I agree Lilly, especially about the moral decline...
Posted By: Democrat on 2005-10-19
In Reply to: I respect your views, as well. - Libby
Child molestation is on the top of the list for moral decline.
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
I so agree! And even if it was not a moral issue, what about the medical issues (sm)
that can arise? How dare someone even think of performing any procedure my child without my permission unless it is a medical emergency?
decline in profession
You mean it can get worse than it is now?
Is America in a permanent decline?
Is America in a permanent decline?
The dollar is plunging. Detroit's car dominance is history. London claims to be outfinancing Wall Street. So maybe it's time to ask whether the era of US dominance is over for good.
By Ernest Beck, MSN Money
Forbes magazine's annual list of the world's richest people is eagerly anticipated as a barometer of wealth and power. And each year the mighty U.S., whose economy is often described as the envy of the world, has dominated the rankings.
Until now, that is.
In its most recent survey, the Forbes billionaire list changed dramatically: The United States made only four appearances in the top 20, compared with 10 names two years ago. India, by contrast, posted an astonishing four in the top 10, twice as many as the U.S. While America still leads the overall list, Russia, the new nation of raging capitalism, ranked second. Its 87 billionaires pushed aside Germany, the former runner-up. Is Wall Street's dominance over?
Many Americans are still rich, of course; many more are comfortably middle class. And the economy, though weak, is nowhere near collapse. But the shift in the billionaire allotment reflects broader trends. While globalization is indeed producing fabulous wealth in countries that were once considered basket cases, many are asking whether the U.S. is losing its competitive edge and surrendering its long-held leadership positions in business, finance and innovation to foreign competitors.
"The U.S. was always No. 1 and assumed it would be No. 1 and acted accordingly," says Doug Rediker, a former investment banker and a co-director of the Global Strategic Finance Initiative at the New America Foundation, a Washington, D.C., think tank. "Now other nations are catching up. There are competitors fighting for market share in every industry. The U.S. is under pressure."
Consider the sinking value of the dollar: The greenback is still the world's reserve currency, but its continuing erosion carries a symbolic value, telling the world that the U.S. doesn't have its financial house in order. At home, that means higher prices for food and fuel; it also means more-expensive vacations for Americans traveling abroad.
Talk Back: Do you think America is locked into decline?
The incredible shrinking dollar has also made America a great place for Europeans -- wielding their strong euros and pounds -- to go on cheap shopping sprees, swamping our department stores and designer boutiques to pick up bargains. The U.S., once an elite shopping destination, is becoming their giant outlet mall. Foreign tourists on shopping sprees
And what about Detroit's once-vaunted role as an auto industry leader? That has been diminished by more-nimble global competitors. Companies such as Japan's Toyota are threatening the once-indomitable General Motors with more-stylish design and advanced engineering. While GM was turning out gas-guzzling SUVs and Hummers, Toyota got on the green bandwagon early with hybrids and other fuel-efficient cars, and is now reaping the rewards as gas prices soar. Meanwhile, Wall Street faces rivals in cities such as London, which is attracting so many international banks and companies to its booming stock and capital markets that it now claims to be the new center for global business and finance -- a title disputed, of course, by New York City boosters.
Still, argues Michael Charlton, the chief executive of Think London, the city's official foreign-direct-investment agency, "It is a valid claim that London is the world financial capital because its status is based on its international credentials and because we trade so successfully internationally." Is London the next global capital?
Even New York's pre-eminent position as the center of the booming global art market is being challenged -- again by London, a city that once shunned contemporary art. Nowadays, London's galleries and auction houses are crowded with new collectors, including many newly rich Russians, clamoring for the work of blue-chip artists.
Taken together, some say, the evidence suggests the U.S. might be heading into a twilight phase -- one in which it is ceding to other nations its usual claim to superlatives and leadership as well as its adventurous, cutting-edge spirit. A spate of recent books has explored this development, including Newsweek Editor Fareed Zakaria's "The Post-American World." Among the examples he cites: The world's tallest building is in Taipei, Taiwan; the largest publicly traded company is in China; India will soon have the world's biggest oil refinery; and Macau has overtaken Las Vegas in gambling revenue. Map: Global markets on the rise
The reality is a bit more complex, but we do now live in a multipolar world, and we had better get used to it. Forget the superpower rivalry between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, as well as the brief time in which the U.S. was the only superpower. Forget the time when there was no Airbus, only Boeing and Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas.
