What ONE issue is most important to you in this election year?

[darklinensuit]

Just curious.

- Jake

[amber]

The one issue always most important to me is the environment. In this election? Getting the evil despot fascist dictator out. Burn the Bush. Snuff the Muff. Damn the Beaver...oh, wait...nevermind. :)
Amber

[strandinthewind]

The only and single most important issue in any campaign Presidential or otherwise is the placement of Federal Judges, particularly Supreme Court judges. Congress and the Pres. may pass the law, but it is the Court that keeps them in line and from taking away our civil rights. The Court is the sole arbitrater of what is right and what is wrong under the expanded view of the U.S. Constitution. So, if you are for conservative judges, vote Republican. If you are for liberal judges vote Democrat. I am for liberal judges because I see the far right as using the legal system to establish an intolerant theocracy in the US.

Put it this way, a Pres. can serve one or two terms. A Supreme Court Justice can serve for 30 years. The latter will therefore always have the most reaching and longlasting effect.

[Patti]

I totally agree with what Jason said. It is always about the judges that matter the most. It scares me to think of Bush nominating more judges for ANOTHER four years. It really, really, really scares me. :nod: :nod:

Having said that, however, MY number one issue is getting rid of Bush!

Patti

[wondergirl9847]

We must save the whales!!!!! I shall not sleep until we do!!!!! :thumbsup:

:lol:

[Merf]

The administration's deception of the American public in regards to our reasons for going to war with Iraq.

[amber]

We must save the whales!!!!! I shall not sleep until we do!!!!! :thumbsup:

:lol:
I don't get it...and what about the forgotten chimpanzee?
Amber

[Johnny Stew]

Getting the evil despot fascist dictator out.

What she said. :nod:

Beyond that... gay rights (or, more importantly, the attempts by the Bush Administration to drum up support for anti-gay sentiments).

[estranged4life]

with some damned intelligence in that grey matter located 2-3 feet above their ass (Shrub and intelligence go together like Lindsey Buckingham and gangster rap...No chance in hell of that!)

[amber]

What she said. :nod:

Beyond that... gay rights (or, more importantly, the attempts by the Bush Administration to drum up support for anti-gay sentiments).
oh yeah, good one. I just can't believe that it's actually an issue, so sometimes i forget, specially where i live, (oakland, sf, berkeley, etc.) cause Gavin Newsom, mayor of SF, straight up ignored the law and allowed all the couples to get married. :] but he's really threatening human rights with the ol' constitutional ban. Like some others said above, I really don't want his hands in the supreme court. Yipes!
Amber

[hayley]

Civil rights & social issues (specifically including abortion & gay rights), which is more determined by the Supreme Court than by the president. So, my vote's undoubtedly with Kerry. This country cannot stand having insane Bible-thumping Bush appointees in the Supreme Court, period.

[Johnny Stew]

If Kerry is elected, I really feel there will be a major attack on this country, and we cannot take another one.

But sweetheart, Bush had been president for nearly 9 months when 9/11 occurred... so why would you feel any safer having him in the White House?
Not to mention the fact that he is deeply hated across the world... which, to me, makes us an even bigger target for those who want revenge against him or want to embarrass/discredit him.

National security is a concern for me, too, and I think we all want to feel safe... but having Bush in the White House doesn't make me feel any safer. In fact, it worries me more.

I'm not bashing your opinion, or saying you're wrong... I just don't believe we're as safe under Bush's watch as some people would like to believe (and as other people are hoping we'll believe).

[GypsySorcerer]

But sweetheart, Bush had been president for nearly 9 months when 9/11 occurred... so why would you feel any safer having him in the White House?
Not to mention the fact that he is deeply hated across the world... which, to me, makes us an even bigger target for those who want revenge against him or want to embarrass/discredit him.

National security is a concern for me, too, and I think we all want to feel safe... but having Bush in the White House doesn't make me feel any safer. In fact, it worries me more.

I'm not bashing your opinion, or saying you're wrong... I just don't believe we're as safe under Bush's watch as some people would like to believe (and as other people are hoping we'll believe).

The US was attacked by terrorists under Clinton, too, but I don't hold him responsible for those attacks. I cannot blame Bush for not preventing 9/11, either.

You are right; Bush is intensely disliked globally, and even by some of our allies. But I don't feel as though I should hold that against him when I decide whom to cast my vote for; look what happened in Spain. The terrorists want to dictate who gets voted into elected offices.

I ask myself this question: Would the terrorists rather have Kerry or Bush in office? My conclusion is that they would want Kerry, who wants to pull our troops from Iraq and proposes a greater role for the UN in the Mid-east peace process. In the past 15 years, I think the UN has been a rather worthless, spineless organization.

Of course, if you believe Kerry's being in office would lead to a safer U.S., that's your opinion, and I won't try to change it. :) I'm just explaining why I feel Bush is the better man for fighting terrorism.

[amber]

The US was attacked by terrorists under Clinton, too, but I don't hold him responsible for those attacks. I cannot blame Bush for not preventing 9/11, either.

You are right; Bush is intensely disliked globally, and even by some of our allies. But I don't feel as though I should hold that against him when I decide whom to cast my vote for; look what happened in Spain. The terrorists want to dictate who gets voted into elected offices.

I ask myself this question: Would the terrorists rather have Kerry or Bush in office? My conclusion is that they would want Kerry, who wants to pull our troops from Iraq and proposes a greater role for the UN in the Mid-east peace process. In the past 15 years, I think the UN has been a rather worthless, spineless organization.

Of course, if you believe Kerry's being in office would lead to a safer U.S., that's your opinion, and I won't try to change it. :) I'm just explaining why I feel Bush is the better man for fighting terrorism.
I was provided a very lengthy article by a respected journalist chronicling how there was very strict protocol in place for when planes were noted flying off course, specifically for terrorist attacks. When the 9/11 Planes were noted off course, the (very harsh and supposedly automatic) security tactics were not enacted. By someone's direction. The protocol was if any plane was flying off course and did not respond, immediately some kind of other plane released to shoot it down. (yes, people and all) I'm a little fuzzy on the specifics at this time, but it seems clear that someone stopped that automatic response system....it was supposedly full proof. hmmnnn....
Amber

[DeeGeMe]

National security. If Kerry is elected, I really feel there will be a major attack on this country, and we cannot take another one. Sorry, but this is how I feel, and no, I have not been brainwashed by Fox News. :laugh:

That said, I really don't like Bush that much. He has been a wasteful spender and I disagree with him on most social issues, but I feel he is much better equipped to handle terrorist threats.



Sorry to burst your bubble about Shrubbie but wouldn't we be much safer if the money we're currently spending in Iraq was actually used within the United States to strengthen our borders? If it was used to beef up the numbers of police & agents who could investigate terrorists on our soil? In fact there are approximately 85 billion ways that money could have been used within the United States to make us stronger.


The truth is that we are not any safer than we were on 9/11/01--we've just been extraordinarily lucky. In fact, I venture to say we are at a far greater danger now than we were because Bush has breed fervent anti-American sentiments amongst Muslims worldwide with his invasion of Iraq. And look at it another way--our military and national guard units have been stretched almost to their breaking point by the war in Iraq--meaning that not only are we without adequate defenses here in the U.S.--we're also much more vulnerable elsewhere in the World as too many of our military have been deployed to shore up the sagging reserves in Iraq. How this makes you feel safer is beyond me.

Oh--and the single most important issue to me in the upcoming election? Getting Bush out before he and his band of cronies can do any additional damage to this nation as they have already made a mockery of the US Constitution and have limited the rights of US Citizens more so than any other administration in history combined.

[GypsySorcerer]

Sorry to burst your bubble about Shrubbie but wouldn't we be much safer if the money we're currently spending in Iraq was actually used within the United States to strengthen our borders? If it was used to beef up the numbers of police & agents who could investigate terrorists on our soil? In fact there are approximately 85 billion ways that money could have been used within the United States to make us stronger.


The truth is that we are not any safer than we were on 9/11/01--we've just been extraordinarily lucky. In fact, I venture to say we are at a far greater danger now than we were because Bush has breed fervent anti-American sentiments amongst Muslims worldwide with his invasion of Iraq. And look at it another way--our military and national guard units have been stretched almost to their breaking point by the war in Iraq--meaning that not only are we without adequate defenses here in the U.S.--we're also much more vulnerable elsewhere in the World as too many of our military have been deployed to shore up the sagging reserves in Iraq. How this makes you feel safer is beyond me.



Do you honestly believe there wasn't anti-American sentiment in the Middle East before Bush came into office? Come on. The 9/11 attacks were already being planned before the 2000 election.

As I stated to Johnny, I am not basing my vote on Bush's international reputation. I really feel that the terrorists groups want Kerry in office. I know you don't agree and that's fine, but please don't act like I haven't thought about this. I have -- very long and hard.

[Johnny Stew]

The US was attacked by terrorists under Clinton, too, but I don't hold him responsible for those attacks. I cannot blame Bush for not preventing 9/11, either.

I realize that, and I'm not saying that we should blame Bush for 9/11.
All I'm saying is that, we weren't (and still aren't) any safer with him in the White House.
If terrorists truly want to cause problems in this country, or any, they will find the ways and means to do so, no matter who's in the White House.

Which returns me to my point... we're no safer with Bush as President, no matter how much he and his administration are hoping & praying that we'll believe we are.


You are right; Bush is intensely disliked globally, and even by some of our allies. But I don't feel as though I should hold that against him when I decide whom to cast my vote for; look what happened in Spain. The terrorists want to dictate who gets voted into elected offices.

I ask myself this question: Would the terrorists rather have Kerry or Bush in office? My conclusion is that they would want Kerry, who wants to pull our troops from Iraq and proposes a greater role for the UN in the Mid-east peace process. In the past 15 years, I think the UN has been a rather worthless, spineless organization.

Of course, if you believe Kerry's being in office would lead to a safer U.S., that's your opinion, and I won't try to change it. :) I'm just explaining why I feel Bush is the better man for fighting terrorism.

Kerry, or ANY president from 9/11 forward, would not be able to ignore the issue of terrorism, and would HAVE to work just as hard to prevent terrorism from reaching American soil again.
In these times, it's become a political and social necessity.

And, i have to add this... because it remains a sticking point for me... I still don't understand why it's believed that Bush has been so effective in regards to the War On Terror, when we STILL do not have the man who masterminded the attacks on American soil which claimed nearly three thousand lives, and when we STILL haven't dismantled the al-Qaeda.

All we've managed to do, is to send them deeper into hiding, while effectively helping them to recruit hundreds of thousands of others to their cause.

[Johnny Stew]

Do you honestly believe there wasn't anti-American sentiment in the Middle East before Bush came into office? Come on. The 9/11 attacks were already being planned before the 2000 election.

As I stated to Johnny, I am not basing my vote on Bush's international reputation. I really feel that the terrorists groups want Kerry in office. I know you don't agree and that's fine, but please don't act like I haven't thought about this. I have -- very long and hard.

To be honest with you, I feel like I'm reaching the point where I'm no longer even going to bother debating this topic any longer.

Bush is most likely going to win in November, because people... even some otherwise intelligent ones... have become convinced that he's the only one who can "save us."

So I think it's time for me to just stop caring. We'll have another four years (and with the extremely conservative Federal and Supreme Court judges that he continues to appoint, God knows how many more years beyond that) of his so-called "morals" and "values," and his agendas, and his ineptitude, and his sneering contempt for the American people.

We reap what we sew, so God help us all.

[GypsySorcerer]

I realize that, and I'm not saying that we should blame Bush for 9/11.
All I'm saying is that, we weren't (and still aren't) any safer with him in the White House.
If terrorists truly want to cause problems in this country, or any, they will find the ways and means to do so, no matter who's in the White House.

Which returns me to my point... we're no safer with Bush as President, no matter how much he and his administration are hoping & praying that we'll believe we are.

Kerry, or ANY president from 9/11 forward, would not be able to ignore the issue of terrorism, and would HAVE to work just as hard to prevent terrorism from reaching American soil again.
In these times, it's become a political and social necessity.

And, i have to add this... because it remains a sticking point for me... I still don't understand why it's believed that Bush has been so effective in regards to the War On Terror, when we STILL do not have the man who masterminded the attacks on American soil which claimed nearly three thousand lives, and when we STILL haven't dismantled the al-Qaeda.

All we've managed to do, is to send them deeper into hiding, while effectively helping them to recruit hundreds of thousands of others to their cause.

We have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11. DeeGeMe attributes that to luck, but I believe some of the credit has to go to President Bush, Tom Ridge, and the Homeland Security Department.

No, we have not caught OBL, but we have dismantled the Taliban and caught several high-ranking al-Qaeda members.

I agree that the terrorists will want to attack us no matter who is on office, but I think it would be easier for them under Kerry. JMO

[GypsySorcerer]

To be honest with you, I feel like I'm reaching the point where I'm no longer even going to bother debating this topic any longer.

Bush is most likely going to win in November, because people... even some otherwise intelligent ones... have become convinced that he's the only one who can "save us."

So I think it's time for me to just stop caring. We'll have another four years (and with the extremely conservative Federal and Supreme Court judges that he continues to appoint, God knows how many more years beyond that) of his so-called "morals" and "values," and his agendas, and his ineptitude, and his sneering contempt for the American people.

We reap what we sew, so God help us all.

Gosh, Johnny, I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean to.

[Merf]

GypsySorcerer,

The terrorists would much rather Bush be re-elected, because it will continue to fuel anti-American sentiment in the western world. This administration has single-handedly taken all the good will from other countries poured over us on 9/11 and crushed it with its iron fist.

Also, if, and that's a VERY big if, Bush is re-elected, he will stay in Iraq indefinitely, and plans to draft young Americans (up to the age 26), male and female, in and out of college, into the military to go fight this ungodly war.

If Kerry is elected, his first order of duty should (and more than likely will) be to get America out of Iraq. Completely. The terrorists don't want that. They want us to stay in Iraq so they can continue to kidnap and murder American civilians and soldiers, not to mention the countless Italians, Bulgarians, South Koreans, British, and Frenchmen that they have already murdered.

Please don't for a second think that the terrorists would rather have Kerry in office. Because that's not the case.

[Merf]

To be honest with you, I feel like I'm reaching the point where I'm no longer even going to bother debating this topic any longer.

Bush is most likely going to win in November, because people... even some otherwise intelligent ones... have become convinced that he's the only one who can "save us."

We reap what we sew, so God help us all.

Amen. :distress:

[GypsySorcerer]

GypsySorcerer,

The terrorists would much rather Bush be re-elected, because it will continue to fuel anti-American sentiment in the western world. This administration has single-handedly taken all the good will from other countries poured over us on 9/11 and crushed it with its iron fist.

Also, if, and that's a VERY big if, Bush is re-elected, he will stay in Iraq indefinitely, and plans to draft young Americans (up to the age 26), male and female, in and out of college, into the military to go fight this ungodly war.

If Kerry is elected, his first order of duty should (and more than likely will) be to get America out of Iraq. Completely. The terrorists don't want that. They want us to stay in Iraq so they can continue to kidnap and murder American civilians and soldiers, not to mention the countless Italians, Bulgarians, South Koreans, British, and Frenchmen that they have already murdered.

Please don't for a second think that the terrorists would rather have Kerry in office. Because that's not the case.

