Disagree. Total lunatic is on the

Eric Rudolph to clinic workers.

THAT'S a total lunatic.

Your problem with gt is that she's decided to communicate in true conservative style that she must have learned on the other board.  She's trying to point out to them how they come across, which they routinely deny doing.

Not very pleasant, is it?

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

The Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968 was disrupted by Democrats. So what?  Events of newsworthy importance have always drawn the lunatic fringe. How do you know the people chanting were Republicans?  Did they wear a sign?  Did they say they were Republicans?  Did they not pass the sniff test to prove they were leftists?  What?  Do you NOT THINK there are Democrats who don't approve of Cindy Sheehan?  My, what a narrow world you live in.

you are off your nut.

Total U.S. military deaths in vietnam was 58,000. 

Perhaps your sources of information are erroneous or just not well researched.  And using common sense I believe reference was made to the course and justification of the Vietnam War, not the total casualties. 

Colter is a hatemonger, thats all.  I heard every hour of AL Franken's program and he never said anything outrageous like she/it.  Al Franken was quite witty and entertaining and merely give his listeners the facts that were suppressed elsewhere.  He was on the story about Asian factory workers forced to have abortions by their American bosses way before other outlets were discussing it. Really!! Stop trying to pull the wool ....

No surprise there right?

I would like to note that all social reform to take place in the United States has been at the heels of a liberal movement.  From our breaking off with Britain in the mid 1700s, to civil war in the mid 1800s, and the liberal movement of the mid 1960s.  Liberalism as a belief has moved from Republican to Democrat and back again more than once.  Taking your stance on pro-life and moving it to the time of mid 1800s would put you for all intents and purposes under the Democratic wing.

As the saying goes, complacency breeds contempt, and I believe that we are now in the beginnings of another liberal movement.  A little quicker than our 100 year mark, but with the speed that the world is changing, so must we. 

We as a people and government have to embrace change, that is the true nature of liberalism. 

Realistically, your views/postings justify the label.  You may not wish it, but by just expressing them promotes it.  The fact that you have never mentioned the remote possibility of voting Democrat, which at this point in our history leans toward the liberal, and only looking at the Republican party is labeling.  If you did not want to be labeled or wish not to be, you wouldn't be so quick to make your conservative opinions heard.

As I frequently tell my husband, if you get too caught up in the details, you will lose the bigger picture, which usually leads me to telling him that he gets in his own way more often than not.

I feel the reason New Orleans went under was because the National Guard, tanks, etc. were all in Iraq.

Doesn't it bother you that Palin actually said, her son was going to Iraq to fight the people that attacked us?  Clueless.

I agree that McCain is a war hero, so is my dad, but he certainly is not qualified to be President.

maybe we both will be kicked off too for disagreeing.

Sam does research before posting an answer to some of the statements told here, then posts the links so we can all see what is the truth, not just a few. Anyone who cares anything about this country would do the same.  It's not rocket science. The problem is some people on this board don't care to listen. They're right and everybody else is wrong.They think sam is attacking them personally, when he/she is not, just stating FACTS, not untruths.

The liberal media would be analyzing his choice till the cows came home. 

Did you miss the part where he said, "I'm the decider."?  His old buddy Richard (message says *ick is a bad word.........well, on that we can agree) is guilty right along with him. I do  not think history will be kind to him.  But then it WAS kind to FDR until the republicans came out with their "study" to excuse the fact that Hoover was, before Bush, acknowledged to be the worst president in history.

I say while you're putting Palin on her dogsled back to Alaska, hitch up a couple of longhorns and point Bush and Cheney back to Texas.  Trouble is I don't think Texas wants them.

McCain is not throwing people off his bus because they don't report him in a good light.

McCain is not banning newspaper interviews because they ask him serious questions.

McCain is not banning networks because they ask him serious questions.

The O is doing all of this.

with one another.  That is human nature.  I can respect someone that can give point and counter point without getting nasty.  There is no need for name calling or veiled side of the mouth comments.  I would love a decent conversation with others whose opinions are or are not always the same as mine. 

I have owned Ford, Chrysler, Chevy, American Motors, Rambler, etc. I have been a fan of Oldsmobilie and Buicks since We bought our first one back in the 80s.

GM's problem is they stopped producting the good cars. I was on their website today. No Olds, only 2 Buicks left. They only produce expensive gas guzzlers like  Cadillacs, Saab, and Hummers.

Our LeSabre got 30 mpg and still running strong at 175,000. Shame the rest of the car is not good enought to pass inspection. Same with our Olds.  Are they producing them? Nope. Why? They were mid-priced cars with great reliability, great gas mileage, and I like to say popular with middle class people. They now only product the LaCrosse and Lucerne in the Buick line. They don't even produce the Park Avenue which was a luxurious car and one I always wanted (champagne tastes on a beer budget - LOL).

I won't be buying a new car from GM. There's nothing there I like. They should have thought about phasing out more of the expensive lines than the middle class lines. That's where they went wrong. They probably thought if they stuck to the expensive models, they'd make more money. WRONG!!! They didn't take into consideration the ratio between middle class buyers and upper class buyers.

As for Chrysler, I owned 2. They were lemons from the get-go. Hubby owned a couple Fords and they were not very reliable either.