Today the centers of power, finance and trade have realigned into three heavyweight blocks: the U.S., the European Union and Asia, with the last dominated by China and India, boasting massive populations and rapidly developing economies. Each group is looking out for its own interests and using its might to influence economic policy and world affairs.
So where does that leave the U.S.?
Rediker, of the New America Foundation, says the U.S. is still a major player in the global economy and isn't likely to become a second-tier nation anytime soon. But, he adds, it's time to recognize that "it's also not the only player, and as such, can't dictate terms to the rest of the world."
In the short term, that shift in thinking might not cut prices at the pump or in grocery stores, or restore strength in the dollar. But it could become part of a wider strategy on how the U.S. can deal with the world's evolving economic structure and encourage business leaders to adopt a broader, bolder outlook to remain competitive in the global marketplace.
Despite the challenges and gloomy outlook fostered by the credit crunch and subprime mortgage mess, many believe the U.S. economy remains both formidable and resilient, with deep reserves of talent, entrepreneurship and continuing investment in research and development.
Even General Motors is trying to change: It has vowed to design an electric car and have it on the road by 2010.
"We should not underestimate the ability of the U.S. economy to transform itself," says Mauro Guillen, a professor of international management at The Wharton School in Philadelphia. "It has one of the most flexible economies and continues to be a magnet for the best and the brightest." Although the nation is at a crossroads in many respects, Guillen adds, "The U.S. will weather the storm."
The United States is a country in decline.
Media's Presidential Bias and Decline....sm
Michael Malone is a fourth generation journalist who works for abc.
This column is five pages long, but well worth the time spent reading it.
He talks about the present media bias and how he believes it came to be. Very, very enlightening.
Media's Presidential Bias and Decline
Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6099188&page=1
LOL Lilly!!
Supreme Court material all right! Only in their minds could sinful New Orleans being replaced by a new coastal Las Vegas show the hand of a mighty and righteous God. Maybe that mighty and righteous God of Free Booze and Casino Bucks, but no other one I know of.
Lilly, obviously this is
No one said the troops did not deserve body armor. No one. In fact, I said that they did and if you could send it to them, do so. But this isn't about sending things to the troops. You simply cannot separate in your mind the total selflessness of letting go all of your political feelings to do the right thing. It isn't about junk food and cigarettes as you so glibly state and even when I outlined the things they are asking for, you continued with the same line of attack. But you can't quite make it to the point of selflessness. It's dogma, attack, and self-centeredness. The troops don't need to hear from you. They want uplifting letters from home. Letters of support, love, and gratefulness. Please don't write them. Please don't grudgingly send them a package of junk food and cigarettes. They know who is genuine and who is not. Because you can no longer pretend to care for the troops. That much is very clear.
Thanks, Lilly. I appreciate it!
HI Lilly!
Great to see you posting, Lilly. I missed ya! :o)
You're welcome, Lilly.
I don't know if Bush is the anti-Christ (I would tend to think he isn't, as he is not the brightest bulb in the box), but I do know that Satan does not work alone. I also know that there are those who theorize that Bush and his followers would like to bring about the apocalypse and the rapture, because they think they have some divine purpose and God has prepared somem special place just for them. Who knows? What I DO know is that we are (and many agree with me) headed down a pretty scary road. What's more, I just plain can't stand holier-than-thou fingerwagging and hypocrisy in the name of God. But then Christ himself warned of false prophets, as he knew them all too well.
Lilly, check this out per previous
Freedom of the press?
Scott McClellan Says Helen Thomas Opposes 'War on Terrorism'
By E&P Staff
Published: October 13, 2005 3:50 PM ET
NEW YORKQuestions today from longtime White House reporter Helen Thomas caused White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to declare that she opposes the war on terrorism. His response caused one of Thomas's colleagues, Terry Moran, to leap to her defense.
Here is the exchange from the official transcript:
THOMAS What does the President mean by total victory -- that we will never leave Iraq until we have total victory? What does that mean?
