Bush supporter thread closed? Is this a mistake?
 

Hello, I wasn't done replying and I resent that that thread was closed. It wasn't any worse than others I've seen, like the "Race for the White House thread."

The thread starter appears to have closed it.

I was just about to hit the QUOTE button to respond to Nancy. Now I'll just have to keep it to myself!

So . . . anybody read any good books lately?

Yep...
 

Anne Rice's "Blood Canticle"

Brian "Enlightened" j.

Can they do that? I thought that Marty disabled all the functions except for the one that allows you to delete your own post.

I just started George Carlin's When Will Jesus Bring The Pork Chops (banned by WalMart) and Il Dottore by Ron Felber.

I believe you can, yes. If not, ya can now! :laugh:

Wal Mart bans everything. :laugh:

Have you picked up America: The Book? I almost choked when I saw the nude Supreme Court Justices. And the chapter on the media is priceless. "Geraldo Rivera...is an asshole." :lol:

Nope...
 

the starter of a thread can still lock the thread...

Oh well...

Brian j.

Say it ain't so, oh Lily Rose. We can't continue the conversation when you're done? (I know, I was only lurking. Some of you scare me with your political anger) :nod:

:laugh:

Did you go to PBS to watch any of that that Frontline I told you about? I went to find the link but got caught up when I found another special about religion and politics. Freaked me out big time.

Well, pardon me, but that's utter ****.

One more thing to add
 

Let me just add here, since the other thread is closed, that I respect the rights of non-Bush supporters to hold their opinions. I only wish the best for them and this country which they are as much a part of as I am.

Agreed. :wavey:

I'm getting a new computer for Christmas (THANK GOD) because the one i have isn't even mine and I need to give it back. I'm lucky it runs. There are no programs on it and it doesn't even have room for me to install my printer software to print anything. So nope, no watching anything for me. The only time i'm really on here is when i'm at work (now) and there aren't any speakers on the computers unless you're in the main office.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Well said!

Bwahahahaha...
 

that reminds me of a Conan O'Brien scit that had Geraldo on it accepting an award for his coverage of the "War on Terror" in which he gave out the location of the US troops...Below is the award he won:

American
Super
Soldier
Honorary
Order of
Loyal
E....

Brian "Conan...I am in a War zone...Whiz...Bang...Pow!" j.

Same thing happened to me!


Would it be totally politically incorrect at this point for me to answer "Stupid White Men" and "Dude, Where's My Country"? :laugh:

- Mary

I'll have to check it out. :)

I want to read it. He gained my respect when he called bow-tie a dick (sorry, Ali but i hate CNN).

My love to HATE relationship...
 

with Wal-Mart:





Brian "F*ck Wal-Mart" j.

I already had mine typed out and Nancy started this thread, so here it is

Again, with as much respect as I have for Nancy, here is why I think she is wrong, or at least too willing to accept the current R agenda.

I think W and the R party are trying to create a theocracy and here is how I support that:

1. They want to use public funds to place Christian (and they only fight for th Christian ones mind you) symbols in public places. They do not mind and in fact want to turn public buildings into places of worship.

2. They want everyone to live by Christian ideals. For example, no sex (hetero or homo sexual) out of wedlock.

3. They want to use public funds to use in Christian schools and for Christian Charities. I seriously doubt if the Wiccans applied for these same funds, they would get them.

4. I see the day to day activity of many Christians and they are exclusive. I cannot tell you how many people I heard, bumperstickers I read, etc. all saying something to the effect of W will make America safe for Jesus again. I fully realize this is not all Christians, but I submit it is over 50%.

My comment about the church coffers and abortion was born from my experience with churches here and things like the 700 club. Like it or not, they represent the majority of Christians. And - they preach this to fill their coffers. As an example, Pat Robertson routinely begs for money while preaching against abortion - in fact, he has had telethons on the subject. So, that is how arrived at, not jumped to as you asserted, that conclusion. If you can prove me wrong, I am all ears.

You said in reference to my example of why partial birth abortion should remain legal "This extremely rare situation is offered up again and again. How do you know such exceptions won't also be exceptions on a ban? And not all people against this are religious zealots, a mischaracterization you keep coming back to." I am actually unsure I understood what you said, but I do know the current bill does ban this situation and that is, inter alia (been studying your Latin :cool: :wavey: ) , why it has been ruled Uncontitutional.

You said "I don't blame Bush for terrorists. They make their own choices. The 9/11 argument is completely fallacious - it would have happened regardless of who was President. Remember that Clinton also didn't recognize warning signs. It's unfair to lay that on Bush. And to my knowledge Bush never actually said that Sadaam Hussein had foreknowledge of 911. Correct me if I'm wrong."

Clinton caught and prosecuted via the legal system of the U.S. the people that first bombed the WTC. Clinton also caught and prosecuted other terrorists and a Y2K LAX bombing plot was prevented. So, his record was pretty good :shrug: THEN - when Clinton left office, his people flat out told W's administration that Al-Q, not Iraq, was the threat. They warned W - but he refused to listen. I am not making this up - this is a fact documented by several people extremely high up in W's administration. They ALL say W was preoccupied by Iraq and did not really want to hear too much about Al-Q despite the outgoing Clinton Admin.'s warnings. So, I am a little amazed at how easily people forgive W for that, esp. since in August 2001, the threats grew severer and W still ignored them and was preoccupied with Iraq. I fully grant you that had W concentrated on Al-Q instead of Iraq, 9/11 probably could not have been prevent without a little luck. But, it terrifies me that W did not learn from his mistake. He was in hot pursuit of OBL and what does he do, he invades Iraq, where he is now again preoccupied.

True - W never said "Sadaam Hussein had foreknowledge of 911" - but what he did do was say SH could give nuclear materials or other WMD, which W knew SH did not have but lied about anyway (again he and/or his administration said they KNEW where they were), to terrorist groups like Al-Q - thus linking the two. In reality, W knew SH and AL-Q had extrememly vague past ties and clearly had no working relationship - in fact, they really did not like each other at all. Yet, he melded the two together. AND - Cheney certainly said AL-Q and SH were linked - in fact he is still saying it despite it having been resoundingly disproved. That is where I got that.

Next, in about ten speeches Bush said the proceeds from the Iraqi oil would pay for the war.

In response to my saying "I will never understand how Christians can support this. The Decalogue says 'Thou shall not kill.' "

You said "Actually, the literal translation is 'Thou shalt not murder'"

I think it depends on which version you are quoting from :shrug:

You said "Has Bush made any laws concerning sodomy?"

No, but do you knoestly think he would hesitate to if he could. After all, he never ordered Texas to stop the proscution of the Lawrence case did he :shrug: If he felt so strongly that sodomy was okay, why did he do that?

And yes, Kerry was against gay marriage, but he also voted against the DOMA and verbally opposed the Const. ban on gay marriage, calling it tool of hate or something like that.

So, if you are trying to argue that W and Kerry are the same on gay rights, I submit you cannot win that argument.

You said "I don't believe Bush has suggested any laws requiring people to be Christians or believe in God." Well, putting the TC in a courthouse and saying this is the law and the first one saying I am the Lord thy God you shall have no other gods before me (paraphrase) come pretty close don't you think. I mean that is saying the Christian God is the law :shrug: And - I realize W did not do that, but supported the Alabama jusde who did this horrible act.

Again, with respect I say this.

wow, amazing, someone stopped bitching about people being able to close their own thread, and actually realized they could continue the conversation within another thread! Or could've even started their own! Wow, great job...

And you know what is interesting to me as well is that take someone like Nancy (Sodascouts) who I know personally and consider a formidable intellect and call a friend - we are the same in our concern for the hijacking of religion. I am just coming at it from a different angle than she is. Having said that and lest anyone get the wrong idea, I am all for religion and think it is a good thing. I think it is the people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (sorry Dissension) and, to a severer length, OBL who give it a bad name. They are the bad people, not IMO the religion itself.

Anyway, there's my $0.02

OK guys....lots of arguments and discussions lately....So, I decided to lay my cards down, let everyone see them and you guys can just dig in (as I expect everyone to).

But before i start, please everyone, lets remember to not take these things personal. I RESPECTFULLY disagree with things many of you have had to say: Johnnystew, dissention, strandinthewind, gldstwmn. But what makes it so great, is that at the end of the day, I respect these people(and more I havent listed) because they have VALID opinions they can back up. I have no problems with political discussions as long as they dont get personal. I have been able to maintain wonderful relationships with the above in other forums. I just happen to disagree with them politically. In fact, I have met some of them and they are AMAZING people. So, I just ask that we remember not to take these things personally. At the end of the day, we have to live with each other. Through thich and thin ,left or right :laugh:

With that being said, I will go into extreme detil as to why I vote Republican and the few things I trust the Democrats with...

First we'll start with what I agree with the Democratic party:

The Environment: I live in Miami as most of you know, and I am a big believer in defending the environment. I happen to be a big fan of the ocean. I go snorkelling, fishing, and i hope to get my diving certification soon. I love sharks, and I have a feeling that unless we start MASSIVE conservation now, they'll be gone soon. Unfortunately, this is not one of the Republicans top priorities which is a shame. I also live 5 minutes from The Everglades...a beautiful swamp land filled with birds, alligators, etc...Over the past few years, I have contributed LOTS of my own personal money to wonderful environmental organizations that protecT the Everglades and the coral reefs.

Thats about it! LOL!

Now what everyone has all been waiting for:

Terrorism: Now alot of you claim "we had no reason to be in Iraq because there were no WMD's" As sane people do you really think Saddam, a man who clearly had WMD's before, would wake up and decide not to have them? The man is clearly dellusional. Pick up a psychology book and look it up. Even after he was captured the idiot was still calling himself the king of Iraq! If thats not legally crazy, I dont know what is. But my point in this is.....PEOPLE DO NOT CHANGE. Pedifiles don't just wake up one morning and think : "Im not going to be a pedifile today or ever". Same thing with murderers and people like Saddam. Im sure everyone who says about the WMD's pretty much knows deep down inside Saddam hid them somewhere, and if you dont prove to me this crazy idiot changed his way of being from 1998 until now. You cant! He was still putting people in mass graves, still torturing civilians. This man has not changed and Im willing to bet my soul he had them and hid them.

Point is....if Saddam had WMD's he could have sold them to people who were going to use them. THATS WHY HE WAS A THREAT. the chances of him HIMSELF using them were slim to none. But he could've sold them to others. Hell, this man paid money to the families of homicide bombers in the Israel/Palestine region! Thats what makes Saddam part of the war on terror. By TEXTBOOK definition Saddam Hussein was a threat to the well being of this country whether directly or indirectly. PERIOD. Mock the war all you want, but it is clear if Saddam had gotten anything, it would have been on its way here or to other parts of the world. Maybe if the French weren't SO DEEP into Saddam's pocket, then they would have suppoorted the war. And lets not forget the UN who CLEARLY KNEW Saddam was raiding the oil for food program money for his own personal use. Money meant for the Iraqi people going to buy a 24 karat gold toilet seat for presidential palace #7 for Saddam Hussein....and you guys are willing to tell me he should have stayed? Please.

Now you guys will come back and say "Well, Alex, wasnt Iran or N. Korea more important than Iraq?" Depends. These countries are pushed up against the wall diplomatically. Hell, they can barey fart without us noticing. The problem is Saddam was the biggest "under the sheets" threat. (if that makes no sense, just respond i'll go more into detail)

Abortion, religious issues, gay rights, etc: I do not consider myself the best Cathollic of life. Hell, I never go to church, Do I agree with the church sometimes? Yes. Do I disagree witht he church sometime? yes. Abortion seems to be where I agree most. I think its wrong. Thats just my own view on it. Gay rights is where I get more liberal. I think privacy is very important. What happens at home stays at home. So, I have little problems with gay rights. I even think civil unions should be alllowed, and recognized by the state. Now, i do disagree with marriage. I feel religion is almost like joining a country club. Theres rules to join and rules to follow in both. If the church defines marriage as between a man and a woman, then theres really nothing you can really do. But I disagree with the states defining marriage. That should be seperation of church and state. Now I know there are MANY gay ledgies, and i respect them 100% as people and my friends, and I hope I did not offend anyone. Like I said, this is my own personal opinion and I hope I do not lose any Ledgie support.

Cuba: I've gone through this many times before. As a Cuban I just can not vote Democrat (Even though the Repubs have not done anything either). This is my strongest personal issue. My great grandfather was killed by the hands of the Castro regime, and I've said many times that I would in a heartbeat sacrifice my own life to have that evil man wiped off the face of the earth. I still have large amounts of family there and in pains me they are 90 miles away from me in a virtual prison.

Those are just some of my own PERSONAL views. I hope I do not come under personal attacks. I respect any disagreements you may have on what I ha typed! Thanks for taking the time to listen....

~Alex

It's closed but I just have to respond to this Dissention quote from the other thread:

Now that's just wrong. How about you hope Bush doesn an AMAZING job in his second term and he has a catharthis and is greatful that he actually won this election. I realize that's not very like;ly but why can't we HOPE for that, instead of HOPIJNG for things to get worse so people realize their mistake. Why not HOPE Bush does a great job.

Alex - I respect your opinion and even agree with you to some extent about SH. But, even if you justify the invasion of Iraq, how can you advocate the mess W created by not adequately arming our troops, not sending (according to his generals) enough troops, his not having a plan to win the peace, his letting 400 or so tons of explosives disappear into thin air, and his not having a plan to win the peace. I think those are HUGE issues and W has no valid answer for them other than the stock "Iraq is free of a vicious dictator" usually coupled with "Iraq is a success and Democracy is speading thoughout it" - the latter of which is a flat out lie.

Again, I get why W wanted to go into Iraq, but he sure has made a mess of it since :shrug:

Frankly I do think SINCE the war started there were problems. I think part of it had to do with the fact that there SHOULD have been more air campaigns. The rough ride into Baghdad should have been an indication of things to come. But at the end of the day I think it was justified. Is it getting ugly? Yes. Is there a way out? Soon, even the President knows we cant be there forever.

~Alex

BTW, Thanks for the your comments. I appreciate it, Jason :)

Speaking for myself - I had that hope when he took office. I sincerely thought he meant what he said. After four years of realizing the horrible mistake I made in trusting him and his cronies, I am loathe to trust him again.

I mean I believed him when he said he would never go to war unless America was in direct and immediate danger of attack, but I know know that he knew damn well that Iraq was no such thing and was hell bent on going there anyway and now 1,000's of U.S. soldiers are dead.

I believed him when he said gay people have the right to coexist - then he comes out with the Const. ban of not only gay marriage but any form of civil unions because gay people are "sinners."

I believed him when he said the tax cuts would work and he would curtail Federal spending (they must go habd in hand). Now he has outspent on borrowed money any Democrat ever in the history of Democrats.

and the list goes on and on with things like healthcare, the environment, etc.

So, I, and I imagine others, are once bitten twice shy.

But, you are correct - I wish he would do the right thing and forget about his agenda of theocratic conservatism and realize his former policies have failed :cool:

If i'm not mistaken, did John Kerry and others vote NAY on arming the troops? $87 billion...no?

You are mistaken (but I love ya anyway!!! :cool: ) That bill was an omnibus spending bill that encompassed many other things and W lied about what the money was going for. Essentially W wanted a blank check for Halliburton. Sadly, he got it.

Here is a website that explains it:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=269

What I am talking about was W knew prior to the invasion that the armed forces did not have enough supplies. He could have waited until they got them. But, he chose not to. Thus, my argument.

levity
 

I have always said Barney is the best thing about W :laugh:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!

BTW, HAPPY B-DAY to a wonderful first lady, Laura Bush :woohoo: (C'mon, lets at least give the first lady some love)

~Alex

I like Laura and wish her HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!!!!

Now - knock some sense into that hubby of your's :laugh:

Yeah...
 

those chances are the same as Stevie Nicks leading a chiffon cladded brigade of tambourine terrorists into Tokyo for some Saki :laugh:

Brian j.

No, Im getting at a difference between those recognized by the state and those by the church. Make sense now?

~Alex

That could have been possible....in 1986 :laugh: