After watching the attacks on Sarah

Post by **Old Savage** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:41 am

I have to say, Democrat males aren't men.

stew71 · Post by **stew71** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:14 am

How about "modern Democrat males" aren't men?

Ol' Harry Truman and Zell Miller sure wouldn't stand for the stuff going around today....

Andrew · Post by **Andrew** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:15 am

I don't have TV and am having a hard time keeping up with what's going on right now.

I got to see a bit of the RNC last night but had to leave about an hour before Sarah was to speek.

As to the statement: No, they are not.

BoneDigger · Post by **BoneDigger** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:33 am

Oh come on now guys. You can't say that every Democrat is a wussy. I sometimes vote democrat and I'll give you any opportunity you want to come and prove I'm not a man!

This is an electrion year. Of course every candidate is going to slander every other candidate. It's just the way it works.

Todd

Grizz · Post by **Grizz** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:37 am

every democrat is a woosie

the mccaine/palin campaign isn't attacking anyone's loved ones. we attack statements, actions, inactions, and ideas.

the democrats are empty dried up skins full of pus

and no right-thinking American would want to be identified with that stuff
unless they are woosies

This is an electrion year. Of course every candidate is going to slander every other candidate. It's just the way it works.

Todd

this isn't the way it works with conservative Americans. this is only the way it works with the democrat professional lie machine politics. woosies have no discernment. And true Americans don't win by lying and slander. Only woosie-americans have to resort to that, because they are empty dried up skins full of pus

Period

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:44 am

You can say what you want about democrat men. This is America.

... unless you support John McCain, and then you can say what you want but you have to stop 60 days before the election.

...and if you favor Baraq you have to give equal time to discussing republican woosy men.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:44 am

With very few exceptions (Zell Miller is one, as noted), this is entirely accurate. Even worse is watching them make excuses for the personal attacks. Cowards one and all...

gamekeeper · Post by **gamekeeper** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:00 am

Well not nowadays anyway!

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:18 am

Gamekeeper...I need one of those for my truck!

Go Sarah! I have to say that I have a new level of digust for the mass media after witnessing this debacle.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:32 am

That's the way liberals work. When they can't attack the message for it's flaws, they attack the messenger. It's a standard tactic.

SmokeEater2 · Post by **SmokeEater2** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:42 am

Rusty wrote:That's the way liberals work. When they can't attack the message for it's flaws, they attack the messenger. It's a standard tactic.

Exactly! I think there is a lot of fear in the Democrat camp after her speech and they are going to become more desperate as the election gets closer. The Dem party seems to get meaner and more low-brow the more desperate they are.

O.S.O.K. · Post by **O.S.O.K.** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:45 am

Democrat leadership and media elites are woosies. For sure. Girlymen. The non-Fox media has completely gone over to the dark side - they don't even try to hide it anymore. I guess they have nothing to lose. Fox isn't perfect, but they do a decent job of showing both sides - which accounts for their popularity.

I may vote for our Dem Sheriff this Nov. - he's done a good job. I do try to vote for the person, not the party but 99.9% of the time it's Repblican or Independent - Ron Paul used to be my Congressman and I voted for him several times.

Sarah Palin did an outstanding job last night. The wife and I watched the whole thing - and Rudy's before her. I was afraid that Rudy would overshadow Sarah - not to worry

The dems are shaking in their birkenstocks.

BoneDigger · Post by **BoneDigger** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:00 pm

Grizz wrote:every democrat is a woosie

the mccaine/palin campaign isn't attacking anyone's loved ones. we attack statements, actions, inactions, and ideas.

the democrats are empty dried up skins full of pus

and no right-thinking American would want to be identified with that stuff
unless they are woosies

This is an electrion year. Of course every candidate is going to slander every other candidate. It's just the way it works.

Todd
this isn't the way it works with conservative Americans. this is only the way it works with the democrat professional lie machine politics. woosies have no discernment. And true Americans don't win by lying and slander. Only woosie-americans have to resort to that, because they are empty dried up skins full of pus

Period

Oh really now...

http://www.factcheck.org/article460.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/26 ... a-negads26

Or comparing Obama to Britney Spears?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 453975.ece

Oh and this one is great...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... M3QLJ1.DTL

Accusing people of using "tasers on children" and calling phone sex lines? Geesh... I stand by accusation that being negative is not restricted to democrats. Go back to the Bill Clinton years (God forbid) and look at all of the negative "press" that was being slung at Clinton and his personal life. Although others in politics have admittedly been accused of, and rightfully so, adultery, Clinton got nailed to the coffin for it.

I also seem to recall quite a few attacks on Obama's choice of a pastor a while back? How about this one reagarding Obama's brother?:

Texas GOP uses Obama's half brother for attack ad
In a web ad that directly responds to the controversy over how many houses John McCain owns, the Texas Republican Party has attempted to shift the focus back to Barack Obama by using the poverty of his youngest sibling to attack him.

"If Barack Obama cares so much about your family, why doesn't he take care of his own family first?" the ad's narrator asks, before bringing up George Obama, Obama's half brother, who lives in Kenya. The two have reportedly met only twice, and George Obama has said that media accounts have painted a distorted picture of his life, saying, "I was brought up well. I live well even now."

I probably won't be the only one to point out that there's a distinct racial overtone to the ad, arising from the image of George Obama that the Texas GOP chose, and the spot's use of his full name, George Hussein Onyango Obama.

The reality, as I said, is that both parties use negative attacks on their opponents. Both parties include personal matters in these ads. I have received so many negative ads via e-mail that a quick trip to Snopes has shown were not true. Where are these negastive internet ads coming from? Hmmm, doesn't take a genious does it...

Now, I can't see what it is that you think qualifies a Democrat as a wussy. Please do clarify. Instead of name calling, put your money where your mouth is. I could sit here and call Republics some names, but what will it accomplish? Nothing.

Todd

Grizz · Post by **Grizz** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:29 pm

I could sit here and call Republics some names, but what will it accomplish? Nothing.

you just did.

you still haven't cited any CONSERVATIVES slandering political opponents. see the thing y'all don't understand is that telling the truth about dem candidates isn't slander, it's the facts. get over it.

I didn't make any claims about republicans. you did.

Dirty Dan · Post by **Dirty Dan** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:32 pm

I can't believe anyone on this forum would use a SF newspaper as a reliable source for anything. I love negative ads and have never understood the pretended dislike for them. Truth be told, most folks love gossip and the dirtier the better. Negative ads are just another form of gossip. Take em for what they are worth and do a little research, then take your sources with a grain of salt and go from there.

Post by **Old Savage** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:08 pm

Gun control, Abortion, a Socialist Agenda. Promise to give the people everything, Government run health care, telling the troops while they are in battle at war that they have lost ????? etc. etc. etc. ... I don't understand why men would want to get on that wagon.

Let's not forget anti individual liberty and responsibility.

O.S.O.K. · Post by **O.S.O.K.** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:10 pm

Old Savage wrote:Gun control, Abortion, a Socialist Agenda. Promise to give the people everything, Government run health care, telling the troops while they are in battle at war that they have lost ????? etc. etc. etc. ... I don't understand why men would want to get on that wagon.

+1

morgan in nm · Post by **morgan in nm** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:14 pm

I heard a quote today about democrats (or more like democRATS) that if they claim to be conservative, dont vote for them anyway because they don't have the sense to change political affiliation. I believe that stands true.

GoatGuy · Post by **GoatGuy** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:56 pm

BoneDigger - Sorry, but using the Annenberg Public Policy Center, The LA Times, London Times and a San Francisco Chronicle spin-off to prove that Rs are as negative and mean-spirited as Ds just won't wash. You might as well have also cited reports from National Public Radio and Public Radio International to make your point. All of these sources you've provided us are nothing more than mouthpieces for radical socialist thought.

Certainly R's may use what might be construed as "negative" ads. However, R's don't have the reach and active support of the mainstream media and other extreme leftist outlets to promote candidates who would bring that "change" to America which would destroy the prosperty, freedom and rights of this country. If you wish for us to sincerely believe that the efforts of the Republican Party for this election are anywhere near as destructive to our society as that of the Democrat Party and their "helpers", you must either be extremely naive or a "fellow travelor" of the radical left.

BoneDigger · Post by **BoneDigger** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:04 pm

Grizz wrote:
I could sit here and call Republics some names, but what will it accomplish? Nothing.
you just did.

you still haven't cited any CONSERVATIVES slandering political opponents. see the thing y'all don't understand is that telling the truth about dem candidates isn't slander, it's the facts. get over it.

I didn't make any claims about republicans. you did.

Please point out where I called anyone a name? What I am saying here is that you just said that everyone who is a male Democrat is a wussie. I am asking why you can say that. So, everyone that is a male and a Democrat is a wussie. Come on man, that's just unfair. I never said anything negative about Palin or her pregnant kid. That's her business, not mine. I have two young daughters and I can only hope that it doesn't end up that way for them. But again, that's my problem, nobody else's. So, again, why are ALL Democrats wussies?