McCLELLAN: Free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East, because a free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a major blow to the ambitions --
THOMAS If they ask us to leave, then we'll leave?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm trying to respond. A free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the broader Middle East will be a major blow to the ambitions of al Qaeda and their terrorist associates. They want to establish or impose their rule over the broader Middle East -- we saw that in the Zawahiri letter that was released earlier this week by the intelligence community.
THOMAS They also know we invaded Iraq.
McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, the President recognizes that we are engaged in a global war on terrorism. And when you're engaged in a war, it's not always pleasant, and it's certainly a last resort. But when you engage in a war, you take the fight to the enemy, you go on the offense. And that's exactly what we are doing. We are fighting them there so that we don't have to fight them here. September 11th taught us --
THOMAS It has nothing to do with -- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
McCLELLAN: Well, you have a very different view of the war on terrorism, and I'm sure you're opposed to the broader war on terrorism. The President recognizes this requires a comprehensive strategy, and that this is a broad war, that it is not a law enforcement matter.
Terry.
TERRY MORAN On what basis do you say Helen is opposed to the broader war on terrorism?
McCLELLAN: Well, she certainly expressed her concerns about Afghanistan and Iraq and going into those two countries. I think I can go back and pull up her comments over the course of the past couple of years.
MORAN And speak for her, which is odd.
McCLELLAN: No, I said she may be, because certainly if you look at her comments over the course of the past couple of years, she's expressed her concerns --
THOMAS I'm opposed to preemptive war, unprovoked preemptive war.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- she's expressed her concerns.
E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)
Links referenced within this article
letters@editorandpublisher.com
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/mailto:letters@editorandpublisher.com
Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001305789
I think you would be very surprised at how the troops see you, Lilly.
He is a moral giant to me here. sm
It is not about who won or lost, it is about the integrity of the process. I think we need this after each and every election. The electronic machines need to go. I sure hope it is not a waste of time. If they did
rig it I am sure they had a plan B in case there was a recount.
Legal yes, moral no. n/m
x
The moral majority is neither
all that moral, or the majority. Don't assume who the majority is until they cast their vote.
Then how come so many are being found out? What was that again about moral values? nm
:
and there's the moral superiority sermon for the day
Thinks they know more than about Israel than a Israeli. BTW, Liberal nobody on the C-board sicked this person on you. The only thing I believe they referred to the C-board about was reading a post there. So before you are so presumptious about that I suggest you get your facts straight and quit seeing everything in your world as conspiracy.
Moral Treason: Who's guilty?
President Theodore Roosevelt, 1918: To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
Senator Robert A. Taft (also known as Mr. Republican), 1941 (after Pearl Harbor): I believe that there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government..... Too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think it will give some comfort to the enemy.... If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country more good than it will do the enemy, and it will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.
Oh, okay, McCain and Palin are not moral, but
nm
And if his moral compass was pointing sm
to true north, he would have declined representing those clients.
You can argue the difference between ethics and legal ethics till the chickens come to roost, but if this man would represent these kinds of clients and make thse kinds of oppositions, I don't think he is fit to be the second in command of the DOJ.
And there are doctors who want to do the right, moral thing.
They are the ones who care about patients and created the site where the links I posted are located.
What kind of moral teaching she had as a child is no
reflection of whether or not she has a child out of wedlock. My 18-year-old niece was raised in church, had good Christian parents and got pregnant before marriage. You can only teach a child. You can't force him or her to live by your own convictions. 
It just seems to me to be wrong on a basic moral level....
Christianity aside...that the power of life and death be given to one individual over another. Any OTHER time than abortion that is murder, not negotiable. Yet for the most innocent among us, the most vulnerable, in the eyes of some it is fine for one human being to decide to terminate the life of another on the basis of choice...and inconvenience.
I do not believe Obama sits around and thinks about how many babies will die every day (to the tune of over a million a year...!). I don't think he thinks about it much at all. How lucky for him his mother chose life.
I didn't say it was correct, legal, or moral.
And the WMDs didn't have anything to do with it, although you'll never convince me that Sadaam didn't have the capability for such - he'd used them in the past to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people.
Correct, legal, moral or whatever, if you're in line with a terrorist group, like many sent to these places were, then you have no rights. Plain and simple.
