How bout a little Republican/Democrat Debate?

[jfrenaye]

Here is my "republican" take on the upcoming potential shift of power......


Jim Webb, a Democratic Senate hopeful from Virginia.... novelist... Ever read his work? This sure aint "Pride And Predjudice"...... makes Mark Foley look like a saint.

John Kerry, the sore loser of 2004? Recently belittled the military in a college speech where he basically said "If you don't do well in school, you'll be 'stuck' in Iraq." - Real nice "war hero", real nice regard for the men and women who serve this country. Do the Dems really think the average US Serviceman is uneducated? That's an insult.

Ned Lamont, Senate hopeful from Connecticut... heavily invested in companies that shift American jobs overseas?

Nancy Pelosi, who stands to be the House Speaker if the Dems take over, claims she has a "strategy for victory in Iraq"... does that mean if she doesn't get the job, we'll never know her "brilliant plan"? Speak up!

Bob Menendez from New Jersey..... KNOWN for his corruption... and he's running against the son of one of NJ's most popular and successful governors EVER!

John Murtha..... KNOWN Conspirator in the 70's "AB-SCAM" fiasco.....

Harry Reid.... former KKK official.....

This is the party you want controlling our government?

1. Raise taxes.. they have already sworn to repeal the Bush tax cuts, and not only that, make us pay back what we've already saved!

2. Cut and run in Iraq.. so our enemies know that with enough pressure, the United States can be defeated. Sadly, it's pressure from within our OWN borders, not on the battlefield that does it. Al Qaida must LOVE watching our political soap opera unfold.

3. Gas stamps? Real nice. Now I'll have to pay for other people's gasoline? I didn't know automobile ownership was a "right".

4. "National Peace Day"? (Bob Kucinich)..... A nice idea, but what do they want? Our troops to lay down their weapons for a day?

5. "The Fairness Doctrine"?... nice way to silence free speech on radio airwaves..... Just because the liberal media doesn't "control" radio (yet), they found a way to legislate it instead!

I see a strong gain for the Democrats coming soon. And yes, I partially blame Bush. He's not tough enough on his own party. He doesn't "rally the troops" as he once did.

It's sad that a Democratic victory means a HUGE step backwards for this country.

Before the Dems "flame" me here.... Answer this.

List some things that a Democratic-controlled Congress will do for the country. And be specific. "Bring the troops home", "Better National Security", etc.. are not good enough. Let's see a REAL platform that doesn't involve "Bush is a doodiehead". Let's see something real. Make me WANT to reconsider my vote.

And..... go!

[CruiseExpert]

Hello, John. Wow! I am not getting into politics on here. All I am going to say is I can't wait to see the responses, and be sure to vote Tuesday.

[jfrenaye]

Yeah why not stir it up a little bit. Not gonna take complete credit for the post---the points came from a heated discussion I had this afternoon at lunch with some folks. Just thought I woudl bring it here and stir the pot a bit!

[Kairho]

The only one I'll address is Jim Webb ... how in the world can someone's FICTION writing be any indicator of how he would be as a legislator? If that's the case, I guess Stephen King could never run for office.

[REDJIM]

Hey, John, I'm not excited by any of the choices we're going to have on November 7th.

Being a fan of U.S. history, I'm kind of aware that corruption, and idiocy; statesmanship and brilliance have always been bedfellows in our peculiar brand of politics.

I'm truly bothered tho' by the fragmentation this class of office seekers seem to be working for, in America.

And I'm appalled by the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent to buy local/state and national offices. I don't think the average citizen and taxpayer (you & me) is getting his/her monies worth, and the overbearing office holder, office seeker, intent to "factionalize" this great nation is going to play directly into the hands of our enemies. Many an enemy of the Republic has observed that the U.S.A will destroy itself by it's undisciplined demand for excess.

I believe we're seeing that in business practices and politics right now. And this scares me.

I'm going to be all over the ballot on November 7th., and I already know that I'll leave my polling place heartsick, because I couldn't vote for the best man/woman, but only for the "lesser of two evils."

God Bless America, please, today more than ever.

[mercwyn]

I don't think you can have a "little" debate. I think you will end up with a big heated argument.


I'm an independent voter and I have to ask John to humor me hear and apply the same approach to the Republican party and show me why I would want to have them continue to be in charge.

As an aside, I don't think most of the political types of either party are particularly honorable or honest and therefore I see much of this as nothing more then political posturing.


Edited because I clicked too soon. :D

[Ned]

Ok John, I'll take a stabb at this...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jfrenaye @ Nov 1 2006, 04:32 PM) 41735</div>Here is my "republican" take on the upcoming potential shift of power......
Jim Webb, a Democratic Senate hopeful from Virginia.... novelist... Ever read his work? This sure aint "Pride And Predjudice"...... makes Mark Foley look like a saint.[/b]

Jim Webb fictionalized about sex, Mark Foley lived it. If that's all you have against Webb, I'll take him over Allen any day.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jfrenaye @ Nov 1 2006, 04:32 PM) 41735</div>John Kerry, the sore loser of 2004? Recently belittled the military in a college speech where he basically said "If you don't do well in school, you'll be 'stuck' in Iraq." - Real nice "war hero", real nice regard for the men and women who serve this country. Do the Dems really think the average US Serviceman is uneducated? That's an insult.[/b]

I'd be sore if someone stole the election from me. Hell, I'm sore because someone stole the election period. Regardless, Kerry was a lousy candidate and hasn't a clue how to organize an extemporaneous speech in his mind. He always gets in trouble without a script. You know and I know what he meant. To go on about it like he really insulted anyone is absurd. Furthermore, to extrapolate Kerry's inept ability to speak off-the-cuff, to the idea that any Dems think US Service "persons" are stupid is an insult to Dems.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jfrenaye @ Nov 1 2006, 04:32 PM) 41735</div>Ned Lamont, Senate hopeful from Connecticut... heavily invested in companies that shift American jobs overseas?[/b]

Yes he did, just like all the Elephants in the Congress that voted for the tax legislation which made in so very profitable to do so.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jfrenaye @ Nov 1 2006, 04:32 PM) 41735</div>Nancy Pelosi, who stands to be the House Speaker if the Dems take over, claims she has a "strategy for victory in Iraq"... does that mean if she doesn't get the job, we'll never know her "brilliant plan"? Speak up!
[/b]

Hey whether we ever find out what her plan is, we already know the Bush and the Republican plan; chaos, stupidity, intransigence, lies, political hacks running the show instead of professionals, the wasting of young American lives, and increasing the danger of more terrorism. While the Dems haven't articulated a plan, or if they don't have a plan, we know the Repubs definitely have no plan whatsoever.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jfrenaye @ Nov 1 2006, 04:32 PM) 41735</div>Bob Menendez from New Jersey..... KNOWN for his corruption... and he's running against the son of one of NJ's most popular and successful governors EVER![/b]

Menendez vs. Kane...It's lucky that NJ has a high tolerance for scandal with these two. Don't forget Kane and the recent United Health Group scandal where Kane's father, Tom Kean Sr., a former governor of New Jersey testified about whether the company improperly dispensed stock options, and at the same time UHG is filling Kane's election coffers.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jfrenaye @ Nov 1 2006, 04:32 PM) 41735</div>John Murtha..... KNOWN Conspirator in the 70's "AB-SCAM" fiasco.....[/b]

"Known"... I don't think so. He wasn't indicted because they couldn't prove anything. Then there's the videotape of the Jan. 7, 1980 Abscam-related meeting involving Murtha which shows the congressman's rejection of the FBI offer of money.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jfrenaye @ Nov 1 2006, 04:32 PM) 41735</div>Harry Reid.... former KKK official.....[/b]

This is an interesting allegation which has only been reported, at least that I can find, by conservative blogs and newsletters. I have yet to find a single mainstream newspaper reporting this.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jfrenaye @ Nov 1 2006, 04:32 PM) 41735</div>This is the party you want controlling our government?[/b]

Better them, than their opposition.

As to the rest of your post. We clearly have great philosophical differences.

But John, I love ya! B) It is certainly great that we can argue about stuff and still know the other guy is a terrific person.

[jfrenaye]

As I said, we have 6 days to go...just stirring a bit!

[deangreenhoe]

The above posts by RedJim and mercwyn sum up my feelings about our current situation almost exactly!

Sorry, but I just don't have the stomach to play the party game any longer. I am also too concerned about this gaping divide between political factions in our country to think it's even constructive to debate between people of either party affiliation.

I'm already at the point where I feel like jumping out of my skin every time I hear the phrases "liberal democrat" and "right wing conservative" thrown around like so many curses. They've become the hateful insults of our time depending on who utters the words.

And can anybody tell me what the hell happened to the conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans? Where are the moderates? Do those people even have a chance in our current toxic political environment?

I think that's the burning question that most people want answered. Well, at least I do. But I don't think I'm alone.

At this point I'd support pretty much anybody who could illustrate the ability to think reasonably, with the greater good of the majority obvious at the forefront of their platform, and the guts to stop whoring themselves to special interest groups (with their dirty money campaign contributions) and their respective party Gestapos.

But no, I'm not angry or upset. :lol:

I'm sure this is overstating things (but humor me, I'm in the mood), but I'm not certain we can survive another election in this country with a shred of dignity or credibility intact. The "me" generation seems to have come full circle during a time when we so critically need to be an "us" again.

In that vein, I'd be far more interested in a conversatiion about how we might repair the system and heal the deep wounds which have already been made between the warring factions from both parties. This is not a game to be enjoyed for sport any longer. The stakes have become too high. Our future and the viability of our "strong nation of peace" depends on it.

Okay, now cue "God Bless America." B)

[REDJIM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(deangreenhoe @ Nov 1 2006, 06:46 PM) 41750</div>
I'm sure this is overstating things (but humor me, I'm in the mood), but I'm not certain we can survive another election in this country with a shred of dignity or credibility intact. The "me" generation seems to have come full circle during a time when we so critically need to be an "us" again.
[/b]

OMG. That's the crux of our situation, Dean.

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(deangreenhoe @ Nov 1 2006, 06:46 PM) 41750</div>
...At this point I'd support pretty much anybody who could illustrate the ability to think reasonably, with the greater good of the majority obvious at the forefront of their platform, and the guts to stop whoring themselves to special interest groups (with their dirty money campaign contributions) and their respective party Gestapos.

I'm sure this is overstating things (but humor me, I'm in the mood), but I'm not certain we can survive another election in this country with a shred of dignity or credibility intact. The "me" generation seems to have come full circle during a time when we so critically need to be an "us" again.

In that vein, I'd be far more interested in a conversatiion about how we might repair the system and heal the deep wounds which have already been made between the warring factions from both parties. This is not a game to be enjoyed for sport any longer. The stakes have become too high. Our future and the viability of our "strong nation of peace" depends on it.

Okay, now cue "God Bless America." B)
[/b]
First, let me say Amen!

I think that one step toward fixing the system is public campaign financing, with the complete elimination of any personal or private financing of any kind. Each candidate will get $X to spend to run in the primary and $Y to spend in the general election. Since the airwaves are public domain, both radio and tv ads concerning primaries or elections, not paid for by the taxpayer money alloted to candidates, are not permitted.

Next, no person running for office or holding elected office may accept gifts of cash or kind of any type whatsoever, from any person, company or entity. This would include dinners, travel, etc. All fact finding missions would have to be paid by the government only under governmental rules.

I'm sure you all can come up with more stuff to take the lobbyists out of the elections and lawmaking, and put the citizens back in.

I don't think that these changes would cure the problem, but I do think they'd help quite a bit.

Finally, I must say, that at this point, I see many candidates running for office now, and those who might run in the future, I can easily vote against, but unfortunately I see no candidates now, or on the horizon, I think I could actually vote for. It's a said state of affairs.

[deangreenhoe]

Finally, I must say, that at this point, I see many candidates running for office now, and those who might run in the future, I can easily vote against[/b]

Exactly! And I share your sadness. It makes feel like such a fraud when I have to grudgingly support someone who is just marginally less of a stinking turd than their opponent. :rolleyes:

I think your ideas about campaign funding reform are sound as well, Ned, and I bet the vast majority of voting Americans, or at those without their own lap dog congressperson, would support the idea 100%. I don't think it has a chance in hell of making it through the legislature in my lifetime, but one can always dream.

[Ned]

I'd like to add a little something to the debate at this point. Sorry for the negativity Dean. It's just that I'm still steamed.

I am sick and tired of the machinations from the Repubs using the code words "tax and spend" to pigeon-hole and damn all democrats, and by doing so seek to elevate themselves.

Let's face it, the Repubs of Congress and President Bush have clearly shown they are the party of "mortgage and spend."

Because of their "mortgage and spend" policy, the Bush government has increased the country's deficit more than any prior administration in US history, and to its highest level in the history of our country.

Additionally the Bush government irresponsibly reduced taxes, thus increasing the deficit even more than it otherwise would have been. And did they at least reduce taxes for the middle class who need it the most? No! They reduced taxes for the rich and super-rich. This president and his party's "K" Street group are the epitomy of "pay to play."

This president and congress have mortgaged the future of our children and grandchildren into oblivion, in only 6 short years. Every minute the Bush government is in power the mortage principle continues to rise to even higher astronomical proportions.

These "mortgage and spend" Repubs don't know what conservative and conservation actually means. They do know how to invade everyone's privacy though, and they do know how to impose their beliefs on everyone else. Finally, they do know how to trade our freedoms for false security.

There was a poster on the wall of John Ashcroft's office which displayed a quotation from Benjamin Franklin. The quotation read, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." It's a shame that Ashcroft and his former boss never learned the lesson.

[deangreenhoe]

Sorry for the negativity Dean. [/b]

Well, John wanted to stir the pot. And I'm not exactly disagreeing with you. ;)

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jfrenaye @ Nov 1 2006, 06:37 PM) 41748</div>
As I said, we have 6 days to go...just stirring a bit!
[/b]
There's nothing wrong with stirring the pot, in fact it can be lot's of fun, as long as we're all still friends at the end of the day.

[Eileen Sellers]

I think that one step toward fixing the system is public campaign financing, with the complete elimination of any personal or private financing of any kind. Each candidate will get $X to spend to run in the primary and $Y to spend in the general election. Since the airwaves are public domain, both radio and tv ads concerning primaries or elections, not paid for by the taxpayer money alloted to candidates, are not permitted.[/b]


Private companies could pay for ads which they do now, private citizens could pay for ads, which they do. Foreign countries could pay for ads, which they probably do, foreign nationals could pay for ads, which they proabably do. So capping the money to the party or candidate wouldn't fix it, but it would identify which corporations, individuals want who to win. You can't stop those ads from running in a free press, in a free society in a free America. So who will represent the American Citizen and the rights of those citizens?
No one. Once elected they have to vote according to who they owe money to. This is why as RedJim says we have to pick the lesser of the two evils.

I think at some point some candidate will have the courage to stand up and speak American to America, and they will win. Probably an independent out there somewhere with guts. I'd like to see someone run a campaign soley on the itnernet. Nice and cheap and probably very effective.

[hwyman]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ned @ Nov 1 2006, 09:13 PM) 41762</div>

Additionally the Bush government irresponsibly reduced taxes, thus increasing the deficit even more than it otherwise would have been. And did they at least reduce taxes for the middle class who need it the most? No! They reduced taxes for the rich and super-rich. This president and his party's "K" Street group are the epitomy of "pay to play."

[/b]

I wouldn't say that only the rich got tax cuts. I am hardly what anyone would consider rich and my Federal taxes, in fact were reduced. Something was needed to jumpstart the economy after the dot-com bust of the late 90s and the ensuing recession that began in 2000.

Nor, did the tax cuts cause the deficit. As was proven by the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s. After Reagan cut taxes, revenue actually doubled to the US Treasury. What caused the deficit was Congress tripled spending (much like today). What the tax cuts did do was free up money to get the economy going again. Today, we enjoy a record high Dow Jones average, record high home ownership rates, low unemployment rates. Yes, I am disappointed at Congressional Republicans today who have adopted the big spender mentality.

I would be more afraid of a return to the tax increases of the Clinton Administration, where hre pledged to only raise taxes on the rich, and then proceeded to raise taxes on anyone making more than about $32k.

[Eileen Sellers]

Today, we enjoy a record high Dow Jones average, record high home ownership rates, low unemployment rates. [/b]

You are ablsolutley right. But we have off-setting penalties, I think.

We have record high illegal immigration, and no dimishment in welfare recipients. Our schools aren't doing well due to poor distribution of taxes, and an antiquated program of tax assessment. Welfare hasn't changed any and consequently welfare recipients feel entitled instead of encouraged to get off welfare. Our tax money is wasted because of our lack of effort to help low income families. Our middle class continues to struggle to support everyone and gets nothing in return except the opportunity to get shot by an assault weapon owned by a foreign national living in our country, but not to worry, he got a good price on the weapon. Our young get run into gangs and drugs because no one in office cares because most come from families that are on goverment aid, and isn't that good enough? As long as each party continues to put other interests before those of the citizenship in this country, we will continue to be second class citizens in our own country. And at that point it really doesn't matter who is in office, it just more of the same old crap.

[mtp51]

Oh, John - this will go on for 6 days! I look forward to the banter. As I told my local NBC station manager, "get the political crap off the TV!" Like they wouldn't love to.....
Y'all go on with your bad selves. :P

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Eileen Sellers @ Nov 2 2006, 11:08 AM) 41818</div>
Private companies could pay for ads which they do now, private citizens could pay for ads, which they do. Foreign countries could pay for ads, which they probably do, foreign nationals could pay for ads, which they proabably do. So capping the money to the party or candidate wouldn't fix it, but it would identify which corporations, individuals want who to win. You can't stop those ads from running in a free press, in a free society in a free America. So who will represent the American Citizen and the rights of those citizens?
No one. Once elected they have to vote according to who they owe money to. This is why as RedJim says we have to pick the lesser of the two evils.

I think at some point some candidate will have the courage to stand up and speak American to America, and they will win. Probably an independent out there somewhere with guts. I'd like to see someone run a campaign soley on the itnernet. Nice and cheap and probably very effective.
[/b]
You're right Eileen, we can't stop anyone from running ads in the print media, but here's the thing, there are only 50 million newspapers sold each day from Monday through Saturday, and only 55 million on Sunday. Reportably less than 40% of the people reading these newspapers get past the obituaries, puzzles, comics, movie listings, and sports. Another 10% actually read the food, travel, and features. In other words only about 25 million people actually read the news in a newspaper. So none of those ads, from private companies, political parties, foreign and domestic corporations, individuals from who knows where, etc. are going to be seen by very many in the electorate, and the people running the campaigns already know it. That's why they've found tooth and nail against public financing of elections. Why do you think that the candidates spend their money on TV and Radio and not in the print media? Because they can't get any bang for their buck in the print media. Advertisers of goods know it too. Our newspapers are getting thinner these days, not because the publishers are printing fewer articles, but because they're not able to solicit the number of ads they used to get.

On the Internet, the only ones who go to political websites are the true believers, not the need to be converted.

You asked, "So who will represent the American Citizen and the rights of those citizens? No one." Does that mean you're giving up, that you want even try something new to wrestle the government out of the hands of hired guns, known as paid lobbists, and back into the hands of the electorate?

[Eileen Sellers]

I'm all for trying something new, problem is nothing new ever gets tried.

I'd like to try and get guns out of the hands of foreign nationals in our country. No guns for them until they become citizens. No possession, no ownership of gun shops-no nothing. They can live here in peace
and quiet or go home.

I'd like to see green cards have an expiration date and a requirement to become a citizen or go home.

I'd like to see a new schedule of taxes. One the is beneficial to citizens. One that differentiates citizen from non-citizen.

I'd like to see acknowledgement that being born in the US doesn't guarantee that you'll be raised in the US. If the illegal parents get deported, they take their children home with them and when the child is of legal age they can claim their citizenship if they want. I'd like to never see a demonstation again by people who have broken the law then demand that we change our law to accomodate their crime. Our jails are full of people who in the process of trying to have a better life did something wrong.

I'd like see welfare transformed into workfare. If you want the check to keep coming, you have to do somehthing for it.

I'd like to see politicians and preachers stop referring to black skinned Americans as Africans. There is nothing African about them. The reason I know this, is because there is genocide going on in Africa, and no black Americans seem to care. There is no movement in the county to rally African Americans to save their "relatives". John Kerry's wife is African American, Barack Obama is African American, and neither one looks like each other. Hollywood cares about Darfur, but not Harlem. Harlem doesn't care about Darfur, Watts doesn't care about Darfur because they aren't African. Because preachers keep telling them they are from somewhere else, they grow up thinking they are different, and they are not.

So who is running for election that has a plan to help the everyday American Citizen and the everday quailty of life in America?

[BYOFT]

Remember Ross Perot, and the Reform Party? I'd like to see more presence from that sector. They did elect a governor, in Minnesota(brain dead this morning-can't think of the guy's name!), who actually was quite refreshing.

I don't vote party lines-never have, never will. But I do vote, unfortunately like some others have said, usually for the lesser of the evils.

[pezmanffx]

Lets see, Allen seems to have a racial slur for everything. Its just so wrong I cant even go there. Bush will go down as the worst president ever elected. I think both Bush and Cheney are getting rich off the war due to their ties with Halloburten. Why no one has really looked deeply into this, I will never understand.

One of our governments role is to protect minories from the majority. Clearly, the republicans are not leaders in this area. Clearly, civil rights are not on their adgenda unless it is a platform fully endorsed by the various religious organizations that fund their campaigns.

When the US declaired independence didnt the founding fathers write "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Well, some of us do not have these rights.

Just a question, any married folks here suddenly feel that their marriage was being threatened on April 28, 2006? Thats the day we drove to Canada to get married.

Yes, I am the worst speller out there.

[deangreenhoe]

Just a question, any married folks here suddenly feel that their marriage was being threatened on April 28, 2006?[/b]

So, that's what made my uncle's (the pentecostal reverand's) head explode last spring. We thought it was just a build up of hot air. :lol:

Congrats, Pez. :)

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pezmanffx @ Nov 3 2006, 10:00 AM) 41903</div>
...Just a question, any married folks here suddenly feel that their marriage was being threatened on April 28, 2006? Thats the day we drove to Canada to get married...
[/b]Somehow I don't think my marriage of 35 years, or the institution itself is threatened.

I will say that a whole lot of good folks who I know (at least I think they are good folks), who believe in the same rights and privileges for same sex "unions" as traditional "unions" ie. "marriages," wish for another "word" other than marriage, to describe a marriage of same sex partners. It's the use of the word "marriage" which sticks in their crawl. The problem, of course, is that "marriage" has serious religious connotations. Someone brighter than me will have to sort this out, because I see no solution at this point, to bring together the two sides of the issue, due to "that word."

[pezmanffx]

Semantics. Whats in a name. Marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, legal union, Human LLC, death sentence. In the end, it doesnt matter what you call it. If it is legally a domestic partnership, does it matter since the rights and end result are the same? Its like saying, is it an SUV? No its a crossover. No its a stationwagon. Whatever, its a vehicle and they all do the same thing, just some do it in a slightly different way.

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pezmanffx @ Nov 3 2006, 11:41 AM) 41917</div>
Semantics. Whats in a name. Marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, legal union, Human LLC, death sentence. In the end, it doesnt matter what you call it. If it is legally a domestic partnership, does it matter since the rights and end result are the same? Its like saying, is it an SUV? No its a crossover. No its a stationwagon. Whatever, its a vehicle and they all do the same thing, just some do it in a slightly different way.[/b]
I for one agree with that. My brother always called his a marriage. My mother never accepted that, the word, but did accept their "union" and his partner, who is still close to the family, years after my brother died.

Hell my mother was a little nutso anyway. One could say she accepted Bob a lot faster than my wife. My mother was always upset at my wife because we decided to get married only 6 months after my grandmother, her mother died. She wanted us to wait until her stone was unveiled, 11 months after her internment, which ended my mother's period of mourning. Of course, she didn't tell us she had a problem with the date until about 2 weeks before the wedding. As I said, she was a little nutso.

[Ned]

As a segue back to the donkeys and elephants, I thought I might mention something a little more apropos to what we've been discussing.

How about that Rev. Ted Haggard, one of the Republican keepers of the "so-called" "family values" flame. Apparently, according to news reports in the last hour, although he's publically stated a complete denial of wrong doing, after resigning his position, he's now made an admission of guilt," but not to all of the allegations.

It just goes to show that if you live by the sword of "holier than thou," you will most certainly die by the sword of "sin."

[vacationagent]

Of course, she didn't tell us she had a problem with the date until about 2 weeks before the wedding.[/b]
That is hilarious!

How about that Rev. Ted Haggard, one of the Republican keepers of the "so-called" "family values" flame[/b]
Poor Rev. Ted - outted by his paid escort. He was profiled on Dateline several months ago and was bragging that his calls to the White House were always returned within 24 hours. As a matter of fact, he had to leave the Dateline interview to participate in a White House led conference call. (Several other ministers and religious leaders were also participating.) Wonder how long it will take to get his calls returned now...hmmm. My newspaper this morning in an AP article said that the gigilo/prostitute/escort/massage therapist said that he did not contact the Rev. that he was going public prior to going public. I'm thinking that the good Reverend is 'fessing up because there are some tapes.

[jjjenny]

Hey Pez, congratulations! And no, it did not mess up my marriage in any way.

[Eileen Sellers]

Marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, legal union, Human LLC, death sentence. In the end, it doesnt matter what you call it. If it is legally a domestic partnership, does it matter since the rights and end result are the same?[/b]

That's the problem exactly. The domestic partnership isn't a legal entity and marriage is. Churches care who gets married, the govenment of the United States can't afford to care who gets married. Their job is make sure that if the citizens of the country want to recognize any 2 people as a legal union then they have to do it. Civil Union license solves that problem as long as one of the parties is a citizen. Then the churches can go marry anyone they want, in any order, size, shape, form, or other reason that they want to. So everyone get a civil union license, and then go get a church to bless you. We have to stop using marriage as the vehicle that conveys our rights.

Just don't ask anyone to accept that 2 men or 2 women are a married couple. It's just stupid.

[REDJIM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ned @ Nov 1 2006, 09:13 PM) 41762</div>
These "mortgage and spend" Repubs don't know what conservative and conservation actually means. They do know how to invade everyone's privacy though, and they do know how to impose their beliefs on everyone else. Finally, they do know how to trade our freedoms for false security.
[/b]

Quite right, Ned. And I can say this as a Republican-leaning voter. For the President to describe his administration as "compassionate conservatism" is an insult to any of us who are true Conservatives.

The last "compassionate" conservative, to my thinking, was Abraham Lincoln. If the law-makers, lawbreakers inside the Beltway were cut from the same principled cloth as Old Abe, this nation would be heaven on earth.

[Ned]

Now we have a new development in the repubs vs dems. Apparently, because the Bush government was under tremendous pressure from incumbent Republican senators and representatives seeking reelection, the Bush government released classified documents, previous designated "top secret," on to a public web site named "Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal," directly related to the design of a nuclear weapon. Democrats are accusing the Bush administration of creating the now shuttered web site to bolster support for Bush’s claims that Saddam possessed banned weapons and had ties to al-Qaida.

It would appear that charges by Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that the Bush administration "released documents that could facilitate the efforts of terrorists and rogue states to acquire nuclear weapons designs." are true. The site contained documents which were a primer, for anyone who could read Arabic, on building a nuclear bomb according to New York Times translators.

Gee, I wonder what this says about the Republican Bush administration's claim to be "the" party capable of defending our country. In my opinion, this says Bush and his Republican party aren't even interested in defending our country unless it suits their real goal of amassing a fortune for their family and friends and retaining their power to do so. Why else would they give aid and comfort to the enemy?

[Kairho]

On the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents issue we need to be a bit careful. As much as I'd have loved to see it go down as Ned described, reports I've read indicate several "mitigating" factors. First, the administration was pressed by both dem and rep congressmen on the intell committee (and others?) to release the documents. Second, Chertoff apparently vigorously opposed the release. However, it was apparently then that W directly ordered the release and the second mistake is the docs were published without even being checked for content.

Why this has been brought up in the past day or two completely escapes me other than maybe it was for political purposes? A simple Google search will show at least 3 blogs which alerted to the matter back in May.

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kairho @ Nov 5 2006, 08:34 AM) 42012</div>
On the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents issue we need to be a bit careful. As much as I'd have loved to see it go down as Ned described, reports I've read indicate several "mitigating" factors. First, the administration was pressed by both dem and rep congressmen on the intell committee (and others?) to release the documents. Second, Chertoff apparently vigorously opposed the release. However, it was apparently then that W directly ordered the release and the second mistake is the docs were published without even being checked for content.

Why this has been brought up in the past day or two completely escapes me other than maybe it was for political purposes? A simple Google search will show at least 3 blogs which alerted to the matter back in May.
[/b]
Thanks for the clarification. After reading your comments I've done more reading about this subject. I didn't know about the dem congressmen asking for information to be displayed. I feel better about Chertoff, but I still don't think is generally competent.

I continue to believe my point about Bush and his adminstration is still on point, but if instead, the A-bomb directions were published along with other "Top Secret" information because the docs published weren't checked for content, then that's even worse, because that shows that Bush's administration can't be trusted with our defense and security due to incompetence.

It would appear that the reason the Dems brought it up again was because Bush didn't shut down the site in June as apparently promised, or at least remove the classified documents from the site at that time. The site wasn't closed until November 2nd. According to Carl Levin of Michigan, they had been pushing since May to have the classified documents removed or the site shut down since May. They went public because Bush wouldn't budge and do anything about the site. I'm sure there was a major political component to the timing of the letter, however, that still doesn't negate in any way, nor mitigate what the Bush government did. Any way you look at it, Bush gave aid and comfort to the enemy.