Liberal and/or Conservative?

[N9MOQ]

I saw the following quote in a magazine and thought others might find it interesting.


What political difference?

The real problem for me, however, is the way this is being framed by predominantly American researchers, and their use of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as if they were actually meaningful in American politics.

It gets worse outside the US, where the distinction between "liberal" capitalists and "conservative" capitalists is so small that it barely exists at all.

Taking the four remaining major US presidential candidates as an example, is it any wonder that factors other than these labels seem more important to their chances of success? Hillary Clinton's chances seem less determined by "liberalness" than by gender, Barack Obama's by race, Mike Huckabee's by religion and John McCain's by age.


I have always found it interesting that when someone wants to point out fault with a republican, they are called "crazy liberals" and when the same person points out a fault with a democrat, they are called "wacko conservatives"

As if all people in the world must be either a liberal or a conservative, and there could be nothing else.

Many Americans would probably not beleive that there could exist people who would be against both guns and abortion, or someone that would be strongly in favor of both gun rights and abortion rights.

What term would we have for those people? liberal conservatives or conservative liberals?

If you are against one, then it is assumed you must be for the other, because they think all people must fit into one of the two molds.

I also find it interesting when someone points out something Bush did, that they find wrong, and then the other side quickly points out Clinton did the same thing, and then the first person feels like they are stuck in a trap, trying to justify why it is ok for their candidate, but not for the other, when the intelligent thing would seem to be to admit that if it was wrong for one to do it, it should then also be wrong that the other did it.

It's almost as if these two labels were created to keep people fighting against each other over trivial matters, instead of working together to fix the problem.

As if the problem of "X" can be better fixed by having a candidate from the other party brand name do the exact same thing.

--------------------------------------

On another note... I hear the US media saying that now that Castro is stepping down, there is hope of Cuba getting democracy.

I wonder if Communist countries are hoping that when our President finally steps down, there is hope that US has a better chance of becoming Communist?



I find it interesting how the term "liberal media" is so often used by the media. How often do you hear them use the term "the conservative media"?

[nx6d]

I find it interesting how the term "liberal media" is so often used by the media. How often do you hear them use the term "the conservative media"?


The only people who use the term "liberal media" are right wing talk radio idiots.

What's your point?

[kc2orw]

No one calls it the conservative media, instead it is referred to as Medium Wave or just simply Faux News. There are many names for it I suppose maybe people should start calling it conservative. But to tell you the truth names like Medium Wave and Faux News are much funnier :D

[N3RQ]

What term would we have for those people? liberal conservatives or conservative liberals?


Moderates!

[K3XR]

The only people who use the term "liberal media" are right wing talk radio idiots.

What's your point?

Exactly, just like LIBS, and the LIB media, are the only folks to use the term right wing talk radio idiots, what is the point?

[kc2orw]

Exactly, just like LIBS, and the LIB media, are the only folks to use the term right wing talk radio idiots, what is the point?
Are you sure about that one... I'm not.

[k9kxq]

Are you sure about that one... I'm not.
He's not sure of anything, wandering aimlessly in space...

kxq

[KG4JYD]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/NolanChart.gif

[K0RGR]

Exactly, just like LIBS, and the LIB media, are the only folks to use the term right wing talk radio idiots, what is the point?
Until Ronald Reagan made it OK for them to come out of the closet, most people to the far right of the political spectrum were called "the right wing lunatic fringe".

I am a radical moderate, myself.

[N9MOQ]

The only people who use the term "liberal media" are right wing talk radio idiots. What's your point?

Exactly, just like LIBS, and the LIB media, are the only folks to use the term right wing talk radio idiots, what is the point?

Are you sure about that one... I'm not.

See? Once again the misconception that everyone is either a liberal or conservative. Right wing or Left wing, Republican or Democrat.

And THAT was the point.

[nx6d]

See? Once again the misconception that everyone is either a liberal or conservative. Right wing or Left wing, Republican or Democrat.

And THAT was the point.

What?

Profound, you're not. Your last comment makes absolutely no sense.

[kc7jty]

We are like little children, there always has to be a bad guy and good guy for our lives to go on. My daddy can beat up your daddy. Those who don't vote are unpatriotic, and a man who has the ability to think for himself is a troublemaker, unsociable, & probably doesn't buy the right laundry soap.
These flaws are inherent in everyone but here in America it's taken to a higher level, it has become the national passtime. It's used quite effectively by those who seek to manipulate us, simple because they can.

There are a people whose stupidity is exceeded only by their ignorance. Step aside brother, the lemmings are about to pass through.

[n2nh]

Are you sure about that one... I'm not.

Yeh, happens everyday in the Dannoverse.
:D

http://i32.tinypic.com/16j28b9.jpg

[w5klb]

Are you sure about that one... I'm not.

...but you are a RINO. Republican In Name Only.

Why don't you stop the charade, register as a Democrat and join your socialist brothers and sisters? I'm sure they would welcome you with open arms.

[N9XR]

...but you are a RINO. Republican In Name Only.

Why don't you stop the charade, register as a Democrat and join your socialist brothers and sisters? I'm sure they would welcome you with open arms.

He probably should since he probably in favor of wacky socialist programs that pay medical expenses for disabled American veterans.

[kc2orw]

...but you are a RINO. Republican In Name Only.

Why don't you stop the charade, register as a Democrat and join your socialist brothers and sisters? I'm sure they would welcome you with open arms.
No I don't think so friend if the party ever gets rid of the "Radicals" I am likely to vote for them again like I have in the past.

[K8YZK]

Those who don't vote are unpatriotic

Now this I would have to agree with. Our forefathers, and those who were in the military, gave a lot so that we as American's have a voice in the government. Yes it seems like it is wasted at times, but if you can vote, you should vote how you feel, and that doesn't mean picking the lesser of two evils. Most states that I have lived in still allowed write-ins.

So man up(or woman up),go to the polls and vote..

Kurt

[kc7jty]

I always vote how I feel, none of the candidates or even the whole process appeal to me. Keep your corrupt, behind the scenes manipulation, politics to yourselves I'll have no part of it.
The selection of our leaders is left to the idiots in this country who condone the process by voting, and it SHOWS.

and don't hand me that forefathers crap. If they were alive today they would puke.

[K8YZK]

I always vote how I feel, none of the candidates or even the whole process appeal to me. Keep your corrupt, behind the scenes manipulation, politics to yourselves I'll have no part of it.
The selection of our leaders is left to the idiots in this country who condone the process by voting, and it SHOWS.

and don't hand me that forefathers crap. If they were alive today they would puke.

You know you are right they would puke, and probably on you, because you probably don't vote, and would probably say they put their heads on the block for this country and you disrespect what they fought for, or if you do vote then you are part of the corrupt politicial scenes you dispise so much.

[W3MIV]

You know you are right they would puke, and probably on you, because you probably don't vote, and would probably say they put their heads on the block for this country and you disrespect what they fought for, or if you do vote then you are part of the corrupt politicial scenes you dispise so much.

It's OK. There are some, probably many, we don't want to vote.

[N9MOQ]

and don't hand me that forefathers crap. If they were alive today they would puke.

If the founding fathers were around today, Obama would be one of their slaves, and not a candidate. Hillary wouldn't be allowed to vote, let alone run for President.

Yes, I don't think the founding fathers would be very happy about this election.

[kc7jty]

You know you are right they would puke, and probably on you, because you probably don't vote, and would probably say they put their heads on the block for this country and you disrespect what they fought for, or if you do vote then you are part of the corrupt politicial scenes you dispise so much.
I'm 57 years old and have never voted. Continue to worship your fictitious god, he suits you perfectly. Your total lack of grasp of reality won't matter when you're dead. Occupying that coveted position in the bosom of the Lord is nonsense as well. :p

[N9XR]

Our forefathers were people. Their opinions varied on many issues as much or more than what our opinions vary today.

Why were there the ten amendments to the constitution right off the bat? It was because the constitution would not have been ratified with these rights installed in the first place. Many supported them, and others did not. It was politically possible to get us those rights by adding them later rather than have them installed from the first.

That's right. If you want to say that the forefathers would not be happy today, you have to admit that there was opposition to the right to bear arms by our forefathers. Alexander Hamilton opposed the bill of rights and claimed that the constitution did not limit rights anyway and should remain ambiguous.

Many of the founding fathers set the nation on a course with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with things in mind for how they wanted the Nation to grow. To know specifically what they were thinking is disingenuous at best.

There are records of those of African descent who were not slaves but free.

[kc7jty]

If the founding fathers were around today, Obama would be one of their slaves, and not a candidate. Hillary wouldn't be allowed to vote, let alone run for President.

Yes, I don't think the founding fathers would be very happy about this election.
They would say: "No wonder the country is so screwed up." :o

[N9MOQ]

I'm 57 years old and have never voted.

71 million other US citizens feel as you do, according to U.S. Census Bureau Reports on the 2004 election.

But check this out...

You Must Vote. It's the Law.
Australia requires citizens to vote. Should the U.S.?
Friday, Oct. 29, 2004, 7:19 AM ET

This election season has produced a mother lode of innovative get-out-the-vote campaigns. No longer content to merely Rock the Vote, we now hip-hop the vote and pray the vote.

In Australia such campaigns are unnecessary. Voter turnout is already 95 percent of registered voters. The reason is simple: It's the law. Those who fail to vote risk a fine and, in rare cases, imprisonment. Only 67 percent of American registered voters, by contrast, bothered to show up on Election Day in 2000.

Australia, along with Belgium, is the only "mature democracy" that requires its citizens to vote and actually enforces the law.

For those that get mad at you for not voting, they might want to consider that if you voted, you might be voting for someone that is running against the candidate they are voting for.

The type of people that don't vote, usually are not the type of people that are going to vote for the candidates those that try to convince them to vote usually vote for.

So it would seem they should be happy that you are not going to vote against their candidates.

And most likely, if you did vote, they would tell you that you wasted your vote because you didn't vote for a candidate they approved of.


An election is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

[ad4mg]

If the founding fathers were around today, Obama would be one of their slaves, and not a candidate. Hillary wouldn't be allowed to vote, let alone run for President.

Yes, I don't think the founding fathers would be very happy about this election.

What a Neanderthal. Do your knuckles drag the ground behind you when you try to walk upright?

Why are there so many bigots on this web site? It's pathetic.

[N9MOQ]

What a Neanderthal. Do your knuckles drag the ground behind you when you try to walk upright?

What's the name calling for? Our founding fathers, including George Washington, owned slaves. Women were not allowed to vote. I didn't have anything to do with their actions.

Why are there so many bigots on this web site? It's pathetic.

I am not going to assume you directed that towards me, and give you the benefit of the doubt that you were talking about someone else.

I seriously can't understand why this type of behavior, name calling and personal insults are condoned on this forum.

[kc2orw]

So explain what you actually meant if you think you were misunderstood that could clear it all up...

[ad4mg]

What's the name calling for? Our founding fathers, including George Washington, owned slaves. Women were not allowed to vote. I didn't have anything to do with their actions.



I am not going to assume you directed that towards me, and give you the benefit of the doubt that you were talking about someone else.

I seriously can't understand why this type of behavior, name calling and personal insults are condoned on this forum.

You injected racism with your personal interpretation of how you thought the founding fathers would react to the events of today in reference to two specific presidential candidates, both of whom are minority candidates. Your opinions have no basis in fact, and your callous statements were intended to infuriate.

I stand behind what I said, and I don't have any concern whatsoever as to the consequences of saying it, and I'm not going to be convinced your intentions were anything other than what I've stated.

[N9MOQ]

George Washington and slavery

For most of his life, Washington operated his plantations as a typical Virginia slave owner. In the 1760s, he dropped tobacco (which was prestigious but unprofitable) and shifted to hemp and wheat growing and diversified into milling flour, weaving cloth, and distilling brandy. By the time of his death, there were 317 slaves at Mount Vernon.

In 1778, while Washington was at war, he wrote to his manager at Mount Vernon that he wished to sell his slaves and "to get quit of ne****s," since maintaining a large (and increasingly elderly) slave population was no longer economically efficient. Washington could not legally sell the "dower slaves," however, and because these slaves had long intermarried with his own slaves, he could not sell his slaves without breaking up families.

Washington never criticized slavery in public. In fact, as President, Washington brought nine household slaves to the Executive Mansion in Philadelphia. By Pennsylvania law, slaves who resided in the state became legally free after six months. Washington rotated his household slaves between Mount Vernon and Philadelphia so that they did not earn their freedom, a scheme he attempted to keep hidden from his slaves and the public and one which was, in fact, against the law. Two slaves escaped while in Philadelphia: one of these, Oney Judge, was discovered in New Hampshire. Judge could have been captured and returned under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which Washington had signed into law, but this was not done so as to avoid public controversy.

------------------------------

In 1848 a group of women organized the first Women's Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York. It took great courage. In the 1840s respectable women did not even speak in public, let alone call meetings.

At the convention, abolitionist Frederick Douglass spoke in favor of women voting. Reporting the resolutions of the convention in his newspaper, The North Star, he noted: In respect to political rights, . . . there can be no reason in the world for denying to woman the elective franchise.

In the 1850s, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Lucy Stone led a group of courageous women who plunged headlong into the fight for abolition and universal suffrage. They formed the American Equal Rights Association. One newspaper denounced them as: Mummified and fossilated females, void of domestic duties, habits, and natural affections."

In 1865, when the Civil War was over, and Congress debated an amendment to give freed slaves the right to vote, the suffragists petitioned Congress to include women, too.

--------------------------------------

Now then...

Anyone that thinks our founding fathers would be happy about Obama or Hillary being allowed to run in an election for President need to study history some more.

I don't see how anyone could possibly conclude otherwise.

I stand by my statement that I don't think they would be happy about this election at all.

(Which has absolutely nothing to do with me, or how I feel about this election. Please do not ASS-U-ME what my opinions or beliefs are.)

[ad4mg]

Obama would be one of their slaves, and not a candidate. Hillary wouldn't be allowed to vote, let alone run for President.
Despite the elementary school history lesson , I stand behind what I said. Your playing the role of the victim doesn't change the obvious.

And you're not going to change my mind. I see the situation for what it is, quite clearly.

[N9MOQ]

Despite the elementary school history lesson , I stand behind what I said. Your playing the role of the victim doesn't change the obvious.

And you're not going to change my mind. I see the situation for what it is, quite clearly.

Just out of curiosity, I would be interested in your opinion of what you would think our founding fathers, and/or George Washington would have to say if he was here today, in regards to Obama and Hillary as candidates for President of the United States?

I would love to know what your theory would be...

Oh, and also... Please... I would like you to show me where you find fault in my statement:

Obama would be one of their slaves, and not a candidate. Hillary wouldn't be allowed to vote, let alone run for President.

[ad4mg]

Just out of curiosity, I would be interested in your opinion of what you would think our founding fathers, and/or George Washington would have to say if he was here today, in regards to Obama and Hillary as candidates for President of the United States?

I would love to know what your theory would be...

I have deep respect for the bravery of those people, and to put it simply, those folks (a general term to include, but not limited to the "founding fathers") would probably take assessment of all the changes over all these years, take time to understand how the constitution and individual rights have evolved, and would applaud that we have grown so much as a nation that it is possible for these historic events to unfold. I believe, with some interpretation of their character involved, that they would have been honored to have the opportunity to be alive to see these historic events take place, especially given that they had played a part in setting these events into motion.

I'm honored that I'm alive to witness history being made with events of such magnitude. It's a pity that not everyone can see these changes in the same manner.

I'm not a totally unreasonable person, and I've re-read your comments numerous times. I am having great difficulty separating myself from my first impression of those comments. Not that I think you are concerned about my opinion, but had you stated that your comments were poorly worded, and possibly misleading, I could have seen a different intention. Instead, you offered the grade school history lesson that did nothing to defend the manner in which your comments were made and/or intended.

FWIW.


EDIT: There is no "fault" in your statement, as it is as mine is, conjecture and opinion. It is the delivery and timing of those opinions that I find issue with. Each person is entitled to his/her opinion, and to deny that would be quite foolish. Conversely, I'm not obligated to agree with, nor find substance in any opinion that I find shallow or offensive.

I will apologize for the earlier remarks, written in a moment of anger. I could have conveyed my message in a much better manner. That you are willing to discuss this and not run away certainly allows us to complete this in a civilized fashion.

[kc7jty]

You Must Vote. It's the Law.
Australia requires citizens to vote. Should the U.S.?
Friday, Oct. 29, 2004, 7:19 AM ET

if that was ever to be the case here the next thing they would want to enforce would be mandatory listening to rap music, and deviant sexual behavior in public. The good people in the land of Oz aren't allowed to own guns if I'm not mistaken. Nice place you got there (if you're a wimp who must be told what to do). ;)

[N9MOQ]

I have deep respect for the bravery of those people, and to put it simply, those folks (a general term to include, but not limited to the "founding fathers") would probably take assessment of all the changes over all these years, take time to understand how the constitution and individual rights have evolved, and would applaud that we have grown so much as a nation that it is possible for these historic events to unfold.


Ok, that is a fair and intelligent answer. Especially since I made the mistake of asking what you think they would say if here today. I should have asked how you think they would react if Obama and Hillary were taken back to their time and attempted to run in an election for president.

I can see how you would think if he traveled through time to this period, how he would know it wasn't his own time period, and perhaps might have looked at the situation and gave it a second thought. Perahaps you too can understand how if this election was back in his time, how strongly he would object to it.

Likewise, if you were sent back to that time, I don't think you would be saying any of the things you do about Obama and Hillary here and now! You too would realize you were in a different society and keep your "2008 politically correctness" to yourself! Just as George Washington might have to hold his tongue if he was stuck in this time period!

Just as horrible and wrong you may find the selling and ownership of people as slaves, and women not being allowed to vote, you need to understand that they would find people like Obama and Hillary being president of their country JUST as wrong and horrible.

I wouldn't doubt if you were back there trying to suggest Obama and Hillary be allowed to run for President, they would have been as passionately angry at you for even suggesting it. It was not just an oversight that they didn't include women the right to vote, when women would ask for the right, it was not "Oh, we forgot to put the word "woman" in there" it was a fight for them, because it was considered just as ridiculous and insane to let them vote (forget about actually running IN the election!) as you find it now to NOT let them.


I believe, with some interpretation of their character involved, that they would have been honored to have the opportunity to be alive to see these historic events take place, especially given that they had played a part in setting these events into motion.

I repectfully understand what you are saying, but I STRONGLY dissagree.
The fact that anyone could consider another person property, and not only that, but to then also OWN people themselves, I don't see how they could be talked into, or be made to see this election as something great or understand it as progress.

How long do you think you would have to sit down and talk to them and try and make them see (if you went back to THEIR time) that Obama not only should be allowed to read and write, but vote? And if you think you could get that far, then how long would it take you to convince them that someone like Obama or Hillary should be let to run for office. And then for the office of PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES?

How many YEARS did it take white women to convince them that women should be allowed to vote? NOT RUN FOR OFFICE, just RUN.

Just go back to the 1950s or 1940s and ask people if a woman or black man should be allowed to run for President. Now if you have that concept in your mind, now go back to the 1700s and think again.

No, I strongly disagree. I don't see how they would find this election today even mildly amusing. I think they would be very emotionally and vocally against it! I don't see any "well, let me think about it"

I'm not a totally unreasonable person, and I've re-read your comments numerous times. I am having great difficulty separating myself from my first impression of those comments.

I stand by my comments strongly, and find no shame in making them. It is exactly how I feel the founding fathers would find this election. I think they would have put Obama in shackles and gave him a good whipping for doing many of the things he does today. And if you ask Obama what he thinks, I say he would agree with me.

If someone reports facts, and the facts are not politically correct, you should not assume those reporting the facts, beleive the facts are just.

Someone made a comment to the effect of "and don't go telling me about the founding fathers" to which I wanted to point out the founding fathers were not the great example of morality and rightousness that people make them out to be, and what they would think of this election today.

One person understood what I said right away.

If anything, you should have jumped in and called the founding fathers a bunch of bigots, but for some reason, you attack ME for revealing the facts about what THEY did and beleived in?

Not that I think you are concerned about my opinion, but had you stated that your comments were poorly worded, and possibly misleading, I could have seen a different intention.

But I don't find them poorly worded at all, in fact, if I have to say it again, I would have to say it the same way. I stand by it, and beleive most people that read it understand and take the statement as it is.

I shouldn't have to put a disclaimer on everything just because there are a few people that are going to jump to conclusions and start calling me names and insulting me. Usually, I don't even reply to people that do what you did, but you left me in an awkward position that if I didn't reply, someone else was going to beleive your spin.

Instead of ME having to try and clarify my wording, when I mean it to be exactly as it is written, because it is true, you might consider giving someone the benefit of the doubt, before calling a perfect stranger a bigot when you know nothing about them.

Perhaps you could have checked back on other postings I made to see if I had ever made any racist or bigoted remarks in the past, but I know you didn't do that, because you wouldn't have found any.

You will also not find any post from me where I lose my temper or have called anyone any name or insulted anyone. Go and look.

Instead, you offered the grade school history lesson that did nothing to defend the manner in which your comments were made and/or intended.

History is always interesting, and don't assume I put it up there just for you, there are other people reading these forums too. I could have acted like a kid and just started to call you names, but I figured posting a snip of history would not only be interesting for others to read, but at the same time show my statements were clear and just.

I have already broken my rule about talking to people who start with name calling and insults, so I am not going to waste any more in this thread with arguments. You can have the last word.

I do not in anyway feel I need to apologize for my statement, and feel most people understand it to say exactly what it says.

You may continue to beleive what you want, I wish you no ill will.

If anything, I find the original point I tried to make in starting this thread, only has proven itself on yet a larger scale.

Good Luck.

[ad4mg]

I'm good with all that, and I can respect a man's opinion. You apparently are capable of respecting that I don't particularly agree. I find many of your comments interesting, and you might find it interesting that I've probably read better than 90% of yours and everyone else's posts in the 3 or 4 forums I frequent here. I am a very avid reader, to say the least.

Note that I reply only to point out that I ended with an apology for the initial outburst, which you seemed to ignore, and no attempt is being made to have the last word. I generally decline that particular honor unless I'm having too much fun to stop ...

I leave with the one remaining disappointment being that you ignored the apology, but that also is your right to do so.

Similarly, I wish you good luck as well.

73 - Luke

[N9MOQ]

I leave with the one remaining disappointment being that you ignored the apology, but that also is your right to do so.

Similarly, I wish you good luck as well.

73 - Luke

See, now you put me in a position that forces me to reply again. But since we are not on attack mode against each other, I suppose it would not be against my rule.

I did not intentionally ignore any apology, once again it is easy to assume and jump to conclusions. First off, it seems it wasn't visible in your edit before I started typing out my last reply. Second, even if I had seen it, I might not have brought it up, because pointing it out might seem like I was rubbing it in your face, so I might have just let it go to be polite.

The apology is appreciated and accepted. Thank you.

And you might be surprised at how many things we might actually agree on.

If in the future, it seems to you that I might be playing devil's advocate to point out a possible fault with one political wing, don't assume that I am in support of the other wing. Take my starting post of this thread to heart.

Nothing pleases me more that we could conclude this particular discussion in the pleasant way we have.

It takes two to make peace, so you are a good man to have helped bring it here.

[K8YZK]

"I'm 57 years old and have never voted. Continue to worship your fictitious god, he suits you perfectly. Your total lack of grasp of reality won't matter when you're dead. Occupying that coveted position in the bosom of the Lord is nonsense as well."


Well good for you, I am soon to be 57 also, and I have voted in every election I could since I turn voting age. So tell what does age have to do with it, and since you don't vote, you don't care what happens, because with your logic, no matter who gets in they are going to screw it up, so why waste it right, why don't you do yourself a favor and move to a country more to your liking, if it is sooo bad here. Hey I heard there is some job openings in Mexico now since all the illegals are coming across the border.

Yes when I am dead it won't matter because I will be in Heaven, and you well that is to be seen.

[kc7jty]

Oh...I forgot to tell you, I was an anti Vietnam War protester, and wish I had a nickle for every time I heard "GTFO of this country"

Sorry youngster your logic doesn't fit. It's because I do care that I don't condone the madness by voting.

and there is no to be seen about it, I'm going to hell, difference is I know where I'm going.

[W3MIV]

Oh...I forgot to tell you, I was an anti Vietnam War protester..."

Does that mean you were against those protesting against the war? Did you shout evil insults and threaten young children at such a tender age?

Sorry youngster your logic doesn't fit. It's because I do care that I don't condone the madness by voting.

That makes no sense, Billhelm. Worse, it is a shabby retreat into a feckless self-indulgence no better than drowning your sorrows in cheap scotch. It still makes no difference, when difference might avail, and only saves you the headache after.

and there is no to be seen about it, I'm going to hell, difference is I know where I'm going.

Salvation is available right up to the last drop. "Pride goeth before the fall, and an haughty demeanor before destruction." It is never too late to slack the sheets and come about.

[K8YZK]

"Sorry youngster your logic doesn't fit."

So does this mean with age comes knowledge?, well during your protesting days you must have smoke too much dope, and taken to much LSD.

So you protested Vietnam BFD, you are one of those that complain about everything and anything, and you are Happy about it. Good for you.

Hey Mexico is still waiting for a man like you....

[kc7jty]

Does that mean you were against those protesting against the war? Did you shout evil insults and threaten young children at such a tender age?



That makes no sense, Billhelm. Worse, it is a shabby retreat into a feckless self-indulgence no better than drowning your sorrows in cheap scotch. It still makes no difference, when difference might avail, and only saves you the headache after.



Salvation is available right up to the last drop. "Pride goeth before the fall, and an haughty demeanor before destruction." It is never too late to slack the sheets and come about.

You can't see the forest for the trees, I'll leave the voting to those much more qualified than I, and yes, there is the chance I'll shrink back in my faith before the end cometh but I hope the hell not.

[kc7jty]

"Sorry youngster your logic doesn't fit."

So does this mean with age comes knowledge?, well during your protesting days you must have smoke too much dope, and taken to much LSD.

So you protested Vietnam BFD, you are one of those that complain about everything and anything, and you are Happy about it. Good for you.

Hey Mexico is still waiting for a man like you....
Continue to take comfort in knowing you shall exist eternally in the bosom of the Lord your God, and leave the understanding of reality to others not of your fold. At least my mental flights to fantasy were temporary.

[kc7jty]

you are one of those that complain about everything and anything,
Could your sig line mean you're less than pleased with W after voting for him twice?

[K8YZK]

"Could your sig line mean you're less than pleased with W after voting for him twice?"

Actually I vote for Nader the first time, and Kerry the second time.

I vote for who I think is best, neither Obama or Clinton impress me, and I do like McCain, but I know you don't because you protested against him during the Nam war. Did you spit on soldiers when they came home, and called them baby killers?


Mexico still awaits your great wisdom

On my tag it will change when bush is out of office.

[kc7jty]

Sounds like you're whining about our leader.

"and I do like McCain" That's the whole you in a nutshell. He's a complete flip flop politician, not worth his weight in p*ss. Must be great being able to be proud of the USA under the current set of conditions.
I hope McCain doesn't get the presidency because he's esses are squeeky/whistley. I don't want to hear 4 years of his esses.

Ever fly? Enjoy bending over.