I just feel that we've gotten too far from 9/11 and remembering what that day was like and all those people killed. It seems like now we care more about the "rights" of those involved in terrorist activites than those innocent people who died that day. Maybe that's why we're such an easy target.
You take the moral high ground and watch video
nm
the moral majority spoke in CA but that isnt good enough
They banned it, voted against it. The state of CA spoke but the gays are not happy with that and have to march. They will push and push till they get their way. Whether it is against God or not. what a shame. 
I understand the moral stance, but feel the rhetoric is over-the-top.....sm
This man is NOT pro-abortion, as many of us are not. He is preserving the right of choice for ALL women, and does not believe that a poor woman who has undergone a rape, incest, domestic violince/intimidation situation, or even has just accidentally gotten pregnant with a child she cannot carry for medical, emotional, or financial reasons....I hate abortion also, but if Americans are to be equal, then a poor woman needs to have resources available to her which would be available to others, or you are damning her to the back-alley abortionists. That is reality. I, Myself, married 18 years, vigilantly spacing my children and on birth control, came up with an unexpected, very difficult pregnancy. Yes, we made the choice to love and take this baby into the world, but we also had SOME resources and family, some girls do not.
There are not many folk who are PRO ABORTION, but preserving the individual choice, though abhorrent to many of us, is part of true liberty. And God Himself will judge as appropriate.
And I do feel that those few who use abortion as a means of birth control, well there should be restrictions and a definite "no."
Isn't the party line "good christian moral values" or something like that? sm
If they are going to espouse all that good moral values stuff, the least they could do would be to acknowledge it in their own loves. The GOP won the election (supposedly) on the stand that they would bring back all that good value bullcrap to government. So, I guess we're seeing it now, huh?
Lying and the Culture of Life. What Moral Values by Junaid Alam...sm
Lying and the Culture of Life
What Moral Values?
By M. JUNAID ALAM
Strong moral values, decency, propriety, and honesty: conservatives long ago declared these ideals essential to their belief system, achieving political ascendancy with promises of restoring honor to a government they view as tainted by liberal immorality and excess.
A fine notion, indeed, but one question lingers: what happened?
Barely a year into Bush's second term, the American political landscape is brimming with blatant examples of conservative deceit, dishonesty, cronyism, and hypocrisy.
Foremost among these examples is Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's right-hand man, who has been indicted on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements before a grand jury. Not that this is cause for embarrassment among conservatives--indeed, many are relieved, pointing out that Libby is in trouble only for lying. It seems conservative standards on morality have slipped a bit.
Of course, the Libby indictment is but the tip of the beast's horn. The larger case is about a vengeful administration that was bent on destroying an undercover CIA agent's career by leaking her name because her husband, Joseph Wilson, also a CIA agent, challenged shoddy evidence buttressing the case for war in Iraq.
Let us forget for a moment the value of simple honesty. Let us forget also the importance of not undermining the nation's intelligence services when one's entire platform is national security.
What does this event tell us about the oft-invoked conservative call to respect the culture of life, so often invoked in abortion debates? Let us not pander to fools: this war was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, based on manifest lies and exaggerations. Therefore, can anyone seriously claim that this administration showed even the slightest respect for the lives of the 2,000 American soldiers, or the lives countless Iraqi civilians now lost to the war's horrors? Most intriguing, then, is this culture of life--a culture which champions life when it does not yet exist, and abandons it when it does.
Surely, however, could the Republican Party not redeem itself through its philosophy of Christian compassion? Apparently not. Congressional testimony two weeks ago revealed that when FEMA's sole representative in New Orleans--who was there only accidentally--found thousands of Americans stranded without food or shelter during the hurricane, he issued a desperate call for help to FEMA chief Michael Brown. Brown's aide replied--several hours later--with the following instructive example of compassionate conservatism in action: It is very important that time is allowed for Mr. Brown to eat dinner. The locale of choice? Baton Rouge. Marie Antoinette would have been impressed.
Equally impressive is the Republican Party's idea of taking responsibility and not blaming others--a key conservative tenet--in the case of Tom Delay, the House majority leader indicted for pouring corporate money into Texas' 2002 state elections, which saw the reconfiguration of the state's congressional districts along even more pro-Republican lines. Censured three times in 2004 alone by the bipartisan House Ethics Committee, Delay nonetheless views the indictment as a kind of vast left-wing conspiracy, calling the prosecutor an unabashed partisan zealot. Heaven forbid.
It goes without saying that Republican contrition for any of the outrages outlined above is unlikely: the arsonists are running the firehouse, and they take great pride in fanning the flames.
We would be sorely remiss, however, if we ignored the role of the Democrats in this affair. They have sat on their firehoses and idled their fire engines on key issues, enabling Republican misbehavior to go unchecked. Most Democrats, it must be remembered, voted in favor of granting Bush unprecedented war powers. And it was the liberal New York Times, with its neo-con pseudo-journalist Judith Miller at the helm, who led the drumbeat procession to invade Iraq based on the thinnest of lies.
Naïve liberal Democrats were also quite pleased to see conservatives break ranks during the Harriet Miers debacle, taking it as a sign of some kind of impending right-wing implosion. They apparently forgot the basic fact that it was the far right--not what passes for the left--that tore apart Miers' chances for judicial confirmation. Now, a staunch conservative, Alito, has been nominated and the implosion has disappeared into thin air. As usual, we can soon count on the usual centrist Democrats--those Klan-minus-costume-crats and heirs to the Dixiecrat legacy--to help vote Alito onto the bench.
Thus, while conservative wrongdoing is obvious, liberals must take a long, hard look at their own party's role in producing the present state of affairs. Americans are told, after all, that there are two major parties, and that one is supposed to act in opposition to the other.
A fine notion, indeed, but one question lingers: what happened?
M. Junaid Alam, co-editor of Left Hook, can be reached at alam@lefthook.org
Obviously u didnt read, I said NONE of them are moral. Read the post before spouting off.
I agree, that goes for both sides. I don't agree with those starting trouble over...sm
on your board either, but then some of you come and take it out on the people who only post here and we have nothing to do with the fights over there.
I enjoy communicating with liberals and occasionally do learn something from conservative posters, so I refuse to let the driveby, no moniker, one-sided finger pointers, self-indulging posters drive me off.
Rush is right. I agree. Somebody's gotta agree.
....in many of his policies in his attempt to completely socialize America.
I hope he fails.
I hope he succeeds, however, in the office of president, and doing the right thing, and moves to the center.
However, it's not looking good. He's left of left so far, isn't he. Showing who he truly is, in his first acts as president.
I sure don't agree with
the Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain, either, and I also hope that guy buys Souter's property and turns it into a hotel. I love the name of the restaurant he wants to build in the hotel: Just Desserts. (I can't remember which TV show I saw that on because, contrary to those on these boards who already have me figured out, I DON'T only watch MSNBC. I actually flip back and forth between MSNBC and Fox. I'm sure it was one one of those stations, though.)
And I totally agree with a woman's right to choose.
I do have a problem with partial birth abortions, based on my limited understanding of it, which is what I've heard the conservatives say about a full or nearly full-term baby being basically born and then "beaten to death" by the doctor. (From what I've discovered from some conservatives on these boards in the past few days, I take everything they say with a grain of salt and accept the possibility up front that it's an exaggerated statement devoid of critical facts.)
But if this is indeed true, then I don't know how it could be considered anything BUT murder. And I don't understand the issue regarding the health of the mother because if the mother can survive the delivery of a baby that can survive outside the womb, then the issue would seem nonexistent. (Again, I don't know that much about it.)
I also have mixed feelings about children and abortion. One the one hand, it is a surgical procedure, and if my child can't even have her ears pierced without my consent, then certainly she shouldn't be allowed to have a surgical procedure without my consent.
But what about if she's been impregnated as the result of a rape by her father or other family member? That sick stuff DOES happen in this country. What if she knows she wants an abortion? Should she be forced to have the baby? I can think of situations where she might be safer if the parents didn't know, but yet I still feel the parents have a right to know. I'm very conflicted about this particular issue and can't say I have a definite opinion. That's why I'd like to hear more on the subject from some intelligent, thoughtful, nonjudgmental people.
As far as gay marriages, I admit I get a little "twinge" at the use of the word "marriage." It might be that something deep in my gut is telling me that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman. After all, WE invented it and WE wrecked it. I think they should invent a new name for their unions because from what I've personally seen, gay couples seem to last for a very long time, much longer than some marriages I know. As far as whether or not they should have rights, why SHOULDN'T they? I don't recall a day during puberty when I woke up and made the decision that I was going to be straight. Likewise, I'm willing to bet that no gay person woke up and decided to be gay. I just don't understand why people are so threatened by the thought that a group might actually have RIGHTS in this country. As with abortion or stem cell research, etc., if they don't believe in it, they shouldn't PARTICIPATE IN IT. I'm neither pro-gay or anti-gay. (A quick look in the mirror, though, reminds me that I'm definitely pro-gray. )
With all of these social issues, as you said, we will "stand in judgment with our maker." That's between us and our own personal God, and those with different religious/spiritual beliefs have no right to shove their beliefs down our throat.
I saw a post on the other board referring to when the U.S. was founded, saying that the vast majority was Christian but that others were given "the freedom to others not to believe..."
NOBODY can "give" anyone "freedom" to either believe or not to believe, and the fact that this poster thinks they can is either very stupid or very scary, and I'm not exactly sure which it is. I think this is relevant because I believe there are some conservatives out there who don't only want the law to reflect their specific narrow brand of religion, but they would LOVE to be able to control what people think and believe.
Knowing that Bush is going to appoint one (maybe two before the end of the year) new Supreme Court Justice(s) scares me because, as you said, our rights are being slowly taken away, and this man has proven by his own actions that the personal freedoms of others aren't things that he cares for much, especially freedom of speech and ideas. That's why he banned anyone who didn't agree 100% with his views from all of his "open town hall" meetings.
We also have an evangelical Senator who holds a public meeting in a search and says that liberals aren't people of faith.
First, it's freedom of speech. Next, it will be freedom of religion. What about freedom of "thought."
I wonder what their views on stem cell research would be if it was discovered that stem cell research held the key to developing a new technique to control thought processes of those who disagree with them. 
I AGREE
I agree with a few of your points..maybe this govt will push us liberals and conservatives together..how great that would be. I agree with eminent domain, I dont know about the abortion issue for a young person, however, I feel empathy for them. Regarding gay marriage. I feel there is not enough love in this word and if two people find love and want to be married, let them. I personally do not believe in marriage..dont want the govt or anyone else keeping tabs on my personal life. I have lived with my male friend for 11 years and dont want anyone telling me what choices to make in my adult life.
agree
I agree with you..why, a lot of my friends are conservative (smile), they really are. We agree on a lot and disagree on a bit but do it in a friendly manner. My dream..that both ideologies can live together peacefully..
I agree!!!
These people on here are pretty nasty to conservatives. They are definitely not living up to their standards of tolerance and peace. They seem very angry even enraged. I don't think we should rip each other apart. It serves not useful purpose whatsoever.
I agree with most of what you said.
However, I don't think it's because of President Bush AND his DADDY. I think George W. came into office hell bent on finishing what his daddy DIDN'T finish and only needed a reason, real or invented, to "finish" it. And I totally agree with you when you say that this was his personal agenda. I think the disconnect is that many people want him to focus on terror, but his personal agenda has always caused his focus instead to be on Iraq, and I personally am very fearful for the future of this country as a result of that.
Agree with everything you said
I believe they will definitely find a way to twist it if some are found guilty. Under no circumstances will they admit that this administration could possibly do anything wrong.
I so agree with you. Even one is way too
many.
I agree. I think they're ill.
It should be criminal to expose children to such hostility and insanity. It sounds like real violence could have ensued if these whackos would have been crossed in any way.
I almost feel for some of these people. A brief visit to the Conservative board left me thinking I should have worn a helmet and worn body armor. Although it's a scary place over there, it must be terrible to exist inside a body that harbors such rage and hatred every day, 24/7. I don't understand what has happened to their religion, but my Christian religion still promotes love, tolerance, respect and the principles of the Golden Rule, all attributes that seem completely foreign to them. All they do is trash others and haven't contributed one positive thing to that board.
Sometimes I think there isn't much difference between these people and the terrorists who attacked us and other countries. They both exhibit signs of mental illness, a maniacal obsession with controlling what everyone believes, and they both promote hatred, violence and intolerance in the name of their respective gods. About the only main difference I can see is that the terrorists, unfortunately, seem to be much more intelligent in their pursuit of their goals.
I agree.
The only way to do it is to DO IT, increase our troops, speed up training their troops, and GET OUT. We've created such an unnecessary mess over there, I think it would be very immoral to just invade, turn their country upside and leave without fixing what we broke.
I agree with you
I had the same feeling about Roberts and I was glad to hear he had done this pro bono work.
Let's hope he really is a "good guy" with a heart and a brain.
I agree.
With every day that passes, I feel less and less hope. I've never been this frightened of a politician in my entire life.
I agree with you.
And I wonder if we had stepped it up a while back, how much of this would be going on today. The more we delay, the better they get at their "craft."
I wish we had never gone in there to begin with and think it's one of the biggest mistakes a president could have ever made. But we're there, and we can't just go in there, turn their country upside down and leave without leaving them with some semblance of normalcy. Those who said this is a quagmire were right on the money.
I agree
Anyone who has anything less than a hate Bush agenda should burn in hell as far as GT is concerned. I too don't agree with Bush 100% on everything, but that does not matter to GT. If you agree with Bush on anything you should not pass GO and go straight to hell along with Bush's Stepford wife and alcoholic daughters. Am I painting that picture correctly GT?
I agree with you.
What you said is so profoundly true and so profoundly sad. I think over time Bush will be viewed as a pawn or a stooge. Who or what do you think may be the controlling force behind Bush? I have read articles on the "Vulcans" but have read little about this recently.
I agree.
It keeps promising to leave (yet another lie). Maybe if we ignore it, it will go away.
I agree.....
I am a moderate conservative, and a Republican, although I'd consider a moderate Democrat like Joe Lieberman or somebody reasonable, however, the Democrats won't nomiate anybody like that, so my vote stays Republican.
As for hand outs and hand ups... There's a big difference between somebody who is unable to work and somebody who is unwilling to work. The individual who is physically or mentally unable to work, or the hard working family who falls on hard times for whatever reason that is out of their control, those people deserve some help. Hands outs/hands up, whatever you want to call it should be viewed as a stepping stone to self sufficiency.
I feel for the innocent victims (children) of those who embrace a lifestyle of just taking free money from those of us in society who work hard, but I havn't much compassion for able bodied young people who refuse to work. If an uneducated person is working hard but not making enough to sustain themselves they can avail themselves of food stamps, WIC, free school lunches, and I don't a problem with that. But, drive through a poor neighborhood and watch the young healthy people sitting on stoops and standing on corners doing nothing all day instead of working. Whether it be pursuing their GED, or taking vocational classes, they should be at least thinking of bettering themselves instead of just resigning to a life of free hand outs.
agree!
I hear ya and yes I agree we should stay away..There are a lof of other political boards through the net, where we can discourse/debate with conservatives over ideas and America without being attacked like mad dogs (I hate to use the analogy as mad dogs as my dogs are much kinder than the conservatives who post here..smile)..
I agree with you.
I think O'Reilly got a taste of his own medicine and was about to lose it. I roared when Phil called him Billy, and Phil in no way denigrated Bill's nephew, but Phil had asked if any of O'Reilly's kids are serving in Iraq. O'Reilly tried to use his nephew's service to detract from the fact that NONE of his own children are there. I think that's what made O'Reilly the angriest: The fact that Phil zapped him on that point.
I agree with you both.
And now that Libby (yuck! I should change my moniker) and Rove are both implicated in the Plame scandal, it will be interesting to see what Fitzgerald's findings are, and they should be coming soon.
I also agree about Cheney. He's very scary. There is definitely a very shrewd, conniving network at work in this administration, and Bush simply isn't bright enough to do this on his own. And there are no standards of decency left on any level in this administration, which is incredible for the CONs, considering all they ever babble about is their superior *decency*. For example, they blatantly lie without blinking an eye, as do some of their more dedicated followers. If anyone dares to disagree with this president, the response it to DESTROY the opponent (not unlike what happens on these boards, only to a more dangerous degree, such as exposing Valerie Plame, for example). Nothing is out of bounds any more.
I'm eagerly awaiting the results of Fitzgerald's investigation. 
|
