I guess I was misinformed. I thought most liberals were antigun.sm

• Dobbs on government incompetence and deception.... sm - LVMT
  • Mike Malloy from Air America...sm - LVMT
    • Why surprised that he owns a gun? sm - MT
      • I guess I was misinformed. I thought most liberals were antigun.sm - LVMT
        • I think maybe the far left and most of Hollywood are antigun. sm - MT

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

This is a truly offensive comment:  liberals...they really could care less about the soldiers.  You appear ignorant of any true knowledge of liberal beliefs.

You state that it is impossible for Muslims to ever live next to a Christian in harmony.  Your ignorance is astounding.  Too astounding to even address as you have obviously never traveled to any major city in the U.S. or in many, many cities of the world.  Hey, we couldn't even keep peace in New Orleans after there was a breakdown of police control. 

60 Minutes unbiased?  Did I claim anywhere that it was?  Of course it has a bias.  Duh.  Thought I was posting on the liberal board.

Please, take your trash talk over to your other trash-talking conservatives.  Please!!! 

I grew up in the 60s when racial tensions were extremely high, and we knew what was racist and what was not racist, and this cartoon is definitely racist.  You really don't want to go back to that horrible time and place, so if we can inform others to show just a little bit of compassion and/or respect to others, it will go a long way to soothe the underlying tensions that still exist. 

Down the drain?  Beware of Obama's plan to 'spread the wealth around'

By Betsy Newmark
High School History and Government Teacher/Blogger

If the McCain campaign can’t use this Obama quote to raise doubts about his attitude towards wealth and success, then they deserve the shellacking they seem headed for.

“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream.”

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Plumbers of the country, unite! Forget about the work and effort you put into building up a business or the scummy work that you do that many of us don’t know or don’t want to do. If you have succeeded, you should be willing to give up more of what you earn to help those who haven’t had the great good luck that you have had to be a successful plumber. Remember how Obama is going to give 95% of all of us a tax cut even though over 30% of the population doesn’t pay taxes?

He might call it a tax credit, but what he’s really doing is his vision of “spreading the wealth around.” It sounds a lot like Huey Long’s 1935 plan to “Share the Wealth.” And when he finds that he can’t tax the top 5% of the population to gain enough wealth to spread to the 95% of the rest of us, do you really think that he’ll stop with that 5%?

Remember…This is the guy who said in the ABC debate during the primary season that his approach to raising tax on capital gains is not based on whether it would provide more revenue but on his idea of what is fair:

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

Just what we need in these fragile economic times — a guy who wants to raise taxes because he thinks it’s a matter of “fairness” and time to “spread the wealth around.”

That will be some incentive for other plumbers who want to work hard and build up a successful business.

But don’t worry - according to Joe Biden, it’s the patriotic thing to do.

But they're outnumbered by neocons who are more like roaches than people.  They're nasty, keep multiplying, aren't very nice to be around, are very hard to get rid of and are just creepy and disgusting.

 This is a good read. Would be funny if not so true.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0610-23.htm

http://www.badbush.com/war_pres.html

Also click on the ***back to main page*** link. 

who repeatedly say that Palin has hurt McCain.  I think some people are obviously put off my Sarah Palin but others find her refreshing.  The media is generally more liberal and so we obviously hear more about how she hurts McCain than helps, but I think she is doing great.  I think they make a great team.  You could say that Biden hurts Obama especially with some of the boneheaded things he has said but you don't hear people continually bringing that all.  Nope....it is always Sarah.

I saw an interview with that Rothschild woman yesterday.  She stated that she is not only is voting for McCain and Palin, even though she is a major democrat, but she is also going around and talking to many democrats who are not so extreme left as Obama.  They too are voting for McCain.  She would not name names but there are many democrats who do not want to go so extreme left.  You might be surprised at the outcome of this election.  It will most definitely be close either way.

I never call Republicans any of those names and I don't like it when Republicans use the same derogatory names for liberals.  I don't like Ann Coulter because I just think she uses her intelligence for fear and hate mongering, but that's just me.

When people of any ideologic viewpoint call each other names, it diminishes their own standing, imo.  Use your words, people!  Stop name calling and have intelligent debates about the issues.  That's much more fun anyway.  And I've never seen Ann Coulter be able to do that, hence my dislike for her.

have spoken out about the war in Iraq over and over and over again and just recently there was an attack on a military recruiting center by a man who said the reason for his attack was for "political and religious" reasons and his disagreement over military operations.  Gee....sounds to me like he did something because he kept hearing the libs on TV disagreeing with military operations in Iraq. Hmmm....if you want to spin something, it can be spinned both ways.....just remember that.

The only people to blame are the people who do the crime.  I can't blame libs for this guy opening fire on a recruiting center just as you can't blame Bill O'Reilly for that nut job who opened fire on Tiller.  So give it up, give me break, and get a clue.

just get better producers and your radio shows and T.V. networks/shows will be raging successes!!! 

   Bill Maher's cheese slid off his cracker a long time ago....

"willing to totally put" their lives in the hands of some politicians.

It's the Neocons who are the Stepford Wives of the Bush administration, who follow in step, never varying in their pro-Bush propaganda mantra, who make excuses constantly for Bush, and who treat Bush more like a god than the lying, manipulating, misleading, very dangerous moron that he is.

LOL, your first sentence sounds like back in the 1960's..Well, I know some Blacks..and they are my friends..Well, geez, you know some liberals..yada yada yada..

It is still a free country and if we want to bash Bush we can..Most certainly throughout the 1990's most republicans bashed Clinton and his wife and unfortunately his daughter..Now, who has turned out to be stellar and giving back to society..Chelsea..Not Bush's daughters, they are too busy partying and getting drunk and certainly not Bush's nephew, drunk in public..OMG..As much as you republicans bashed Clinton, he is loved by many and a statesman and handles himself quite well these days..like I said, loved by many..and his daughter is contributing to society, an intelligent, upstanding citizen, his wife is a senator in NY who will most probably be re-elected as many in NY love her..So..mmmm..seems to me Bush and his family fall just a bit short..So bash Bush, you bet, sweetie, every chance I get.

with the same problems as well.  Bush's family seems to take the lead as far as number of people who are drunks or drug addicts.

Now, if you don't mind, I think I will stop responding to your posts.  It's much more entertaining watching you talking to yourself on this board. 

I hope you find the attention you so desperately seek, but you're not getting any more of it from me.

Have a pleasant day, dear.

I see that I’m being nailed to the cross on the Conservative Board by the usual suspects with more, I'm sure, to follow.  Perhaps my post came too close to the truth and struck a nerve or two.

Just to clarify, my post is not a result of all the mean, nasty personal characteristics they attribute to me.  It is the result of 5 years of watching a President and certain members of his following.  Again, my post didn’t read ALL followers, just the most “radical religious followers,” a point ignored by those who wish to condemn me, unless, of course, they are a part of this rather large group.  My post isn’t a result of hatred; it’s a result of genuine fear about where our country is headed and the true motives behind it.  There have been many articles written about this.  As you can see by the date of this article, this isn’t a new concept.

May 21, 2003

The Rapture of Destruction

Shopping, the End of the World, & Bush

By SAUL LANDAU

There shall be a fourth kingdom on earth that shall be different from all the other kingdoms; it shall devour the whole earth,and trample it down, and break it to pieces.--Daniel 23

As I browsed the New York Times for news of Iraq, terrorism, SARS and the latest environmental disaster, my teenage daughter and her friends arrived with the nutritional equivalent of ecological bio-terrorism. They opened Burger King bags and unveiled cheeseburgers and fat-laden fries (the French might reject their name connected to such items) dipped into what Ronald Reagan called a vegetable (ketchup). They drowned this cholesterol feast with noisy slurps from 22 oz. plastic coke containers.

As they slowly sucked in the artery clogging fast food, I recalled the messianic words from the Prince of Darkness, Richard Perle: This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there, he told John Pilger in the New Statesman, December 16, 2002). If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now

If kids eat food like this, I thought, the only songs they'll sing in the future will be hymns at each others' premature funerals. Fast food, shopping and total war! Can one encompass epic concepts like waging perpetual war for perpetual peace on the one hand and harmonize them with a vision of a trivialized society whose spiritual glue is perpetual shopping?

The Bushies address this issue through religion, not political philosophy. For example, their policy planners reject scientists' prognosis of disasters that will ensue from global warming. Indeed, neither corporate CEO's--except for insurance chiefs --nor government heavies seem to factor global environment into their plans.

The May 7, 2003 LA Times reported, for example, that lawyers representing some 30,000 impoverished Ecuadoreans are expected to sue Chevron Texaco Corp. today, accusing the second-largest U.S. oil company of contaminating the rainforest and sickening local residents. The suit alleges that a Chevron Texaco unit discharged billions of gallons of contaminated water, causing widespread pollution and illness.

Other oil companies used similar practices in Nigeria. In 1999 Shell Oil injected a million liters of waste into an abandoned oil well in Erovie in the Niger Delta. Those who ate the crops or drank water in the area fell ill. Almost 100 people died from poisonous amounts of lead, mercury and other toxics. In 2001, exploration for new wells by western oil companies contaminated the fresh water supply, causing serious illness among the local population. The typical oil company responds to such mishaps by explaining: hey, people drive cars, cars need gas, we supply the gas. Neither oil company CEOs nor the President addressed the implications of using more fossil fuels.

When pushed, one corporate executive alluded to God's will. At the 1997 Kyoto Conference on environment, Jeremy Leggett, who wrote The Carbon War: Global Warming and the End of the Oil Era (2001), cornered Ford Motor Company executive John Schiller.

Leggett, a Greenpeacer, asked Schiller how he dealt with a billion cars intent on burning all the oil and gas available on the planet. Schiller first denied that fossil fuels have been sequestered underground for eons. He claimed, instead, that the Earth is just 10,000, not 4.5 billion years old, the age widely accepted by scientists. Schiller then referred Leggett to The Book of Daniel: The more I look, the more it is just as it says in the Bible. In other words, Schiller's theological interpretation of the world foresees earthly devastation [that] will mark the `End Time' and return of Christ.

So, like members of the powerful in the White House, just refer to biblical passages to understand those photos of melting ice caps on the Andes and breakups of polar ice caps, like the warming effects of the now frequent of El ninos, which have a devastating impact on the sea and land's wellbeing.

I juxtapose my fears over deteriorating environment with the rapture experienced over such ecological decay by the very people who manage the destruction. They view optimistically the dire environmental warnings as sure signs that the end is near and the Messiah will return. As a kid in Hebrew school the Messiah would supposedly arrive and take all the Jews to Israel. When my father told my mother about this imminent event, she wailed in despair: Just after we spent all that money fixing up the house?

In the no laughs born-again world, however, the Millennium means that the Lord will welcome a smog-filled planet so he can redesign it as it in its original Edenic form. Somehow he will afford to the true believers the necessary lung power to survive and live for a thousand years in Nirvana.

If this sounds bizarre, then read Joan Bokaer, who studied the fundamentalists at the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell University. Tens of millions of Americans, she reports, have taken up this apocalyptic form of religion. Not all of them shape their lives dogmatically around this religious vision, but they do tend to dismiss environmentalists as worry warts.

Bokaer adds that these serious soldiers of God see their role as paving the pious road for the Lord's return. Like the Puritans who settled Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 17th Century, these modern zealots predict Christ's return only at the time when they have successfully carried out His work: purged the country of sinners and replaced the corrupt civil law with the dictates of the Bible--which includes, in foreign policy, promoting the battle of Armageddon by supporting Israel.

Like the Puritans, they do not believe in the separation of church and state. The Puritans, however, studied science, believing that God had placed the challenge of discovery before them. Modern fundamentalists tend to disparage the discipline of research to learn about God's ways and instead direct their energies at promoting ultra right politics: including belittling environmental concerns and supporting Israel. So, long live Israel (even with its population of Jews, whose prayers God doesn't hear); hooray for depleted uranium in military shells and bombs.

This religious vision --or nightmare--coincides with a society whose main spiritual value is shopping. Place at the political head of this nation a born-again alcoholic and you may have the glue albeit not one that's logical or holds together disparate pieces in any other way. George Bush's inflexibility of thinking on the one hand--his dogmatic use of good and evil as politically defining poles--allows him to live with or ignore the obvious contradictions in his imperial plan for world domination on the one hand and his destructiveness on the other. We need an energy bill that encourages consumption, he told a Trenton, N.J. audience on September 23, 2002.

In the October 11, 2002 Counterpunch, Katherine van Wormer cites brain studies to reinforce what recovering alcoholics and their counselors have been saying for years; long-term alcohol and other drug use changes the chemistry of the brain These anomalies in brain patterns are associated with a rigidity in thinking.

My wife first said it during the presidential campaign debates, when issues emerged for which the programmers had not prepared Bush. He's a dry drunk, she said, referring to the Alcoholics Anonymous term that describes the alcoholic who no longer drinks, but has not stopped thinking about drinking and has not entered a program to deal with his addiction.

Van Wormer, a professor of social work at the University of Northern Iowa and the co-author of Addiction Treatment: A Strength's Perspective (2002), says dry drunks tend to go to extremes. I immediately thought about his religious fundamentalism, his insistence on an extreme tax plan, his threat to smoke 'em out. As we all have heard, Bush called for a crusade after 9/11--which he later rescinded, but he loved to label his enemies as evil. Van Wormer also lists exaggerated self-importance and grandiose behavior as characteristics of dry drunks. Judge for yourselves!

Arguably the least qualified president, Bush presides over the most complicated period of world history. The American economy needs a public in a constant shopping frenzy. That requires certain kinds of freedom--freedom to confuse desire with need. Shopping needs advertising, which needs broad freedom to lure anxious customers into purchasing goods and services to elevate their status, self esteem, sexual prowess, and power, as well as to improve or enhance their body features. In Upside Down: A Primer for the Looking-Glass World (2001), Eduardo Galeano calls advertisers who know how to turn merchandise into magic charms against loneliness. Things have human attributes: they caress, accompany, understand, help. Perfume kisses you, your car never lets you down.

The car--or SUV--has become a basic capital good which our system must mass produce. The very act of producing gas burning vehicles, however, conflicts with the future of human life on the plant--global warming, ozone layer depletion etc... Bush's policies exacerbate the environmental issue. Instead of confronting this reality, Bush and his followers pray that the end will soon come. Perhaps his troublesome teenage twins contribute to his desire to bring it all to an end.

My teenager finishes her greasy burger, belches and does not sing great songs about Bush.

Sure comes across as intimidation.  Creepy, isn't it?

Funny how on their board, they defend posting under other monikers.

For the record, though, I did NOT post under the moniker of Stephen Crockett.  Everything I have said in these posts is the truth.  Obviously, when they can't find a truthful response, true to the Republican party these days, they stalk, intimidate and threaten. 

They think they're coming across as credible and all knowing, as if they are actually speakng *FACTS*.  They should continue to post so people can see what they're truly all about.  Might not be safe for you (or me or anyone) to respond to them any more, though.  They're obviously and unfortunately unstable people.  They've already admitted to stalking, so who knows what else they're capable of?

He falls off bikes, gets black eyes from pretzels, and nearly flattens his staff with a tractor -- Dubya's middle name should be Clouseau.  Wonder if he went to strongarm Caterpillar over their recent acknowledgement of global warming. 

The White House announced its visit to a Caterpillar factory in East Peoria, Illinois, yesterday, where President George W. Bush advanced his case for expanding free trade negotiations. But it didn't detail the President's clumsy driving of a giant D-10 tractor that sent the White House press corps and presidential staff scrambling, which was reported at a Newsweek blog.

At The Gaggle, Newsweek reporter Holly Bailey writes that the president clambered into the driver's seat of Caterpillar's giant D10 tractor. I would suggest moving back...I'm about to crank this sucker up, she reports him saying.

But as White House staff started to move the press corps back, the situation became more chaotic. Bailey writes that the tractor lurched forward and White House staff too were forced to scramble for safety. Get out of the way! a news photographer yelled. I think he might run us over!

Bush chuckled about the incident, and referenced driving the tractor during his speech, saying I'm impressed by a culture of excellence and accomplishment that is the spirit of Caterpillar. I also appreciate the chance to drive a D10. If you've never driven a D10 -- (laughter) -- it's a cool experience. (Laughter), according to the White House website.

Bailey looked less fondly upon Bush's test drive of the D-10. Yeah, almost as much fun as seeing your life flash before your eyes, she wrote in response to the president's remark about his cool experience.

How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to change a light bulb?

The Answer is ELEVEN:

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed.

2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed.

3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb.

4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either: For changing the light bulb or for darkness.

5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb.

6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a stepladder under the banner Light Bulb Change Accomplished.

7. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark.

8. One to viciously smear #7.

9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light bulb-changing policy all along.

10. One to change the wrong lightbulb.

11. And finally one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.

Hillary's Deal With the Devil

Hillary was finishing up a day as Senator for New York when the Devil suddenly appeared in her office and made her an offer...

I am here to offer you a deal, the Devil said. I will give you unlimited wealth, even more power, and a media that will pander to your every whim. In return, all I ask for is your soul, the souls of every member of your family, and the souls of all your constituents.

Hillary pondered for a moment and then asked, Unlimited wealth and power?

Absolutely unlimited, the Devil asserted.

A pandering media? she asked.

They'll fall over themselves to support you, no matter what you say or do, the Devil assured.

And you want my soul, my family's souls, and the souls of my constituents? she asked.

Yes. All of them, the Devil answered.

Hillary was deep in thought for a moment, then finally spoke:

So...what's the catch?

and I have no doubt most of you sincerely individually believe what you are saying...just like most conservatives do.  Debating is not "trying to shove something down someone's throat."  I truly come to this board to learn...I want to know what everyday liberals/Democrats are thinking, not what I hear coming out of Washington.  While sometimes you hear the rote party line here, you also hear the moderate and conservative Democrats (yes, there are some) and I like to hear their point of view as well.  I am not arrogant enough to think I know everything and I am concerned about what my fellow Americans are thinking...not what the DNC is thinking, but what my fellow Americans are thinking.  I think if you don't listen to other viewpoints it leads to narrow-minded robot-like following of a set group of ideas and I think that is dangerous.  That being said, I don't think everyone who posts here does that.  But it is not across the board.

By the same token, just because conservatives (myself and others) counter-post here does not make us bad people either.  We love our country too.  We just have a different view of the direction we think she should go.  That does not make us better than you or worse than you.  We are all Americans.  We are so divided now, because there are too many who do not want to debate and share ideas and learn.

That being said, the views I expressed here regarding children's health care are my own and should not be attributed to all who call themselves conservative.  Too often things get painted on this board with a broad brush...one person posts an opinion and all of a sudden it becomes "conservatives think..."   I just want everyone here to know that all of those opinions were Observer's opinions and not meant to be construed as the "conservative stand" on that issue.  It was my stand.  And I would like to set that record straight...I do believe children should have health insurance.  I believe we as a country should help those who cannot help themselves...the low income families who really cannot afford health insurance for their children, and we were doing that.  What I was..and am...against is expanding the program further and further up the income ladder.  I would like to encourage responsibility...and keep people off programs instead of getting more and more of them on.  A 100% tax refund on health insurance premiums paid makes more sense to me than government-subsidized health insurance for higher income families.  What I do not and will never understand is why the Democrats in Congress could not let the program stand as it was for another 6 months, still covering the families it has covered for the last 10 years, and worked out a compromise. 

So, if you liberals who post here really do not want to engage, I will just come here and read to learn, and will not "force" you to defend your ideas.  In asking my questions I was seeking to learn why you thought what you thought and if there were facts to substantiate it so that I could go and look and continue to hear another viewpoint.  I would think if you were secure in your beliefs you would welcome the chance to explain them.  Color me wrong.