If Kerry is elected, I HOPE I have to eat my words about him. I certainly don't want another 9/11 attack on us.

That's all I'm going to say about the subject.

[DeeGeMe]

Do you honestly believe there wasn't anti-American sentiment in the Middle East before Bush came into office? Come on. The 9/11 attacks were already being planned before the 2000 election.

As I stated to Johnny, I am not basing my vote on Bush's international reputation. I really feel that the terrorists groups want Kerry in office. I know you don't agree and that's fine, but please don't act like I haven't thought about this. I have -- very long and hard.

No--I didn't say there wasn't any anti-American sentiment in the Mid-East before the invasion of Iraq and can't really understand how you could possibly get that from my post. What I said was that the actions of Bush had inflammed the Muslims beyond what they already were to begin with by invading Iraq.

The Bush administration has a "vision" of bringing "American-style" Democracy to the Mid-East. That's all fine and well but it wasn't okay with the Muslims who live in the Mid-East. It seems to me that Bush is far more concerned with what goes on in the Mid-East than he is in the United States.

The amount of money that is being spent on this war and to "rebuild" Iraq is mind-boggling. It is money that could have been better spent shoring up our national defenses. Remember-the terrorists are determined to strike us on our home soil. So why not increase our nation's defense instead of squandering resources in Iraq?

Remember also that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudia Arabia--not Iraq. So how does invading Iraq make us safer from terrorists attack--obviously Saudia Arabia is a breeding ground for terrorists but the U.S. doesn't have a problem with them. It also doesn't have a problem with the genocide that's going on in the Sudan. They have "bad" men in office there too--so what aren't we doing anything to stop the dictators there too? Could it be that there isn't any oil in the Suddan and Bush & his cronies can't make billions there like they are in Iraq?

Oh--and that Osama Bin Laden--where is he anyway? I thought we were going to hunt him down and "smoke him out". So why did Bush & Co. wait two months to invade Afghanistan and then only send a handful of troops to do so? That doesn't seem to me to indicate an administration which was determined to hunt down and capture terrorists--particuarly one they knew had masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Instead, this administration had already begun their plans to invade Iraq.

[gldstwmn]

I was provided a very lengthy article by a respected journalist chronicling how there was very strict protocol in place for when planes were noted flying off course, specifically for terrorist attacks. When the 9/11 Planes were noted off course, the (very harsh and supposedly automatic) security tactics were not enacted. By someone's direction. The protocol was if any plane was flying off course and did not respond, immediately some kind of other plane released to shoot it down. (yes, people and all) I'm a little fuzzy on the specifics at this time, but it seems clear that someone stopped that automatic response system....it was supposedly full proof. hmmnnn....
Amber

AMEN SISTER GIRL! Welcome to LIHOP/MIHOP.

To answer the original question, getting rid of the unelected fraud is my number one priority this election season. Without that, I fear our republic will meet it's demise.http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/happy/clock.gif

[chiliD]

The whole Iraqi fiasco is a personal vendetta by the Bush family against Saddam Hussein.

The terrorist attacks on the US ALSO stems from a personal vendetta of Osama Bin Laden against the Bush family in particular and the US in general BECAUSE of the Bush family. You have to remember that Daddy Bush was the head of the CIA under Nixon & Ford...then, even though was Vice President under Reagan, but IMEO, was actually pulling MOST of the strings for more than two terms...from about Reagan's second year in office when his Alzheimer's was starting to kick in, to ALL of Reagan's second term, and then four years of his own term. THAT's where this whole Middle East/"New World Order" started.

Then you get Dubya put in office by, what? Election fraud in the state governed by whom? His own damned brother. Gore had the popular votes...we're being governed by a rogue administration. We ALL should be VERY, VERY, VERY scared that Bush doesn't get in for another term. I think we'll learn to empathize with those folks in the Eastern bloc countries of the '50's & '60's. Facism needs to be stamped out...stamped out NOW.

And, for those of you who think Nader's an alternative...guess who's secretly financing Nader's campaign...Bush supporters. So, it is not just Democratic propaganda that "A Vote For Nader Is A Vote For Bush".

[gldstwmn]

Do you honestly believe there wasn't anti-American sentiment in the Middle East before Bush came into office? Come on. The 9/11 attacks were already being planned before the 2000 election.



Yes, but by whom? Do you know about Project for a New American Century and the current administration's major players role in it?

[Johnny Stew]

We have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11. DeeGeMe attributes that to luck, but I believe some of the credit has to go to President Bush, Tom Ridge, and the Homeland Security Department.

I know I just said that I think I'm going to quit debating/discussing this topic... but let me ask this:
How many times did foreign terrorists attack us on American soil before Bush became president?

Once: The bombing at the World Trade Center, in 1993.

(The involvement of foreign terrorists hasn't been proven or disproven in the bombing at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, in 1995, so for the sake of argument, I'm not going to include that as an example of terrorism from a foreign source.)

So... considering that terrorism from a foreign source and occurring on American soil, has always been extremely rare, is it really that impressive that we haven't had another terrorist attack since 9/11?

Food for thought.

[DeeGeMe]

Then you get Dubya put in office by, what? Election fraud in the state governed by whom? His own damned brother. Gore had the popular votes...we're being governed by a rogue administration.

And remember that Katherine Harris-the Fl.Secretary of State responsible for overseeing the election process in Florida also happened to be co-chair of the Bush 2000 campaign in Florida. Harris was also responsible for ordering that thousands of citizens be purged from the voter rolls because they "might" have criminal convictions which would make them ineligible to vote. The bottom line is that these folks were by and large African American and the only crimes that these people had committed was to have a name similar to others who had indeed lost their voting rights--oh--and that greatest crime of all-being more likely to vote Democratic. Botton line is that these voters were denied the right to vote and their vote WOULD have made the difference in Florida.

[Johnny Stew]

Gosh, Johnny, I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean to.

You didn't offend me, Krista, and I hope nothing I said sounded like a condemnation of you or your opinion.

Admittedly, I'm frustrated and exasperated by the notion that Bush is doing such an effective job in regards to protecting us, and that he's the only candidate who can... and I let that get the better of me.

[gldstwmn]

I know I just said that I think I'm going to quit debating/discussing this topic... but let me ask this:
How many times did foreign terrorists attack us on American soil before Bush became president?

Once: The bombing at the World Trade Center, in 1993.



And they were caught and convicted without invading a sovereign nation which had nothing to do with the attack.

[Sugar]

National security. If Kerry is elected, I really feel there will be a major attack on this country, and we cannot take another one. Sorry, but this is how I feel, and no, I have not been brainwashed by Fox News. :laugh:




I'm curious--if you haven't had enougn of this thread--there's been a lot of talk about a possible terrorist attack before the election. If that happens, would you change your mind?

[Tango]

How many times did foreign terrorists attack us on American soil before Bush became president?

Once: The bombing at the World Trade Center, in 1993.



Hawaii- Pearl Harbour, and those damned "redcoats" back in the day. :cool:

[Johnny Stew]

Hawaii- Pearl Harbour, and those damned "redcoats" back in the day. :cool:

:laugh:
True, true... but I was thinking more in terms of the last four or five decades, when most of us here were alive.

But, even at that, being able to say that it's only happened about three times in our entire history, is pretty impressive. :)

[gldstwmn]

Hawaii- Pearl Harbour, and those damned "redcoats" back in the day. :cool:

No, those were sovereign nations committing and declaring and act of war.

[Tango]

:laugh:
the last four or five decades, when most of us here were alive.

But, even at that, being able to say that it's only happened about three times in our entire history, is pretty impressive. :)

You know, Johnny, if you are four or five decades old, you're NEVAH gonna be able to pass for that innocent sacrificial child. ;)

About the relative "peace" on our native soil - I'd say we've enjoyed a peace that most of the world could only dream about. We've been blessed, and very much isolated. We've been self centered and self absorbed. No wonder they all hate us.

Let me add emphasis on "relative peace" on our native soil. I'm not forgetting the "civil war" and the on going civil rights battles that continue to this day. But even with that, we have enjoyed relative safety from outside our borders. Our horrors have been internal. With all we have, we never get it right, do we.

[GypsySorcerer]

I'm curious--if you haven't had enougn of this thread--there's been a lot of talk about a possible terrorist attack before the election. If that happens, would you change your mind?

Initially, I was planning on voting the Libertarian ticket, because I was disgusted with Bush for the reasons I mentioned in my first response to this thread. Then, I began to question that because I have been so concerned about our security; hence, the rest of this thread. ;)

If we had a terrorist attack before the election, I would be reminded as to what happened in Spain. Then again, it would show that the country is vulnerable under Bush post-9/11. So to answer your question...I don't know.

[dissention]

Any issue. Just wax the Bush at the root. He blunders everything, no matter the issue.

[dissention]

The US was attacked by terrorists under Clinton, too, but I don't hold him responsible for those attacks. I cannot blame Bush for not preventing 9/11, either.

That's cool because if Kerry is elected, you won't be able to blame him for an attack if there is one. :wavey:

You are right; Bush is intensely disliked globally, and even by some of our allies. But I don't feel as though I should hold that against him when I decide whom to cast my vote for; look what happened in Spain. The terrorists want to dictate who gets voted into elected offices.

Not hold it against him? It's that intense dislike that's fueling the terra'ists.

I ask myself this question: Would the terrorists rather have Kerry or Bush in office? My conclusion is that they would want Kerry, who wants to pull our troops from Iraq and proposes a greater role for the UN in the Mid-east peace process. In the past 15 years, I think the UN has been a rather worthless, spineless organization.

So, why would they want Kerry? You've yet to explain that.

Of course, if you believe Kerry's being in office would lead to a safer U.S., that's your opinion, and I won't try to change it. :) I'm just explaining why I feel Bush is the better man for fighting terrorism.

But you haven't. :laugh:

[dissention]

Do you honestly believe there wasn't anti-American sentiment in the Middle East before Bush came into office? Come on. The 9/11 attacks were already being planned before the 2000 election.

As I stated to Johnny, I am not basing my vote on Bush's international reputation. I really feel that the terrorists groups want Kerry in office. I know you don't agree and that's fine, but please don't act like I haven't thought about this. I have -- very long and hard.

Of course there was anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. But al-Qaeda didn't swell to 800,000 members and grow more powerful than ever until Dumbya illegally went to Iraq. :wavey:

[dissention]

I realize that, and I'm not saying that we should blame Bush for 9/11.

I am.

He was the only man in this country with the authority and power to order those planes shot down. He went into that classroom after the first plane hit and didn't get into his limo until one plane crashed in a field and another crashe dinto the Pentagon. The story him and Cheney concocted to cover-up their incompetence wasn't even believed by the 9/11 Commission. He could've prevented those planes from crashing into those buildings, but chose to read "My Pet Goat" upside down instead. Can we say PHOTO-OP?!

He received PDBs from May until August explicitly warning of a DEVASTATING attack in our country. If I recall correctly, the title of one brief was "Bin-Laden determined to strike inside US." But they were "shaking the trees" you say? And what came out of that, I ask? Nothing. They could've prevented the deaths of our brothers and sisters and they did nothing. They will never be forgiven for that and will burn in hell for it.

And wasn't it Condi Rice who told the 9/11 Commission that she had no idea that her job entailed being a national security advisor? Wasn't it Asscroft who told his staff that he didn't want to hear about any warnings of attacks?

This adminstration is to blame and they should rot for it.

[dissention]

No, we have not caught OBL, but we have dismantled the Taliban and caught several high-ranking al-Qaeda members.

I agree that the terrorists will want to attack us no matter who is on office, but I think it would be easier for them under Kerry. JMO

The Homeland Security Department that Bush opposed? That one? The one that says one thing, only to be contradicted by Asscroft three hours later? Yeah, they're real sources of competence. :rolleyes:

al-Qaeda has swelled to 800,000 members, MOST OF WHICH WERE RECRUITED IN IRAQ AFTER WE WENT IN.

What are you basing this "Kerry will get us attacked" on?

[dissention]

GypsySorcerer,

The terrorists would much rather Bush be re-elected, because it will continue to fuel anti-American sentiment in the western world. This administration has single-handedly taken all the good will from other countries poured over us on 9/11 and crushed it with its iron fist.

Also, if, and that's a VERY big if, Bush is re-elected, he will stay in Iraq indefinitely, and plans to draft young Americans (up to the age 26), male and female, in and out of college, into the military to go fight this ungodly war.

If Kerry is elected, his first order of duty should (and more than likely will) be to get America out of Iraq. Completely. The terrorists don't want that. They want us to stay in Iraq so they can continue to kidnap and murder American civilians and soldiers, not to mention the countless Italians, Bulgarians, South Koreans, British, and Frenchmen that they have already murdered.

Please don't for a second think that the terrorists would rather have Kerry in office. Because that's not the case.

You complete me, Merfy. :xoxo:

Let's rejoice and watch Melrose!

[dissention]

AMEN SISTER GIRL! Welcome to LIHOP/MIHOP.

To answer the original question, getting rid of the unelected fraud is my number one priority this election season. Without that, I fear our republic will meet it's demise.http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/happy/clock.gif

Yeah, welcome, Amber! :lol:

Although the member list of the LIHOP group is small, we are slowly growing. :laugh:

[sparky]

I am.

He was the only man in this country with the authority and power to order those planes shot down. He went into that classroom after the first plane hit and didn't get into his limo until one plane crashed in a field and another crashe dinto the Pentagon. The story him and Cheney concocted to cover-up their incompetence wasn't even believed by the 9/11 Commission. He could've prevented those planes from crashing into those buildings, but chose to read "My Pet Goat" upside down instead. Can we say PHOTO-OP?!

He received PDBs from May until August explicitly warning of a DEVASTATING attack in our country. If I recall correctly, the title of one brief was "Bin-Laden determined to strike inside US." But they were "shaking the trees" you say? And what came out of that, I ask? Nothing. They could've prevented the deaths of our brothers and sisters and they did nothing. They will never be forgiven for that and will burn in hell for it.

And wasn't it Condi Rice who told the 9/11 Commission that she had no idea that her job entailed being a national security advisor? Wasn't it Asscroft who told his staff that he didn't want to hear about any warnings of attacks?

This adminstration is to blame and they should rot for it.

Oh, My Dear Dissention, sometimes I just want to track your ass down and kiss you.

[GypsySorcerer]

That's cool because if Kerry is elected, you won't be able to blame him for an attack if there is one. :wavey:


I knew you'd suck me back into this thing. :laugh:

While I wouldn't necessarily "blame" Kerry or Bush if we were attacked again, we out to be more prepared than we were before 9/11.

I think we would be more vulnerable under Kerry because of his plans. I disagree with removing most of our troops from Iraq and I disagree with a larger role for the UN. IMO, if we leave Iraq, the terrorist cells will strengthen and expand in that area, while Iraq is trying to build a stable government. I think the UN is a spineless organization. (examples: Rwanda, their softie stance on Saddam in the late nineties.)

[dissention]

Oh, My Dear Dissention, sometimes I just want to track your ass down and kiss you.

Let me wipe it first, pal! :laugh:

[dissention]

I knew you'd suck me back into this thing. :laugh:

While I wouldn't necessarily "blame" Kerry or Bush if we were attacked again, we out to be more prepared than we were before 9/11.

Prepared? Iowa has gotten more federal anti-terror funds than New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Seattle. How will a city be prepared if the corn fields in Iowa are getting the most money? Has anyone bothered to update the Motorolla contracts in New York? No. They aren't prepared, all the money is going to Iraq, darling.

Next. :wavey:

[sparky]

Let me wipe it first, pal! :laugh:

Damn well better, or I'd have to hose you down.

:wavey:

[dissention]

http://tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=68&mode=&order=0&thold=0

"Homeland Security whistleblower Mary Schneider is naming names, revealing that former FBI Director Louis Freeh, Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller and numerous U.S. senators and congressmen knew before the September 11 attacks that U.S. immigration officials were bribed by an illegal Moroccan Muslim allegedly linked to Osama bin Laden’s half-brother. This according to Schneider, who was told about the illegal alien's ties to terrorism by outside informant Bonnie Sharrit."

:shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

[dissention]

Let's all just relax and enjoy some of Lynne Cheney's lesbian erotica from her 1981 opus "Sisters":

"The women who embraced in the wagon were Adam and Eve, crossing a dark cathedral stage. No, Eve and Eve, loving one another as they would not be able to once they ate of the fruit and knew themselves as they truly were. She felt curiously moved, curiously envious of them. She had never until this moment thought that Eden was a particularly attractive paradise, based on it was of naivete, but she saw that the women in the cart had a passionate, loving intimacy forever closed to her. How strong it made them. What comfort it gave."

"The young woman was heavily powdered, but quite attractive. A curvesome creature, rounded at breast and cheek. When she smiled, even her teeth seemed puffed and rounded like tiny ivory pillows."

:wavey:

[darklinensuit]

"The young woman was heavily powdered, but quite attractive. A curvesome creature, rounded at breast and cheek. When she smiled, even her teeth seemed puffed and rounded like tiny ivory pillows."

:wavey:

Why'd you stop? :mad:
And I assume "teeth" here is a euphemism for "breasts". :]

- Jake

[hayley]

Hawaii- Pearl Harbour, and those damned "redcoats" back in the day. :cool:

PSST... Pearl Harbor's generally not considered a "foreign attack on American soil" because in 1941, Hawaii was still a territory and a base location, it wasn't a state and technically "American soil" until the 1950s.

Screw all this arguing about the presidential elections! Think instead of the fact that my state may just have Senator MIKE DITKA soon... EEEEEK

[darklinensuit]

Screw all this arguing about the presidential elections! Think instead of the fact that my state may just have Senator MIKE DITKA soon... EEEEEK

That is scary.

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

Am I the only one who is really concerned about health care? I hate the fact that my insurance is linked to my job. If I quit or get fired, it should have no bearing on my insurance, IMO. And don't even get me started on the number of folks without insurance. It's ridiculous.

- Jake

[estranged4life]

Am I the only one who is really concerned about health care? I hate the fact that my insurance is linked to my job. If I quit or get fired, it should have no bearing on my insurance, IMO. And don't even get me started on the number of folks without insurance. It's ridiculous.

- Jake

feeling all to well. Insurance does help out when your total family medical bills are nearing the $450,000 mark (Deb's insurance has been at 100% since November 2003...We are only responsible for the out of pocket amount of around $2000.00)

Deb's insurance is also tied to her job (Helps being a nurse in a large hospital), Fortunately we havent had much problem with the insurance company paying the bills but I would hate to have seen what happened had her insurance not covered all the costs.

[darklinensuit]

feeling all to well. Insurance does help out when your total family medical bills are nearing the $450,000 mark (Deb's insurance has been at 100% since November 2003...We are only responsible for the out of pocket amount of around $2000.00)

Deb's insurance is also tied to her job (Helps being a nurse in a large hospital), Fortunately we havent had much problem with the insurance company paying the bills but I would hate to have seen what happened had her insurance not covered all the costs.

Exactly. And I had lunch last week with my old boss who retired last year due to M.S. She said she cannot imagine someone without advanced degrees completing all the paperwork that she has to handle regularly.

- Jake

[gldstwmn]

Yeah, welcome, Amber! :lol:

Although the member list of the LIHOP group is small, we are slowly growing. :laugh:

There are more of us than anyone realizes. ;)

[gldstwmn]

While I wouldn't necessarily "blame" Kerry or Bush if we were attacked again, we out to be more prepared than we were before 9/11.


Darling, the military stood down for the first several planes and shot the last one out of the sky. The guy that warned them this was going to happen ended up underneath the rubble of the WTC on his FIRST day of his new job as head of security. Too many coincidences. They knew. Bush needed a minor accident to help his approval ratings and to start the Iraq invasion (all a part of the PNAC doctrine). I don't think they anticipated the collapse of the buildings. They may also have been double crossed. I could be wrong.

[gldstwmn]

PSST... Pearl Harbor's generally not considered a "foreign attack on American soil" because in 1941, Hawaii was still a territory and a base location, it wasn't a state and technically "American soil" until the 1950s.

Screw all this arguing about the presidential elections! Think instead of the fact that my state may just have Senator MIKE DITKA soon... EEEEEK

Could he be any worse than Denny Hastert? Or Ryan? :lol: :lol: :lol: Also, any truth to the "fetus in a jar" story?
P.S. My understanding is he is not even registered to vote in Illinois.
Vote Obama!

[gldstwmn]

Am I the only one who is really concerned about health care? I hate the fact that my insurance is linked to my job. If I quit or get fired, it should have no bearing on my insurance, IMO. And don't even get me started on the number of folks without insurance. It's ridiculous.

- Jake

Bbbbut what about COBRA? You mean you can't afford $500 a month for health insurance on unemployment? :confused:

[Hawkeye]

Beyond that... gay rights (or, more importantly, the attempts by the Bush Administration to drum up support for anti-gay sentiments).

OK can I just say F**K gay rights. There I said it, but that's just sucha freaking minimal issue right now, it shouldn't relly matter. And the fact that the president cares more about that then terrorism and the economy combined is just wrong. So gay people like you Johnny, sorry, but just let the president do whatever he wants with gay rights and take a road trip to San Francisco or Masachusetts.

[gldstwmn]

OK can I just say F**K gay rights. There I said it, but that's just sucha freaking minimal issue right now, it shouldn't relly matter. And the fact that the president cares more about that then terrorism and the economy combined is just wrong. So gay people like you Johnny, sorry, but just let the president do whatever he wants with gay rights and take a road trip to San Francisco or Masachusetts.

Undoing civil rights is not, I repeat not, a minimal issue. It is the entire goal of these fascists. They're just dismantiling it one little bit at a time, hoping we don't notice. What do you think that little test balloon about postponing the elections was about the other day? Contingency plan? Where was the contingency plan on 9/11?

[darklinensuit]

OK can I just say F**K gay rights. There I said it, but that's just sucha freaking minimal issue right now, it shouldn't relly matter. And the fact that the president cares more about that then terrorism and the economy combined is just wrong. So gay people like you Johnny, sorry, but just let the president do whatever he wants with gay rights and take a road trip to San Francisco or Masachusetts.

I hear what you're saying, but even if the rights themselves were unimportant (which they are not), IMO the administration's rhetoric on the issue sends a message that some people are better than others. That's not what I want my government to be standing for, and it's not the statement I want even one more generation to hear.

- Jake

[Johnny Stew]

OK can I just say F**K gay rights. There I said it, but that's just sucha freaking minimal issue right now, it shouldn't relly matter. And the fact that the president cares more about that then terrorism and the economy combined is just wrong. So gay people like you Johnny, sorry, but just let the president do whatever he wants with gay rights and take a road trip to San Francisco or Masachusetts.

So basically you're saying, "just roll over and let him screw you"?

I suppose when it affects your life directly, it doesn't seem like a "minimal issue" at all.
My right to marry whom I love, and to receive the same health-care packages and tax benefits as heterosexual couples, is just as important to me as the War On Terrorism or the economy.

And if you don't think it's important... just talk to the homosexual partners of those who lost their lives on 9/11, who had to fight tooth and nail to be recognized, and to receive the same monetary compensation as their heterosexual counterparts.

Time and time again, we're told that we are second-class citizens... good enough to pay taxes and support the economy (and to lose our lives for our country, apparently), but not good enough to enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

But hey, what do I know... apparently I should just move to San Francisco and keep my mouth shut. :sorry:

[DeeGeMe]

Yeah, welcome, Amber! :lol:

Although the member list of the LIHOP group is small, we are slowly growing. :laugh:

Count me in as a member of the LIHOP/MIHOP group.

And if we're supposed to be so much safer with ShrubbCo in office why is it that they almost blasted the governor of Kentucky out of the sky during the Reagan Mini-Series last month? I'll try to make a long story short here, but basically, it goes like this: The pilot of the plane carrying the governor of Kentucky to DC for one of the many, many RR funeral services realized shortly after taking off that his transponder was not working correctly. He notified the FAA/Air Traffic Controllers in the Cincinatti area which had air traffic control over the plane. As they reached the DC air space, he then notified the DC region that he had a problem with the transponder, making the plane unidentifiable on radar. Okay--that's two FAA offices/air traffic control regions that had been notified. No one bothered to let NORAD know and they scrambled two aircraft and had already received the okay to SHOOT the governor's plane down. In fact, the Capitol building was evacuated, creating minor pandemonium on the streets of DC. In fact, they were in seconds of shooting this plane down! Imagine what would have happened had this plane been shot down over the streets of DC. Not only would Kentucky have been out of a governor--a lot of innocent people would have died.

My point is this--are we really safer than we were on 9/11? It is clear that air traffic controllers, the FAA, and our military wasted precious time (more LIHOP here) and could have possibly stopped at least one and possibly more planes from hitting their targets but because of their incompetence, ineptitude or simple complancency--that didn't happen. And not one person lost their job as a result of their inactions on 9/11. Not one. And the whole incident with Kentucky's government shows that the information sharing among agencies has not improved one iota since 9/11.

Furthermore, our subways and train systems are completely unprotected. I think we all saw what can happen when terrorists strike a train system as they did in Madrid earllier this year. Where are the additional funds at that would make our public transportation systems in this country safer? Why it's almost as if we're inviting them to come on back and see what they can do to us the next time. Hmmm.

[Jason T.]

This post reminds me of "Another Conservative Moment in Texas." It was a couple of weeks before we got out for the summer and my U.S. History teacher started talking about politics with us. She brought up the train bombing in Spain and how it got the Socialists elected by the public because they would withdraw troops or whatnot. Anyway, then she went so far as to say that if another attack was brought upon the U.S., then that would be the terrorists way of getting the person THEY wanted elected...Kerry. I sat there in confusion and shock as I heard a teacher of all people making this statement... :shrug:

How can people like her even think this debate is valid. I'm sorry, but since when did foreign terrorists have more say in our elections than African Americans in Florida??? :mad:

Even more astonishing. I guess this makes terrorists democrats? I thought they were religious maniacs like a certain other group of people in this country?...who could I be referring to? :p

Some people need to open their eyes and try to realize that fear is not anything to vote on -- the really sad part is almost eveyone in my class agreed with her... :(

And...that's all for this episode of "Another Conservative Moment in Texas."

You can go back to your regularly scheduled debate...

[Jason T.]

OK can I just say F**K gay rights. There I said it, but that's just sucha freaking minimal issue right now, it shouldn't relly matter. And the fact that the president cares more about that then terrorism and the economy combined is just wrong. So gay people like you Johnny, sorry, but just let the president do whatever he wants with gay rights and take a road trip to San Francisco or Masachusetts.

Whoa...that was not in good taste at all. In fact, that was almost as bad as a Toby Keith song. Seriously, no need to take your anger out on Brian here...

Bush seems to be "relly" passionate on this issue in case if you are not aware of it. He wants to reverse our progressive society and stain our constitution with his intolerance. I don't see how taking so much effort as to propose a constitutional amendment banning their God-given right to get married is a way of showing that he is more concerned about other issues. SO if you are going to minimize people's beliefs...at least have a reasonable argument to back it up.

Otherwise move to Texas or Nebraska and let us do or say whatever we want.

[Jason T.]

Shrub and intelligence go together like Lindsey Buckingham and gangster rap...No chance in hell of that!

Well, just shoot some of our dreams down, why don't you? :p

[CKFive]

The ouster of George Bush for the following reasons
1) A bungled national security effort. If they can’t even tell us OUR elections are secure than we are worse off than before 9/11 even with all the money they’ve spent.
2) Court appointments; it seems obvious that Bush’s main concern with regards to domestic policy is how to angle in, and generally shove down our throats his and Ashcroft’s personal sense of Christian morality. They have made it abundantly clear that they wish to manipulate the courts through appointments to achieve this.
3 To stop the outrageous deficit spending.
4 To attempt to rebuild foreign alliances that have lasted decades that Bush has managed to screw up in just a little over three years.

And I really don’t like him!!

[dissention]

OK can I just say F**K gay rights. There I said it, but that's just sucha freaking minimal issue right now, it shouldn't relly matter. And the fact that the president cares more about that then terrorism and the economy combined is just wrong. So gay people like you Johnny, sorry, but just let the president do whatever he wants with gay rights and take a road trip to San Francisco or Masachusetts.

I am shocked that you have the audacity to even possess that line of thinking. San Francisco is no longer issuing gay marraige licenses; they were stopped. Only residents of MA have the right to same-sex marriage. Instead of complicitly agreeing to throw away the rights of gays and lesbians, you should be doing your part to make sure they get every right afforded to them that we have. How narrow-minded and repulsive. It isn't just their rights that are ebing trampled on, it's yours and mine. Can we say Patriot Act?

[dissention]

So basically you're saying, "just roll over and let him screw you"?

I suppose when it affects your life directly, it doesn't seem like a "minimal issue" at all.
My right to marry whom I love, and to receive the same health-care packages and tax benefits as heterosexual couples, is just as important to me as the War On Terrorism or the economy.

And if you don't think it's important... just talk to the homosexual partners of those who lost their lives on 9/11, who had to fight tooth and nail to be recognized, and to receive the same monetary compensation as their heterosexual counterparts.

Time and time again, we're told that we are second-class citizens... good enough to pay taxes and support the economy (and to lose our lives for our country, apparently), but not good enough to enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

But hey, what do I know... apparently I should just move to San Francisco and keep my mouth shut. :sorry:

Bravo, Johnny.

No gay is a second-class citizen, they're just as equal as the rest of us. Unfortunately, the same government that hoarded Africans onto ships to stew in their urine and feces for months just so they could pick our cotton and sow the land want to brand scarlett letters across the chests of gays and tell them they aren't good enough to have equal rights.

It's sickening and an abomination to this country. But, I guess you have Lynne Cheney's piece de art of lesbian erotica known as "Sisters" to tide you over. I find it comforting that the wife of Oily Dick Cheney indulged her lesbian fantasies in such a public fashion.

Shall you ever decide to move to MA and get married, count on me to be right there throwing rice. :xoxo:

[CarneVaca]

But I don't feel as though I should hold that against him when I decide whom to cast my vote for; look what happened in Spain. The terrorists want to dictate who gets voted into elected offices.

This is one of those claims that drives me to distraction. It makes me positively furious.

With all due respect, how much do you really know about Spain? Your comment indicates that you've believed what you were fed by the neocon fascists who blame the election results on the terrorist attacks. Did the terrorist attacks influence the election? Without a doubt, but it isn't as simple as, "the terrorists attacked and the Spanish public ran scared." To suggest that is to show disrespect and ignorance toward a noble people.

Did you know that the very last polls before the election had the Socialists edging out the Popular Party, headed by then Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar?

Did you know that more than 90 percent of the Spanish public opposed Spain's involvement in the Iraq war yet Aznar sided with Bush and even contributed to disseminating the falsehoods about weapons of mass destruction? (Keep this in mind; it's an important point.)

Did you know that when the attack occur the sitting government insisted on blaming it on Basque separatists even after there was conclusive evidence the Basque separatists had nothing do with it?

Did you know that because of that the tide turned irrversibly against the party in power and gave the election to the Socialists who only a couple of terms earlier had been thrown out because of corruption?

Consider that for a moment: The Socialists get caught in corruption scandals and they get thrown out. The Popular Party a few years later lies to the public and the voters throw them out. Conclusion: Democracy is alive and well in Spain. When those in power violate the public trust, the public throws them out. When was the last time that happened in America?

Going back to the point about Aznar dragging an unwilling nation into an ill-conceived war: Did you know Spain was ruled by a ruthless dictator for many decades? Did you know that dictatorship ended less than 30 years ago? Thirty years. That means that more than half of the current population of Spain knows what it's like to live under a dictatorship. Is it any wonder then that when those in power violate the public trust they get thrown out expediently? In other words, Aznar played the role of a dictator by making the nation do what it did not want to do. The difference between this and the many years of Generalissimo Franco's dictatorship was that the people were able to get rid of the dictator.

So please, do me and everybody else a favor. Stop disseminating this fiction that the Spanish public caved to the terrorists. The Spanish public has been dealing with terrorism for many, many decades. It has never run scared from terrorists. Spain has a pretty good anti-terrorism apparatus, I daresay, better than ours.

Let's not project the American public's paralyzying, dumbing fear of terrorism to the good people of Spain, who have shown tremendous grit and stamina through many years of surviving terrorist attacks.

[cliffdweller]

Sorry to burst your bubble about Shrubbie but wouldn't we be much safer if the money we're currently spending in Iraq was actually used within the United States to strengthen our borders? If it was used to beef up the numbers of police & agents who could investigate terrorists on our soil? In fact there are approximately 85 billion ways that money could have been used within the United States to make us stronger.


The truth is that we are not any safer than we were on 9/11/01--we've just been extraordinarily lucky. In fact, I venture to say we are at a far greater danger now than we were because Bush has breed fervent anti-American sentiments amongst Muslims worldwide with his invasion of Iraq. And look at it another way--our military and national guard units have been stretched almost to their breaking point by the war in Iraq--meaning that not only are we without adequate defenses here in the U.S.--we're also much more vulnerable elsewhere in the World as too many of our military have been deployed to shore up the sagging reserves in Iraq. How this makes you feel safer is beyond me.

Oh--and the single most important issue to me in the upcoming election? Getting Bush out before he and his band of cronies can do any additional damage to this nation as they have already made a mockery of the US Constitution and have limited the rights of US Citizens more so than any other administration in history combined.


:nod: right on. Well said!

[Patti]

Ok, pardon my ignorance, but what is LIHOP/MIHOP? :confused:

[DeeGeMe]

Ok, pardon my ignorance, but what is LIHOP/MIHOP? :confused:

Re: Shrub and 9/11:

LIHOP=Let it Happen on Purpose

MIHOP=Made it Happen on Purpose

[Tango]

You mean there are folks on board that believe the president and his party, our military, etc knew September 11th was going to happen and let it happen "on purpose?, or somehow encouraged it to happen? I'm just trying to follow.

[GypsySorcerer]

This is one of those claims that drives me to distraction. It makes me positively furious.

With all due respect, how much do you really know about Spain? Your comment indicates that you've believed what you were fed by the neocon fascists who blame the election results on the terrorist attacks. Did the terrorist attacks influence the election? Without a doubt, but it isn't as simple as, "the terrorists attacked and the Spanish public ran scared." To suggest that is to show disrespect and ignorance toward a noble people.

Did you know that the very last polls before the election had the Socialists edging out the Popular Party, headed by then Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar?

Did you know that more than 90 percent of the Spanish public opposed Spain's involvement in the Iraq war yet Aznar sided with Bush and even contributed to disseminating the falsehoods about weapons of mass destruction? (Keep this in mind; it's an important point.)

Did you know that when the attack occur the sitting government insisted on blaming it on Basque separatists even after there was conclusive evidence the Basque separatists had nothing do with it?

Did you know that because of that the tide turned irrversibly against the party in power and gave the election to the Socialists who only a couple of terms earlier had been thrown out because of corruption?

Consider that for a moment: The Socialists get caught in corruption scandals and they get thrown out. The Popular Party a few years later lies to the public and the voters throw them out. Conclusion: Democracy is alive and well in Spain. When those in power violate the public trust, the public throws them out. When was the last time that happened in America?

Going back to the point about Aznar dragging an unwilling nation into an ill-conceived war: Did you know Spain was ruled by a ruthless dictator for many decades? Did you know that dictatorship ended less than 30 years ago? Thirty years. That means that more than half of the current population of Spain knows what it's like to live under a dictatorship. Is it any wonder then that when those in power violate the public trust they get thrown out expediently? In other words, Aznar played the role of a dictator by making the nation do what it did not want to do. The difference between this and the many years of Generalissimo Franco's dictatorship was that the people were able to get rid of the dictator.

So please, do me and everybody else a favor. Stop disseminating this fiction that the Spanish public caved to the terrorists. The Spanish public has been dealing with terrorism for many, many decades. It has never run scared from terrorists. Spain has a pretty good anti-terrorism apparatus, I daresay, better than ours.

Let's not project the American public's paralyzying, dumbing fear of terrorism to the good people of Spain, who have shown tremendous grit and stamina through many years of surviving terrorist attacks.

Well, Carne, your post is as condescending as what you claimed mine to be. You know nothing about my background, nor my education, nor what I do or do not assimilate. So please do not jump to conclusions that I am an imbecile being filled with right-wing propaganda and lies.

I could say a lot more, but I won't. Just stop belittling my opinion because it differs from yours. That's somewhat elitist of you, and we all know that liberals don't support that.

[dissention]

You mean there are folks on board that believe the president and his party, our military, etc knew September 11th was going to happen and let it happen "on purpose?, or somehow encouraged it to happen? I'm just trying to follow.

Absolutely. Just look at the evidence and all of the "coincidences."

Why did he go into that classroom AFTER the first plane hit? Why did he lie about actually seeing the first plane hit? Why didn't he order the planes shot down? Why did his administration do nothing after he got a PDB titled "bin-Laden determined to strike inside US"?

[Patti]

Re: Shrub and 9/11:

LIHOP=Let it Happen on Purpose

MIHOP=Made it Happen on Purpose

Thanks--that was driving me crazy trying to figure it out!

[dissention]

Thanks--that was driving me crazy trying to figure it out!

That's alright, the first time I heard it a couple years ago, I thought it was some sort of plastic surgery. :lol:

Now, more of that lesbian erotica "Sisters" by Lynne Cheney:

"Let us go away together, away from the anger and imperatives of men. We shall find ourselves a secluded power where they dare not venture. There will only be the two of us and we'll linger through long afternoons of sweet retirement. In the evenings, I shall read to you while you work your cross-stitch in the firelight. And then, we will go to bed, our bed, my dearest girl."

[CarneVaca]

Well, Carne, your post is as condescending as what you claimed mine to be. You know nothing about my background, nor my education, nor what I do or do not assimilate. So please do not jump to conclusions that I am an imbecile being filled with right-wing propaganda and lies.

I could say a lot more, but I won't. Just stop belittling my opinion because it differs from yours. That's somewhat elitist of you, and we all know that liberals don't support that.

I'm sorry if you found my post condescending. But consider this: I insulted one person, from what you tell me. You insulted a whole nation. I was merely trying to explain to you that the Spanish election is not easily dismissed as kowtowing to terrorists. You do a disservice to everyone to whom you repeat that fiction and you insult the good people of Spain.

[GypsySorcerer]

I'm sorry if you found my post condescending. But consider this: I insulted one person, from what you tell me. You insulted a whole nation. I was merely trying to explain to you that the Spanish election is not easily dismissed as kowtowing to terrorists. You do a disservice to everyone to whom you repeat that fiction and you insult the good people of Spain.

Actually, Carne, you insulted all people who hold the same opinion as I do, but I digress...

And I did not mean to imply the Spanish people were ignorant, nor did I mean to insult them. Yes, I know Spanish support for their involvement in Iraq was low. I personally feel that the terrorist attacks pushed many of them over the edge, and perhaps swayed some undecided voters. I know you disagree, so let's just leave it at that. However, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from trying to censor what I post. Everyone here is able to draw his or her own conclusions, so I don't see why a variety of opinions expressed are a negative thing to you.

[hayley]

Re: Shrub and 9/11:

LIHOP=Let it Happen on Purpose

MIHOP=Made it Happen on Purpose

Oh, and I'm proudly LIHOP/MIHOP myself, btw. It just doesn't make sense they way they'd like to have us believe it happened.

[CarneVaca]

Actually, Carne, you insulted all people who hold the same opinion as I do, but I digress...

No, I didn't. I insulted the fascist neocons who conjured it up.

And I did not mean to imply the Spanish people were ignorant, nor did I mean to insult them. Yes, I know Spanish support for their involvement in Iraq was low. I personally feel that the terrorist attacks pushed many of them over the edge, and perhaps swayed some undecided voters.

Look, with all due respect, I personally feel a lot of things too. They are either based on fact or they are based on supposition. If they are based on fact, I am going to feel pretty good about it; if they are based on supposition I am going to acknowledge that.

Fact: Spain's government dragged the nation into a war it did not want.
Fact: Terrorists attacked Spain.
Fact: Spain's government lied to the people about the attack.
Fact: The socialists had edged ahead of the Popular Party in the polls days before the election.
Fact: Spain's voters threw the government out.
Fact: Spanish people have endured far more, and far more frequent, attacks than Americans ever have.

From these facts, it is logical to conclude that the terrorists didn't scare the Spanish people into voting a certain way. This is a not a nation easily cowed by terrorists. This is a hugely significant point. A lot of Americans see Spain's election results and immediately conclude people were scared. But how many of these Americans have bothered to try to understand the history and psyche of the nation? How many of these Americans are actually aware that Spain has endured terrorist attacks for decades?

I am merely trying to open up your mind to the idea that your assumption was wrong. You can either be defensive about my approach or you can reexamine your position on this issue. You say you didn't mean to insult the people of Spain, but the fact is you did. So while you can personally feel that Spanish voters were cowed by the terrorists, I am merely suggesting you look into the situation further and that after understanding the facts you might personally feel something different. Or at least doubt your original position.

[markolas]

So basically you're saying, "just roll over and let him screw you"?

I suppose when it affects your life directly, it doesn't seem like a "minimal issue" at all.
My right to marry whom I love, and to receive the same health-care packages and tax benefits as heterosexual couples, is just as important to me as the War On Terrorism or the economy.

And if you don't think it's important... just talk to the homosexual partners of those who lost their lives on 9/11, who had to fight tooth and nail to be recognized, and to receive the same monetary compensation as their heterosexual counterparts.

Time and time again, we're told that we are second-class citizens... good enough to pay taxes and support the economy (and to lose our lives for our country, apparently), but not good enough to enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

But hey, what do I know... apparently I should just move to San Francisco and keep my mouth shut. :sorry:

Johnny, you're so much nicer than I am. I tried to post a response to Hawkeye that didn't involve telling him to go f**k himself, but I couldn't do it. ;)

[estranged4life]

Re: Shrub and 9/11:

LIHOP=Let it Happen on Purpose



meant (Do I) Love International House Of Pancakes...Which I don't :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tango]

Johnny, you're so much nicer than I am. I tried to post a response to Hawkeye that didn't involve telling him to go f**k himself, but I couldn't do it. ;)

That's why he's a "moderator" and you're not. :laugh:

[GypsySorcerer]

No, I didn't. I insulted the fascist neocons who conjured it up.

Look, with all due respect, I personally feel a lot of things too. They are either based on fact or they are based on supposition. If they are based on fact, I am going to feel pretty good about it; if they are based on supposition I am going to acknowledge that.

Fact: Spain's government dragged the nation into a war it did not want.
Fact: Terrorists attacked Spain.
Fact: Spain's government lied to the people about the attack.
Fact: The socialists had edged ahead of the Popular Party in the polls days before the election.
Fact: Spain's voters threw the government out.
Fact: Spanish people have endured far more, and far more frequent, attacks than Americans ever have.

From these facts, it is logical to conclude that the terrorists didn't scare the Spanish people into voting a certain way. This is a not a nation easily cowed by terrorists. This is a hugely significant point. A lot of Americans see Spain's election results and immediately conclude people were scared. But how many of these Americans have bothered to try to understand the history and psyche of the nation? How many of these Americans are actually aware that Spain has endured terrorist attacks for decades?

I am merely trying to open up your mind to the idea that your assumption was wrong. You can either be defensive about my approach or you can reexamine your position on this issue. You say you didn't mean to insult the people of Spain, but the fact is you did. So while you can personally feel that Spanish voters were cowed by the terrorists, I am merely suggesting you look into the situation further and that after understanding the facts you might personally feel something different. Or at least doubt your original position.

Carne, if you would like me to "open my mind," I suggest you try a different approach. Unless you are just picking on me personally, you must feel that those who agree with me also need their minds opened along with a course in Spanish history. That is insulting and condescending.

We are beating a dead horse here. There is no way to prove either of our positions, because we were not inside every Spanish voters' head when they cast their vote. I will not further comment on the Spanish election, and I'm about done with this thread too. Have a good day, Carne.

[amber]

Am I the only one who is really concerned about health care? I hate the fact that my insurance is linked to my job. If I quit or get fired, it should have no bearing on my insurance, IMO. And don't even get me started on the number of folks without insurance. It's ridiculous.

- Jake
No - would you like to buy one of my plastic bubbles to live in? That's what I do, and they're more convenient than you might think. They can cut down your doctor visits by at least 80%! I also don't use my teeth anymore, the wear and tear of eating, as we all know, leads straight to the dentist's pocket! for the past 6 mo. I've been extensively studying how to use herbs and spells to heal yourself - powdered chicken's feet are cheaper than you think! I'm also studying self-acupuncture. The bleeding and bruises are a bit messy, but i'm sure saving money! :woohoo:
Amber

[amber]

OK can I just say F**K gay rights. There I said it, but that's just sucha freaking minimal issue right now, it shouldn't relly matter. And the fact that the president cares more about that then terrorism and the economy combined is just wrong. So gay people like you Johnny, sorry, but just let the president do whatever he wants with gay rights and take a road trip to San Francisco or Masachusetts.
Hmmnnn, not to be rude, but to me that's like saying "F***k Hawkeye's rights, F***k Amber's rights, etc." The desire to fight terrorism, ie the loss of American human lives, to me is no different than fighting so that EVERYONE has the right to live without the threat of danger, or the loss of life. And, hello, gay people are also part of the economy...seriously, did you think about this before you posted?
Amber

[estranged4life]

I am concerned about National Security...I fear that the next terror attack will be the "be all end all" of ALL attacks (ie-Thermal Nuclear Weapons).

Without a country of free citizens (Or world for that matter) what good is an election?

Brian j.

[amber]

AMEN SISTER GIRL! Welcome to LIHOP/MIHOP.

To answer the original question, getting rid of the unelected fraud is my number one priority this election season. Without that, I fear our republic will meet it's demise.http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/happy/clock.gif
What does LIHOP/MIHOP stand for? Some sort of "I think there was a Bush administration conspiracy to get a war started because that's the only thing i will know how to handle as president and it will keep people's minds off my evil, disgusting domestic policy" thing?
Amber

[amber]

This post reminds me of "Another Conservative Moment in Texas." It was a couple of weeks before we got out for the summer and my U.S. History teacher started talking about politics with us. She brought up the train bombing in Spain and how it got the Socialists elected by the public because they would withdraw troops or whatnot. Anyway, then she went so far as to say that if another attack was brought upon the U.S., then that would be the terrorists way of getting the person THEY wanted elected...Kerry. I sat there in confusion and shock as I heard a teacher of all people making this statement... :shrug:

How can people like her even think this debate is valid. I'm sorry, but since when did foreign terrorists have more say in our elections than African Americans in Florida??? :mad:

Even more astonishing. I guess this makes terrorists democrats? I thought they were religious maniacs like a certain other group of people in this country?...who could I be referring to? :p

Some people need to open their eyes and try to realize that fear is not anything to vote on -- the really sad part is almost eveyone in my class agreed with her... :(

And...that's all for this episode of "Another Conservative Moment in Texas."

You can go back to your regularly scheduled debate...
ahhhhhhhhhh! run! run, dude! heh. Actually, my small white town in California was much the same, suprisingly.
Amber

[Tango]

What does LIHOP/MIHOP stand for? Some sort of "I think there was a Bush administration conspiracy to get a war started because that's the only thing i will know how to handle as president and it will keep people's minds off my evil, disgusting domestic policy" thing?
Amber

Amber, stop focusing on your job and pay attention to The Ledge. LOL! DeeGeeMe said:
Re: Shrub and 9/11:

LIHOP=Let it Happen on Purpose

MIHOP=Made it Happen on Purpose


Congrats on getting some security back at your job. I hope it lasts for you.

[amber]

Re: Shrub and 9/11:

LIHOP=Let it Happen on Purpose

MIHOP=Made it Happen on Purpose
oops, just saw this. Neverrrmiinnd. :)
Amber

[amber]

Amber, stop focusing on your job and pay attention to The Ledge. LOL! DeeGeeMe said:
Re: Shrub and 9/11:

LIHOP=Let it Happen on Purpose

MIHOP=Made it Happen on Purpose


Congrats on getting some security back at your job. I hope it lasts for you.
Spanks :xoxo: that's so sweet. Actually, don't worry, i wasn't paying attention to my job. I just don't have a computer at home, so usually from 4ish on (PST) i can't see what's up :distress: soon.....
Amber

[amber]

That's alright, the first time I heard it a couple years ago, I thought it was some sort of plastic surgery. :lol:

Now, more of that lesbian erotica "Sisters" by Lynne Cheney:

"Let us go away together, away from the anger and imperatives of men. We shall find ourselves a secluded power where they dare not venture. There will only be the two of us and we'll linger through long afternoons of sweet retirement. In the evenings, I shall read to you while you work your cross-stitch in the firelight. And then, we will go to bed, our bed, my dearest girl."
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Seriously - funniest sh*** ever! Thank you soooo much for having this, and segueing perfectly into it...
Amber

[CarneVaca]

Unless you are just picking on me personally, you must feel that those who agree with me also need their minds opened along with a course in Spanish history. That is insulting and condescending

You're right. Trying to deal with the facts and taking into account the history is insulting and condescending. Suggesting the people of Spain are a bunch of cowards for exercising their right to vote in a way you disagree with isn't. :rolleyes:

[darklinensuit]

meant (Do I) Love International House Of Pancakes...Which I don't :lol: :lol: :lol:

My mind went there too, but I do like the place, :)

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

No - would you like to buy one of my plastic bubbles to live in? That's what I do, and they're more convenient than you might think. They can cut down your doctor visits by at least 80%! I also don't use my teeth anymore, the wear and tear of eating, as we all know, leads straight to the dentist's pocket! for the past 6 mo. I've been extensively studying how to use herbs and spells to heal yourself - powdered chicken's feet are cheaper than you think! I'm also studying self-acupuncture. The bleeding and bruises are a bit messy, but i'm sure saving money! :woohoo:
Amber

Explains a lot. :shocked: ;)

- Jake

[GypsySorcerer]

You're right. Trying to deal with the facts and taking into account the history is insulting and condescending. Suggesting the people of Spain are a bunch of cowards for exercising their right to vote in a way you disagree with isn't. :rolleyes:

Carne, I said that the attacks may have influenced some people, and that those who were opposed to Spain's military involvement (most of Spain, as we both acknowledge) may have been pushed over the edge by the attacks. That's all I'm saying.

I do not have a problem with you disagreeing with me, even though your aproach is rather abrasive and harsh. What I have a problem with is your constantly trying to tell me I need to open my mind; implying I have no knowledge about Spanish and/or World History; and your suggestions for me to stop posting my views in these threads. I have never said such things to you. I am certainly not going to keep my mouth shut because you told me to.

[darklinensuit]

I am certainly not going to keep my mouth shut

And I hope you continue to share your opinions along with everyone else. The more opinions the better in this kind of thread. :wavey:

- Jake

[GypsySorcerer]

And I hope you continue to share your opinions along with everyone else. The more opinions the better in this kind of thread. :wavey:
- Jake

Thanks. :wavey:

[DeeGeMe]

You mean there are folks on board that believe the president and his party, our military, etc knew September 11th was going to happen and let it happen "on purpose?, or somehow encouraged it to happen? I'm just trying to follow.


Yes-you understand correctly. That's exactly what we think and we aren't alone in thinking it either. It's not without presidence after all, FDR let Pearl Harbor be attacked because he knew he would need a compelling reason to get the US involved in WWII. It worked. Also, think about where Bush was at in the polls prior to 9/11--right around where he's at again, in fact. Think about how high his approval ratings bounched after 9/11. Do I think that they thought it was going to be as bad as it ended up being--no. There's a lot of evidence available where people have done a lot of research on this topic. It's very scary stuff.
But think about it--if you're willing to steal an election and dismantle the constitution--would it bother you to allow your own country to be attacked--particuarly if you and your cronies would benefit from it? I doubt it. And that's why I'm in the LIHOP/MIHOP camp.

[CarneVaca]

Carne, I said that the attacks may have influenced some people, and that those who were opposed to Spain's military involvement (most of Spain, as we both acknowledge) may have been pushed over the edge by the attacks. That's all I'm saying.

Let me refresh your memory as to what I was reacting to in the first place:

But I don't feel as though I should hold that against him when I decide whom to cast my vote for; look what happened in Spain. The terrorists want to dictate who gets voted into elected offices.

Nowhere in that statement do you acknowledge any of the nuances and the complexity of the situation. You made a throwaway statement that indicated to me you were towing the fascist neocon line. You seem to be trying to backpedal from that. You should.

Also, right off the bat, I said this:

This is one of those claims that drives me to distraction. It makes me positively furious.

You want to insist on taking offense at my tone, I can't help that. It really isn't directed at you so much as it is directed at the idea and the people who concocted the idea, as I thought might be evident from the above statement.

Now as far as this:

I am certainly not going to keep my mouth shut because you told me to.

I challenge you to quote back to me where I said you should shut your mouth or any instances of my trying to "censor" you, which under the circumstances is an impossibility. The only people who can censor you are the owner and moderators of the site.

I've tried to reasonably explain to you why I brought up the points I did. I was hoping you would benefit from a little bit of the history of the situation so maybe you won't make the same throwaway comment in the future. You may choose to use it to your benefit, or you may choose to continue to take offense. Your choice. But you should know I wasn't trying to insult you.

[CarneVaca]

Yes-you understand correctly. That's exactly what we think and we aren't alone in thinking it either. It's not without presidence after all, FDR let Pearl Harbor be attacked because he knew he would need a compelling reason to get the US involved in WWII. It worked.

WHOA!! Utter and complete unproven nonsense! I can't believe some people still buy into this fiction. I've got two words for you on this: Prove it.

Now, Roosevelt did exaggerate, perhaps even lied, about German attacks on US ships in the North Atlantic. But the Pearl Harbor claim is contemptuous. He never intended to go to war with Japan, at least not until after the US fought against the Germans. Pearl Harbor put a serious crimp on his plans for the war. This is historical fact.

[dissention]

Yes-you understand correctly. That's exactly what we think and we aren't alone in thinking it either. It's not without presidence after all, FDR let Pearl Harbor be attacked because he knew he would need a compelling reason to get the US involved in WWII. It worked. Also, think about where Bush was at in the polls prior to 9/11--right around where he's at again, in fact. Think about how high his approval ratings bounched after 9/11. Do I think that they thought it was going to be as bad as it ended up being--no. There's a lot of evidence available where people have done a lot of research on this topic. It's very scary stuff.
But think about it--if you're willing to steal an election and dismantle the constitution--would it bother you to allow your own country to be attacked--particuarly if you and your cronies would benefit from it? I doubt it. And that's why I'm in the LIHOP/MIHOP camp.

I agree the the Bush camp LIHOP, but I've never seen any compelling evidence to suggest that Roosevelt let Pearl Harbor happen. I was going to write an article about it for the anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack awhile back, but couldn't find any convincing evidence. And I tried, doll. :xoxo:

[dissention]

Screw all this arguing about the presidential elections! Think instead of the fact that my state may just have Senator MIKE DITKA soon... EEEEEK

This Mike Ditka?

http://i5.ebayimg.com/03/i/01/aa/fd/96_1_b.JPG

Or this one?

http://illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=17620

NEWS FLASH: Ditka storms out of meeting

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

By The Leader-Chicago Bureau

CHICAGO -- This morning in downtown Chicago, former Bears coach Mike Ditka left a secret meeting with IL GOP decision makers, angered about the media being tipped off about the meeting.

Ditka was to meet with members of the IL GOP State Central Committee and to speak via conference call with national level Republicans as he considered whether or not to fill the vacancy left when former candidate for U.S. Senate Jack Ryan announced his intentions to withdraw on June 25.

As word of the meeting leaked out to the press, Ditka reportedly was angered when met by reporters, exited the meeting promptly and hopped into his black Escalade, and left, obviously upset.

Ditka met last night with U.S. Senator George Allen, who flew into town to discuss the possibility of the former tight end filling the Ryan vacancy. Allen heads the Republican Senate Committee and is the son of football coach George Allen, who Ditka played for at one time.

Ditka's willingness to take on the candidacy may be in doubt now...

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

[Hawkeye]

I'm sure the super fans from SNL will be loving this new develepment. DITKA for Congress, I always knew he could do it.

[darklinensuit]

This Mike Ditka?

http://i5.ebayimg.com/03/i/01/aa/fd/96_1_b.JPG

Or this one?

http://illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=17620

NEWS FLASH: Ditka storms out of meeting

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

By The Leader-Chicago Bureau

CHICAGO -- This morning in downtown Chicago, former Bears coach Mike Ditka left a secret meeting with IL GOP decision makers, angered about the media being tipped off about the meeting.

Ditka was to meet with members of the IL GOP State Central Committee and to speak via conference call with national level Republicans as he considered whether or not to fill the vacancy left when former candidate for U.S. Senate Jack Ryan announced his intentions to withdraw on June 25.

As word of the meeting leaked out to the press, Ditka reportedly was angered when met by reporters, exited the meeting promptly and hopped into his black Escalade, and left, obviously upset.

Ditka met last night with U.S. Senator George Allen, who flew into town to discuss the possibility of the former tight end filling the Ryan vacancy. Allen heads the Republican Senate Committee and is the son of football coach George Allen, who Ditka played for at one time.

Ditka's willingness to take on the candidacy may be in doubt now...

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

My cousin's '80s bat mitzvah reception was at his nightclub, with him & McMahon in attendance. I don't like that side of the family or any candidate who would spend time with them. ;) :sorry:

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

I'm sure the super fans from SNL will be loving this new develepment. DITKA for Congress, I always knew he could do it.

We've had such luck with celebrity politicians. Gopher, Ventura, Ahhnuld. Where have you gone, Gary Coleman, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you. :rolleyes:

- Jake

[amber]

We've had such luck with celebrity politicians. Gopher, Ventura, Ahhnuld. Where have you gone, Gary Coleman, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you. :rolleyes:

- Jake
:lol: :lol:
oh, the defacement of a great song... :laugh:

[estranged4life]

I'm sure the super fans from SNL will be loving this new develepment. DITKA for Congress, I always knew he could do it.

us diehard Cubs fans don't have to hear Ditka singing "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" again during the 7th inning stretch, Than more power to him...:lol:

(For the record, only Ozzy Osbourne version of "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" was worse than Ditka's version)

[GypsySorcerer]

This is where I got the impression you didn't want me to post my views:

So please, do me and everybody else a favor. Stop disseminating this fiction that the Spanish public caved to the terrorists.

As far as my initial post, I was responding to the question posed, which was: who would be better at fighting terrorism, Bush or Kerry? I mentioned the Spanish election to show how terrorist attacks have the potential of changing the outcomes of the elections. Perhaps I should have further explained my point at that time.

[DeeGeMe]

WHOA!! Utter and complete unproven nonsense! I can't believe some people still buy into this fiction. I've got two words for you on this: Prove it.

No--you prove to me that he didn't and I'll believe you--but until then--I'm telling you that there are serious questions about the way in which 9/11 played out.

And on the whole FDR thing--I had more than one teacher in high school teach us that and I had a couple of Poly Sci and History professors in college who said the same thing. It's not a period of history that I'm really familiar with but I know what I was taught in school. Then again, I went to a heavily Republican college! I don't think there was a single Democrat in the whole Poly Sci department!

[CarneVaca]

This is where I got the impression you didn't want me to post my views:

Don't confuse a rhetorical device with an attempt to censor.

[CarneVaca]

No--you prove to me that he didn't and I'll believe you--but until then--I'm telling you that there are serious questions about the way in which 9/11 played out.

I agree with you on Bush. A lot remains unexplained, which could simply be explained as abject incompetence. But my comment was strictly in relation to your FDR claim.

And on the whole FDR thing--I had more than one teacher in high school teach us that and I had a couple of Poly Sci and History professors in college who said the same thing. It's not a period of history that I'm really familiar with but I know what I was taught in school. Then again, I went to a heavily Republican college! I don't think there was a single Democrat in the whole Poly Sci department!

Your teachers were either sadly misinformed or they were knowingly passing on an unproven fiction. While this particular fiction has gained legs, even wings, over the decades, it remains unproven.

What is clear is that FDR was chomping at the bit to fight Germany. He knew it was inevitable. And keeping that in mind, the attack on Pearl Harbor, while it gave us an entry into the war, unquestionably put a crimp on his war plans.

[dissention]

And on the whole FDR thing--I had more than one teacher in high school teach us that and I had a couple of Poly Sci and History professors in college who said the same thing. It's not a period of history that I'm really familiar with but I know what I was taught in school. Then again, I went to a heavily Republican college! I don't think there was a single Democrat in the whole Poly Sci department!