Abortion rights, the war in Iraq, etc. can all be debated in a civilized manner without having to resort to name calling. I often vote Republican, but I also sometimes vote Democrat, it really depends on the politician. For every negative you can throw at a Democrat I can name one for a Republican. When I go to the river to fish and have to read signs that say "Eat only three fish per week due to Mercury poisoning in the water" I have to think about these lax environmental policies that the Republicans are so fond of. I honestly can't see how ANYONE could be a hunter or a fisherman and not also be an environmentalist. Yes, there are extremist that would ban hunting and ban guns, but those are extremists and do not necessarily represent all Democrats. Oh, and you can't debate that Bush and Cheney are both in the Oil companies' pockets. Plus, with Cheney and Halliburton...

I have no qualms with us going to war to fight terrorism, but I feel that most of your troops should be in Afghanistan and not Iraq. Lying about the WMD was another poor showing for the present administration. I absolutely disagreed with Clinton and the Assault Weapons Ban, but I don't hold all Democrats accountable for that. I carry a concealed handgun and will fight for the right of all citizens under the 2nd ammendment. But, I also feel strongly about the environment and I hate to have to be forced to make that decision EVERY ELECTION!!!

Todd

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:11 pm

Dirty Dan wrote:I can't believe anyone on this forum would use a SF newspaper as a reliable source for anything. I love negative ads and have never understood the pretended dislike for them. Truth be told, most folks love gossip and the dirtier the better. Negative ads are just another form of gossip. Take em for what they are worth and do a little research, then take your sources with a grain of salt and go from there.

No doubt.

For the Historically Minded, go read the worse-than-mud thrown back in the pre MSM days... like the early 1800s elections.

Makes Kos and his Kidz look like pikers.

Post by **Old Savage** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:47 pm

What the party does to some extent all those in the party do by supporting it. If you support the democrats you support gun control in point of fact. Dems with guns turn a blind eye to that failing on their part.

Whatever you think of Bush - he is not running.

As for the tired dem lie about lying about WMD - every major intelligence agency in the world thought he had them. Where exactly would Bush have gotten the knowledge that they didn't that would make it a lie??? Clinton and Kerry also are on record as saying they had them. Did they lie??

goon · Post by **goon** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:53 pm

They only attack her personally because they can't find much to attack her on professionally.
And after her speech last night, I'm not too worried about her.

As I said on another forum, I'm not voting Republican - I'm voting for Sarah Palin.

FYI - the Democrats are idiots.
I personally don't care what homosexuals do and if you're going to have equality, everyone has to have the same rights. Same thing with women amd minorities. No favors, but also nothing that anyone can sling out and wave in your face as an inequality can exist either. Then I don't have to hear their complaints and none of us have to put up with the hypocrisy of our government.
And I could care less about whether someone wants to smoke pot.
I don't like abortion, feel it's wrong, and think there are much better alternatives that could just about eliminate it, but I also wouldn't make it illegal. The solution is to educate your kids about the value of life, not to have another law.
And I'm all for the environment. Go ahead, protect it. I love the woods, clean water, and fresh air. Protect as much as is possible while still keeping in mind that people have been changing the land to better suit our uses since the stone age.

Anyway, my point is that on the issues I'm more often than not on the same page as a moderate democrat. But I'll never support them because they're a bunch of ineffective whiners who want me disarmed just so they can feel warm and fuzzy.

As it is now, I'm hoping for a Palin presidency in four years or so. I'd gladly vote for that woman and even follow her into a fight if it were ever necessary. She seems the type of leader who would lead from the front. I respect her.
And that's saying something because I generally have very little respect for any politican.

Bogie35 · Post by **Bogie35** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:59 pm

I'll go out on a limb and say that...
If you are running for President of the United States and your name is not Sarah Palin or John McCain, then you're probably a wussy. I'm pretty convinced that in hand to hand combat, Palin would make a woman out of Obama. Name one good president who had a pencil neck like Obama's anyway! Can't do it. Nuff said.

Sincerely,
bogie

Bogie35 · Post by **Bogie35** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:03 pm

I'm really starting to think that Obama is actually Beyonce in drag. Think about it. Have you ever seen the two of them at the same time?

bogie

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:03 pm

Obama = zero accomplishments, zero experience, zero common sense.

His number isn't 666 - it's 000!!!

Old Time Hunter · Post by **Old Time Hunter** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:08 pm

Old Savage wrote: Whatever you think of Bush - he is not running.

+1..... Why does every Democratic advocate link McCain to Bush, seems to me they battled more than partied together on direct issues that were not necessarily party platform policies.

That all being said, I do not consider myself a 100% Republican, but generally I do lean their way. Personally I do think that if we as a nation took every dime that individuals and corporations pay as health benefits, along with what we pay in Medicaid/Medicare and put it towards a Government controled single source (by state) health plan that would cover everyone, it would be more equitable for all. Unfortunately our economy would drop like a rock due to unemployed insurance people along with their investment firms. And of course business would lose their sword of Democules/fear of losing health care coverage to take a more statisfying job without benefits. That is the only thing that I percieve is at least debatable with the Democrats...therefore the rest of the Republican platform out weighs the one caveat of the left, so I have to vote for the party of the woman who can and will shoot her gun, and be able to gut a Moose!

Post by **Old Savage** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:56 pm

You obviously do not work in a health care field that deals with any federal health care coverage. It's a small world after all (repeat) (repeat). What a fantasy view that that would be better. Bite your tongue!!!

Bogie35 · Post by **Bogie35** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:10 pm

Old Time Hunter wrote:
+1..... Why does every Democratic advocate link McCain to Bush, seems to me they battled more than partied together on direct issues that were not necessarily party platform policies.

That all being said, I do not consider myself a 100% Republican, but generally I do lean their way. Personally I do think that if we as a nation took every dime that individuals and corporations pay as health benefits, along with what we pay in Medicaid/Medicare and put it towards a Government controled single source (by state) health plan that would cover everyone, it would be more equitable for all. Unfortunately our economy would drop like a rock due to unemployed insurance people along with their investment firms. And of course business would lose their sword of Democules/fear of losing health care coverage to take a more statisfying job without benefits. That is the only thing that I percieve is at least debatable with the Democrats...therefore the rest of the Republican platform out weighs the one caveat of the left, so I have to vote for the party of the woman who can and will shoot her gun, and be able to gut a Moose!

Well said. I agree 100% with everything you stated.

The health care issue is the only significant problem I have with the Republican Party platform. It baffles me how anyone could disagree that each US citizen should be allowed equal and unconditional access to good health care. Obviously, they've never known anyone who had to die 20 years before their time simply because they couldn't afford the cure and were refused health insurance due to "pre-existing" conditions. My friend died that way, and over 12,000 US citizens die just that way each year, and it's no different than taking them out back and putting a bullet in their head. Yet, many people condone it and even blame the individuals for having "done it to themselves" by not taking care of themselves or by not choosing the right career. They've never walked an inch in their shoes, let alone a mile. We're not talking about "luxury" or "quality of life" here. We're talking about LIFE itself!

Sincerely,
bogie

Slick · Post by **Slick** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:47 pm

BoneDigger wrote: ow, I can't see what it is that you think qualifies a Democrat as a wussy. Please do clarify. Instead of name calling, put your money where your mouth is. I could sit here and call Republics some names, but what will it accomplish? Nothing.

Todd

I'll take that one and answer it for you... Being a "wussy" means legitimizing the murder of a baby (by piercing its skull with scissors and sucking out the brain to collapse the head) by claiming it’s OK to do so as long as the head still remains inside the mother the child is “legally unborn”…

WTF kind of bullshit technicality is that? If that's not a clear example of what a “wussy” is – then you are beyond hope in ever being able to recognize one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kINmB6Jj ... re=related

We’re not just some unborn babies that you are taking on here…

KT-45 · Post by **KT-45** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:59 pm

Old Savage wrote:As for the tired dem lie about lying about WMD - every major intelligence agency in the world thought he had them. Where exactly would Bush have gotten the knowledge that they didn't that would make it a lie??? Clinton and Kerry also are on record as saying they had them. Did they lie??

Whatinthehell do you mean "Thought that he had them?!? He ABSOLUTELY had 'them'! He (SoDamn Insane) gassed the Kurds! In accordance with US policy, chemical weapons ARE 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' (just like biologicals or nucs)!

SoDamn InsaneHAD WMDs! SoDamn Insane USED WMDs!

WHERE is the debate?

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:10 am

Good point, he had them, couldn't account for them - where did they go???

KT-45 · Post by **KT-45** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:17 am

Old Savage wrote:Good point, he had them, couldn't account for them - where did they go???

Buried in the sand someplace. Heck, the SoDamn Insane government buried entire aircraft...doesn't seem like too much of a stretch that they buried canisters of ABC weapons too.

Gonna be one helluva job to find that stuff in the World's Biggest Butt Can.

Hope we find the stuff before some Iraqi 12-year-old does.

goon · Post by **goon** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:18 am

Seems like we're OT here so I don't feel too bad about this...
A few points:
- I watched McCain's speech tonight. There was a protester and I kind of hoped that Sarah would have been the one to toss the jerk out into the street. THAT would have been news!
- Although I disagree with some of McCain's views, I didn't really ever stop to think about what he's done already. He did suffer as a POW and he didn't leave when he got the chance for an early out. I'm sure that if there was even the slightest untruth to his story, the media would have been waving around like a pair of dirty panties by now. I'm sure that he's a politician but the fact remains, he has endured more pain and hardship for his country than most of us, myself included, can possibly ever imagine. What's more, he admitted that he did break when he was a POW. And he took partial responsibility for the mess that DC has become. Campaign or not, he did step up to the plate and tell it like it is. At this point, I'm positively certain that even counting his faults he's still 20 times the man that Obama ever thought about being.
- Government health care. I have mixed feelings on this one. Often, you'll see hard core republicans bash gays with a Biblical reference, then turn around in the same breath and say that they have no responsibility to fund anyone else's health care - like there is no responsibility to be your brother's keeper. Perhaps the good samaritan should have just told the guy he stumbled onto "Sorry buddy, but I ain't spending any of my money to help your sorry butt out." That would have been an inspiring story, huh?
Just always struck me as kind of ironic that the same people who can use their Bibles as weapons can't also use them to justify helping those in need. (Not that I'm trying to pick a fight with anyone here - I do believe strongly in God.)
Anyway, my point of view is that they are going to take my tax money anyway.
Whether they send it to southern slobovia or use it to fund some sort of health care, my money is going bye-bye and it ain't coming back. That being the case, they might as well do something with it that will help some Americans. Having said that, I've seen how the VA works and it's often not the model of speedy, efficient health care (but in my case, it IS way better than nothing). For universal health care though, you'd have to amplify what the VA does by about a bazillion. Those of us here who are vets or who know vets can tell you, that would NOT be pretty. I'm not sure that Government is capable of handling such a task without making a HUGE mess out of it. There has to be a solution somewhere in the middle that will actually work.

Anyway, we now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

KT-45 · Post by **KT-45** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:32 am

goon wrote:- Government health care. I have mixed feelings on this one. Often, you'll see hard core republicans bash gays with a Biblical reference, then turn around in the same breath and say that they have no responsibility to fund anyone else's health care - like there is no responsibility to be your brother's keeper.

It is not the government's responsibility to fund health care.

Charity rightfully belongs to the church and the family (when the Republicans won Congress in '96 I advised my adult Sunday school class that it was now time to 'put your money where your mouth is'.).

Please show me the Constitutional reference that the citizens may be extorted to fund health care for those who cannot afford it.

Paladin · Post by **Paladin** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:33 am

O.S.O.K. wrote:
Old Savage wrote:Gun control, Abortion, a Socialist Agenda. Promise to give the people everything, Government run health care, telling the troops while they are in battle at war that they have lost ????? etc. etc. etc. ... I don't understand why men would want to get on that wagon.
+1

+1

El Chivo · Post by **El Chivo** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:00 am

they've never known anyone who had to die 20 years before their time simply because they couldn't afford the cure and were refused health insurance due to "pre-existing" conditions. My friend died that way, and over 12,000 US citizens die just that way each year, and it's no different than taking them out back and putting a bullet in their head. Yet, many people condone it and even blame the individuals for having "done it to themselves" by not taking care of themselves or by not choosing the right career. They've never walked an inch in their shoes, let alone a mile. We're not talking about "luxury" or "quality of life" here. We're talking about LIFE itself!

This happens in countries WITH socialized medicine all the time, there are such long waits for treatment and the doctors don't attempt to operate in many cases, if they don't feel it would be worth the trouble or expense.

Because they're the government, that's all there is by design, and you have no recourse - except to come to the US for treatment and pay for it.

Universal health care will mean universally bad health care.

goon · Post by **goon** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:26 am

KT-45 wrote:
goon wrote:- Government health care. I have mixed feelings on this one. Often, you'll see hard core republicans bash gays with a Biblical reference, then turn around in the same breath and say that they have no responsibility to fund anyone else's health care - like there is no responsibility to be your brother's keeper.
It is not the government's responsibility to fund health care.

Charity rightfully belongs to the church and the family (when the Republicans won Congress in '96 I advised my adult Sunday school class that it was now time to 'put your money where your mouth is'.).

Please show me the Constitutional reference that the citizens may be extorted to fund health care for those who cannot afford it.

Hey man, no offense, but go back and re-read my post.
I didn't say there was a Constitutional reference.
All I did was point out a little hypocrisy as I see it.

But I think you'll also have your hands full finding a Constitutional reference to telling two people of the same sex that they don't deserve the same rights as heterosexual people. Still, even without any Constitutional reference one way or the other, we still have people who feel the need to get all caught up in other peoples' business and try to make same-sex civil unions illegal. (I don't call it a marriage because a marriage is done in a church, before God, and God tends to frown upon homosexuality.)

I'm not defending homosexuality - personally I find it pretty repulsive and the Bible does call it a no-no.
But if you're gonna have equality, it has to be, you know... equal.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:38 am

El Chivo wrote: Universal health care will mean universally bad health care.

Almost. You can bet your last dollar (right before the Dem's tax it away) that they will exempt themselves from any system they set up for the rest of us. Kind of like Social Security - Congress has a separate (and infinitely better) program for themselves.

Yeah, I want to see Obama's family waiting for health care. Never going to happen.

Andrew · Post by **Andrew** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:34 am

I don't know how we got to this subject, but I have no mixed feelings about gooberment health care. It will not work. Period. And no, I don't think we have any reason to be forced to care for others; we should just do it. Theres a big difference(Communism vs Republic).

Next? Well, then the gooberment says I have to help pay for someones plastic surgery cause they need a little nip and tuck. Or they got one of them pesky fetuses that need to be "taken care of". Or maybe that guy that is already on your dime(welfare) got too good at doing the 12oz curls and needs a new liver. Yep, ol' Andy's gonna need to chip in for that one too. Don't worry , we have gooberrment employees making sure every thing is running smoothly and that all the precious tax money is going to "help out our brothers in need".

We haven't even scratched the surface to the idiocy that the Washington idgits would have in motion under the term "progress".

Grizz · Post by **Grizz** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:59 am

I'm not defending homosexuality - personally I find it pretty repulsive and the Bible does call it a no-no.
But if you're gonna have equality, it has to be, you know... equal.

I bet if you were standing around in Heaven and read this it would sound, you know... STUPID.

It always amazes me when folks talk about the Bible and make excuses in the same sentence.

Not to mention that "equality" in our constitution has NOTHING to do with equating the sin of perverts with the GOD GIVEN institution of Holy Matrimony. I don't know how anyone could possibly believe they could defend such a perversion in Heaven before the Great Judge of all of us.

How could someone live in America and get so confused about the constitution and the meaning of "equality". Oh yeah, another government monopoly.

O.S.O.K. · Post by **O.S.O.K.** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:11 am

public education w/o parental supervision

Grizz · Post by **Grizz** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:16 am

The reason I can't afford healthcare is BECAUSE of the government interference in that market. I get taxed to pay for someone else's healthcare, but I cannot afford it myself because the costs are jacked up so high.

If you got the government AND the HMOs out of the picture, and had a free market in health services, competition would produce the best healthcare possible.

It should be like going shopping for a car. Look around, see what's available, compare costs and benefits, and make the deal.

Does this sound impossible? I don't know why it should,

THIS IS EXACTLY THE WAY HEALTH CARE WORKED WHEN I WAS BORN.

No one can make a rational argument that jacking me up to buy healthcare for someone else, and denying me access to the market as a consequence, is a good plan.

In fact, when a doctor saved my life around 1970 health care was still pretty much a cash and carry operation. None of the "insurance" doctors could figure out what I was dying of, but a friend found a doctor who diagnosed my illness OVER THE PHONE and I started to recover within minutes of his prescribed treatment. In the "system" I was dying and no one knew why. But the real Doc, who had a shop near a butcher and baker, was the real deal.

Try to find that guy now when you're dying and don't have a few million saved up. First you have to sell your house. Then you're dead anyway.

I don't even bother. If that Doc's clones exist now it's a well kept secret.

BoneDigger · Post by **BoneDigger** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:08 am

Dang, you guys are so caught up in your circular argument that you can't see the error of your posts. So, you say that if I am a Democrat then I have to approve of the views of all Democrats? Then you turn around and ask how I can compare Bush to McCain? By your argument, if you support one Republican then you support ALL Republicans.

As far as WMD is concerned, no NOT every scientist agreed that they had WMD, and in fact many said they didn't. The very ones (UN Security Inspectors) that were paid to make that call said undeniably that they DID NOT. Yet, the US went to war anyway and look No WMD! So, in the end, what we have is a dictator overthrown, thousands of soldiers dead in an occupation (remember the War was declared over) that will ultimately result in a country that will be Democratic for a short time and then eventually revert back to its old ways. There is already significant threat of Civil War. EVEN IF the Republicans win the Whitehouse, and the occupation continues, you are just prolonging an already certain fate. The real reason for this war was oil and Bush's vendetta on Hussein. Clinton did not have the same information Bush had on the subject, although it certainly wouldn't be beneath Clinton to lie. And, on a separate front, we are now looking at a possible new Cold War with Russia. Can it get any better than that?

I am anti-gay mariage. So, no need to go there.

I am anti-abortion, except during early term and only in the case of rape. I am absolutely AGAINST abortion as a form of birth control or in late-term situations.

I am Christian.

I am pro-gun rights.

I am for corporal and capital punishment.

I am against state sanctioned health care and agree that universal healthcare is a bad idea.

BUT, I am PRO ENVIRONMENT! I am pro-equal rights for EVERYONE. And, I believe we have the responsibility to help those that can't help themselves. The foodstamp and welfare systems are so badly run that they should be scrapped and a new system put into place.

So, as far as taxes are concerned... I am against higher taxes (and thus anti-Democrat), but I also understand that with the debt that Bush has racked up, the only way to start levelling some of that off is to raise taxes. Cutting government spending you say? Hmmmm, where is most of our money going now? (psst, the answer is Iraq).

So, for me, it's always a toss-up on who to vote for. Big Government Democrats who support many of the ideals I am against? Or, Republicans that lie with every other word and are absoilutely DESTROYING the environement? I'll probably vote McCain and Palin this election because I see them as the lesser of two evils.

BUT, as a "sometimes" Democrat, and a 6ft 250 lb one at that, you better not call me a wussie to my face! Reserve your name calling for specific people and quit lumping everyone together. Since a bulk of all legal Hispanics and Blacks are Democrat are you saying they are ALL wussies then? If so, then I would resolve to just call you a racist and a biggot and be done with it. But, of course we all know that's not true right? Would it be fair to call all Republicans racist? No, I don't believe it would.

So, with that, I am done with this topic. If you can't see that not ALL Democrats (Yes MANY are, but not all) are wussies, then, well there's not much I can say to you that will change your mind.

Todd

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:17 am

Please explain how it is the "republicans" that are destroying the enviornment.

That's like believing that the US is the sole cause of Polution in the world.

BoneDigger · Post by **BoneDigger** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:36 pm

OK, I'll bite on this one last time...

Old Ironsights, I',m mostly talking about the environemnt right here at h9ome, and not so much the global environment, although I do believe in Global Warming and its impacts.

I'm not going to make a blanket statement that ALL Republicans are against measures to clean the environment, but just do a little background research and it's there for everyone to see. From reducing regulations on emissions, allowing drilling in ANWAR (at least in theory), not forcing auto-makers to install emissions controls, etc. And, most importantly, not embracing the Kyoto Treaty, which almost all other countires have ratified. Industry waste standards in ALL industries need to be strengthened, not reduced, even if it results in some lost money or reduced profits. We, as a people, need to stand up for that which we love.

Before Clinton left office he designated a number of National Monuments and Preserves that "W" quickly overturned. Now, to Bush's defense, he is also considering this:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=90766237

which would be a good thing. But, in general, Republicans are lacking when it comes to clean air and water initiatives.

OK, now I'm done...

Todd

Grizz · Post by **Grizz** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:42 pm

wowee Todd is PROENVIRONMENT. WOO-HOO

ROFLMAO

so Todd, there are innumerable wells in the ocean floor that are continuously spewing crude oil, that's right Todd, CRUDE OIL, into the oceans. What are you doing to stop that?

so Todd, marine mammals, you know, animals like seals, sea lions, whales, etc are defecating directly into the marine environment, in violation of the Clean Water Act, among others. Since their fecal coliform bacteria is indistinguishable from yours, what are you doing to protect the environment from them?

so Todd, since every volcano on the planet emits hazardous and toxic chemicals, in violation of the Clean Air Act, what exactly are you doing to preserve the ENVIRONMENT from those continuous abuses of our atmosphere?

so Todd, since the sun has produced ZERO sunspots for an entire year, and since the history of these no-sunspot episodes is the instigation of agressive glaciers inundating the northern and southern continents, and since such glaciel inundation will cause irreperable harm to the environment by destroying countless animals and plants, what do you propose to do to prevent the next outbreak of the ice?

or, Todd, is it only human beings you wish to control?

Personally, I don't care what you weigh, I don't think you have a ghost of a chance of accomplishing any of the above tasks. But go ahead on, protect the environment from itself if that's what makes you feel good.

BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAA

Grizz · Post by **Grizz** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:54 pm

As far as WMD is concerned, no NOT every scientist agreed that they had WMD, and in fact many said they didn't. The very ones (UN Security Inspectors) that were paid to make that call said undeniably that they DID NOT. Yet, the US went to war anyway and look No WMD!

I'm starting to guess your eyes are.... nevermind.

This quote is so full if misinformed stuff that it defies logic. The war that the congress authorized was not fought over WMDs. It was fought to enforce the, what? seventeen or twenty UN resolutions that Iraq was in violation of. It was fought with the prior knowledge and consent of the UN. And it was fought over the fact that the Iraq government never complied with the terms of the cease fire they agreed to when they were expelled from Kuwait. And it was fought because the Iraq government made continuous acts of war against American air cover patrolling the no-fly zones. And it was fought to stop the Iraqi incursions into those areas where they continued slaughtering their own people.

This is just from memory. How is it that you are COMPLETLEY IGNORANT of these facts? Or, if you're not IGNORANT of these facts but just prefer to espouse the nancypelosi lies, how is it that you suppose that NONE OF US REMEMBER THE FACTS?

Unfortunately for you, we have better memories and are better informed than you appear to be. You have no credibiltiy when you ignore or distort the facts.

goon · Post by **goon** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 1:17 pm

Grizz wrote:
I'm not defending homosexuality - personally I find it pretty repulsive and the Bible does call it a no-no.
But if you're gonna have equality, it has to be, you know... equal.
I bet if you were standing around in Heaven and read this it would sound, you know... STUPID.

It always amazes me when folks talk about the Bible and make excuses in the same sentence.

Not to mention that "equality" in our constitution has NOTHING to do with equating the sin of perverts with the GOD GIVEN institution of Holy Matrimony. I don't know how anyone could possibly believe they could defend such a perversion in Heaven before the Great Judge of all of us.

How could someone live in America and get so confused about the constitution and the meaning of "equality". Oh yeah, another government monopoly.

From my point of view, equality under the law means exactly that.
We all have to have the same rights regardless of whether or not you're comfortable with how someone else exercises those rights, assuming that they're not hurting anyone else in the process.
If we don't all have the same rights, we don't have equality.
Sure, it might not mean anything to me this week.
We're not planning to start dating men so why should we care, right?
But it does matter. Because this week it's "we don't like gays so lets find a way to justify making them less "equal" than us". Then next week maybe it's "we don't like gun owners so lets find a way to justify making them less equal than us too".
So based on that principle, I'll almost always support anyone else who is exercising his or her rights as long as that person is not harming anyone else in the process.

Yes, seeing two men kiss gives me a gag reflex. I just spent two years in a college town and trust me when I tell you that I saw that more times than anyone ever needs to.
At the same time, even though it is immoral (according to the Bible) and even though I'm not comfortable with it, there is no way it's right for me to impose my beliefs or will on anyone else.
For the purpose of governing, I can't see how you can have equality if the government is targeting any group of people who are just doing their own thing, no matter how much you might disagree with their choices.
I have no doubt that God will see it differently and that he will judge those people for their actions, regardless of whether or not those actions are legal.
But I'm not God. It's not my job to judge or punish others for their sins.

You can think that's stupid all you want.
No offense, but before today I had no idea you existed and in about three minutes you'll be just one more guy I've had a discussion with in cyber-space. So when it comes right down to it, your opinion of me pretty much doesn't affect my life at all.
BTW - Even though I might think you're a bit of a fruit-loop as well, I still support your right to disagree with me.
Take care.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 1:27 pm

BoneDigger wrote:OK, I'll bite on this one last time...

Old Ironsights, I',m mostly talking about the environemnt right here at h9ome, and not so much the global environment, although I do believe in Global Warming and its impacts.

I'm not going to make a blanket statement that ALL Republicans are against measures to clean the environment, but just do a little background research and it's there for everyone to see. From reducing regulations on emissions, allowing drilling in ANWAR (at least in theory), not forcing auto-makers to install emissions controls, etc. And, most importantly, not embracing the Kyoto Treaty, which almost all other countires have ratified. Industry waste standards in ALL industries need to be strengthened, not reduced, even if it results in some lost money or reduced profits. We, as a people, need to stand up for that which we love.

Before Clinton left office he designated a number of National Monuments and Preserves that "W" quickly overturned. Now, to Bush's defense, he is also considering this:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=90766237

which would be a good thing. But, in general, Republicans are lacking when it comes to clean air and water initiatives.

OK, now I'm done...

Todd

I've been to ANWR Todd. You have been sold a LIE if you think drilling there will destroy anything.

The UN Nature Preserve thing Clintoon did was bad from a dozen different standpoints - not the least where it applied to gun owners/hunters.

Kyoto is an ECONOMIC disaster - punishing the US for being productive.

Not even the FOUNDER of Greenpeace is on board with the Green Socialists there.