i watched, i listened, i have an opinion, what's yours?
Printable View
i watched, i listened, i have an opinion, what's yours?
All in all, pretty boring. No surprise.
I can't believe that Kerry let himself "flip-flop" during this 90 minute debate. (OK, maybe I can believe it.) In the beginning, Sadam was not a threat and he even laid out reasons why not . . . by the end, he was a threat and the President was right to take him down.
There is so much to say about this debate, but I'm tired. That wore me out! I'm sure there'll be lots of posts to read in the morning!
No, what Kerry said was that Saddam was a threat and that he must be disarmed. This does not require war. It does require the threat of force, which is what he gave the President. It was not a vote for the war, but for the President to threaten war if Saddam didn't do what he needed to do.
Kerry's position is the same it's always been. Bush has made a mess, Kerry has an actual plan for how to fix it.
As for the debate, Kerry won it hands down. Bush looked angry, aggitated and annoyed to be there. He was overly defensive, sometimes confused and bumbling and just repeated the same lines over and over. He offered no new plans. Just more of the same. Four more years of this crap.
I can't believe anyone would vote for that.
Kerry's "I have a plan" with no substantive points behind it reminds me of Nixon's secret plan to get us out of Vietnam. By 1974 it was still a secret.
And what about Bush's plan? Did you hear any details about that? I didn't. Just more of the same.
Great. More soldiers die each month. The economy is still in the gutter.
That's "leadership"???
Kerry wins.
I can finally get a good night's sleep tonight.
That is all.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
I was pleasantly surprised with Kerry's performance. Before tonight I was voting for him simply because he was not Bush, I thought he came across as strong and Bush looked like an angry child.
I have a hard time believing ANYTHING that Kerry says. Sorry. He's too slick. He sounds great, like a real leader, he's definitely got the "look" down . . . but as far as substance, there's nothing there for me.
Soledad, I can't believe that ANYONE would believe that Saddam would just give up or that we could just walk into Iraq & ask him to surrender. How would you suggest that we should have taken him? And he has a plan how to fix it? I never have really heard his plan . . . ??? Enlighten me?
I agree, Kerry won via points . . . But Bush won on SUBSTANCE which is more important to me.
Seeing how Bush has screwed up these past four years has me voting for Kerry. I won't be fooled twice.
I'm sorry, Christa, you're my buddy, but I have to say I disagree with your views on this one. If you don't know John Kerry's plan for Iraq, you should go to http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/plan_to...ce_in_iraq.pdf and read up about it. :) I for one, would never make a decision about who I was voting for without researching both candidates.Quote:
Originally posted by christa
I have a hard time believing ANYTHING that Kerry says. Sorry. He's too slick. He sounds great, like a real leader, he's definitely got the "look" down . . . but as far as substance, there's nothing there for me.
Soledad, I can't believe that ANYONE would believe that Saddam would just give up or that we could just walk into Iraq & ask him to surrender. How would you suggest that we should have taken him? And he has a plan how to fix it? I never have really heard his plan . . . ??? Enlighten me?
John Kerry said many times last night that Bush should have gone back to the UN and tried further negotiations with Saddam before he used force. Bush's war was pre-emptive. Saddam didn't surrender because he didn't have any WMDs. Did you read the 9/11 Commission report? We can't just start going into countries and taking them over. That's not what America stands for, to me at least.
Bush looked unprepared, weak and frustrated, whereas Kerry looked strong, charismatic and decisive. Bush did not outline one single specific plan. Bush has a record of failure after failure, and the American people are worse off than they were in 2000 because of it. Kerry laid out specific plans for his vision of America, and gave the American people hope that we can finally succeed in Iraq, and bring our troops home.
I don't know about you, but my tuition went up 22% while I was in college (from fall 1999 - fall 2003). I now owe $65,000 to the federal government. Minimum wage has not increased since 1997, when I was 16. It's still $5.15 an hour. No one can afford to live on $5.15 an hour. The Bush administration is the only administration since Herbert Hoover's in the 1930s in which total employment decreased. After I graduated, I couldn't find a job in the field I went to college for (arts organization management) so now I'm a secretary. It was the only halfway professional job I could find - and I'm still looking. Most of my friends had a hard time finding jobs after graduation, too. I have a friend who recently graduated with a double major in political science and sociology, and now works the Clinique counter at Dillard's. Why? Because there aren't as many good jobs out there as there used to be. Meanwhile, I have friends in Iraq, and my mother got laid off from her job at a non-profit community center because they couldn't afford to pay her. There are two pieces of legislation in front of the Senate and the House of Representatives right now that would reinstate the draft for EVERYONE between the ages of 18 and 26. Males and females. Bush will have to do it if he gets re-elected. Kerry won't have to, because he's going to bring other countries in (so we won't be 90% of the troops anymore) to help pull us out of Iraq completely.
I could go on and on about the issues on which I disagree with Bush - the environment, homeland security (or our lack of it right now), healthcare...
Do any of those things resonate with you?
I did find it humorous that he wouldn't say what his plan was last night, but instead pointed us to his website! Why not lay it all out? That's what we were waiting for!Quote:
Bush has made a mess, Kerry has an actual plan for how to fix it.
Because you can't lay out everything in two minutes. Bush didn't even mention a single plan. At least Kerry went over his as much as he could, and told us where to find more information about specific details.Quote:
Originally posted by Logan
I did find it humorous that he wouldn't say what his plan was last night, but instead pointed us to his website! Why not lay it all out? That's what we were waiting for!
Tell me again what Bush's plan to get out of Iraq is? Tell me again when my friends are coming home?
Liz, I've heard this stuff until I can't see straight. I've avoided these political boards until now because they always seem to be one sided.Quote:
Originally posted by lizzielou742
Do any of those things resonate with you?
First of all, I HAVE researched both candidates . . . more so than just their own campaign websites. I vote based on my own convictions, my beliefs, my principles. I don’t vote thoughtlessly, as you imply.
I know that Bush was wrong about the WMD’s . . . but I also know that Saddam had the capabilities and I feel safer knowing that he is out of power and sitting in a prison cell. Besides, how can you say that we were wrong to free the people of Iraq? They have been living under the rule of a tyrant. A man that only knows violence. Rape rooms, torture chambers . . . how can you believe that what we did was a mistake? That’s basically what Kerry is saying? Am I wrong?
Things are much different than they were in 2000. We were attacked . . . but believe me when I say that things will be much worse if we start letting other countries dictate how we protect ourselves. (which is what Kerry says he will do)
And all this about Kerry bringing other countries in . . . OK, first of all, I’m sure that’s what he wants. Who’s to say that it will actually happen? We don’t know what the future holds. He may or may not get other countries to join our alliance. You don’t know that he will! You don’t know that he’ll do anything that he says because his record stinks!
Bush didn’t lay out his plan very well during the debate, I will admit. But he did state more than once, that he planned to do the only thing he could do . . . continue to train Iraqi troops & police until they’re ready to stand on their own.
About the draft: I’ve read countless articles about this . . . and from what I can see, it’s a scare tactic headed by two of the most liberal members of Congress. Rep. Charlie Rangel and Sen. Fritz Hollings.
"It's absolutely false that anyone in the administration is considering reinstating the draft" –Rumsfeld
Bush even stated last night that it would be a voluntary army.
I think that a lot of people would be surprised to hear that proposal is coming from democrats!
I think we’re total opposites on ANY political issues, Liz, but you’re still my bud.
Let’s not get too ugly about this.
Bush's Plan: Continue to train Iraqi troops & police . . . until they can stand on their own. It's the only thing we can do! If we left them in 6 months (as Kerry has stated that he will do), Iraq will fall and all will be lost.Quote:
Originally posted by lizzielou742
Because you can't lay out everything in two minutes. Bush didn't even mention a single plan. At least Kerry went over his as much as he could, and told us where to find more information about specific details.
Tell me again what Bush's plan to get out of Iraq is? Tell me again when my friends are coming home?
We ALL have family and friends fighting in Iraq. Those people over there are adults. They went and signed up to protect their country and that's what they're doing. They are fighting for freedom.
So many people don't support the troops because they're not supporting the cause. It's sad really.
Please don't think I am implying that! :) I know you wouldn't throw your vote away. What I am responding to is what you said here:Quote:
Originally posted by christa
I don’t vote thoughtlessly, as you imply.
I was trying to enlighten you. :)Quote:
Originally posted by christa
And he has a plan how to fix it? I never have really heard his plan . . . ??? Enlighten me?
----
I hope that wasn't directed towards me, because if so that would hurt my feelings. I support our troops. I want them out of harm's way. We all do. That's not the issue. The issue is the best way to go about getting them out of Iraq. I don't know of anyone who would want a long-term occupation of Iraq. At some point, we have to stop being 90% of the troops over there. We cannot continue on that path for long - our country doesn't have the means.Quote:
Originally posted by christa
So many people don't support the troops because they're not supporting the cause. It's sad really.
What bothers me about the "support our troops" thing is that people just slap a yellow ribbon magnet on the back of their car and say "I support the troops," without actually volunteering/donating to anything that would help the troops. I volunteer on John Kerry's campaign because I believe under his leadership our troops will be safer. Like Kerry said last night, there are troops without body armor over there, and humvees without armor. It breaks my heart.
I think our main difference of opinion lies here: I believe that the Iraqis and the rest of the world want us out of Iraq. I do not think it is the right thing to occupy another country. I think if we follow John Kerry's plan to transfer power back to the Iraqis, the world will be a safer place.
----
I believe you are. :) Kerry is not trying to say that stopping Saddam's torture was a mistake. He has never said that. But Bush told us Saddam was taken out of power because he wouldn't disarm........because he didn't have anything to disarm. As a result of our invasion, the people of Iraq were going to be freed, right? They are not free right now. They're living under our rule instead of Saddam's. Agreed, they are better off with him out of power, but they are not yet a free country. Sure, the Iraqis are better off without those things happening to them, but their people are still dying. Osama bin Laden is still out there. We are making more enemies every day in the Middle East. We're giving more and more terrorists a reason to hate us each moment we're in that country.Quote:
Originally posted by christa
Besides, how can you say that we were wrong to free the people of Iraq? They have been living under the rule of a tyrant. A man that only knows violence. Rape rooms, torture chambers . . . how can you believe that what we did was a mistake? That’s basically what Kerry is saying? Am I wrong?
---
Agreed - let's not let this turn ugly between us. :) We see things differently, and what's so great about America is that that's OK. We can go to the election sites on Nov. 2nd and vote for who we support.....too bad for me there's no way Kerry's winning Kentucky, right? :p :D
Liz, I didn't mean that towards you. But I have heard so many troops that have said how upset they are because Americans are not supporting them . . . THE TROOPS know what they're fighting for and you can't depend on CBS, NBC, or ABC to give you their true stories!Quote:
Originally posted by lizzielou742
[B]I hope that wasn't directed towards me, because if so that would hurt my feelings. I support our troops. [B]
Then why did he vote against the funding for supplimental armor?Quote:
Like Kerry said last night, there are troops without body armor over there, and humvees without armor. It breaks my heart.
Wow, are you hearing yourself? So we just just leave them alone and they'll go away? If you think that leaving terrorists alone will solve the world's problems, you are not living in reality.Quote:
We're giving more and more terrorists a reason to hate us each moment we're in that country.
LOL . . . highly unlikely!Quote:
.....too bad for me there's no way Kerry's winning Kentucky, right? :p :D
Have a great day Liz! ;)
It's obvious someone here isn't living in reality, and it's not me.Quote:
Originally posted by christa
If you think that leaving terrorists alone will solve the world's problems, you are not living in reality.
I'm not going to justify your comments on anything else...the $87 billion...why it was wrong to invade Iraq...because John Kerry explained it all last night. The American public agreed with him.
It's time to find Bush a job that isn't such "hard work."
This Faces of Frusteration video is kinda funny
http://www.democrats.org/
I have a question. If my support had been for Bush instead of Kerry, would I still have been asked to remove that political button or just asked to get rid of that one word?
LOLOLOL,Quote:
Originally posted by Soledad
No, what Kerry said was that Saddam was a threat and that he must be disarmed. This does not require war. It does require the threat of force, which is what he gave the President.
Kerry's position is the same it's always been. Bush has made a mess, Kerry has an actual plan for how to fix it.
Four more years of this crap.
I can't believe anyone would vote for that.
Hi Mr Saddam,
My name is John Kerry.
Would you please give me all your arms and weapons so we can live in peace on the planet?
----------------------------
Four more years of this crap???
It's really not becoming of you making statements like that,
Just as I think you are becoming a kinder gentler Soledad, you
punk me like that....
I think I'll vote Bush "because he's not John Kerry."
:)
YES I saw that! :DQuote:
There's more funny videos on http://www.oliverwillis.com/node/view/844
I've seen a lot of funny stuff this morning...
"Bushboy blew it big time last night
His oft repeated slogans were a fright
Kerry had solutions
the prez had delusions
America wake up - dump the right!!!"
What was UP with the whole tangent Bush went on about his friend, the widow? "You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way." What?! That entire answer made NO SENSE. It was incoherent babbling.
Did you hear him say "Saddam Hussein" when he meant "Osama bin Laden?" He does that all the time!
A great quote from this morning's Boston Herald: "Note to George W: Next time, lose the blue tie, drop the folksy double talk and stand up straight."
Bush's face reminds me of Alfred E. Neuman ("What, me worry?"). And the blinking?? He looks like a meth addict!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13237
But Richard, he didn't have any WMDs in the first place, remember?Quote:
Originally posted by RICHARD
Hi Mr Saddam,
My name is John Kerry.
Would you please give me all your arms and weapons so we can live in peace on the planet?
Anyway, I think Bush should have followed the suggestions of the UN and tried more negotiations, and should never have pre-emptively invaded Iraq. But, this thread is about last night's debate, right? So I'll stick to that.
Kerry looked more presidential last night. He was decisive, clear, strong and unwavering. Blinky McFrowny just kept repeating a bunch of lies.
"MEXED MISSAGES!"
This election I believe I will be voting for a water cooler. The one in my office is quite qualified for the job ;)
You took the words out of my mouth! LOLQuote:
Originally posted by RICHARD
LOLOLOL,
Hi Mr Saddam,
My name is John Kerry.
Would you please give me all your arms and weapons so we can live in peace on the planet?
Silly girl! At least Bush can make facial expressions! Kerry has that "Droopy Dog" look going on. His face is ALWAYS the same. Long and droopy! But if that's the "look" you want . . . because we all know that in order to be Presidential, you have to look the part!Quote:
Originally posted by lizzielou742
Kerry looked more presidential last night. He was decisive, clear, strong and unwavering. Blinky McFrowny just kept repeating a bunch of lies.
At least no one rolled their eyes this time around! :rolleyes:
Ah, I'm just an naive country girl . . . what do I know?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
A very well informed, open minded country girl, I might add! :DQuote:
Ah, I'm just an naive country girl . . . what do I know?
Thank you!Quote:
Originally posted by Logan
A very well informed, open minded country girl, I might add! :D
Are you kidding? Did you not go watch that video Aly posted? All Bush did was roll his eyes! Bush looked irritated, bored, frustrated and tired the whole time. Even Faux News admits that.Quote:
Originally posted by christa
At least no one rolled their eyes this time around! :rolleyes:
I wonder what the dead Kurds/Iranians would think about that...Quote:
Originally posted by lizzielou742
But Richard, he didn't have any WMDs in the first place, remember?
Anyway, I think Bush should have followed the suggestions of the UN and tried more negotiations, and should never have pre-emptively invaded Iraq. But, this thread is about last night's debate, right? So I'll stick to that.
Ah, the UN.....
Suicide bombings/terrorist attacks everyday in Iraq - the silence from that office is pretty obvious.....
We spent 12 years sanctioning Iraq and that idiot Saddam KEPT shooting at planes, playing hide and seek with the inspectors....
It's very obvious that Saddam brought it all on himself, HAD he behaved like a real leader of his country he'd still be in charge and there would not have been this war to kick his arse out.
Anyone with half a mind would see that......
I do.
Whatever, Richard.
My favorite exchange from last night:
Mr. Kerry: Jim, let me tell you exactly what I'll do. And there are a long list of things. First of all, what kind of mixed message does it send when you've got $500 million going over to Iraq to put police officers in the streets of Iraq and the president is cutting the cops program in America? What kind of message does it send to be sending money to open firehouses in Iraq but we're shutting firehouses, who are the first responders here in America? The president hasn't put one nickel - not one nickel - into the effort to fix some of our tunnels and bridges and most exposed subway systems. That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican convention was there. We haven't done the work that ought to be done.
The president - 95 percent of the containers that come into the ports, right here in Florida, are not inspected. Civilians get onto aircraft and their luggage is X-rayed, but the cargo hold is not X-rayed. Does that make you feel safer in America?
This president thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security. Those aren't my values. I believe in protecting America first. And long before President Bush and I get a tax cut - and that's who gets it - long before we do, I'm going to invest in homeland security and I'm going to make sure we're not cutting cops programs in America and we're fully staffed in our firehouses and that we protect the nuclear and chemical plants.
The president, also unfortunately, gave in to the chemical industry, which didn't want to do some of the things necessary to strengthen our chemical plant exposure. And there's an enormous undone job to protect the loose nuclear materials in the world that are able to get to terrorists. That's a whole other subject.
But I see we still have a little bit more time. Let me just quickly say, at the current pace, the president will not secure the loose material in the Soviet Union, former Soviet Union, for 13 years. I'm going to do it in four years. And we're going to keep it out of the hands of terrorists.
Mr. Lehrer: Ninety-second response, Mr. President.
Mr. Bush: I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises. It's like a huge tax gap and - anyway, that's for another debate.
---
FLAME ON!!!! :D You guys can bring it on all day long. The fact is that Bushie looked like a pathetic loser last night. He's going to fall flat on his face in the next two debates, and he's going to be soundly defeated in November.
OK Liz, Bush looked "annoyed" at Kerry. And with good reason.Quote:
Originally posted by lizzielou742
Are you kidding? Did you not go watch that video Aly posted? All Bush did was roll his eyes! Bush looked irritated, bored, frustrated and tired the whole time. Even Faux News admits that.
I was referring to Gore's behavior during the last election . . . ah, why even bother.
Liz,
Whatever???
Saddam used chemweps on the Kurds and Iranians in the 90's.
That and his jerking the UN inspectors around gave us a good reason to believe he had them.
Why 'flame' when you can use a grill?
It's far more fun to watch people shift from foot to foot while they think.
:confused: :eek:
Richard,
I said whatever because this thread is about the debate, like I pointed out before. But, if you'd like to talk about the REALITY of the situation...
The question here is not about who shoulda done what in the 80s, 90s, etc. The real question is: why has Bush mismanaged the situation in Iraq so badly?
I guess it's because, like I just heard Rush Limbaugh say on the radio: "George W. Bush not a politican. He's the President."
:confused:
Personally, I'd like to have a politican dealing with leaders of countries around the world when it comes to dealing with the near-civil war in Iraq. Not some cowboy who can't pronounce half the words in the English language.
Iraq is FUBAR and Bushie done it. Period.
---
We're Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore
By Garrison Keillor
Something has gone seriously haywire with the Republican Party.
Once, it was the party of pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacles who decried profligacy and waste, were devoted to their communities and supported the sort of prosperity that raises all ships.
They were good-hearted people who vanquished the gnarlier elements of their party, the paranoid Roosevelt-haters, the flat Earthers and Prohibitionists, the anti-papist anti-foreigner element. The genial Eisenhower was their man, a genuine American hero of D-Day, who made it OK for reasonable people to vote Republican. He brought the Korean War to a stalemate, produced the Interstate Highway System, declined to rescue the
French colonial army in Vietnam, and gave us a period of peace and prosperity, in which (oddly) American arts and letters flourished and higher education burgeoned--and there was a degree of plain decency in the country. Fifties Republicans were giants compared to today's. Richard Nixon was the last Republican leader to feel a Christian obligation toward the poor.
In the years between Nixon and Newt Gingrich, the party migrated southward down the Twisting Trail of Rhetoric and sneered at the idea of public service and became the Scourge of Liberalism, the Great Crusade Against the Sixties, the Death Star of Government, a gang of pirates that diverted and fascinated the media by their sheer chutzpah, such as the misty-eyed flag-waving of Ronald Reagan who, while George McGovern flew bombers in World War II, took a pass and made training films in Long Beach. The Nixon moderate vanished like the passenger pigeon, purged by a legion of angry white men who rose to power on pure punk politics.
"Bipartisanship is another term of date rape," says Grover Norquist, the Sid Vicious of the GOP.
"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
The boy has Oedipal problems and government is his daddy.
The party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance
racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brown shirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini Libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong's moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt's evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk.
Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we're deaf, dumb and dangerous.
Rich ironies abound! Lies pop up like toadstools in the forest!
Wild swine crowd round the public trough! Outrageous gerrymandering!
Pocket lining on a massive scale! Paid lobbyists sit in committee rooms and write legislation to alleviate the suffering of billionaires!
Hypocrisies shine like cat turds in the moonlight!
O Mark Twain, where art thou at this hour?
Arise and behold the Gilded Age reincarnated gaudier than ever, upholding great wealth as the sure sign of Divine Grace.
Here in 2004, George W. Bush is running for reelection on a platform of tragedy--the single greatest failure of national defense in our history, the attacks of 9/11 in which 19 men with box cutters put this nation into a
tailspin, a failure the details of which the White House fought to keep secret even as it ran the country into hock up to the hubcaps, thanks to generous tax cuts for the well-fixed, hoping to lead us into a box canyon of debt that will render government impotent, even as we engage in a war against a small country that was undertaken for the president's personal satisfaction but sold to the American public on the basis of brazen misinformation, a war whose purpose is to distract us from an enormous transfer of wealth taking place in this country, flowing upward, and the deception is working beautifully.
The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few is the death knell of democracy. No republic in the history of humanity has survived this. The election of 2004 will say something about what happens to ours. The omens are not good.
Our be loved land has been fogged with fear--fear, the greatest political strategy ever. An ominous silence, distant sirens, a drumbeat of whispered warnings and alarms to keep the public uneasy and silence the
opposition. And in a time of vague fear, you can appoint bullet-brained judges, strip the bark off the Constitution, eviscerate federal regulatory agencies, bring public education to a standstill, stupefy the press, lavish gorgeous tax breaks on the rich.
There is a stink drifting through this election year. It isn't the Florida recount or the Supreme Court decision. No, it's 9/11 that we keep coming back to. It wasn't the "end of innocence," or a turning point in our history, or a cosmic occurrence, it was an event, a lapse of security. And
patriotism shouldn't prevent people from asking hard questions of the man who was purportedly in charge of national security at the time.
Whenever I think of those New Yorkers hurrying along Park Place or getting off the No.1 Broadway local, hustling toward their office on the 90th floor, the morning paper under their arms, I think of that non-reader George W. Bush and how he hopes to exploit those people with a little economic uptick, maybe the capture of Osama, cruise to victory in November and proceed to get some serious nation-changing done in his second term.
This year, as in the past, Republicans will portray us Democrats as embittered academics, desiccated Unitarians, whacked-out hippies and communards, people who talk to telephone poles, the party of the Deadheads.
They will wave enormous flags and wow over and over the footage of firemen in the wreckage of the World Trade Center and bodies being carried out and they will lie about their economic policies with astonishing enthusiasm.
The Union is what needs defending this year. Government of Enron and by Halliburton and for the Southern Baptists is not the same as what Lincoln spoke of. This gang of Pithecanthropus Republicanii has humbugged us to death on terrorism and tax cuts for the comfy and school prayer and flag burning and claimed the right to know what books we read and to dump their sewage upstream from the town and clear-cut the forests and gut the IRS and mark up the constitution on behalf of intolerance and promote the corporate takeover of the public airwaves and to hell with anybody who opposes them.
This is a great country, and it wasn't made so by angry people. We have a sacred duty to bequeath it to our grandchildren in better shape than however we found it. We have a long way to go and we're not getting any
younger.
Dante said that the hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who in time of crisis remain neutral, so I have spoken my piece, and thank you, dear reader. It's a beautiful world, rain or shine, and there is more to life than winning.
:p
I thought the topic was Iraq..
My half a brain got confused.
--------------------------------------
Garrison Keillor???
Hypocrisies shine like cat turds in the moonlight!
Leave it to him to examine cat scat under the lunar albedo.
;)
-----------------------------------
It didn't bother me (didn't need to watch the video because I was watching the whole time, LizzieLou). I was making the same faces Bush was!!!! :pQuote:
Originally posted by lizzielou742
Are you kidding? Did you not go watch that video Aly posted? All Bush did was roll his eyes! Bush looked irritated, bored, frustrated and tired the whole time. Even Faux News admits that.
OMG!!!! :eek: You were listening to Rush Limbaugh? Did you REALLY, REALLY listen????? I hope so!!!!! :)Quote:
like I just heard Rush Limbaugh say on the radio
Best intentions, really, LizzieLou.
Logan
So we all have our opinion on who won last night - who we want to win in November - who did what when....and we all should have our facts on each - or at least more factual than say Dan Rather ;)
That said - just remember to get out on November 2nd and vote for the person and ideas you want to go forward.
Lizzy and Christa - I have a really good friend and we are as far apart on this issue as it is obvious you two are....so when we start to debate and it gets heated and going to places where one or both will be defensive and/or hurt, we just use the phrase, "Nice Shoes." That lets each of us know that it is time to move to another subject. She isn't going to change her mind and I am not going to change mine. Period.......so PM each other and say Nice Shoes - K?:)
For those of you that did like my button, you can go here and make your own :)
http://www.neilturner.me.uk/2003/Dec...generator.html
Don't worry Snappy, Liz & I made it clear from the beginning, no hurt feelings. Right Liz?!? We obviously have COMPLETE opposite opinions when it comes to politics.
Like I said before, I usually don't get involved on these political boards because it does get so heated. But I guess I got in on it, so here I am . . .
LOLOLOL :DQuote:
Originally posted by RICHARD
[B]Leave it to him to examine cat scat under the lunar albedo.
No hurt feelings with anyone. :) I think this stuff is not only interesting, but important. It's important for us to think critically. Too many people in this nation just don't.
Yes, I listen to Rush Limbaugh. I can't stand it sometimes ;), but I try to check in at least once a day. I listen to all kinds of stuff - from Sean Hannity to Joe Scarborough to Al Franken. I read all sorts of blogs too. :)
I also sent emails today to the following organizations, telling them exactly what I thought about last night's debate:
Rush's radio show
Hannity's radio show
Hannity & Colmes' TV show
FOX News in general
The Today Show
NBC Nightly News
CBS Evening News
ABC News
Nightline
CNN
Hardball
MSNBC in general
LA Times
NY Times
Wall Street Journal
USA Today
Washington Post
Louisville Courier Journal
Lexington Herald-Leader
Cincinnati Enquirer
I think it's very important for people my age (early 20s) to make their voices heard. :D :D :D