You had some rather ****ty teachers, my dear. :laugh:

That's like a high school social science teacher teaching her class that Lyndon Johnson was behind JFK's murder. It's all hocus-pocus. :xoxo:

[Hawkeye]

OK I can't hold my question any longer, CarneVaca what Strike are you talking about :laugh: What is your signiture saying.

[gldstwmn]

Furthermore, our subways and train systems are completely unprotected. I think we all saw what can happen when terrorists strike a train system as they did in Madrid earllier this year. Where are the additional funds at that would make our public transportation systems in this country safer? Why it's almost as if we're inviting them to come on back and see what they can do to us the next time. Hmmm.

Three little words: Nuclear power plants. Okay-Nukular power plants. :lol:

[dissention]

Three little words: Nuclear power plants. Okay-Nukular power plants. :lol:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :wavey:

Is our children learning?

[gldstwmn]

You mean there are folks on board that believe the president and his party, our military, etc knew September 11th was going to happen and let it happen "on purpose?, or somehow encouraged it to happen? I'm just trying to follow.

Yes. :nod: :nod:

[gldstwmn]

What does LIHOP/MIHOP stand for? Some sort of "I think there was a Bush administration conspiracy to get a war started because that's the only thing i will know how to handle as president and it will keep people's minds off my evil, disgusting domestic policy" thing?

Amber

Yes. With 9/11 as the flash point.

[gldstwmn]

This Mike Ditka?

http://i5.ebayimg.com/03/i/01/aa/fd/96_1_b.JPG

Or this one?

http://illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=17620

NEWS FLASH: Ditka storms out of meeting

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

By The Leader-Chicago Bureau

CHICAGO -- This morning in downtown Chicago, former Bears coach Mike Ditka left a secret meeting with IL GOP decision makers, angered about the media being tipped off about the meeting.

Ditka was to meet with members of the IL GOP State Central Committee and to speak via conference call with national level Republicans as he considered whether or not to fill the vacancy left when former candidate for U.S. Senate Jack Ryan announced his intentions to withdraw on June 25.

As word of the meeting leaked out to the press, Ditka reportedly was angered when met by reporters, exited the meeting promptly and hopped into his black Escalade, and left, obviously upset.

Ditka met last night with U.S. Senator George Allen, who flew into town to discuss the possibility of the former tight end filling the Ryan vacancy. Allen heads the Republican Senate Committee and is the son of football coach George Allen, who Ditka played for at one time.

Ditka's willingness to take on the candidacy may be in doubt now...

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

I doubt he's going to give up the plush lifestyle of golf tournaments and being the spokesman for Levitra to go toil away in Congress. Then again...

[gldstwmn]

We've had such luck with celebrity politicians. Gopher, Ventura, Ahhnuld. Where have you gone, Gary Coleman, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you. :rolleyes:

- Jake

Don't forget the late Sonny Bono.

[dissention]

I doubt he's going to give up the plush lifestyle of golf tournaments and being the spokesman for Levitra to go toil away in Congress. Then again...

All the impotent men of that state will come out of the woodwork to vote.

[dissention]

This is ABSURD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Slim-Fast Sheds Whoopi Goldberg After Bush Riff

39 minutes ago Add Entertainment - Reuters to My Yahoo!

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Comedian Whoopi Goldberg (news) will no longer appear in ads for diet aid maker Slim-Fast following her lewd riff on President Bush (news - web sites)'s name at a fund-raiser last week, the company said on Wednesday.

Florida-based Slim-Fast said it was "disappointed" in Goldberg's remarks at last Thursday's $7.5 million star-studded fund-raiser at Radio City Music Hall in New York.

"Ads featuring Ms. Goldberg will no longer be on the air," Slim-Fast General Manager Terry Olson said in a statement, adding that the company regrets that Goldberg's remarks offended some customers.

Republicans have expressed outrage over the fund-raiser for presumptive Democratic nominee John F. Kerry and his vice presidential running mate, John Edwards (news - web sites), in which entertainers lined up to skewer the president.

The New York Post said of Goldberg's appearance at the event: "Waving a bottle of wine, she fired off a stream of vulgar sexual wordplays on Bush's name in a riff about female genitalia."

A spokesperson for Goldberg declined immediate comment.

Slim-Fast is a unit of Anglo-Dutch food-to-detergent group Unilever Plc

[dissention]

Is Karen Hughes really Patrick Swayze in drag?

http://www.musicforamerica.org/misc/images/karenhughes-20142.jpg

That is the question.

[amber]

Is Karen Hughes really Patrick Swayze in drag?

http://www.musicforamerica.org/misc/images/karenhughes-20142.jpg

That is the question.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
This would have been a great opportunity to follow with more of Cheney's scintillating tale of forbidden love... :wavey:
Amber

[dissention]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
This would have been a great opportunity to follow with more of Cheney's scintillating tale of forbidden love... :wavey:
Amber

You mean more of these?:

"How well her words describe our love—or the way it would be if we could remove all impediments, leave this place and join together. Then our union would be complete. Our lives would flow together, twin streams merging into a single river."

"Being ruggedly masculine myself, I was touched to see that my mother does in fact understand the latent burning desires in every woman to discard phallic worship and enjoy the tenderness that only another woman can offer."

:wavey:

[amber]

You mean more of these?:

"How well her words describe our love—or the way it would be if we could remove all impediments, leave this place and join together. Then our union would be complete. Our lives would flow together, twin streams merging into a single river."

"Being ruggedly masculine myself, I was touched to see that my mother does in fact understand the latent burning desires in every woman to discard phallic worship and enjoy the tenderness that only another woman can offer."

:wavey:
spanks! :laugh:

[DeeGeMe]

You had some rather ****ty teachers, my dear. :laugh:

That's like a high school social science teacher teaching her class that Lyndon Johnson was behind JFK's murder. It's all hocus-pocus. :xoxo:

Hey--I went to school in South Carolina--where the state slogan is "Thank God for Mississippi" because they keep us from being dead last in every social, economic, and educational indicator that there is!


And Goldie--about the whole nuclear power plants thing--well, I guess I'm screwed as I live about 40-45 miles away from one! Then again, I live in SC and it's a Bush state so maybe he'll go hit one of the battleground states instead.

[dissention]

Hell, here's another:

""How well her words describe our love - or the way it would be if we could remove all impediments, leave this place, and join together ... Then our union would be complete. Our lives would flow together, twin streams merging into a single river."

I insist you guys track down a copy, it's hysterical. And the cover makes me choke with laughter. It has rape scenes, condom use (!!!), orgies, prostitution, everything one could ask for.

[dissention]

Hey--I went to school in South Carolina--where the state slogan is "Thank God for Mississippi" because they keep us from being dead last in every social, economic, and educational indicator that there is!

Poor thing! :shrug:

I'll bet you were forced to read "Sisters" in English class, too. :distress:

[DeeGeMe]

Poor thing! :shrug:

I'll bet you were forced to read "Sisters" in English class, too. :distress:

No--but I did have to read Gone With the Wind!

[Johnny Stew]

This is ABSURD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Slim-Fast Sheds Whoopi Goldberg After Bush Riff

Comedian Whoopi Goldberg will no longer appear in ads for diet aid maker Slim-Fast following her lewd riff on President Bush's name at a fund-raiser last week, the company said on Wednesday.

Florida-based Slim-Fast said it was "disappointed" in Goldberg's remarks at last Thursday's $7.5 million star-studded fund-raiser at Radio City Music Hall in New York.

"Ads featuring Ms. Goldberg will no longer be on the air," Slim-Fast General Manager Terry Olson said in a statement, adding that the company regrets that Goldberg's remarks offended some customers.

Well, I can understand Slim-Fast's surprise and disappointment... after all, this IS the very first time Whoopi has ever said or done something off-color in the course of her career.
:rolleyes:

I'm tellin' ya, it's a sad state of affairs when even well-established companies such as Slim-Fast, are frightened of the Republicans.
Maybe the charges of Nazi-like behaviour aren't so preposterous after all.

[gldstwmn]

Is Karen Hughes really Patrick Swayze in drag?

http://www.musicforamerica.org/misc/images/karenhughes-20142.jpg

That is the question.

Bwaaah! I saw that on DU and almost posted it. :laugh:
BTW, I was shocked to learn Hughes is married with children.

[gldstwmn]

And Goldie--about the whole nuclear power plants thing--well, I guess I'm screwed as I live about 40-45 miles away from one! Then again, I live in SC and it's a Bush state so maybe he'll go hit one of the battleground states instead.

Yep. Blue states first.

[darklinensuit]

Don't forget the late Sonny Bono.

I didn't, but if I remember he, Clint, & Reagan were rather popular while in office. (Just not with Cher, I guess.)

- Jake

[dissention]

Bwaaah! I saw that on DU and almost posted it. :laugh:
BTW, I was shocked to learn Hughes is married with children.

You couldn't have been more shocked than I was when I read Lynne Cheney's lesbian erotica for the first time. :xoxo:

Did you see the NO CARB diet, too?

No Cheney
No Asscroft
No Rumsfeld
No Bush

And definitely no Rice!

[dissention]

Holy ****. I love my state! First gay marriage, now this:

http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1110_AP_Online_Regional___National__US_/ce7a9f55-5805-4536-bd17-6066226ca3cc.html

BOSTON - Lawmakers on Wednesday took a step toward making Massachusetts the first state to make comprehensive and affordable health care a constitutionally protected right.

The proposed amendment to the state's constitution was approved during a joint session of the House and Senate. If approved a second time during the 2005-2006 legislative session, the question will go before voters in 2006.

The amendment states that "it shall be the obligation and duty of the Legislature and executive officials ... to enact and implement such laws as will ensure that no Massachusetts resident lack comprehensive, affordable and equitably financed health insurance coverage for all medically necessary preventive, acute and chronic health care and mental health care services, prescription drugs and devices."

"We're trying to provide justice in health care so that every single citizen has a health care plan," said Sen. Steven Tolman, D-Boston.

The proposed amendment was initiated when more than 70,000 registered voters signed a petition. As a result, only 51 of the 200 state representatives and senators need support the proposal for it to go before voters.

The vote Wednesday was overwhelming, with lawmakers approving it 153-41.

Supporters argue that the cost of providing universal coverage through a variety of public and private means could be made up by eliminating billions of dollars in unnecessary costs currently built into the state's health care system.

The National Federation for Independent Business said the price tag of providing health care to all citizens would be immense.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[darklinensuit]

Holy ****. I love my state! First gay marriage, now this:

http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1110_AP_Online_Regional___National__US_/ce7a9f55-5805-4536-bd17-6066226ca3cc.html

BOSTON - Lawmakers on Wednesday took a step toward making Massachusetts the first state to make comprehensive and affordable health care a constitutionally protected right.

The proposed amendment to the state's constitution was approved during a joint session of the House and Senate. If approved a second time during the 2005-2006 legislative session, the question will go before voters in 2006.

The amendment states that "it shall be the obligation and duty of the Legislature and executive officials ... to enact and implement such laws as will ensure that no Massachusetts resident lack comprehensive, affordable and equitably financed health insurance coverage for all medically necessary preventive, acute and chronic health care and mental health care services, prescription drugs and devices."

"We're trying to provide justice in health care so that every single citizen has a health care plan," said Sen. Steven Tolman, D-Boston.

The proposed amendment was initiated when more than 70,000 registered voters signed a petition. As a result, only 51 of the 200 state representatives and senators need support the proposal for it to go before voters.

The vote Wednesday was overwhelming, with lawmakers approving it 153-41.

Supporters argue that the cost of providing universal coverage through a variety of public and private means could be made up by eliminating billions of dollars in unnecessary costs currently built into the state's health care system.

The National Federation for Independent Business said the price tag of providing health care to all citizens would be immense.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Wow. Get rid of the snow & build better roads & I'm moving up there. :thumbsup:

- Jake

[Johnny Stew]

And Goldie--about the whole nuclear power plants thing--well, I guess I'm screwed as I live about 40-45 miles away from one! Then again, I live in SC and it's a Bush state so maybe he'll go hit one of the battleground states instead.

Battleground states, eh? Well, I'd like to say my farewells now then. :laugh:

I live three minutes from a nuclear power plant. Literally.
I could walk over there now, and then come back to finish this post.

Well, ok, I'm not going to, because that would involve getting up off my chair. But you get my point. :o :laugh:

[Jason T.]

This is ABSURD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Slim-Fast Sheds Whoopi Goldberg After Bush Riff

39 minutes ago Add Entertainment - Reuters to My Yahoo!

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Comedian Whoopi Goldberg (news) will no longer appear in ads for diet aid maker Slim-Fast following her lewd riff on President Bush (news - web sites)'s name at a fund-raiser last week, the company said on Wednesday.

Florida-based Slim-Fast said it was "disappointed" in Goldberg's remarks at last Thursday's $7.5 million star-studded fund-raiser at Radio City Music Hall in New York.

"Ads featuring Ms. Goldberg will no longer be on the air," Slim-Fast General Manager Terry Olson said in a statement, adding that the company regrets that Goldberg's remarks offended some customers.

Republicans have expressed outrage over the fund-raiser for presumptive Democratic nominee John F. Kerry and his vice presidential running mate, John Edwards (news - web sites), in which entertainers lined up to skewer the president.

The New York Post said of Goldberg's appearance at the event: "Waving a bottle of wine, she fired off a stream of vulgar sexual wordplays on Bush's name in a riff about female genitalia."

A spokesperson for Goldberg declined immediate comment.

Slim-Fast is a unit of Anglo-Dutch food-to-detergent group Unilever Plc

My God, when they start attacking Whoopi they've done gone TOO far! This whole fear of Republicans needs to stop. The poor Dixie Chicks had to suffer and now they're trying to go after the most awesome person on the planet. It's just all sick and wrong. :distress:

[gldstwmn]

Battleground states, eh? Well, I'd like to say my farewells now then. :laugh:

I live three minutes from a nuclear power plant. Literally.
I could walk over there now, and then come back to finish this post.

Well, ok, I'm not going to, because that would involve getting up off my chair. But you get my point. :o :laugh:

I'm praying for you Johnny. :angel: :laugh:

[Jason T.]

Holy ****. I love my state! First gay marriage, now this:

http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1110_AP_Online_Regional___National__US_/ce7a9f55-5805-4536-bd17-6066226ca3cc.html

BOSTON - Lawmakers on Wednesday took a step toward making Massachusetts the first state to make comprehensive and affordable health care a constitutionally protected right.

The proposed amendment to the state's constitution was approved during a joint session of the House and Senate. If approved a second time during the 2005-2006 legislative session, the question will go before voters in 2006.

The amendment states that "it shall be the obligation and duty of the Legislature and executive officials ... to enact and implement such laws as will ensure that no Massachusetts resident lack comprehensive, affordable and equitably financed health insurance coverage for all medically necessary preventive, acute and chronic health care and mental health care services, prescription drugs and devices."

"We're trying to provide justice in health care so that every single citizen has a health care plan," said Sen. Steven Tolman, D-Boston.

The proposed amendment was initiated when more than 70,000 registered voters signed a petition. As a result, only 51 of the 200 state representatives and senators need support the proposal for it to go before voters.

The vote Wednesday was overwhelming, with lawmakers approving it 153-41.

Supporters argue that the cost of providing universal coverage through a variety of public and private means could be made up by eliminating billions of dollars in unnecessary costs currently built into the state's health care system.

The National Federation for Independent Business said the price tag of providing health care to all citizens would be immense.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

That's so awesome! MA is so great. I guess that's what happens when you get a bunch of liberals together. :thumbsup:

[gldstwmn]

My God, when they start attacking Whoopi they've done gone TOO far! This whole fear of Republicans needs to stop. The poor Dixie Chicks had to suffer and now they're trying to go after the most awesome person on the planet. It's just all sick and wrong. :distress:

Kerry's response:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/07/14/slimfast.whoopi/index.html

Other entertainers also made disparaging remarks about Bush at the event, but what has Republicans particularly critical of Kerry were his closing remarks in which he thanked them and said they "conveyed the heart and soul of our country."

That prompted the Bush-Cheney campaign to demand that the Kerry-Edwards campaign release video or film footage of the event, saying Americans deserved to decide for themselves about it.

In response, the Kerry campaign said it would not release the footage unless the Bush campaign released a raft of documents "relating to Bush's performance in office" -- including records of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, among others.

[Jason T.]

That prompted the Bush-Cheney campaign to demand that the Kerry-Edwards campaign release video or film footage of the event, saying Americans deserved to decide for themselves about it.

In response, the Kerry campaign said it would not release the footage unless the Bush campaign released a raft of documents "relating to Bush's performance in office" -- including records of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, among others.

I think that was the right thing to do. Considering the Bush-Cheney campaign wanted so badly for their base to see something that they already know: they don't like Whoopi Goldberg one bit. I guess we should just let Edwards start saying f**k and whatnot which is obviously perfectly fine with those idiots. :p

[darklinensuit]

Is Karen Hughes really Patrick Swayze in drag?

http://www.musicforamerica.org/misc/images/karenhughes-20142.jpg

That is the question.

No offense intended (really), but let's be careful throwing stones. Teresa Heinz is no pageant winner herself, no matter how great her personality may be. :shocked:

- Jake

[dissention]

No offense intended (really), but let's be careful throwing stones. Teresa Heinz is no pageant winner herself, no matter how great her personality may be. :shocked:

- Jake

Hmm. I think Teresa Heinz is actually pretty. She looks fantastic, IMO, especially for a woman in her sixties. I've seen pictures of her from back in the day and she was a good-looking woman.

To compare her looks with Karen Hughes is to compare Laurel and Hardy's body weight. :wavey:

[dissention]

My God, when they start attacking Whoopi they've done gone TOO far! This whole fear of Republicans needs to stop. The poor Dixie Chicks had to suffer and now they're trying to go after the most awesome person on the planet. It's just all sick and wrong. :distress:

It is sick, especially considering that the parent company of Slime Fast is right up there with KFC when it comes to animal abuse and animal testing. Whoopi certianly wasn't hurting for the bucks, but she already got paid so she's the one laughing all the way to the bank. And just think: ever since she started doing those commercials, sales of Slime Fast products shot up 96%. :eek:

[gldstwmn]

No offense intended (really), but let's be careful throwing stones. Teresa Heinz is no pageant winner herself, no matter how great her personality may be. :shocked:

- Jake

I think Teresa is an attractive woman. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[gldstwmn]

It is sick, especially considering that the parent company of Slime Fast is right up there with KFC when it comes to animal abuse and animal testing. Whoopi certianly wasn't hurting for the bucks, but she already got paid so she's the one laughing all the way to the bank. And just think: ever since she started doing those commercials, sales of Slime Fast products shot up 96%. :eek:

What the hell is in Slim Fast anyway? I'd never touch that stuff.

[Tango]

Hmm. I think Teresa Heinz is actually pretty. She looks fantastic, IMO, especially for a woman in her sixties. I've seen pictures of her from back in the day and she was a good-looking woman.

To compare her looks with Karen Hughes is to compare Laurel and Hardy's body weight. :wavey:

I think it's sort of cheap to judge these people by their appearance anyhow. Besides, Teresa's been married by both a Republican and a Democrat.

[dissention]

What the hell is in Slim Fast anyway? I'd never touch that stuff.

It's brimming with sugar and fructose. Not the ideal thing to drink or eat when you want to lose weight. Instead of wasting their money on that slime, they should go out and but the South Beach Diet book. I started it to improve my cardiovascular health and ended up losing lots of weight. I didn't need to lose it to begin with, so I looked skeletal. :laugh: For an indication of how good that diet works, ponder this: the month that I started the diet, my cholesterol was 215. One month after starting it, I was down to 156. :shocked:

[dissention]

I think it's sort of cheap to judge these people by their appearance anyhow. Besides, Teresa's been married by both a Republican and a Democrat.

Yeah, because we all know that no one ever judges people by their appearance. :rolleyes:

I don't have to judge Karen Hughes by her looks, one look at what her actions and words are takes care of it. This is the woman who called pro-choice women "terrorists." She's an ass.

As for Teresa, go look up her late husbands voting record. He was a moderate, not a hardcore neocon like the ones today. And she's denounced the Republican party ever since the neocons attacked Max Cleland. ;)

[dissention]

I think Teresa is an attractive woman. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

:nod: And that accent of hers. Ohmigaw. I find it incredibly sexy. :laugh:

[Tango]

Yeah, because we all know that no one ever judges people by their appearance. :rolleyes:

I don't have to judge Karen Hughes by her looks, one look at what her actions and words are takes care of it. This is the woman who called pro-choice women "terrorists." She's an ass.

As for Teresa, go look up her late husbands voting record. He was a moderate, not a hardcore neocon like the ones today. And she's denounced the Republican party ever since the neocons attacked Max Cleland. ;)

I don't have to look up John Heinz's record. I knew him. He was a very decent man.

[dissention]

I don't have to look up John Heinz's record. I knew him. He was a very decent man.

He seemed to be a good man, unlike the Republicans of today.

But I still don't see what your point was about Teresa being married to a Republican and a Democrat. :shrug:

[amber]

Holy ****. I love my state! First gay marriage, now this:

http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1110_AP_Online_Regional___National__US_/ce7a9f55-5805-4536-bd17-6066226ca3cc.html

BOSTON - Lawmakers on Wednesday took a step toward making Massachusetts the first state to make comprehensive and affordable health care a constitutionally protected right.

The proposed amendment to the state's constitution was approved during a joint session of the House and Senate. If approved a second time during the 2005-2006 legislative session, the question will go before voters in 2006.

The amendment states that "it shall be the obligation and duty of the Legislature and executive officials ... to enact and implement such laws as will ensure that no Massachusetts resident lack comprehensive, affordable and equitably financed health insurance coverage for all medically necessary preventive, acute and chronic health care and mental health care services, prescription drugs and devices."

"We're trying to provide justice in health care so that every single citizen has a health care plan," said Sen. Steven Tolman, D-Boston.

The proposed amendment was initiated when more than 70,000 registered voters signed a petition. As a result, only 51 of the 200 state representatives and senators need support the proposal for it to go before voters.

The vote Wednesday was overwhelming, with lawmakers approving it 153-41.

Supporters argue that the cost of providing universal coverage through a variety of public and private means could be made up by eliminating billions of dollars in unnecessary costs currently built into the state's health care system.

The National Federation for Independent Business said the price tag of providing health care to all citizens would be immense.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Wow, that is a great state. But i've heard it's kind of prejudice, or sort of, uh...voluntarily racially segregated and racially tense. Is that trueish or not so true? I don't know, I've just heard things, that is why i wanted to ask someone who lived there.
Amber

[dissention]

Wow, that is a great state. But i've heard it's kind of prejudice, or sort of, uh...voluntarily racially segregated and racially tense. Is that trueish or not so true? I don't know, I've just heard things, that is why i wanted to ask someone who lived there.
Amber

No, it's not like that all. MA is probably the most liberal state in the union, there's no racism or prejudice; you have to go to Connecticut for that. :lol: At least, I've never come across any and I've lived here almost my whole life. My family was originally from New Yawk, but my grandparents moved to MA when they got married and my mother and father were born here. Then the whole family moved to France for a year, but we moved back when I was less than a year old. It used to be that a lot of the developments and low-income housing was inhabited by hispanics and blacks, but it hasn't been like that for years and years. It's a great state, with the exception of Romney and the endless taxing.

[amber]

No, it's not like that all. MA is probably the most liberal state in the union, there's no racism or prejudice; you have to go to Connecticut for that. :lol: At least, I've never come across any and I've lived here almost my whole life. My family was originally from New Yawk, but my grandparents moved to MA when they got married and my mother and father were born here. Then the whole family moved to France for a year, but we moved back when I was less than a year old. It used to be that a lot of the developments and low-income housing was inhabited by hispanics and blacks, but it hasn't been like that for years and years. It's a great state, with the exception of Romney and the endless taxing.
Really? I swear i've just heard sooooo many stories of Boston being "like that" hmmmmnnnn. But then again, my friends from Virginia say that, while everyone is much more polite there(east coast)to each other, that racism is much stronger, but that it is understood, as in, "black people know their place" or something. (not my words). I'm sure Virginia is different, but i've heard tales like this from other people. And they say the chocolate people on the east coast, or anywhere else, are not as culturally in your face, or whatever, like they are here (again, not my words, and i think they were talking about Oakland specifically, and CA in general). Anyway, I'm just curious about these things, and I guess different people can have veeeerrrry different perspectives - and i like to get a lot of them! Thanks, and glad to hear your state is so spiffy! too bad about the weather... :laugh: as in, you have some... :laugh:
Amber

[dissention]

Really? I swear i've just heard sooooo many stories of Boston being "like that" hmmmmnnnn. But then again, my friends from Virginia say that, while everyone is much more polite there(east coast)to each other, that racism is much stronger, but that it is understood, as in, "black people know their place" or something. (not my words). I'm sure Virginia is different, but i've heard tales like this from other people. And they say the chocolate people on the east coast, or anywhere else, are not as culturally in your face, or whatever, like they are here (again, not my words, and i think they were talking about Oakland specifically, and CA in general). Anyway, I'm just curious about these things, and I guess different people can have veeeerrrry different perspectives - and i like to get a lot of them! Thanks, and glad to hear your state is so spiffy! too bad about the weather... :laugh: as in, you have some... :laugh:
Amber

Your friends are blowing smoke up your ass, doll. ;) :laugh:

To say that the African Americans in MA don't express their culture is absurd. There's a black newspaper on my freakin' street and three local radio stations devoted to black culture. :laugh: :xoxo:

Maybe they're getting confused by the fact that unlike in Virginia, blacks in MA are treated just as equally.

[estranged4life]

shown on KOCO yesterday, 16% of Oklahomans are for Gay Marriage, 34% Are for Civil Unions & against Gay Marriage & 50% are against Civil Marriage & Gay Marriage...Not surprising coming from a so-called Blue but yet "Democratic" dominated state.

So if this issue ends up on the OK November ballot as predicted (The Democratic governor wants this to be a vote of the people instead of letting the Federal government decide.), It will fail.

I never understood why with the amount of registered Demos in OK the last Demo to carry this state was Kennedy in '60. Predictions (As of now) for Nov. will be Kerry will suffer the most lop-sided Democratic loss to a Republican since Al "You name it...I created it" Gore lost in 2000.

As for Whoopi, Never been a fan...Just found her annoying more than humorous, Same goes for Billy "I cant kiss the NY Yankees ass any faster" Crystal (I do like Robin Williams though...Truly genius!)

[dissention]

shown on KOCO yesterday, 16% of Oklahomans are for Gay Marriage, 34% Are for Civil Unions & against Gay Marriage & 50% are against Civil Marriage & Gay Marriage...Not surprising coming from a so-called Blue but yet "Democratic" dominated state.

So if this issue ends up on the OK November ballot as predicted (The Democratic governor wants this to be a vote of the people instead of letting the Federal government decide.), It will fail.

I never understood why with the amount of registered Demos in OK the last Demo to carry this state was Kennedy in '60. Predictions (As of now) for Nov. will be Kerry will suffer the most lop-sided Democratic loss to a Republican since Al "You name it...I created it" Gore lost in 2000.

As for Whoopi, Never been a fan...Just found her annoying more than humorous, Same goes for Billy "I cant kiss the NY Yankees ass any faster" Crystal (I do like Robin Williams though...Truly genius!)

The "Democrats" OK are just Republicans who forgot to officially change their party. :laugh:

[estranged4life]

The "Democrats" OK are just Republicans who forgot to officially change their party. :laugh:

they're worse the Repubs...Simple as that.

[dissention]

they're worse the Repubs...Simple as that.

Yeah, but I couldn't call them **** stains and be as tactful as I usually am. :lol:

[amber]

Your friends are blowing smoke up your ass, doll. ;) :laugh:

To say that the African Americans in MA don't express their culture is absurd. There's a black newspaper on my freakin' street and three local radio stations devoted to black culture. :laugh: :xoxo:

Maybe they're getting confused by the fact that unlike in Virginia, blacks in MA are treated just as equally.
Right, and i'm forced to believe you, but again, isn't Boston notorious for racial tension, or division, or whatever? I know i know that...from somewhere real....and what my friend meant more, i think, is that black people are much more rude and aggressive here...not my words, i've never been to east coast - but i guess you wouldn't know about that, unless you've been here to compare... :D But i guess if that boston thing is true, you don't know about it, so i'll leave ya alone...maybe actually *gasp* do my own research? :D Thanks again!
Amber

[dissention]

Right, and i'm forced to believe you, but again, isn't Boston notorious for racial tension, or division, or whatever? I know i know that...from somewhere real....and what my friend meant more, i think, is that black people are much more rude and aggressive here...not my words, i've never been to east coast - but i guess you wouldn't know about that, unless you've been here to compare... :D But i guess if that boston thing is true, you don't know about it, so i'll leave ya alone...maybe actually *gasp* do my own research? :D Thanks again!
Amber

Yeah, there were things that happened in the sixties, but nothing as brutal or disgusting as the things that happened in the South. But that was then, this is now. I suspect the reason blacks are so rude and agressive down there is because the whiteys downt here act the same way towards them. ;) There's none of that up here, which is why no one is overtly rude. I've just never come across that and I work in Boston. :D

[CarneVaca]

No, it's not like that all. MA is probably the most liberal state in the union, there's no racism or prejudice.

Ahem... I guess when you grow up as an immigrant child in the great state of Massachusetts you might have a different perspective. Racial tension and all manner of prejudices are alive and well in the great Bay State, thank you very much.

I haven't lived there in 10 years, and I miss it. There is a higher level of tolerance than in other places, from what I've seen, especially New York. I was actually shocked by the crass prejudices that permeate life in New York.

[dissention]

Ahem... I guess when you grow up as an immigrant child in the great state of Massachusetts you might have a different perspective. Racial tension and all manner of prejudices are alive and well in the great Bay State, thank you very much.

I haven't lived there in 10 years, and I miss it. There is a higher level of tolerance than in other places, from what I've seen, especially New York. I was actually shocked by the crass prejudices that permeate life in New York.

I'm sure an immigrant child might have a different perspective, I'm simply speaking from mine. Never have I seen or experienced racism or prejudice in MA, which is shocking when you consider the sudden influx of Russian immigrants in the past ten years. ;)

[estranged4life]

The "Democrats" OK are just Republicans who forgot to officially change their party. :laugh:

the OK "Democrats" actually are "Republicans (who didnt change party officially)" that worry about having no "Social Security" in the future (Kinda funny the OK Demos want to push for a "State Lottery", Maybe they need their SS to pay for their upcoming GAMBLING habits???...LOL!!!!).

Except for being even more hypocritical (OK Demos) I see no difference in 'em what-so-ever.

[amber]

Yeah, there were things that happened in the sixties, but nothing as brutal or disgusting as the things that happened in the South. But that was then, this is now. I suspect the reason blacks are so rude and agressive down there is because the whiteys downt here act the same way towards them. ;) There's none of that up here, which is why no one is overtly rude. I've just never come across that and I work in Boston. :D
Um, white people here don't act like that towards "them", really - Didn't you know Berkeley is the center of white liberal guilt? I've actually been subject to reverse racism here...which is hard for me to understand, but not hard considering historical perspective...you know, the black panthers started here and all....but Carne's perspective was interesting...I figured someone else might have a different one. Also, if you think about it, Russian immigrants are still white...the whole thing is just very interesting to me, cause i want to UNDERSTAND it, truly. It's hard to discuss these types of things in a non-charged way, but i think it's very important to do so, after all, if you don't know the real truth about how people feel and their experiences, how can you solve any problems?...
Amber "I need to know, I need to know"...G. :wavey:

[gldstwmn]

It's brimming with sugar and fructose. Not the ideal thing to drink or eat when you want to lose weight. Instead of wasting their money on that slime, they should go out and but the South Beach Diet book. I started it to improve my cardiovascular health and ended up losing lots of weight. I didn't need to lose it to begin with, so I looked skeletal. :laugh: For an indication of how good that diet works, ponder this: the month that I started the diet, my cholesterol was 215. One month after starting it, I was down to 156. :shocked:

I'm not into South Beach because it requires too much cooking and prep, something I don't have time for and it also advocates the use of non whole foods-like sugar substitutes which are just plain nasty.

[dissention]

I'm not into South Beach because it requires too much cooking and prep, something I don't have time for and it also advocates the use of non whole foods-like sugar substitutes which are just plain nasty.

Oh darling, don't you know that I don't cook? :laugh: You don't have to prep anything for that diet and Splenda is your best friend. I even Sommersweet from Suzanne Sommers. :laugh:

[GypsySorcerer]

I even Sommersweet from Suzanne Sommers. :laugh:

I've actually considered buying her stuff. :laugh: Is it any good?

[darklinensuit]

Hmm. I think Teresa Heinz is actually pretty. She looks fantastic, IMO, especially for a woman in her sixties. I've seen pictures of her from back in the day and she was a good-looking woman.

To compare her looks with Karen Hughes is to compare Laurel and Hardy's body weight. :wavey:

I'm skeptical. Forgive me if this seems accusatory - I don't mean it to be - but if Teresa were spouting Bush rhetoric, I don't think you'd be calling her attractive. She has a very worn look. Not that I'm knocking that (or you). How old is Karen, anyway?

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I can't argue with that. I like Teresa, but in my opinion Laura Bush is far prettier (not including her mannerisms).

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

I think it's sort of cheap to judge these people by their appearance anyhow. Besides, Teresa's been married by both a Republican and a Democrat.

I think it's cheap to judge anybody solely on the basis of appearance, but there's nothing wrong with saying someone is more attractive than another. It's not like I'm saying it should affect anyone's vote.

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

Yeah, because we all know that no one ever judges people by their appearance. :rolleyes:

I don't have to judge Karen Hughes by her looks, one look at what her actions and words are takes care of it. This is the woman who called pro-choice women "terrorists." She's an ass.

As for Teresa, go look up her late husbands voting record. He was a moderate, not a hardcore neocon like the ones today. And she's denounced the Republican party ever since the neocons attacked Max Cleland. ;)

I loved when she told 60 Minutes that the Bush people never had criticisms of her first husband's money.

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

Really? I swear i've just heard sooooo many stories of Boston being "like that"
Amber

You sure you didn't hear that about Philly? :o

- Jake

[Johnny Stew]

It's brimming with sugar and fructose. Not the ideal thing to drink or eat when you want to lose weight. Instead of wasting their money on that slime, they should go out and but the South Beach Diet book. I started it to improve my cardiovascular health and ended up losing lots of weight. I didn't need to lose it to begin with, so I looked skeletal. :laugh: For an indication of how good that diet works, ponder this: the month that I started the diet, my cholesterol was 215. One month after starting it, I was down to 156. :shocked:

I brought the South Beach Diet book home from the library the other day. I'm 175 right now, and I'd really like to lose about 10-15 lbs. (although my friends & family are insisting I don't need to), and I was totally prepared to give this a try. But there's no way I can follow a meal-by-meal, day-by-day, planned-out-for-you diet... even if that part is only for two weeks.

So I've decided to just continue eating what I want to eat, but cut down on my portions. And NO second-helpings.
I think I may incorporate some of the South Beach philosophies into that idea though (ie: those from the Foods To Enjoy and Foods To Avoid section).

[dissention]

I brought the South Beach Diet book home from the library the other day. I'm 175 right now, and I'd really like to lose about 10-15 lbs. (although my friends & family are insisting I don't need to), and I was totally prepared to give this a try. But there's no way I can follow a meal-by-meal, day-by-day, planned-out-for-you diet... even if that part is only for two weeks.

Did you actually read the book? :laugh: It's not like that at all, Le Stew. You can pretty much eat whatever you want as long it's on the Phase 1 list of foods. Do it for two weeks and you'll lose 15 pounds, mark my words. You can eat nuts, cheeses, ham, steak, cheeseburgers, pork, turkey bacon, veggies, eggs (I don't do eggs, but if you do...), low fat salad dressing, etc. Just stay away from carbs, sugar, processed foods, and the bad saturated fats.

So I've decided to just continue eating what I want to eat, but cut down on my portions. And NO second-helpings.
I think I may incorporate some of the South Beach philosophies into that idea though (ie: those from the Foods To Enjoy and Foods To Avoid section).

The whole crux of the diet is to stay away from bad carbs, bad saturated fats, and bad cholesterol and to eat the good carbs, good fats, and good cholesterol. Once you move into Phase 2, you incorporate breads and pasta and rice and potatos back into your diet. I'm telling you, you have to try it before you say 'I can't do it' because a few days after you start it, all the cravings are gone; that's why the diet has been so successful. :wavey:

[dissention]

I'm skeptical. Forgive me if this seems accusatory - I don't mean it to be - but if Teresa were spouting Bush rhetoric, I don't think you'd be calling her attractive. She has a very worn look. Not that I'm knocking that (or you). How old is Karen, anyway?

- Jake

I certainly would. That accent drives me wild and she has very beautiful eyes. :wavey: Karen isn't even fifty and she looks like **** run over twice.

[dissention]

I can't argue with that. I like Teresa, but in my opinion Laura Bush is far prettier (not including her mannerisms).

- Jake

Laura has a pigeon face. :sorry: And she always looks unnaturally cheery, like she had a face lift to make herself look surprised 24/7.

[dissention]

I've actually considered buying her stuff. :laugh: Is it any good?

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too sweet, doll. :xoxo:

[dissention]

Whoopi's response to her being fired by Slime Fast:

"While I can appreciate what the Slim-Fast people need to do in order to protect their business, I must also do what I need to do as an artist, as a writer and as an American, not to mention as a comic. I only wish that the Republican reelection committee would spend as much time working on the economy as they seem to be spending trying to harm my pocketbook."

:thumbsup:

[dissention]

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Guess who they're courting to replace Ditka?!

TED NUGENT!

http://www.nbc5.com/sports/3528603/detail.html?z=dp&dpswid=2265994&dppid=65194

[amber]

Did you actually read the book? :laugh: It's not like that at all, Le Stew. You can pretty much eat whatever you want as long it's on the Phase 1 list of foods. Do it for two weeks and you'll lose 15 pounds, mark my words. You can eat nuts, cheeses, ham, steak, cheeseburgers, pork, turkey bacon, veggies, eggs (I don't do eggs, but if you do...), low fat salad dressing, etc. Just stay away from carbs, sugar, processed foods, and the bad saturated fats.
Vegetables are Carbs. Are you supposed to not eat veggies? cause otherwise that sounds like what i already eat. But i can't get down with a diet that says "no veggies". Cause obviously people would be really healthy and thin if they ate mostly veggies. And I suppose it says no fruits, cause they're more sugary than veggies. But how are people supposed to get their vitamins? :shrug:



The whole crux of the diet is to stay away from bad carbs, bad saturated fats, and bad cholesterol and to eat the good carbs, good fats, and good cholesterol. Once you move into Phase 2, you incorporate breads and pasta and rice and potatos back into your diet. I'm telling you, you have to try it before you say 'I can't do it' because a few days after you start it, all the cravings are gone; that's why the diet has been so successful. :wavey:
Vegetables are Carbs. Are you supposed to not eat veggies? cause otherwise that sounds like what i already eat. But i can't get down with a diet that says "no veggies". Cause obviously people would be really healthy and thin if they ate mostly veggies.

It's true about cravings diminishing, I think...
Amber

[hayley]

Vegetables are Carbs. Are you supposed to not eat veggies? cause otherwise that sounds like what i already eat. But i can't get down with a diet that says "no veggies". Cause obviously people would be really healthy and thin if they ate mostly veggies.

It's true about cravings diminishing, I think...
Amber

South Beach doesn't restrict veggies. Vegetables are good carbs. What they want you to stay away from is anything refined or processed- eat whole wheat/whole grain foods instead of white flour, white pasta, etc. That's where Atkins SUCKS- (well, ONE of the places Atkins sucks. It's the devil) they want you to cut out vegetables, fruits, and whole grain foods that are actually great for you.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not a huge fan of South Beach. I'm a Weight Watchers girl, DIE HARD- but it's not a fad diet by any means. It's very logical and healthy if done correctly.

[darklinensuit]

Laura has a pigeon face. :sorry: And she always looks unnaturally cheery, like she had a face lift to make herself look surprised 24/7.

She does look facelifted in a Donna Reed TV homemaker glossy kind of way.

- Jake

[Johnny Stew]

Did you actually read the book? :laugh: It's not like that at all, Le Stew. You can pretty much eat whatever you want as long it's on the Phase 1 list of foods. Do it for two weeks and you'll lose 15 pounds, mark my words. You can eat nuts, cheeses, ham, steak, cheeseburgers, pork, turkey bacon, veggies, eggs (I don't do eggs, but if you do...), low fat salad dressing, etc. Just stay away from carbs, sugar, processed foods, and the bad saturated fats.

The whole crux of the diet is to stay away from bad carbs, bad saturated fats, and bad cholesterol and to eat the good carbs, good fats, and good cholesterol. Once you move into Phase 2, you incorporate breads and pasta and rice and potatos back into your diet. I'm telling you, you have to try it before you say 'I can't do it' because a few days after you start it, all the cravings are gone; that's why the diet has been so successful. :wavey:

So I don't have to follow the Phase One Meal Plan for each of those 14 days (pages 112-125)?
If I don't, then it would certainly be more do-able.

I'm not worried about cravings or anything... if I want to do something, I can do it. It's just that a meal-by-meal plan isn't something I could follow. So that's what I meant by "I can't do that."

Although I have to admit that I am a little bitter about the fact that I wouldn't be able to eat pizza or spaghetti for two weeks though, and only occassionally afterwards (you do NOT tell an Italian man that he can't have pizza or pasta, unless you're in the market for some cement shoes).

[Johnny Stew]

Vegetables are Carbs. Are you supposed to not eat veggies? cause otherwise that sounds like what i already eat. But i can't get down with a diet that says "no veggies". Cause obviously people would be really healthy and thin if they ate mostly veggies.

For the first two weeks (Phase 1), you're to avoid:
Beets
Carrots
Corn
Potatoes, white
Tomato (limit to 1 whole or 10 cherry per meal)
Potatoes, sweet
Yams

In Phase 2, you're still supposed to avoid (or only eat rarely):
Beets
Carrots
Corn
Potatoes

Too bad they picked my favorite veggies. Grrr. :p

[gldstwmn]

Oh darling, don't you know that I don't cook? :laugh: You don't have to prep anything for that diet and Splenda is your best friend. I even Sommersweet from Suzanne Sommers. :laugh:

What is Sommersweet? I don't eat anything that was made in a labratory. I haven't for years now. :nod: I can taste it in my mouth for days after.

[gldstwmn]

I can't argue with that. I like Teresa, but in my opinion Laura Bush is far prettier (not including her mannerisms).

- Jake

Bwaaah! Oops, sorry. :sorry:

[gldstwmn]

I brought the South Beach Diet book home from the library the other day. I'm 175 right now, and I'd really like to lose about 10-15 lbs. (although my friends & family are insisting I don't need to), and I was totally prepared to give this a try. But there's no way I can follow a meal-by-meal, day-by-day, planned-out-for-you diet... even if that part is only for two weeks.

So I've decided to just continue eating what I want to eat, but cut down on my portions. And NO second-helpings.
I think I may incorporate some of the South Beach philosophies into that idea though (ie: those from the Foods To Enjoy and Foods To Avoid section).

Jump rope. It works. I do it in the driveway. ;)

[gldstwmn]

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Guess who they're courting to replace Ditka?!

TED NUGENT!

http://www.nbc5.com/sports/3528603/detail.html?z=dp&dpswid=2265994&dppid=65194

Guess they haven't figured out "Motor City Madman" indicates he's from Detroit, irregardless of where he was born. Too many underage girls in that closet. He disgusts me.

[dissention]

So I don't have to follow the Phase One Meal Plan for each of those 14 days (pages 112-125)?
If I don't, then it would certainly be more do-able.

I've got my book out just for you, darling. On pages 126-127 are the lists of foods you can eat on Phase 1 and a list of food you can't eat. Anything listed as something you can eat can be eaten however you want and whenever you want; you DON'T have to follow the meal plans, those are just suggestions. For example, I used to have four turkey roll-ups for breakfast each morning because I detest eggs. I used a big leaf of lettuce for the "wrap" and rolled up low-fat turkey and block cheddar cheese in the lettuce. For lunch, I had a HUGE salad with low-fat ranch (try Wishbone or Hidden Valley, those are the best low-fat ones, the rest suck), a grilled chicken breast, and ton of nuts. Dinner could be a 15oz steak if you want, but I just had cheesburgers without the bun and the ketchup. You can do whatever you want with the food, you don't have to follow any sort of plan. :)

Although I have to admit that I am a little bitter about the fact that I wouldn't be able to eat pizza or spaghetti for two weeks though, and only occassionally afterwards (you do NOT tell an Italian man that he can't have pizza or pasta, unless you're in the market for some cement shoes).

:laugh: I don't like pasta, so it wasn't hard for me to give it up. ;) The only time I crave pizza is when I see a Papa Johns commercial!!!!!

[dissention]

What is Sommersweet? I don't eat anything that was made in a labratory. I haven't for years now. :nod: I can taste it in my mouth for days after.

Suzzane's very own artificial sweetener, brought to you by the kind folks at the Home Shopping Network. :laugh: