To a certain extent I agree....however..(sm)
Posted By: Just the big bad on 2009-05-22
In Reply to: In general kids can be very cruel. - Trigger Happy
LGBT issues is only a part of the whole course. It starts in K with why you shouldn't tease and then continues and doesn't hit LGBT issues until the 5th grade. This is obviously a problem in this state or they wouldn't be addressing it.
I agree that kids tease, but given today's lack of guidance in the home for kids, the schools are having to take on this responsibility just to keep the kids safe while in their custody.
In a post below you said that we didn't have to have that kind of teaching in school. You're absolutely right. We knew what not to do because our parents taught us that. My grandmother raised me for the most part. She could "out christian" the best of you. She didn't agree with homosexuality, interracial marriage, etc, etc, etc....She did teach us that it was wrong as she saw fit. She also taught us not to make fun of others no matter what. But by the same token she didn't sit there in front of us and call Rock Hudson a fag. That's the difference.
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 agree to an extent. I think she would
make a much better president than Obama or McCain. I don't think Obama can win (he's inexperienced & the media will destroy him if he gets the nomination), and our economy can't withstand McCain, who is 100% pro-free-trade & wants to expand it, more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations while screwing over working people, etc. They're already predicting $7/gal gas if McCain gets it. I originally was hoping for Edwards, then hoping for Clinton because I think that's our only chance to beat McCain.
I agree to a certain extent
I do agree that not everyone should be lumped into one group. It's being done on both sides (including myself sometimes). Especially when you are called names (pubs) when your neither a republican or democrat (I'm what I call mutt because I like a little of what every party has for ideas), but when your called a "pub" it's easy to shoot back with a reply and say (dems). Not everyone is in the same group. I do believe that there are people who voted for Obama based on what they believe he can do to help the country. But at the same time there are people who have absolutely no idea who he is, what his past record is, who is friends are, who elevated him to where he is, how he was able to beat out all the candidates that have experience and knowledge about the issues, but he was pushed ahead by the big money people (Wall Street, Bredzinski, etc) and the other candidates were squashed and had no chance without the funds that these "big money" people poured into Obama to ensure he would become president. Anyway...those people who jumped on the band wagon and would not listen to anything except he'll be the first black president, or Bon Jovi or Brad Pitt or other stars are supporting him. Those are what I refer to as the Kool-Aid drinkers. The one's who come on this site and don't talk about issues, about what's happening in the economy, what Obama's plan is. No they come on and say "he's my hero, he's the Messiah, he's makes my heart happy and makes me want to dance, he's just like us because he eats chili dogs and cheese fries just like we do". I've heard every crack-pot "reasoning" for why they "love" Obama, but never for any substance like "I like his health care policy, or he has this idea or that idea of how he is going to create more jobs, he's in the process of drawing up papers to tax companies that take jobs overseas, etc, etc. Nothing like that, just he makes me so happy in my heart I'm dancing around in joy and ecstasy". Those are the Kool-Aid drinkers I refer to. The Obots, Obamaniacs, etc.
Yes, let's give the man a chance. Let's avoid name calling and that is on both sides. When someone posts "he's just like us cos he eats chile dog and cheese fries just like we do", yes they are going to get called a Kool-Aid drinker cos that's what they are. Bringing an opinion like that to this board deserves a response like that. I remember when people who supported McCain were explaining why they supported him, they were met with such hate-filled messages it was awful and I had to take this site out of my favorites.
I say lets give the guy a chance. To tell the truth I don't think he's off to a very good start with already adding to our deficit with the huge cost of the inaugeration (and no, all that money is not being donated by rich people - some maybe, but the rest will just be added and the citizens of America will end up paying for it). Also the people he has picked for his cabinet members. Not good at all.
Yes, he is a smart man. Nobody makes it through law school if they are not smart, but you have to remember, he is a lawyer. He knows how to bend the rules, changes the laws, and maneuver out of things.
I'm not calling Obama any names, but it would be nice if people on the board started bringing real issues to the board instead of lately posted "I love you Obama, you make my heart soar, the mere mention of your name brings me joy, blah, blah, blah". Can we just stick to issues.
How about what is happening inside. People should read what's been going on with Pelosi. DH was telling me that Pelosi is upset because Obama had promised through his campaign that the wealthier people are going to pay more in taxes and now he's changed that and said he's not going to make them pay any more. So guess there's trouble brewing in the democrat party alone. Truthfully I have not read the article, but DH was telling me this yesterday, so I'll have to try and find the article (good luck to me, cos he reads about 80 or so news sites a day - everything from Drudge, MSNBC, Fox, CNN, local and national newspapers, etc) - can you tell he doesn't work :-o.
But these are the issues I want to hear.
Truthfully I am very happy for the people who voted for him. I'm glad you are all happy and giddy. I'm glad you are about to start a week-long celebration. That's all and good and I'm happy for you. But for the people who are following what is happening, who have concerns about the direction our country is taking, about the issues that Obama does not believe in the constitution and is going to try to change it while he is in office (what's next, is he going to try and change the Bible too?). For the people who are worried because there is someone who is trying to change the constitution so that there is no term limits and is fighting for Obama to be the President until his death. These are very worrisome and I am very worried for our country.
So, while I wish Mr. Obama the best, hope he will do good for the country, I am also worried. I won't (and have never called) Mr. Obama any names, but if people continue with the sillyness I will most likely be tempted to call them Kool-Aid drinkers. - Just the "cat" in me.
To a certain extent I agree....however..(sm)
LGBT issues is only a part of the whole course. It starts in K with why you shouldn't tease and then continues and doesn't hit LGBT issues until the 5th grade. This is obviously a problem in this state or they wouldn't be addressing it.
I agree that kids tease, but given today's lack of guidance in the home for kids, the schools are having to take on this responsibility just to keep the kids safe while in their custody.
In a post below you said that we didn't have to have that kind of teaching in school. You're absolutely right. We knew what not to do because our parents taught us that. My grandmother raised me for the most part. She could "out christian" the best of you. She didn't agree with homosexuality, interracial marriage, etc, etc, etc....She did teach us that it was wrong as she saw fit. She also taught us not to make fun of others no matter what. But by the same token she didn't sit there in front of us and call Rock Hudson a fag. That's the difference.
I agree to a certain extent - see message
I too could care less who has affairs nowadays. Doesn't make me think any less or more of them. However - my little however :-) - He was not the President of the US - Clinton was. Clinton should have been removed from office (although then Gore would have been in charge, so I take that back now) :-) Anyway...it was the fact that Clinton had an affair that got him in trouble, it was the lies, manipulation, lies, and all the other illegal stuff he did that went along with it.
I don't particularly think they are being any less or more hard/lenient on this guy than they had with others who did the same thing. Remember John Edwards? The democrat who WAS running for VP? My point is more that you can't say "this guy was a republican that might have possibly run for VP the next election, and that's why its so bad", when you don't bring up Edwards who DID run for VP.
I feel this way...if it's a republican who is caught having an affair the liberals are sure dragging them through the mud, and if it's a democrat who is caught having an affair the conservatives drag him through the mud. I don't feel either side gets a free pass when it comes to being raked through the coals. I'm sick to death of hearing about this republican who had an affair about as sick as I was hearing about that NY guy, and Edwards, and that guy who got caught in the bathroom at some airport, etc, etc., but your making it sound like only the democrats getting picked on and that's just not true.
P.S. - We really don't need Biden to have an affair to have a field day with him, every time he opens his mouth and speaks he does a doozy on himself. HA HA HA
I think to a certain extent you are right, but...(sm)
one of the main problems we have in the region is reputation. As far as most Arabs are concerned the west is the west, with little differentiation between the US and Europe. If you look at it from their point of view, the west (Britian) took their land to give it to the Jews, and the US (also west) has been backing this decision ever since. As we all know, this has been the main contention since WWI that they have had with us. So, in that respect I believe it is very important to look at the history of the situation.
There are also problems with recent history. Bush said he wanted a 2-state solution. Publicly he denounced the advancement of Israeli settlements into Gaza; however, the settlements not only did not slow down, but actually increased the whole time he was saying this. What was done about it? Nothing -- that is unless you count Bush raising the amount of money we give Irael each year. Israel has been using this support we provide to strong arm the rest of the region for years, and reallly needs to be reigned in if we are to have any credibility in the region whatsoever.
This is true to a certain extent (sm)
There are a lot of great companies out there that do put money back into their company and its employees. Unfortunately, there are too many that the CEOs and their boards pocket the money and couldn't give a rat's patootie about their employees and they're the ones ruining it for everyone else. Also unfortunately, they're the ones we just bailed out with our tax dollars. Sad commentary on the way our country is moving. I like the map of the liberal brain at the end, though - that's funny!
I can understand and empathize to an extent,
while I was able to have one child, I was not able have anymore than that due to a multitude of problems leading to miscarrying, hysterectomy and a diagnosis of SLE and a stroke at the age of 45. As for unwanted cats and dogs, I agree with you there too, but I have taken action in this situation, for over 20 years on my own with no funding at great expense to myself, I have taken in hundreds of cats and found homes, with the exception of handicapped ones, nobody wanted them so I just kept them and dealth with their handicap. The reward in this is that I have managed to save some lives, albeit it is only a cup of water out of the ocean. And I would not agree with creating embryos for the purpose of research, but I am not against using ones that will be otherwise thrown away. If it should turn out that they can save lives, I think that is a good thing. I think a line would have to be drawn, and could be drawn, but then again, somebody mentioned in a post (forget who) that God gave us domain over the animals and the human race in general has not done a very good job there though, so you could be right.
I personally think it helps to an extent...
I listened to Michelle Obama's speech and I thought she was very articulate...and they are a beautiful family. I did listen to Hillary, and in my opinion, she made it all about her. She said the right things, but I don't think her heart was in it. I think there is a LOT of bitterness there still. Bill already put his foot in his mouth, no telling what he will say during his speech. What I found very strange was the camera focused on him while Hillary was speaking, and he had tears in his eyes, and he mouthed "I love you I love you I love you." It was easy to see what he was saying. Have no idea if that was for the cameras or was a really unguarded moment. Who knows? It just seemed really out of character for him. I did notice that she said she came before the crowd a proud mother, a proud Democrat and a proud United States Senator from New York...but nuttin' about being a proud wife...lol. Who can blame her??
As to Barack and Michelle being down to earth, I know that is the message she wanted to send. But when speaking to a group of middle class-type women, she kinda messed up when she told a story about Barack getting on to her for a $10,000 bill for the kids(yes, ten thousand) and she said to him, "Do you know how much camp costs?" That demonstrates that she was out of touch with the people she was talking to. $10,000 is probably a third of what they make a YEAR if they were lucky. She lives a very different life than the middle class. She may remember it from childhood, but she has left that behind her. Not that that is a bad thing...it just demonstrates that they are rich folks just like McCain. Most politicians are. It goes with the territory. All that being said, having money does not make any of them bad people.
I missed the speech of the man from Virginia, so can't comment on that one. Bill's will be interesting. You never know what is going to come out of his mouth.
I think we will find out more about the candidates after the convention, when we have official nominees, get to the debates, and if we can sort through the mud being slung from both sides, that is where most of our information will come from.
It proves the extent of the torture that was used...(sm)
as well as shows the public exactly what the last admin did. It puts in front of the public (in particular republicans who would be against prosecuting the Bush admin) the facts. I honestly think the main point of showing pics is to gain public support for the prosecution of the last admin. I think dems are kind of fighting the battle before it gets there to make prosecution easier......but that's just my opinion.
To a great extent, it is Frank's fault, previous poster correct.
Barney Frank and the rest of the democrats in charge of Congress now, will be laughing at you, too....at all of us.
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. 
I agree with you as far as
the definition. But to read some posts on these boards, you'd think it WAS communism. It's a part of their mantra that you're worse than a traitor if you have anything GOOD to say about it, so it looks like McCarthyism is still alive in well in today's CONservative party!
I agree
I agree with you..I have always believed there was a **supreme being** who was creating evolution.
Agree 100%
with your post Freethinker..its a scary world out there, like the Twilight Zone or something.
I agree with that, too.
Schools are for teaching science, and churches are for teaching religion, except in the cases where there are private religious schools, which are certainly there for the purpose to teach both, which is great!
I have to agree. nm
x
Actually I agree with you.
I agree!
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.
I agree mostly
I think both the Schiavo case and the Lunsford case are equal cases, although what happened to Jessica is one the most heinous crimes imaginable. She used to live in a community only ten minutes from mine, and I can tell you if the guy who did this goes free on a technicality he will not be long for this Earth. He will be hunted down. Also, men who commit heinous crimes on children usually suffer in prison also...crimes against children are usually not tolerated even among the most hardened criminals. So, the death penality would actually be the lesser of the sentences if you know what I mean.
I agree he needs some
medication. Maybe his pal Rush will slide him some.
I agree. nm
I agree that this was not necessary. nm
.
Agree with you 100%, PK
I can't agree.
And I don't think expecting someone to control their animal is extreme by any means, which seems to be most of the consensus here. Control the animal. How hard is that to comprehend? Again, a total lack of responsibility by a pet owner who now throws the issue out for public sympathy, when all it would take is a little effort on her part. I think there is more to this story than we are hearing.
I agree.
And I certainly won't be sitting here in judgment of men and women whose circumstances I cannot even begin to imagine. I also will not be taking the media's word as gospel.
I agree.
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 agree on that one
Darfur, Rwanda, Sudan. All examples of genocide, but it was happening in Iraq too by Saddam.
However, if/when Bush had invaded those countries they would be dubbed Vietnams by the left too.
Agree with you, PK, especially
collective coma...LOL...they really need to grow a backbone. Other than Murtha, Feingold, and Republican Specter, as you mentioned, no one else seems to have the guts (although a different word comes to mind here) necessary to do what needs to be done. Hillary is like McCain to me in that they are both all over the place and seem to just be twisting in the wind; I don't trust EITHER of them. Isn't that what happens when you serve too many masters?
I agree. (sm)
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.
I agree with everything you said.
They don't like to be treated the way they treat others, and it showed.
I agree. sm
It just seems awkward taxing prostitution. Making them pay income tax is like acknowledging what they do is a job. I say lock em' up and lose the key for 10+ years and see if they change their tune about their *jobs.*
But anything is better than letting them continue to ride, so in that sense I support Grassley.
|
