big mistake. It were to be wrong, in my judgment, for us to leave before the mission is complete in Iraq....
Q: Good morning, Mr. President. When you talked today about the violence in Baghdad, first you mentioned extremists, radicals and then al Qaeda. It seems that al Qaeda and foreign fighters are much less of a problem there and that it really is Iraqis versus Iraqis. And when we heard about your meeting the other day with experts and so forth, some of the reporting out of that said you were frustrated, you were surprised, and your spokesman said, Nope, you're determined.
But frustration seems like a very real emotion. Why wouldn't you be frustrated, sir, by what's happening?
BUSH: I'm not -- I do remember the meeting; I don't remember being surprised. I'm not sure what they meant by that.
Q: About the lack of gratitude among the Iraqi people.
BUSH: Oh. No, I think -- yeah -- first of all, to the first part of your question, you know, if you look back at the words of Zarqawi before he was brought to justice, he made it clear that the intent of their tactics in Iraq was to create civil strife. In other words, if you -- look at what he said. He said let's kill Shi'a to get Shi'a to seek revenge and therefore to create this kind of hopefully cycle of violence. Secondly, I think it's pretty clear that the -- at least the evidence indicates that the bombing of the shrine was an al Qaeda plot, all intending to create sectarian violence.
Now, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. As a matter of fact, some of the more -- I would guess, I would surmise that some of the more spectacular bombings are done by al Qaeda suiciders. No question there's sectarian violence as well. And the challenge is to provide a security plan such that a political process can go forward. And you know, I know -- I'm sure you all are tired of hearing me say 12 million Iraqis voted, but it's an indication about the desire for people to live in a free society. That's what that means, see. And the only way to defeat this ideology in the long term is to defeat it through another ideology, a competing ideology, one that -- where government, you know, responds to the will of the people. And that's really the fundamental question we face here in the beginning of this 21st century is whether or not we believe as a nation and others believe it is possible to defeat this ideology.
Now, I recognize some say that these folks are not ideologically -- but I strongly disagree. I think not only do they have an ideology, they have tactics necessary to spread their ideology. And it would be a huge mistake for the United States to leave the region, to concede territory to the terrorists, to not confront them.
And -- and the best way to confront them is to help those who want to leave in free society. Look, eventually Iraq will succeed because the Iraqis will see to it that they succeed. And our job is to help them succeed. That's our job. Our job is to help their forces be better equipped, to help their police be able to deal with these extremists, and to help their government succeed.
Q: But are you frustrated, sir?
BUSH: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated, rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. You know, this is -- this is a -- it's -- but war's not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times. And they're difficult times. And they're straining the -- the psyche of our country. I understand that. You know, nobody likes to see innocent people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see the havoc wrought by terrorists. And our question is, do we have the -- the capacity and the desire to spread peace by confronting these terrorists and supporting those who want to live in liberty? That's -- that's -- that's the question.
And my answer to that question is, we must. We owe it to future generations to do so....
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned the campaign earlier Do you agree with those in your party, including the vice president, who said or implied Democratic voters emboldened al Qaeda types by choosing Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman, and the message that how Americans vote will send messages to terrorists abroad.
BUSH: What all of us in this administration have been saying is that leaving Iraq before the mission is complete will send the wrong message to the enemy and will create a more dangerous world. That's what we're saying. And it's an honest debate and it's an important debate for Americans to listen to and to be engaged in.
In our judgment, the consequences for defeat in Iraq are unacceptable. I fully understand that some didn't think we ought to go in there in the first place. But defeat -- if you think it's bad now, imagine what Iraq would look like if the United States leaves before this government can defend itself and sustain itself, A -- you know, chaos in Iraq would be very unsettling in the region.
Leaving before the job would be done would send a message that America really is no longer engaged or cares about the form of governments in the Middle East. Leaving before the job would done would be -- send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it. Leaving before the job was done would be a disaster. And that's what we're saying. I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me. This has nothing to do with patriotism; it has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live.
It's like the other day I was critical of those who heralded the federal judge's opinion about the terrorist surveillance program. I thought it was a terrible opinion, and that's why we're appealing it. And I have no -- you know, look, I understand how democracy works. Quite a little bit of criticism in it, which is fine. That's fine. It's part of the process. But I have every right, as do my administration, to make it clear what the consequences would be of policy, and if we think somebody is wrong or doesn't see the world the way it is, we will continue to point that out to people. And therefore, those who heralded the decision not to give law enforcement the tools necessary to protect the American people simply don't see the world the way we do. They say it maybe kind of isolated incidents. These aren't isolated instances; they're tied together. There is a global war going on.
