I don't agree....(sm)

You are basing a lot of your comment on a speculation that Obama is foreign born and that that would be a main cause for division.  From where I stand (the left...ok, far left), I don't believe this would be the case.  This will eventually blow over (like it or not) just like the controversy surrounding the Bush election did.  I think this is true because in reality we don't have any other choice.  I would say that most Americans realize the power that comes with being united and would not be willing to give that up, regardless of which side of the aisle you're on.

As far as Europe is concerned, they are nowhere near what they should be militarily.

At present, there is no military of the European Union, as the European integration has not developed very far in the area of defence. There have however been a number of defence initiatives, peacekeeping operations and organisations established in the context of the European Union (EU). The actual defence of the Union is the domain of individual Member States. Currently, closest to what can be called European Union military, is the rapid deployment force called European Union Battlegroups.

An early attempt to integrate the militaries of Western Europe, was the failed 1952 European Defence Community. But since then many politicians, including Guy Verhofstadt, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, promised to create a European military. As many of the 27 EU member states are also members of NATO, some EU states cooperate on defense policy (collective security) albeit primarily through NATO rather than through the EU or aligned group (such as the Western European Union). However, the memberships of the EU, WEU, and NATO are distinct, and some EU member states are constitutionally committed to remain neutral on defence issues. Several of the new EU member states were formerly members of the Warsaw Pact.

The EU currently has a limited mandate over defence issues, with a role to explore the issue of European defence agreed to in the Amsterdam Treaty, as well as oversight of the Helsinki Headline Goal Force Catalogue (the 'European Rapid Reaction Force') processes. However, some EU states may and do make multilateral agreements about defence issues outside of the EU structures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union

As far as Obama goes, I don't think that he's trying to rule the world.  I think he just wants to set a good example for the rest of the world. -- of course, that obviously depends on your point of view :)

I believe that the separation we are seeing right now is a direct result from stressful times.  We not only have a drastic change in Washington going on, but we are also in 2 wars and an economic meltdown.....all of which are contraversial.

• Interesting thought - hmmm
  • Consider the source of the article... - sm
    • This is true - hmmm
  • sounds like - ditzil
    • Methinks they have been talking to Sarah and Todd...hmmm... - zoesnana
  • For those that feel that way, try living in another - country overseas........sm
    • And then there is Europe - see message
  • So, you would basically destroy the US, (sm) - Just the big bad
    • I agree with you BB............ sm - m
      • To m and Just the big bad - hmmm
        • I do agree with you in that............sm - m
        • I don't agree....(sm) - Just the big bad
          • Referring to your quote above, would - you have these same
            • Yes, as a matter of fact I did.... - Just the big bad
      • I'm actually still undecided about the ...(sm) - Just the big bad
        • The NAU is a hoax. - sm
  • thanks Sarah - abattoir
    • Who is Sarah and what are idears - hmmm
      • Sarah as in Palin. Idears as in charming Alaskan colloquialism. - nm
        • My gosh - you really can't let it go, can you - nm - hmmm
      • yea right TROLL!!! - ...
        • LOL - I saw your post below - hmmm
          • i didn't write that - shows what you don't know - ...
            • I meant I saw "the" post below - oops - hmmm
              • do you know what "plagiarize" means, because i haven't done that - ...
            • You might want to try the other side of the bed tomorrow morning...(sm) - Just the big bad

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

With every day that passes, I feel less and less hope.  I've never been this frightened of a politician in my entire life.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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. 

Bush and his military brass treated this family horribly.  They did nothing but lie about everything.  (Big surprise, huh?)

They tried to use Pat Tillman as their poster child for recruiting purposes, but Tillman wouldn't agree to be used that way.

When I think if the incredible courage and integrity Pat Tillman had and I look at what a coward Bush was when it came to fighting in a war and what a lying sack of crap he is today, it's easy to see who the REAL man is, and it just makes me want to spit on Bush.

Murtha's words always seem to get twisted. 

He never advocated an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.  He suggested we redeploy to the periphery in an attempt to let the Iraqis stand on their own feet, with us still being there if they needed us.

Regarding the deaths of the civilians, he said that continued stress and repeated tours of duty can can take a toll on soldiers. 

As you said, I couldn't imagine what it must be like to live every single second of every single day, not knowing if the next step you take will be your last.  Regardless of whether or not these soldiers had excellent training, in the end, they are human beings and can only take so much before they crack.  Although I don't condone the killing of innocent civilians, I also can't crucify American soldiers, either.  I've never walked in their boots, and it must be terribly difficult to survive physically, mentally and emotionally under such extreme conditions.

Even if an investigation proves the facts to be as reported, rather than condemn them to harsh punishment, I think instead they need intense mental health treatment, probably for the rest of their lives.  I don't think a prison exists that could be more painful for them than the prison that exists within their hearts and minds. 

This was a very poorly planned war, and our soldiers are suffering because of it in the form of repeated tours of duty.  I think they deserve our compassion, not our condemnation. 

I even admired Giuliani at one time and thought I could maybe vote for him, but he's in the same category with Hillary and McCain now.

I think it's time to clean out the Senate and the House, get rid of mostly everyone (from both parties) and start again from scratch.  They're all ineffective, Republicans and Democrats alike (with the exception of very, very few), and they're completely out of touch with what Americans really want.

They don't like to be treated the way they treat others, and it showed.

I would love to debate issues here.  I almost did a month or so ago, but the person who claimed she wanted to debate ran off with the promise to respond to the issues I raised in my post later.  When she did return, she didn't live up to her pledge to respond to my post and instead instead baited others by insulting and trying to start an argument.

Have you taken a look at the Conservative Board?  It contains nothing but hate for all liberals, and they even go so far as to name people from this board during their insulting hateful tirades. 

I wish things were as you describe, as well.  Everyone talks about a civil war in Iraq.  It seems to me like one is inevitable in the United States at the rate we are going.

Anyway, regardless of your personal feelings about me, I thought your post was very well written and seemed to be sincere and come from the heart.  Thank you for posting it.

We give them billions of dollars every year.  We give them weapons to fight their (our?) wars.  And anyone who even thinks of questioning their actions are demonized.

I'll never forget a video I saw years ago of Palestinians throwing rocks at Israelis (the only weapons they had) and Israelis responding by firing machine guns at the rock throwers.  The only difference in the response ratio of the number of dead (Israelis versus Lebanese) is that their enemies have better weapons today.  But the Israelis are still occupying Lebanon and causing more destruction and death.

We should give them both the boot.

I don't know how anyone could see any honor in that flag.  And I've heard about the noose in his office, as well.

I heard him today on Meet the Press say that he just made up the Macaca word, never heard it before and didn't know what it meant.  Right.

Although Webb really don't seem that much better, I hope he wins over Allen.  We've moved backwards enough in the last six years, and as a nation we're divided enough by political lines, it seems.  I'm unwilling to tolerate anyone who would further divide us by racial lines, and I'm very glad he was exposed for the bigot he is.

The issues he cites are the ones I have always had trouble with this administration.  Now what do we get?  Pelosi is HIGHLY in favor of amnesty for illegals.  That door is wide open now and I am furious about that.