And you know, somebody said, well, this is law enforcement. No, this isn't law enforcement in my judgment. Law enforcement means kind of a simple, you know, singular response to the problem. This is a global war on terror. We're facing, you know, extremists that believe something and they want to achieve objectives. And therefore, the United States must use all our assets, and we must work with others to defeat this enemy.
That's -- that's the call. And we -- in the short run, we got to stop them from attacking us. That's why I give the Tony Blair government great credit and their intelligence officers, and our own government credit for working with the Brits to stop this attack.
But you know something? It's an amazing town, and -- you know, where they say on the one hand, you can't have the tools necessary -- we herald the fact that you won't have the tools necessary to defend the people, and sure enough, a(n) attack would occur and say, how come you don't have the tools necessary to defend the people? That's the way -- that's the way we think around this town. And so, you know, we'll -- Jim, we'll continue to speak out in a respectful way, never challenging somebody's love for America when you criticize their -- their strategies or their -- their point of view.
And, you know, for those who say that, well, all they're trying to say is we're not patriotic simply don't listen to our words very carefully, do they? What -- what matters is that in this campaign that we clarify the different points of view, and there are a lot of people in the Democrat party who believe that the best of course of action is to leave Iraq before the job is done, period, and they're wrong. And the American people have got to understand the consequence of leaving Iraq before the job is done. We're not going to leave Iraq before the job is done, and we'll complete the mission in Iraq. I can't tell you exactly when it's going to be done. But I do know that it's important for us to support the Iraqi people, who have shown incredible courage in their desire to live in a free society. And if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation as far as I'm concerned.
Q: And would you campaign against Senator Joe Lieberman, whose Republican candidate may support you, but he supports you, too, on Iraq?
BUSH: I'm going to say out of Connecticut. (Laughter.)
Q: It's your native state, Mr. President! You were born there!
BUSH: Shhh! (Laughter.)
Q: How can you stay --
BUSH: (Chuckles.) I may be the only person -- the only presidential candidate who never carried the state in which he was born.
Do you think that's right, Herman? Of course, you would have researched that and dropped it out for everybody to see, particularly since I dissed that just ridiculous-looking outfit. (Laughter.)
Q: Your mother raised you better than that, Mr. President....
BUSH: And by the way, we're -- I'm staying out of Connecticut because the -- the -- you know, that's what the party suggested, the Republican Party of Connecticut, and plus there's a better place to spend our money, time and resources.
Q: Mr. President, polls continue to show sagging support for the war in Iraq. I'm curious as to how you see this developing. Is it your belief that long-term results will vindicate your strategy, and people will change their mind about it? Or is the kind of thing you're doing because you think it's right and you don't care if you ever gain public support for it?
BUSH: Thank you. Yeah, look -- look, I mean, presidents care about whether people support their policies. I don't -- (inaudible) -- think that I don't care. Of course I care. But I understand why people are discouraged about Iraq. I can understand that. There is -- we live in, you know, a world in which people hope things happen quickly. And this is a situation where things don't happen quickly because there's, you know, a very tough group of people using tactics, mainly the killing of innocent people, to achieve their objective, and they're skillful about how they do this and they also know the impact of what it means on the conscienceness of those of us who live in the free world. They know that. And so I care. I really do. I wish -- you know, and so therefore I must spend a lot of time trying to explain as best I can, you know, why it's important for us to succeed in Iraq. And --
Q: A quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mention for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?
BUSH: I square it because imagine a world in which you had a Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.
Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.
But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of a world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the stir up the hornet's nest theory. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were --
Q: What did Iraq have to do with that?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
Q: The attack on the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.
Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case. And one way to defeat that -- you know, defeat resentment, is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government.
Now, I said going into Iraq we got to take these threats seriously before they fully materialized. I saw a threat. I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world was better off without him. Now, the question is, how do we succeed in Iraq? And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting.
E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)
SAVE | EMAIL | PRINT | MOST POPULAR | RSS | REPRINTS
SUBSCRIBE TO EDITOR & PUBLISHER »
Related Articles
Former CIA Officer Defends 'Wash Post' Op-Ed in Online Chat
Jan 10, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
Gallup: 55% Now Call Iraq War a 'Mistake'
Feb 22, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
'Military Times' Poll Finds Fading Support for President, War
Jan 2, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
'Stars and Stripes' to Launch Weekly U.S. Edition: A Military 'Parade'?
Aug 29, 2005 – Editor and Publisher
Small Oregon Paper Leads Reporting On Missing Local Soldier
Jun 19, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
hroes? Why have I been so badly misinformed?
If we all we're being so stubborn about this
I don't think so many people would be pro civil unions. It would be no union for gay people.....period. Can't you see that some of us who are against SSM are actually trying to extent a hand and compromise here? People continually bash Christians on here and we can't pray in schools, etc. What about our rights? You can't even pray by yourself in school without the threat of detention or expulsion nowadays. Gay people aren't the only ones who have to alter their lifestyle to please others so stop acting like the only victims here.
Both sides should have a choice, on both sides, pregnant woman and doctor...nm
bm
Exactly....and that happens on both sides...
in all seriousness...without the jibes...I have two big issues with the Dem candidates, that being the abortion issue and the endless tax and spend for social programs. I am not against social programs, I am just against the waste associated with it and the constant assault on the paycheck. The average in the US is 30-35% of your paycheck off the top in taxes. Can't we all agree that is enough? Why create more programs or throw more money at programs that aren't working? Why not look at the programs and cut the waste. Look to helping people better themselves instead of pushing assistance higher up the income ladder. Because it is we in the middle class who suffer the most. Pretty soon there will not be any middle class at all, because they will then be the working poor on the assistance that goes higher up the ladder.
There is such a thing as a conservative Democrat...who believes in fiscal responsibility.
And I will be the first one to say that the Bush Adminstration has strayed way away from that...fiscal responsibility. While I agree with him on some things...I sure don't agree with him on that.
I fear Hillary's national health plan because I know Canada's is not working the way it should...and it is horribly expensive to the taxpayer. Up there, their median is 50-55% of their taxes off the top, and the #1 place for that money to go is the universal health care. And even if you have the money to pay for an operation, you can't jump the waiting list. Hence, they come here for it.
I would just hope that whoever wins will look at the long-reaching ramifications before just jumping in. Be that Hillary or a Republican....because I do think Hillary will get the nomination. I can't see it go any other way...unless something drastic happens between now and the primary. Of course, we won't see all the ugliness (on both sides) until a little later. I guess the proof will be in the pudding.
What do you have against 2 sides
su
Yes, they can be - on BOTH sides.
Someone makes a wise crack about it being nice to have someone with a triple digit IQ - when in FACT they don't know what Bush's IQ is OR the possible that Barack has a higher OR lower IQ score. The problem is the people who post don't know. They have just an outright hatred and loathing for the republicans. Well how would they feel if I went and said Obama has an IQ of 68 or something so absurd. They wouldn't. You know what, having a high IQ doesn't mean squat. I know a lot of people with degrees and high IQs and they are more of imbs than people without degrees. Just another put down for Bush they they think is cute and funny. It's not! We get it already. They don't like Bush, they hate him, and some of them like my MIL will come right out and say what they want to happen to Bush (i.e. the same thing Hillary said would happen to BO and that is why she is staying in).
I'm really getting tired of the utter hatred and disdain for Bush, and the constant Bush bashing I see on this board. Calling him stoopid, etc, etc. when there are no facts to back it up (unless they are sitting with his school transcipts on their desk). You know I like Obama. I think he's an okay guy. I don't care for Bush. Never have, but this utter hatred and lies get to be a bit too much. Then of course they find websites to try to "validate" what they are saying, yet they won't post websites that go against what they are saying. I'm just sick of the whole thing. The next 4 years should be interesting. Not going to say O is going to fail, but I'm also not putting him up on a pedistal and praising him while I dance around in circles chanting his name like most on this board are doing. Then again if he does fail I expect no comments from the libs on that one. For him it will be okay.
Uh...that isn't what I said. I said it happens all the time and both sides do it.
Are you sure you read MY post? Just wondering because it didn't sound like it from your response. Man, you guys are trigger happy!
Is good, but not see here. Sad for all both sides.
x
Could it be possible there are 2 sides to the story? sm
The US, UK, and Israel also have a long and colorful history of 'creating incidents' to further their own agendas. I would say control of the Middle East is something at the top of the list. Hezbollah is wrong to send rockets into Israel. In fact, they are all wrong, but what do you expect them to do just wait there and be incinerated by Israel?
I'm sure both sides are represented.
There are soldiers for the war and those against. It's all there if you look hard enough. Absolutely....both sides are well represented.
Both sides say things like that
Obviously, living up someone's rear-end is not something that is to be taken literally - that is why I called it a joke - maybe not the best terminology.
My problem is when people say things about certain groups of people and they mean it literally - hence the reason that I specifically mentioned Anne Coulter's discussion and did not add anyone else mentioned in the OP's message.
This kind of crass talk happens on both sides of the fence. Do you have anyone in your family that is a registered Democrat? Do you lump them in with your comments about liberals? (also in comments on the conservative board) I have close family members that are registered Republicans. That is why I do not make sweeping remarks about all Republicans or conservatives. I'm trying to be very specific in my comments because everyone is obviously different.
Racism is on both sides......not just one
xx
Both sides of this issue.....sm
The emotional part of me, that loves wildlife, absolutely and completely hates this practice. The governor before Gov. Palin did this, as well.
Intellectually, however, my husband and I talked about this last night. I have to realize that things are different in the state of Alaska, and we down here in the lower 48 can't judge them for this, as we don't understand all the facts. Sam posted them down below. It's a different mindset, when it comes to predator control versus the herd availability for the people of Alaska who are subsistence hunters, and need that caribou to make it through the winter.
I would much rather to let nature take its course, and let the predator and prey take each other out, the way nature intended it. However, throw humans in the mix, and it does change things.
All that taken into account, I still don't have to like it. But I can respect Alaska's decision to do this, even if I disagree.
Yep. there are two sides to every story....
you just have to choose the side that fits your view for your country. Godspeed in your search. :)
On ALL sides--does not necessarily mean sm
this fiasco is partisan--only that the current administration (GOP) allowed all entities to run amok. It's the financial world versus the common man, now vice versa. As one pundit said tonight, The public shouldn't have to pick up the broken chairs when they weren't invited to the party.
Hey, the hate has come from both sides.
It's so extreme now.
There are SMs from both sides of the fence
Take the above posts, for example:
Fitzgerald renews interest in Rezko-Obama deal
If you read anything on here, read this.
This should disturb every honorable citizen
Your stereotypes are inaccurate and pretty boring.
I can see both sides of the argument
Yes, many people are getting threatened and businesses getting picketed for supporting Prop 8. You cannot deny that (what was the pink taliban or whatever that disrupted church service a month or so ago?)
But on the other hand, if they want these donations anonymous, than that means Obama and other politicians can make their donations anonymous, and I think it's the publics right to know who is financing the next leaders of the country.
I just find it interesting that the homosexuals are assaulting and threatening supporters of the Prop 8 for what they believe in when they themselves are asking for fair treatment for what they believe in.
I am patriotic. I look at both sides.
It's certain people that refuse to look at the PRESENT ISSUES, not the PAST. I am all for O doing the right things, but right now, it looks like business as usual with the exception of his cabinet picks and this stimulus package.
Sticking to the issues is one thing. Calling some unpatriotic just because they don't agree with you is another.
nasty on all sides
Can't we just state our opinions without calling each other "idiots" and "children?" Does that really enhance the argument? Ever?
There is ignorance on both sides here.
As a Christian, I would appreciate it if people would leave this type of subject out of our children's education. It is not unreasonable to ask since we have given up God and prayer in the schools to accommodate those who do not believe.
There are some people who will ridicule the act as well as the person as you can clearly see when we get on the subject of homosexuality. But you cannot group all of us into this category. I do not agree with that lifestyle but having no reason to treat them poorly. That is what I want to teach my children. We may not agree but we cannot be mean to them.
However, I cannot stand by and allow the teaching that homosexuality is okay. It is too controversial of a topic for that to be taught in schools.....just like religion. I can teach my children acceptance of people without teaching acceptance of a lifestyle we don't agree with and I would appreciate it if schools wouldn't undermine my authority on that subject.
You don't see me going around forcing religion on children who I know has parents who don't believe in God and don't want their kids hearing about God.
I was merely stating there are TWO sides....
to every story. I have not taken sides, as apparently you have. That is all I am saying. The Palestinians are not without fault either, and their present governing body are on the terror watch list. That should mean something....?
Right! Definitely hate from BOTH sides. The OP
nm
From looking on both boards, both sides are guilty.
,
exploring situation from both sides? What?
Exploring the situation from both sides? What two sides? The man stated crime would go down if we aborted black babies. What is the side you are referring to? It is a racist remark, a dumb remark and insensitive hateful remark. No two ways about it..PERIOD..
It happens on both sides of the political spectrum. It happens sm
in every day life to people who are not political at all. Why try and make it a party line thing. That's just silly and WRONG. Good grief. Do you know the political parties of everyone just this year caught embezzling? I sure don't. Nor do I care. Stop labeling people. By the way, yes, he is a crook. But he is also a Vietnam fighter pilot. He went the wrong path. But let's now throw the baby out with the bath water. Here is where the Christian part kicks in...you know..forgiveness.
Both sides on this issue are doing this for money
The 9/11 widows (money), Hillary (political hay) and Ann (money are both wanting money, power, and fame. They all need to shut up and sit down, because they all are coming out looking like idiots on this.
Failure at so many levels on both sides.
I guess I just don't see how placing blame is going to help. And I think it is sad that because Condi is a Republican (and former Democrat), her accomplishments are diminished in the African-American community.
Talking out of both sides of his mouth
No, this is the latest info he wants put out. This comes after he stood on his little podium at the debates and said point blank, he would increase taxes to help pay for more social programs. Now, I don't know how you get around that, but it came out of his own mouth and his true motives are already out there. I have watched that man sway with whatever way the political breeze is blowing, whichever he thinks sounds best for him at the time. Anyone that wishy washy cannot run a country. He is being run....that is the problem!!
It might be nice if we could hear both sides...sm
Of course there are 2 sides to every story. There is nothing new about republicans being obstructive on this issue. Pelosi's reasons for her own obstruction are also understandable. These guys are politicians being politicians. The problem I am having with this is the media blackout. It is impossible to get "both sides of the story" if the story is not out there. This is only the latest example of why many democrats perceive Fox and CNN as being conservative, right of center, etc… Fox, because of the way they report and CNN for what they do not report.
Impeachment is not exactly a fringe issue. A 2007 poll cited in Wikipedia showed 46% in favor and 55% opposed (figures for 2008 not given). Since this adds up to 101%, one might wonder which figure is inaccurate. With the margin of error inherent in polls, at the very least, it would be accurate to say that support for impeachment is "near" 50%. So why, pray tell, is this story missing in action?
For those "near" 50%, whether or not it is called an impeachment hearing is not nearly as relevant as the issues being raised during the process and the fact that there is a media blackout. Were that not the case, how likely do you think it is that those percentages would stay the same? Censorship, whether by the government or in the media, undermines the foundation of democratic process. Protecting that process is in the best interest of both political parties, no matter how divided we may be on the issues at hand.
Interesting summation of both sides....
...I saw on another website:
Best comment of the morning: “Which would you rather have:
A Lawyer with zip experience and his wife who never heard anything negative in Rev. Wrong’s church for 20 years and another Lawyer who likes to hear himself talk and both rich and both campaigning on undefined promises of change plus higher taxes (remember Obama’s bill for $800 billion for the UN)
VERSUS
A war hero with plenty of experience who married the American male dream (good looking, smart, rich, owns her own beer company and actually works to help the helpless) and an experienced tough State Governor who is a conservative Christian, cleans up corruption, husband card carrying union man, hocky mom, hunts, wins politically as an outsider, real middle class background who did not get rich in office and is about to live another American female dream: first to become Vice President of the USA and both campaigning on issues?
A NO BRAINER FOR ALL AMERICANS!
Explains what? That there are 2 sides to a story?
nm
I worry about the children on both sides sm
Obama's and Palin's. They are young and this is a different world now than it was when JFK was in and Carter too.
Though, I would think being a mother to very young children and being a VP is going to be a whole different situation than being the Governor. I would think there is going to be a lot more travel involved with a VP than Gov., but I might be wrong. Never having done either job, I can't really say. 
I'm not saying that Obama's kids are going to be better off if he is elected either. I just don't know how used to their mom being away that Palin's kids are as opposed to Obama's kids. They've had a little more time to adjust. And, as sexist as it is, most people still believe that the primary parenting duty is on the mother. I am not saying that is what I think (it's 50/50 IMO), but I do believe the majority feel that way.
You are right, both sides have beautiful families sm
Obamas/Biden's and McCain/Palin.
Though, I don't know how real Cindy McCain is.
Anyone switching sides this election?
I am interested to know if anyone is switching sides this election? For example, registered democrat and voting for McCain, or registered republican and voting for Obama? Just curious.
Obviously, brainwashing occurs on all sides of the
javascript:editor_insertHTML('text','');
Define change, please. Both sides.
nm
that should read "showing both sides." sorry. nm
nm
Just shows Fox DOES show both sides....
she let the other side have it too about their dishonest ads...though you probably won't find that part on Huffington Post.
Sounds like someone who "talks out of both sides
.
actually, I think a good idea for both sides...
after they pick the candidates, let them post their platform and what they are going to do, let us do our research and decide that way, without ads and gotcha politics...and put the millions to the national debt instead of campaigning. I vote YES on that one. :-)
i'm curious about both sides as far as plans
x
what I'm loving is the idea that BOTH SIDES
nm
This would work if both sides abided
I'm reading the posts below. It's not the conservatives being mean. I'm reading it, I'm actually reading line by line of all the posts. Any time anyone posts something positive about McCain and negative about Obama they are jumped on and belittled. Called all insulting names you can think of. But I see positive posts about Obama and neg about McCain and they are not jumped on. They are welcomed with open hearts and nothing but positive to them. So if you say to love your neighbor and do unto others it should go both ways. I can't figure out why so many people enjoy tearing others down. Makes me feel if I was lying down on the ground I'd get kicked and laughed at. I'm all for love thy neighbor and do unto others but it should go both ways. People have a right to disagree but to be attacked by others is awful. I'm learning to just pass over a lot of posts because I need a bit more positivity in my life right now.
Any plot is despicable - but it goes on both sides - sm
I don't care who it goes for. However, you are blaming her for what a bunch of crazed lunatics were planning. She wasn't planning it but you make is sound as if she was.
I, as many others, do believe our troops will not be safe under an Obama regime. Just look at his voting record and how he says he will handle the war. He voted "NO" on ensuring that our troops serving in harms way remain Americas top budget priority by ensuring full funding. That means he voted no on the funding to ensure our troops would remain safe. I would say Gov. Palin has it correct. You cannot ignore the facts.
If anything happens to Obama I would say the direct person who should be held accountable is Hillary Clinton and possibly her husband (?) Bill. She came out and said it on camera. "The reason I'm staying in the race is we all should remember Kennedy was assisinated, right?"
If you talk about hate-mongering, lets talk about the crowds at the Obama rallies shouting out nasty and hateful things about McCain/Palin, the dummy of Palin hanging, how bout the rocks thrown through a glass plate window of the republican headquarters. What about the spray painted words "Republicans equal slavery" in NY and then they stole 45 signs and spray painted over a banner messages and letters that included symbols sometimes used by gangs. What about Palins motorcade that was attacked by Obama supporters. Here's a link (it's even from CNN, which I was surprised). Gov. Palin had to have been terrified. Talk about feeling like the Rodney King riots were back.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=YeVBaM2lQsg
Each side has their own hate-mongerers and both sides do it well. Luckily there are those like us who just disagree with the other side, but we don't commit violence.
Obama has been on both sides of NAFTA....
which side do you believe?
"Citizen of the world" Obama...who talks about the "world" economy more than he talks about the US economy...and how they are linked? And rather than saying not to offshore, saying educate our people so they can compete?
Raising taxes on corporations that encourages offshoring?
GP, you need to look at your guy as hard as you are looking at McCain.
It has been nasty, hasn't it? On both sides...
McCain certainly would not have been my first choice either, but I voted for the candidate that I thought was the better of the two--I actually prefer a more conservative candidate than McCain. I do think that it is a shame that everyone has become so mean. I have tried not to be that way to anyone, although I guess some people see me as "rabid." What can you do? I at least know that I am not a name-caller or a racist, regardless of what others might think. Perhaps it will cool down. At any rate, have a good night!
I do believe that both sides use information from these folks (sm)
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
I see both sides, but this is technically a LOAN
nm
I agree. Morons on 2 sides.
All the fighting yesterday was ridiculous. Schumer even said they were going to pass the package with or without republican support. He wants it to stay the way it is.
So far today, there's not much fighting. It's surprising. They are just going through the amendments and voting. Going much quicker today...but then again, I may be opening my mouth too quickly. It's only 2 p.m. ET.
Fox news gives all sides... the truth.
nm
|
