Folks, this "center right" nation we live in...

[Okla-homey]

is gonna "reset" in November.

It's gonna be remarkable. The stars are aligning for a GOP renaissance that will make Newt's "Contract With America" only a historical footnote. I've been on ths planet a half a century and I have never sensed the level of utter indignance and disregard for the bunch now running this country. Just wait and see. :eek:

[delhalew]

I agree, but I'm sure you know that's not enough for me. I'm a big picture, earthshaking reform kind of guy.
But yes, I will be relieved to a degree.

[Skysooner]

You better hope the candidates you put forth are center right. There is just as much disdain for the core running the Republican party right now as well. Independents are going to decide this election and tea bagger candidates are not going to do it.

[delhalew]

Every person who says "teabagger" is an idiot regardless of what else they have to say. God forbid people try to figure out who they are talking about before they sprack off.

[Skysooner]

Yeah, right. I'm a center right independent, and I can't figure out what that whole movement is about since taxes have actually gone down. If they can't espouse a more intelligent argument, they deserve to be made fun of. The Republican party is not what it was when I was a strong member (Reagan years). Put up a candidate that can get the economy moving, help fix the deficit and not ignore the reality that this country is going bankrupt. Both parties are to blame for this going back 40 years.

[SoonerInKCMO]

I have never sensed the level of utter indignance and disregard for the bunch now running this country. Just wait and see. :eek:

Either your memory is very short, or you don't know enough people outside the buckle of the Bible belt (I'm guessing it's the latter). The left-leaners of the country were pretty damned pissed off beginning with the election debacle in Florida in 2000.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You better hope the candidates you put forth are center right. There is just as much disdain for the core running the Republican party right now as well. Independents are going to decide this election and tea bagger candidates are not going to do it.I wonder what you think characterizes a "tea bagger candidate".

[Skysooner]

Either your memory is very short, or you don't know enough people outside the buckle of the Bible belt (I'm guessing it's the latter). The left-leaners of the country were pretty damned pissed off beginning with the election debacle in Florida in 2000.

Totally agree with this.

[bluedogok]

Either your memory is very short, or you don't know enough people outside the buckle of the Bible belt (I'm guessing it's the latter). The left-leaners of the country were pretty damned pissed off beginning with the election debacle in Florida in 2000.
I think we might be in for some wild swings from one side to the other over the next few elections. Both sides have their "straight party" lever pullers (or card punchers, markers, etc.) but most of the swing votes in voting public seem to be pretty reactionary or apathetic.

I already know of some of the younger voters in the last election who were all wound up about Obama become disillusioned with the entire political process rather quickly because they thought everything would "be fixed" overnight...especially with a Democratic majority. It just showed how little they knew about politics and the fact they are part of the short attention span society. I think many of them will probably turn apathetic by 2012 and end up not voting which would help the Republicans who will have their own revitalized swing voters by then. Both parties are perceived to be at the extremes of their respective parties which really makes the swing voters more critical for the win.

[AggieTool]

We'll see...

Republicans have a way of friggin stuff up just in time...

You know, like a scandal of some sort.

[delhalew]

Yeah, right. I'm a center right independent, and I can't figure out what that whole movement is about since taxes have actually gone down. If they can't espouse a more intelligent argument, they deserve to be made fun of. The Republican party is not what it was when I was a strong member (Reagan years). Put up a candidate that can get the economy moving, help fix the deficit and not ignore the reality that this country is going bankrupt. Both parties are to blame for this going back 40 years.

The reason you see mixed messages is because this tea party thing is not an organized political establishment. It is a political groundswell based in fiscal conservatism, thereby consisting of (R)'s,(D)'s and (I)'s. When this changes the tea party is useless. That's why I personally like the Beer Party :D
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aN3yNCGQlE0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aN3yNCGQlE0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[Skysooner]

I wonder if we could get Shiner Bock to run as a candidate.

[SoonerNate]

is gonna "reset" in November.

It's gonna be remarkable. The stars are aligning for a GOP renaissance that will make Newt's "Contract With America" only a historical footnote. I've been on ths planet a half a century and I have never sensed the level of utter indignance and disregard for the bunch now running this country. Just wait and see. :eek:

I cannot wait until November. I am going to throw a party.

[Leroy Lizard]

is gonna "reset" in November.

It's gonna be remarkable. The stars are aligning for a GOP renaissance that will make Newt's "Contract With America" only a historical footnote. I've been on ths planet a half a century and I have never sensed the level of utter indignance and disregard for the bunch now running this country. Just wait and see. :eek:

Count me as one neo-con who thinks the Republican Party will screw this up by factionalizing.

[Pricetag]

I think the republicans will win back the majority in congress, but I don't think it will be 1994. I just haven't bought all the indignation in the past year as something that isn't coming almost completely from folks who voted for the republicans last time. I don't see how their going and voting republican again is going to change things so radically.

[Leroy Lizard]

(deleted)

[soonerbub]

The GOP better get on the correct side of financial reform imo--not gonna win many votes cozying up to goldman sachs. 2012 deficit implosion no matter who is in power tho

[yermom]

Every person who says "teabagger" is an idiot regardless of what else they have to say. God forbid people try to figure out who they are talking about before they sprack off.

it's what they were calling themselves for a while, i'm not about to stop calling them that

[MR2-Sooner86]

The GOP shouldn't get a damn vote this November and I hope some independents really mix things up. The Republicans threw one of their own (Ron Paul) under the bus who made the most sense and went with McCain. Yeah...

[Sooner Eclipse]

We'll see...

Republicans have a way of friggin stuff up just in time...

You know, like a scandal of some sort.

What you mean is they have a way of not defending themselves vigoriously enough against communists, er, I mean journalists that dont mind fabricating complete crap for a political purpose 3 days before a national election. Dan Rather is no longer effective but there are plenty of others to lead the sheep to the pasture.

[Sooner Eclipse]

The GOP better get on the correct side of financial reform imo--not gonna win many votes cozying up to goldman sachs. 2012 deficit implosion no matter who is in power tho

Dude, Obama has been playing reach around pocket pool with Sachs for the last couple years. Now his chin is superglued to their nutsack.

[PDXsooner]

Great, so we're gonna replace Ryan Leaf with JaMarcus Russell? That's not enough to excite anyone. Quit convincing yourself the Republicans have the ability or werewithal to get their heads out of their anuses. No one outside of the teabag party or bible belt believes that BS.

[delhalew]

Great, so we're gonna replace Ryan Leaf with JaMarcus Russell? That's not enough to excite anyone. Quit convincing yourself the Republicans have the ability or werewithal to get their heads out of their anuses. No one outside of the teabag party or bible belt believes that BS.

Yeah, your right. Why vote at all. Let's install dooshrocket in chief as lifetime leader and abolish Congress. We can all quit worrying about it and wasting your precious time.

[bluedogok]

Dude, Obama has been playing reach around pocket pool with Sachs for the last couple years. Now his chin is superglued to their nutsack.
Shoot, companies like Golden Sacks are equal opportunity buyers, they will try to buy the favor of anyone who will vote the way they want regardless of party.

[85Sooner]

I am seeing more people that could not have have cared less about politics in the past 30 years are fuming.

70% favor the Good things going on in Arizona.

I think your gonna see the dems nuked in November.

[PDXsooner]

The Republicans are like the backup quarterback..."Yeah, if we were there we'd be doing it so much better"! Yeah? Well, shut up and sit down. You're out until 2012. Cry all you want but NO SOUP FOR YOU!

Also, we saw what you did for 8 years under Bush, and it was horrendous.

Keep crying, it's great. I'll enjoy it for 3 more years. Actually, 8 more. Obama will be back in 2012.

[PDXsooner]

Another thing. If I say I promise I won't drink your beer if you let me hold it. Then you let me hold it and I...drink your beer. Would that make me a liar? Well, that's how I feel about the Republicans crying about raising taxes. You can say you won't raise them, you can argue ideology, you can tell me the merits of not raising taxes...but yet you'll still raise them.

I hear so much discussion of political ideology and philosophy...but not so much political reality. The reality is the Republicans don't represent most of what you all say it does. It's comedy. State's rights? Nope. Lowering taxes? Nope. Individual liberties? Nope. Limited reach of Federal Government? Nope.

Bottom line: The Republican Party sucks.

[delhalew]

Another thing. If I say I promise I won't drink your beer if you let me hold it. Then you let me hold it and I...drink your beer. Would that make me a liar? Well, that's how I feel about the Republicans crying about raising taxes. You can say you won't raise them, you can argue ideology, you can tell me the merits of not raising taxes...but yet you'll still raise them.

I hear so much discussion of political ideology and philosophy...but not so much political reality. The reality is the Republicans don't represent most of what you all say it does. It's comedy. State's rights? Nope. Lowering taxes? Nope. Individual liberties? Nope. Limited reach of Federal Government? Nope.

Bottom line: The Republican Party sucks.

Here we can agree. Though I don't see it as comedy. Democrats won't even pretend. For someone like myself, that leaves (R)'s and (I)'s.

Look, political reality grows from philosophy. (R)'s dropped their principles and paid the price along with the rest of us. It's important that people are watching very closely right now. Trust me, republicans and independents who are serious about change have a list of Republicans that voted for bailouts and porkulous. These (R)'s will be sent a message.

Were I can't agree with you, is that you seem to be saying "why give a damn"? I just can't look at it that way anymore.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Obama will be back in 2012.

Back to Kenya where he belongs ;)

:pop:

[OU_Sooners75]

Either your memory is very short, or you don't know enough people outside the buckle of the Bible belt (I'm guessing it's the latter). The left-leaners of the country were pretty damned pissed off beginning with the election debacle in Florida in 2000.


I am not saying you are incorrect, but if this was entirely true...why werent they able to vote Bush out of office in 2004?

Personally, I think it is because most centrists are more conservative than liberal in their thinking. Now, of course that is speculation on my part, just my opinion, so I could be wrong.

I may have only been on this earth for 34 years now, but this is the highest tensions have been in this nation about our government that I can remember.

[Jacie]

We'll see...

Republicans have a way of friggin stuff up just in time...

You know, like a scandal of some sort.

Or electing Bush . . . twice . . .

They ran a candidate who managed to make Obama look like a good choice for President of the United States.

[soonerscuba]

I am not saying you are incorrect, but if this was entirely true...why werent they able to vote Bush out of office in 2004?Bush ran within an inch of his life in 2004, while we were at war, at time in which he saw his approval rise to 85%, and against John Kerry. He won, it was fair, but in those circumstances, the incumbent should destroy a good challenger, let alone John Kerry.

As for the midterms, it would be more surprising if the Republicans didn't take back the House, as is pretty standard in all midterms against the power party. The Republican party as it currently exists has a shelf life directly tied to the age and socioeconomic background of it's members. To survive, at some point they are going to have to confront their relationship with Hispanics, gays, and the ever increasing pie piece of the underemployed. Frankly, there will come a time when there will be such a greater number of people diametrically opposed to the standard platform, that even their army of educated grey-hairs (this isn't a knock, they vote by the bushel) are going to be up against the wall.

My personal take is that many Americans are struggling with the concept of globalization, and cannot rationalize why the transference of intellectual, monetary, and industrial capital is shifting away from the United States and into developing economies which 20 years ago were rooted in mysticism and trinket sales. The truth is that capitalism has flourished in the last 30 years and markets tend to be efficient, especially in regards to production costs so you can take a look at multiculturalists and free-market evangelists with any equally disparaging eye. The only solution is human capital that retains benefits outweighing the costs, basically we need smarter people focusing on global enterprises that function best within the United States. As it stands, our brightest dream of going to GS and trading products with no physical value or suing insurance companies at the expense of an underclass. Electing the face of a global society just put the teabaggers into their current deranged tizzy as frankly most were perfectly content with the idea of a unitary executive 7 years ago, much like the protesters in 2003 didn't seem to have that big of an issue with DOMA or NAFTA.

Kooks are kooks are kooks. The intensity of your anger isn't correlated to the factual basis of your argument.

[bluedogok]

Bottom line: BOTH Parties suck.
Fixed that for you....


Or electing Bush . . . twice . . .

They ran a candidate who managed to make Obama look like a good choice for President of the United States.
For some reason both parties seem to float a turd out there when they know they don't have much of a chance to win, McCain was the latest turd in the punch bowl, I pretty much felt that whomever was the Democratic candidate in 2008 they were going to win after 8 years of Bush II. The Republicans seem to throw the "old guard senator" out there as a sacrifice in an elections that the tide is against them like they did with Dole against Clinton in 1996. The Dems did it with Kerry in 2000 and Mondale in 1984, Dukakis was a turd of a different flavor in 1988 and they have the history of it as well with McGovern in 1972.

[OU_Sooners75]

Kooks are kooks are kooks. The intensity of your anger isn't correlated to the factual basis of your argument.


My anger? I am not angry at all. Not sure where you thought anything in my statement had any angst.

Even though I think you are speaking more of the fact that the Teabaggers are losing the initial concept of why they started protesting in the first place.

FYI, I am one of the Center Left thinkers.

[soonerscuba]

My anger? I am not angry at all. Not sure where you thought anything in my statement had any angst.

Even though I think you are speaking more of the fact that the Teabaggers are losing the initial concept of why they started protesting in the first place.

FYI, I am one of the Center Left thinkers.Sorry, I really wasn't talking about you, my apologies if it came off that way. I was more thinking about how many posts I've seen on here with phrases like "I've never seen so many people angry about such and such" and pretending like anger is some sort of trump card in a policy debate.

[PDXsooner]

Fixed that for you....




I actually agree. I think the Democrats are the lesser of two evils, but I think the Democrats are a clueless, aimless bunch of windbags as well.

[JLEW1818]

yah killing babies aint evil

[PDXsooner]

yah killing babies aint evil

how myopic.

[Pricetag]

Here we can agree. Though I don't see it as comedy. Democrats won't even pretend. For someone like myself, that leaves (R)'s and (I)'s.

Look, political reality grows from philosophy. (R)'s dropped their principles and paid the price along with the rest of us. It's important that people are watching very closely right now. Trust me, republicans and independents who are serious about change have a list of Republicans that voted for bailouts and porkulous. These (R)'s will be sent a message.

Were I can't agree with you, is that you seem to be saying "why give a damn"? I just can't look at it that way anymore.
Who will be voting for the I's? The republicans and democrats have been banking on the fact that no one has the balls to do it for years. The republicans will probably reap the rewards this next cycle. This willingness to hold one's nose and vote one side to keep the other out of power, to accept the lesser of two evils, is just as big a "why give a damn" attitude as saying it outright.

[delhalew]

If you are suggesting that applies to me, I can assure you I will not be holding my nose.

[ndpruitt03]

This whole Tea Party thing isn't about taxes although I think some in the tea party don't really realize that. It should be about how this government is spending money like crazy for no reason. This will eventually lead to a tax raise because the government is trying to pay for things it can't pay for. Within 20 years the way things are being paid to keep the same rate of taxes 100% of our tax will have to go to entitlement spending. Which means the only way roads, schools, and other things we would like to have would have to be paid for with raised taxes. What will happen is that our taxes will have to be raised big time to pay for anything we really want. And in another couple decades that money will run out. We can't expect the government to control and pay for everything and not expect a raise. This tea party thing should be about government control vs less government control, just like the original tea party was 250 years ago.

[GottaHavePride]

Bush ran within an inch of his life in 2004, while we were at war, at time in which he saw his approval rise to 85%, and against John Kerry. He won, it was fair, but in those circumstances, the incumbent should destroy a good challenger, let alone John Kerry.

^^^^ This. I voted for Bush II the first time around and then was extremely embarrassed when he turned out to be one of the most horrendous public speakers I've ever seen. Don't believe me? If David Letterman can turn your public speaking into a multi-year gold mine of a sketch, it's bad.

Then at the next election the Democrats ran Kerry against him, who seemed even MORE incompetent to me, so I voted for Bush II again.

Then this last election I was pretty torn between Obama and McCain, but then the Republicans paired him with Sarah Palin. Let me put it this way: if Bush II and John Kerry got together and had a giant, mutant, idiot fail-baby... Sarah Palin is less competent than that giant mutant idiot fail-baby. So I voted Obama.


Who will be voting for the I's?

I've been voting for the independents at the local level for YEARS. I would have a damn party if one of them could make it onto the national ballot. I think a two-party system is locking the entire country into an idiotic either/or fallacy that is DESTROYING any chance we have at real discourse about how to solve issues that doesn't devolve into "You guys are doodyheads" vs. "Nuh-uh, YOU guys are doodyheads."

[ndpruitt03]

^^^^ This. I voted for Bush II the first time around and then was extremely embarrassed when he turned out to be one of the most horrendous public speakers I've ever seen. Don't believe me? If David Letterman can turn your public speaking into a multi-year gold mine of a sketch, it's bad.

Then at the next election the Democrats ran Kerry against him, who seemed even MORE incompetent to me, so I voted for Bush II again.

Then this last election I was pretty torn between Obama and McCain, but then the Republicans paired him with Sarah Palin. Let me put it this way: if Bush II and John Kerry got together and had a giant, mutant, idiot fail-baby... Sarah Palin is less competent than that giant mutant idiot fail-baby. So I voted Obama.



I've been voting for the independents at the local level for YEARS. I would have a damn party if one of them could make it onto the national ballot. I think a two-party system is locking the entire country into an idiotic either/or fallacy that is DESTROYING any chance we have at real discourse about how to solve issues that doesn't devolve into "You guys are doodyheads" vs. "Nuh-uh, YOU guys are doodyheads."

First on Bush, from watching some of his older speeches in the few town halls that I've looked up on him he was better in those than Obama is. Obama is known as being more of a teleprompter reader but in the town hall type setting that he's had when interacting with people he's awful.

Here's a sample from a Bush town hall

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRyxOzlJK98

Now granted the other guy was an idiot, but he let him have his say, and then he showed his humor, let the guy speak. Then gave a good response. We rarely saw this Bush in his 8 years. When we saw Bush he was giving a SOTU or some other speech, not really his strength. It's Obama's strength.

I think Obama is weaker trying to think off the cuff answering questions he doesn't already know are going to be asked. Look at his interview with Bret Baier for this example. He's asked things he's not really comfortable with and it almost seems like he's offended and he basically sidesteps the questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rMxCqR8iBw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=occjpoHh9Cs

Now your last part I agree 100% and George Washington in his final speech was completely right about parties potentially destroying the republic.

[OU_Sooners75]

Sorry, I really wasn't talking about you, my apologies if it came off that way. I was more thinking about how many posts I've seen on here with phrases like "I've never seen so many people angry about such and such" and pretending like anger is some sort of trump card in a policy debate.

I figured it wasnt directed toward me...but wasnt sure.:O

[soonervegas]

American voters are like a single mom with low self esteem who goes from one abusive boyfriend to the next. We don't believe in ourselves enough to enact real change.....just change that is packaged for us like Obama or the Teabaggers.

[TUSooner]

American voters are like a single mom with low self esteem who goes from one abusive boyfriend to the next. We don't believe in ourselves enough to enact real change.....just change that is packaged for us like Obama or the Teabaggers.

Interesting concept and analogy.

I was going to say that the "fulcrum" of political balance may be right of center, but if the Obamians and the tea baggers move away from the center, the fulcrum will become the breaking point. I suppose we're not too close to that, yet.

[NormanPride]

Recently it's been like a top destabilizing. Wobbling from one side to the other more and more erratically. Eventually someone stupid is going to do something stupid and we'll have to reset.

[TopDawg]

First on Bush, from watching some of his older speeches in the few town halls that I've looked up on him he was better in those than Obama is.

Submitted for your consideration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdimK1onR4o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD7BDP3XMG0

[ndpruitt03]

Those were bad. Especially the first one. Not as bad as these though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxxxGUeZtno
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhNeGYYPgIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG56B2et4M8

[TopDawg]

Well, you started by talking about how they were in "town hall" type settings and getting questions they didn't expect. Some of those last four clips appear to be teleprompter malfunctions or something of the sort. Not sure. They certainly don't make him look like a gifted speaker, but to me they don't really have much to do with his ability to take "surprise" questions. Like, perhaps, the sovereign nation question or the one the college student asked him.

I mean, if we just want to throw out examples of them being bad speakers, that opens the door to a whole slew of other Bush videos. I was being selective. ;)

[delhalew]

Was "corpse man" featured in one of those clips? That's a fave of mine. It's right up there with "57 states".

[TUSooner]

See how things devolve to trivialities: a comparison of presidents' town hall gaffs. That stuff is chicken sh!t. BUGHGHGHGHGH!!!!!!!!!1

[C&CDean]

When a person/country bases the effectiveness of a POTUS on his/her public speaking ability then we're really ****ed. Guess we're really ****ed huh?

[delhalew]

When a person/country bases the effectiveness of a POTUS on his/her public speaking ability then we're really ****ed. Guess we're really ****ed huh?

Naw, it's just funny that the golden boy of the left is just as ****tarded as W.

[GottaHavePride]

When a person/country bases the effectiveness of a POTUS on his/her public speaking ability then we're really ****ed. Guess we're really ****ed huh?


That's 90% of what the President DOES. The other 10% is signing crap that Congress puts in front of him. If you want to get mad about policy, get mad at the Senators and Representatives.

And as far as being CIC in a military capacity, I had very few issues with Bush II on that front.

[C&CDean]

What I don't get is how people think Obama is a great speaker. He's not bad, but he ain't even close to great. Clinton was better, and Reagan smoked them all in my lifetime.

This brings up a thought I had a while back when some knuckleheads were arguing about "was JFK actually a conservative?" I have to say yes. No good liberal would ever say "ask not what your country can do for you..."

[GottaHavePride]

What I don't get is how people think Obama is a great speaker. He's not bad, but he ain't even close to great. Clinton was better, and Reagan smoked them all in my lifetime.

This brings up a thought I had a while back when some knuckleheads were arguing about "was JFK actually a conservative?" I have to say yes. No good liberal would ever say "ask not what your country can do for you..."


Obama actually isn't a very charismatic speaker. He's kind of a cold fish.

I'd be curious to see how things would have turned out had JFK lived to serve two full terms.

Also, I have a professor who says sometimes he goes to the Presidential debate archives (at OU) and watches the old JFK / Nixon debates and then "weeps for the future of humanity". Heh. He says the way those two debated was light years beyond anything the talking heads can manage now.

[TopDawg]

There are plenty of ways to measure their effectiveness. Public speaking should be one of them because you're fooling yourself if you think a president's ability to effectively communicate doesn't affect his ability to be an effective leader.

Having said that, I think it would be incredibly difficult to do what they do in those town hall meetings, press conferences and public speeches. I bet if we had the same round-the-clock news coverage from the days of our founding fathers, they'd be pretty embarrassed by some of the YouTube videos floating around of some of them. So the mere existence of embarrassing gaffes is not necessarily an indictment or a fair measurement of a president's effectiveness. But if you make so many of them that "neutral" people or your supporters begin to doubt whether they should be putting their trust in you, well then it surely has affected your effectiveness as a president.

To ndpruitt's point, perhaps Bush is better at town hall meetings than Obama is. But if that's the case, all I was trying to point out is that it's somewhat akin to saying that Brandon Daniels was better at quarterbacking than Patrick Fletcher.

But let's be real. Half of the people on internet message boards criticizing Bush and Obama's gaffes don't even know the difference between their, there and they're or its and it's.

[C&CDean]

I do two.

[TopDawg]

What I don't get is how people think Obama is a great speaker. He's not bad, but he ain't even close to great.

Dean, it's all relative. When you follow a guy like Bush, you're going to seem a lot better than you really are.

[GottaHavePride]

Having said that, I think it would be incredibly difficult to do what they do in those town hall meetings, press conferences and public speeches.

Ever watch any of the broadcasts from the UK House of Lords? The Prime Minister standing there with a 6-inch thick binder full of the latest facts and figures relevant to whatever might come up, and constantly referencing it to argue with Parliament?

Pretty amazing to watch.

[TopDawg]

That IS amazing.

I'd love to see someone try that at a town-hall meeting.

[Harry Beanbag]

They don't even read the bills that they pass, why would they bother with facts and figures cheat sheets during speeches?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Obama actually isn't a very charismatic speaker. He's kind of a cold fish.

I'd be curious to see how things would have turned out had JFK lived to serve two full terms.

Also, I have a professor who says sometimes he goes to the Presidential debate archives (at OU) and watches the old JFK / Nixon debates and then "weeps for the future of humanity". Heh. He says the way those two debated was light years beyond anything the talking heads can manage now.Neither one of those guys disliked his country.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

When a person/country bases the effectiveness of a POTUS on his/her public speaking ability then we're really ****ed. Guess we're really ****ed huh?The Left was fixated on W's gaffes, and have been fascinated by both Clinton's and Maobama's public speaking "image", while seemingly disregarding the actual content of what they have said...and done.

[Skysooner]

The Left was fixated on W's gaffes, and have been fascinated by both Clinton's and Maobama's public speaking "image", while seemingly disregarding the actual content of what they have said...and done.

The problem is you think we are disregarding what is happening. We have reasons for the way we believe just as you have your reasons for what you believe. I have a rationale for supporting health care reform, financial reform, etc. that is well reasoned and well thought out. I fully believe in the direction we are heading. To say otherwise is to denigrate my opinion. Just because you don't share it does not make me wrong. It means I have a different viewpoint. There are an equal number of idiots on both sides of this thing. The Republicans just are more vocal about it right now and come off looking worse.

[SoonerNate]

The GOP better get on the correct side of financial reform imo--not gonna win many votes cozying up to goldman sachs. 2012 deficit implosion no matter who is in power tho

You might want to go back and check which side is cozying up to GS. Tom Daschle works for their lobbying firm. Charles Shumer takes more money from them than anyone.

It is the DNC particularly in New York that are in their pocket. It's not the Richard Shelby's of say Alabama who are wanting protections for the smaller more rural banks throughout the country.

[delhalew]

You might want to go back and check which side is cozying up to GS. Tom Daschle works for their lobbying firm. Charles Shumer takes more money from them than anyone.

It is the DNC particularly in New York that are in their pocket. It's not the Richard Shelby's of say Alabama who are wanting protections for the smaller more rural banks throughout the country.

<fingers in ears> La La La La La La La La!

[Leroy Lizard]

The Left was fixated on W's gaffes, and have been fascinated by both Clinton's and Maobama's public speaking "image", while seemingly disregarding the actual content of what they have said...and done.

Ivory tower pseudo-intellectuals love the charismatic speakers. It started with JFK. Rotten president, but he knew how to sound like an Ivy Leaguer.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The problem is you think we are disregarding what is happening. We have reasons for the way we believe just as you have your reasons for what you believe. I have a rationale for supporting health care reform, financial reform, etc. that is well reasoned and well thought out. I fully believe in the direction we are heading. To say otherwise is to denigrate my opinion. Just because you don't share it does not make me wrong. It means I have a different viewpoint. There are an equal number of idiots on both sides of this thing. The Republicans just are more vocal about it right now and come off looking worse.Yes, we have different opinions, and on politics yours is wrong. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Look at how things are in countries that have shi* for freedoms, and funnel all their money through the govt. They SUCK! I believe you leftists are going to have a much more difficult time forcing America to totalitarianism than you think. Why it (so far) appeals to is a sad scenario.

[yermom]

which countries are those?

[ndpruitt03]

I think he's referring to most of Europe which is destroying itself from within. Greece is pretty much done. Europe is pretty much debating between Fascists governments and borderline communists government. Both ways suck.

[yermom]

perhaps someone should check put what "totalitarian" means

[Crucifax Autumn]

1 a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy : authoritarian, dictatorial; especially : despotic b : of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)


Seems to me that both ends of our political spectrum have spent too much time since the 50s gradually making this wet dream of theirs a reality.

[Skysooner]

Yes, we have different opinions, and on politics yours is wrong. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Look at how things are in countries that have shi* for freedoms, and funnel all their money through the govt. They SUCK! I believe you leftists are going to have a much more difficult time forcing America to totalitarianism than you think. Why it (so far) appeals to is a sad scenario.

Umm, yours is an opinion. I'm fine with mine. I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I vote independent. I hardly call myself a leftist. Even leftists wouldn't call me leftist. I was a strong Reagan supporter. I still believe in his policies. What I don't believe in is the way that the conservative wing of the Republican party has continued to move to the right to the detriment of our freedoms, compassion and acceptance of differences. Grow up and learn something about history and maybe you won't get so caught up in your rhetoric.

[ndpruitt03]

The republican party has moved anywhere but right. It's been spending like a liberal for a long, long time.

[Skysooner]

The republican party has moved anywhere but right. It's been spending like a liberal for a long, long time.

I guess I'm saying socially they have. Fiscally they are not the party I supported. Many of the Republicans of "yesteryear" wouldn't be welcome in today's party.

Relating a story here. I graduated with a class of almost 700 (with only 15 or being minority of various types). The experiences I had with minorities growing up weren't great. I was a bit homophobic growing up until I really started to socialize in college. What I finally figured out was that I was not a racist in my deepest heart. I was fearful but once I let go of that I saw people as people. The country should do its best for all of its citizens (not just the ones that can afford to give to political campaigns). Both sides pander to the all-mighty dollar. What we have to do is make the country the best it can be for all of its people without bankrupting us and hopefully giving up on our need to stretch our laws around the world. Defending ourselves and staying strong is one thing. Making war in countries like Iraq (based on a lie from our government) and Afghanistan (where it was definitely more justified) does not do us any good.

I was driving through a small town in Oklahoma about an hour from Tulsa and had to stop to pick up a new battery when mine started going out. There was a sign in this small auto parts store that said "N*****, don't let the sun catch you inside the city limits". It wasn't publicly posted and was on a board to the side where it wouldn't be readily noticed. I just happened to be looking around. I thought to myself that this is not the country I want for my children if that kind of bs is still around.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Umm, yours is an opinion. I'm fine with mine. I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I vote independent. I hardly call myself a leftist. Even leftists wouldn't call me leftist. I was a strong Reagan supporter. I still believe in his policies. What I don't believe in is the way that the conservative wing of the Republican party has continued to move to the right to the detriment of our freedoms, compassion and acceptance of differences. Grow up and learn something about history and maybe you won't get so caught up in your rhetoric.What freedoms does the "conservative wing" attack or suppress? What do you want me to learn about history?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I guess I'm saying socially they have. Fiscally they are not the party I supported. Many of the Republicans of "yesteryear" wouldn't be welcome in today's party.

Relating a story here. I graduated with a class of almost 700 (with only 15 or being minority of various types). The experiences I had with minorities growing up weren't great. I was a bit homophobic growing up until I really started to socialize in college. What I finally figured out was that I was not a racist in my deepest heart. I was fearful but once I let go of that I saw people as people. The country should do its best for all of its citizens (not just the ones that can afford to give to political campaigns). Both sides pander to the all-mighty dollar. What we have to do is make the country the best it can be for all of its people without bankrupting us and hopefully giving up on our need to stretch our laws around the world. Defending ourselves and staying strong is one thing. Making war in countries like Iraq (based on a lie from our government) and Afghanistan (where it was definitely more justified) does not do us any good.

I was driving through a small town in Oklahoma about an hour from Tulsa and had to stop to pick up a new battery when mine started going out. There was a sign in this small auto parts store that said "N*****, don't let the sun catch you inside the city limits". It wasn't publicly posted and was on a board to the side where it wouldn't be readily noticed. I just happened to be looking around. I thought to myself that this is not the country I want for my children if that kind of bs is still around.Kumba-ya, baby. Whirled peas for all! There's a white racist in Eastern OK. Let's hold hands!

[Skysooner]

Kumba-ya, baby. Whirled peas for all! There's a white racist in Eastern OK. Let's hold hands!

This kind of says it all about you doesn't it. Racism is rampant everywhere. White against most everything else, most everything else against white and against each other.



What freedoms does the "conservative wing" attack or suppress? What do you want me to learn about history?


A country is only as great as it treats its least citizen. Okay, the conservative wing of the Rs wants to suppress abortion (upheld by SCOTUS), stem cell research, pure science teaching in the schools (creationism is not science), and sexual education. Not to mention that we still have abridges of our freedoms passed from 9/11. Yes, some of them are necessary, but Bush went way beyond what should have been permissible for our security alone.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This kind of says it all about you doesn't it. Racism is rampant everywhere. White against most everything else, most everything else against white and against each other.




A country is only as great as it treats its least citizen. Okay, the conservative wing of the Rs wants to suppress abortion (upheld by SCOTUS), stem cell research, pure science teaching in the schools (creationism is not science), and sexual education. Not to mention that we still have abridges of our freedoms passed from 9/11. Yes, some of them are necessary, but Bush went way beyond what should have been permissible for our security alone.That's it! let it out! Ah feel so ashamed!

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

I think he's referring to most of Europe which is destroying itself from within. Greece is pretty much done. Europe is pretty much debating between Fascists governments and borderline communists government. Both ways suck.

Have you ever been to Europe?

[Skysooner]

That's it! let it out! Ah feel so ashamed!

Too bad you don't, otherwise you might not be so visceral to those who have different opinions than you. Intelligent debate is great. Attacks do nothing for your cause.

[PDXsooner]

Umm, yours is an opinion. I'm fine with mine. I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I vote independent. I hardly call myself a leftist. Even leftists wouldn't call me leftist. I was a strong Reagan supporter. I still believe in his policies. What I don't believe in is the way that the conservative wing of the Republican party has continued to move to the right to the detriment of our freedoms, compassion and acceptance of differences. Grow up and learn something about history and maybe you won't get so caught up in your rhetoric.

If you don't adhere to a specific opinion on about four bumper sticker issues, the conservatives will call you a commie.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If you don't adhere to a specific opinion on about four bumper sticker issues, the conservatives will call you a commie.and...you just might be one!

[StoopTroup]

The republican party has moved anywhere but right. It's been spending like a liberal for a long, long time.

I'd just like to go on record that I indeed did SPEK that. I know Nic and me don't always agree on much of anything but he deserved a bit of the ole green for that one. Come ON everybody! Give it up for Nic! :D

[Harry Beanbag]

A country is only as great as it treats its least citizen. Okay, the conservative wing of the Rs wants to suppress abortion...


So which is it that you support: fair treatment for the least citizen's or abortion on demand?

[Skysooner]

So which is it that you support: fair treatment for the least citizen's or abortion on demand?

Fair treatment for the least citizens. I would never make abortion a litmus test for a politician. I truly support adoption. That is the only way a few of my relatives were able to be able to have children in their family.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

A country is only as great as it treats its least citizen. Okay, the conservative wing of the Rs wants to suppress abortion (upheld by SCOTUS), stem cell research, pure science teaching in the schools (creationism is not science), and sexual education. Not to mention that we still have abridges of our freedoms passed from 9/11. Yes, some of them are necessary, but Bush went way beyond what should have been permissible for our security alone.


If the unborn are not the least of our people then who are?

[Skysooner]

If the unborn are not the least of our people then who are?

You didn't read the post right above yours. That argument is of a totally different vein much of it religious. Since I'm an agnostic atheist, it would be pointless to argue that. I support adoption.

[EnragedOUfan]

Dear Sooner fans and Americans,

Kind of off topic here but any American who thinks that America is close to becoming or is a Socialist country is a freaking dumbace. Here's why:

I live in Europe, Ansbach, Germany to be exact. I am employed by the US Government. I am in charge of both a German and Italian local national employee for the US Government. So I have an idea of how things are done here in Europe.

First off, Americans don't pay 46% in Federal taxes. Americans pay about a 1/4 of 46%, maybe even less. Americans don't have to pay a tax on how many televisions they own in their own home. Americans have the least expensive gas prices in the world. American busines hours are not regulated by the federal government. The German Polizei can approach/question/pull me over without any type of probable cause. Americans don't pay a 19% sales tax.

But yet, we have the Republicans and Tea Party retards who are dead set in their thoughts that America is becoming a Socialist county. And yet, most of your typical Southern, backwoods Republicans probably have no clue what the definition of Socialism is nor have they left their region of the world to experience another. Not to criticize them for that, but those people have no idea what they're talking about......BOOMER!

[Bourbon St Sooner]

You didn't read the post right above yours. That argument is of a totally different vein much of it religious. Since I'm an agnostic atheist, it would be pointless to argue that. I support adoption.

I disagree that it's a religious issue. It's a moral issue, but that doesn't make it a religious one. Just because the ten commandments forbid stealing and killing doesn't make those religious issues.

[delhalew]

Dear Sooner fans and Americans,

Kind of off topic here but any American who thinks that America is close to becoming or is a Socialist country is a freaking dumbace. Here's why:

I live in Europe, Ansbach, Germany to be exact. I am employed by the US Government. I am in charge of both a German and Italian local national employee for the US Government. So I have an idea of how things are done here in Europe.

First off, Americans don't pay 46% in Federal taxes. Americans pay about a 1/4 of 46%, maybe even less. Americans don't have to pay a tax on how many televisions they own in their own home. Americans have the least expensive gas prices in the world. American busines hours are not regulated by the federal government. The German Polizei can approach/question/pull me over without any type of probable cause. Americans don't pay a 19% sales tax.

But yet, we have the Republicans and Tea Party retards who are dead set in their thoughts that America is becoming a Socialist county. And yet, most of your typical Southern, backwoods Republicans probably have no clue what the definition of Socialism is nor have they left their region of the world to experience another. Not to criticize them for that, but those people have no idea what they're talking about......BOOMER!

Americans are enraged because you just described the(D) aagenda.

[StoopTroup]

Ivory tower pseudo-intellectuals love the charismatic speakers. It started with JFK. Rotten president, but he knew how to sound like an Ivy Leaguer.

I wonder if that was because he graduated cum laude from Harvard with a degree in international affairs?

[Skysooner]

I disagree that it's a religious issue. It's a moral issue, but that doesn't make it a religious one. Just because the ten commandments forbid stealing and killing doesn't make those religious issues.

It is both a moral and a religious issue. I just refuse to discuss it as so many times the arguments thrown out are religious, and since I have in essence denounced organized religion in my own mind, it just makes no sense to argue it. Is it an important issue? Yes. Should it be a litmus test for our politicians above fiscal responsibility, no.

[Harry Beanbag]

It is both a moral and a religious issue. I just refuse to discuss it as so many times the arguments thrown out are religious, and since I have in essence denounced organized religion in my own mind, it just makes no sense to argue it. Is it an important issue? Yes. Should it be a litmus test for our politicians above fiscal responsibility, no.


Some people base their morals on religion. Some people base them on perceived right and wrong. I don't believe in organized religion either, but abortion is murder in my moral view. What's more important than that? And murdering our least citizens doesn't fit into your stated view either although you are attempting to rationalize it. Brushing off murder as not worth the time to discuss is convenient I suppose.

That being said, I agree that it shouldn't be a political issue. We already have laws against murder, just have exceptions I guess. But that is the vogue these days, ignoring laws for political reasons. Right?

[Skysooner]

Some people base their morals on religion. Some people base them on perceived right and wrong. I don't believe in organized religion either, but abortion is murder in my moral view. What's more important than that? And murdering our least citizens doesn't fit into your stated view either although you are attempting to rationalize it. Brushing off murder as not worth the time to discuss is convenient I suppose.

That being said, I agree that it shouldn't be a political issue. We already have laws against murder, just have exceptions I guess. But that is the vogue these days, ignoring laws for political reasons. Right?

Mine is on perceived right and wrong. I also fully realize there are two sides to every story and there are some people that are better off never being parents. I don't brush it off as nothing, but since I don't want it as a litmus test, the only thing I can do is work to make it better locally.

By least citizens, I choose to focus on the people that have already been born and the lousy treatment they get from society. Homosexuals are treated like second class citizens in the world primarily due to religious "morals". Not that long ago, women and minorities were also treated as property or second class citizens primarily due to religious justification. This country is wealthy enough not to leave people behind with substandard health care and education just because they happen to be born a certain race, socio-economic class, etc. I was raised upper middle class. When I graduated from OU, I would be considered lower middle class in my income level. I have been lucky and now would be considered "rich" by most people's standards. I have been there and done that with regards to bad bosses, not being able to pay a bill and having health care deny coverage. I did this, but I have never had to contend with what so many of our citizens contend with and that is racism, homophobics and bad treatment.

[TopDawg]

That being said, I agree that it shouldn't be a political issue. We already have laws against murder, just have exceptions I guess.

Like war?





















:pop:

[Harry Beanbag]

Like war?





















:pop:


:rolleyes:













:pop:

[Harry Beanbag]

Mine is on perceived right and wrong. I also fully realize there are two sides to every story and there are some people that are better off never being parents. I don't brush it off as nothing, but since I don't want it as a litmus test, the only thing I can do is work to make it better locally.

By least citizens, I choose to focus on the people that have already been born and the lousy treatment they get from society. Homosexuals are treated like second class citizens in the world primarily due to religious "morals". Not that long ago, women and minorities were also treated as property or second class citizens primarily due to religious justification. This country is wealthy enough not to leave people behind with substandard health care and education just because they happen to be born a certain race, socio-economic class, etc. I was raised upper middle class. When I graduated from OU, I would be considered lower middle class in my income level. I have been lucky and now would be considered "rich" by most people's standards. I have been there and done that with regards to bad bosses, not being able to pay a bill and having health care deny coverage. I did this, but I have never had to contend with what so many of our citizens contend with and that is racism, homophobics and bad treatment.


Nice dodge.

[Curly Bill]

Skysooner seems to have some white guilt issues.

[Skysooner]

Skysooner seems to have some white guilt issues.

White guilt? Not at all. I just think we should all be equal and treated as such. If you don't that is your business.

[Skysooner]

Nice dodge.

Not a dodge. I am for abortion. I prefer adoption or keeping the baby. I don't believe that a fetus is a human being as we define human beings until later in pregnancy. I won't condemn someone for getting an abortion.

Are you for capital punishment? Same argument applies.

[Leroy Lizard]

I wonder if that was because he graduated cum laude from Harvard with a degree in international affairs?

You really think I didn't know he graduated from Harvard? His pronunciation of his alma mater was the butt of many jokes.

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't brush it off as nothing, but since I don't want it as a litmus test, the only thing I can do is work to make it better locally.

If abortion was illegal, you would want it to be a litmus test.

[Leroy Lizard]

Are you for capital punishment? Same argument applies.

Yes, if the man is guilty. I defend the right of innocent life, not evil.

[TopDawg]

:rolleyes:













:pop:

Nice dodge.

[Curly Bill]

Dodges suck! I'd take a Chevy, a Ford, or any number of foreign makes over a Dodge any day.

[TopDawg]

Dodges suck! I'd take a Chevy, a Ford, or any number of foreign makes over a Dodge any day.

Everytime I see an old Dodge Caravan with the wood panelling on the side, it takes me back to my little league baseball days. One of my coaches had one of those. Racked up lots of miles in that thing travelling to our road games.

[delhalew]

White guilt? Not at all. I just think we should all be equal and treated as such. If you don't that is your business.

What would all those weak minorities do without you to give them a helping hand? Maybe they would do what people do. Solve their own problems. In a world with "morals" they would be able to count on their neighbors to help them through rough patches.
See, people tend to help each other voluntarily without being mandated to by an endlessly helpful government.
Also, note that these people who believe everyone needs their help don't plan on inconveniencing themselves to help anybody. Instead of kicking more to charity or writing a fat check to the IRS, they want their pet entitlements carried on the backs of their fellow citizens.
We have had all the help from you guys we can stand.

[Harry Beanbag]

Nice dodge.


What did I dodge? You brought up something completely irrelevant to the conversation with a twinkle in your eye thinking you "got me". No, you didn't. War has nothing to do with abortion or murder or this thread.

[Harry Beanbag]

Not a dodge. I am for abortion.

That's all you had to say in the beginning when I asked if you supported abortion on demand. Obviously you do.



Are you for capital punishment? Same argument applies.

Depends, if you are talking about deterrence, then definitely not. But as far as punishment and retribution, I can't say no to that. I've thought about it a lot, and I still think if you commit a heinous murder you deserve to die.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I support random abortion up to the 123rd trimester.

[Skysooner]

If abortion was illegal, you would want it to be a litmus test.

Actually I wouldn't make it a litmus test even if it were the law of the land. I just don't care that much about the issue. I might be for it in my mind, but if SCOTUS had ruled for it, and it was the law of the land I would deal with it. I am for the rights of all and the great weight of that is the mass of humanity that already lives here. I am not religious, so the whole religious argument on when is life a life is lost on me.

I am also for capital punishment. Surprising from a supposed liberal I guess. Of course I'm not a liberal. I keep telling you guys I am a right centrist (socially liberal, fiscally conservative). I voted mostly Republican until 2006 when the rhetoric became so great from the conservative wing of the party that I couldn't condone it anymore. I switched to Independent. I would have voted McCain this last election early on until he started shifting right and picked Palin as his running mate.


What would all those weak minorities do without you to give them a helping hand? Maybe they would do what people do. Solve their own problems. In a world with "morals" they would be able to count on their neighbors to help them through rough patches.
See, people tend to help each other voluntarily without being mandated to by an endlessly helpful government.
Also, note that these people who believe everyone needs their help don't plan on inconveniencing themselves to help anybody. Instead of kicking more to charity or writing a fat check to the IRS, they want their pet entitlements carried on the backs of their fellow citizens.
We have had all the help from you guys we can stand.

You get me wrong on this issue as well. I'm not for helping the undeserved. Everybody needs to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, but to ignore history is totally ignorant. When the ability to go to college is not modeled for people who grew up poor or with parents that couldn't/wouldn't go themselves having a safety net and allowing them to go to college benefits us all. Not only do they start to pay taxes into the system, but it is more likely their children will go to college as well. Do you know what the greatest indicator of success in a child is? It is their parents overall level of education. Children with educated parents are much more likely to have been read to and to develop greater love of school and to have better success overall than children where both parents didn't value education. When the spread between rich and poor becomes too great, you are looking for trouble in a country. Since a good part of our manufacturing base has been shipped overseas, the ability of non-college educated people to get a job that pays enough to get out of poverty has been decreased. Our capital in this country has moved much more towards intellectual property rather than manufactured goods. This means we need an educated work force to really advance and to keep our world lead. I have no idea why you would be against that. Go ahead and continue mischaracterizing what I say with what you think I mean. It doesn't make it true in any way, shape or form.

[delhalew]

Mine is on perceived right and wrong. I also fully realize there are two sides to every story and there are some people that are better off never being parents. I don't brush it off as nothing, but since I don't want it as a litmus test, the only thing I can do is work to make it better locally.

By least citizens, I choose to focus on the people that have already been born and the lousy treatment they get from society. Homosexuals are treated like second class citizens in the world primarily due to religious "morals". Not that long ago, women and minorities were also treated as property or second class citizens primarily due to religious justification. This country is wealthy enough not to leave people behind with substandard health care and education just because they happen to be born a certain race, socio-economic class, etc. I was raised upper middle class. When I graduated from OU, I would be considered lower middle class in my income level. I have been lucky and now would be considered "rich" by most people's standards. I have been there and done that with regards to bad bosses, not being able to pay a bill and having health care deny coverage. I did this, but I have never had to contend with what so many of our citizens contend with and that is racism, homophobics and bad treatment.

Maybe you mischaracterized yourself.

[Skysooner]

Maybe you mischaracterized yourself.

Nope I didn't. It is hard in this forum to convey what you completely mean without someone reading into it their own biases. This is normal with all kinds of communication. I said in my previous post that when the spread between rich and poor gets too great, a country is in trouble. History has proven this over and over. This country is wealthy enough to ensure better education, health care and that the population is taken care of. I don't believe in endless welfare just like I don't believe it is a good idea that 49% of the population pays no taxes. Where there is a will, there is a way. What I don't believe in is demonizing someone because they are poor, homosexual, of ethnic descent, etc.

My grandfather was born into poverty in the early 1900s. His greatest schooling was high school. The difference were his parents valued education. He had a great intelligence and went on to produce 13 patents for his company in marine engine design. He never made more than $20,000/year. Still both of his sons went to college (on scholarship) and government grants. Now most of my cousins and I have bachelors and in some cases graduate degrees. This is what can happen with support. However to ignore that the fact that he was Caucasian made this a much easier process would be wrong. I'm not for entitlements, but for truly equal treatment. We are getting there, but where there is rhetoric that denigrates someone due to their gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, there are deep-seated beliefs that undermine what could be accomplished. With this country's wealth, we should be #1 in education, health care, etc. Instead by most measures we are in the middle range in many things.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Nope I didn't. It is hard in this forum to convey what you completely mean without someone reading into it their own biases. This is normal with all kinds of communication. I said in my previous post that when the spread between rich and poor gets too great, a country is in trouble. History has proven this over and over. This country is wealthy enough to ensure better education, health care and that the population is taken care of. I don't believe in endless welfare just like I don't believe it is a good idea that 49% of the population pays no taxes. Where there is a will, there is a way. What I don't believe in is demonizing someone because they are poor, homosexual, of ethnic descent, etc.

My grandfather was born into poverty in the early 1900s. His greatest schooling was high school. The difference were his parents valued education. He had a great intelligence and went on to produce 13 patents for his company in marine engine design. He never made more than $20,000/year. Still both of his sons went to college (on scholarship) and government grants. Now most of my cousins and I have bachelors and in some cases graduate degrees. This is what can happen with support. However to ignore that the fact that he was Caucasian made this a much easier process would be wrong. I'm not for entitlements, but for truly equal treatment. We are getting there, but where there is rhetoric that denigrates someone due to their gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, there are deep-seated beliefs that undermine what could be accomplished. With this country's wealth, we should be #1 in education, health care, etc. Instead by most measures we are in the middle range in many things.We have become so successful and wealthy due to the FREEDOMS we have had in our wonderful country. Unfortunately, that vital characteristic is under wide-open attack. May we rise to the challenge!

[TopDawg]

What did I dodge? You brought up something completely irrelevant to the conversation with a twinkle in your eye thinking you "got me". No, you didn't. War has nothing to do with abortion or murder or this thread.

Well you said "That being said, I agree that it shouldn't be a political issue. We already have laws against murder, just have exceptions I guess. But that is the vogue these days, ignoring laws for political reasons. Right?"

We have laws against murder, but our laws state that abortion isn't murder. Murder, in order to be murder, requires that the act be an illegal one. So, technically, abortion doesn't have anything to do with murder.

So that moves the discussion to whether or not abortion should be illegal/murder. If we agree that abortion is killing someone and that we should have laws against killing people, should there be exceptions and what should they be? I was judging by what you wrote that you think the exceptions are just political conveniences, but maybe I misconstrued what you were trying to say.

[yermom]

We have become so successful and wealthy due to the FREEDOMS we have had in our wonderful country. Unfortunately, that vital characteristic is under wide-open attack. May we rise to the challenge!

someone is wealthy, it's not ME, but someone is

[Leroy Lizard]

However to ignore that the fact that he was Caucasian made this a much easier process would be wrong. I'm not for entitlements, but for truly equal treatment. We are getting there, but where there is rhetoric that denigrates someone due to their gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, there are deep-seated beliefs that undermine what could be accomplished.

First of all, there are poor white kids in this country who have no better chance of getting into college than anyone else. This notion that whites have it better is nonsense. Poverty is the real barrier, not skin color.

And why is it that American Indians continually get left out of the discussion?

Second of all, most of the denigration you are complaining about is hurled at white people, not minorities. We allow them to do it to us. Because of white guilt like yours.

People should be treated equally. I don't find it equal when the white guy in the commercial is continually cast as the overweight, dimwitted buffoon, set up as a prop for the upstanding minority to knock down. I also don't like the idea of comedians making fun of white people, and white people in the audience laughing. Yes, it is good to be able to poke fun at ourselves and doing so shows some maturity; but at some point the humor transcends to self-denigration. Where's the self-respect?

[Harry Beanbag]

We have laws against murder, but our laws state that abortion isn't murder. Murder, in order to be murder, requires that the act be an illegal one. So, technically, abortion doesn't have anything to do with murder.

So that moves the discussion to whether or not abortion should be illegal/murder. If we agree that abortion is killing someone and that we should have laws against killing people, should there be exceptions and what should they be? I was judging by what you wrote that you think the exceptions are just political conveniences, but maybe I misconstrued what you were trying to say.

This doesn't need to be another abortion thread, but I think justifiable homicide would cover the necessary instances.

[TopDawg]

Well, I'm not foolish enough to try to get people to change their views on abortion, I just wish that people had the same disdain for killing other people as they do for killing unborn babies. I wouldn't go so far as to say that nobody deserves to be killed, but I think all too often there is killing that is deemed "okay" because it's a political convenience.

[TopDawg]

What would all those weak minorities do without you to give them a helping hand? Maybe they would do what people do. Solve their own problems.

I was always confused by people who held this view in regards to people in America, but then passionately defended the war in Iraq because the Iraqi people needed to be helped out.

[TopDawg]

See, people tend to help each other voluntarily without being mandated to by an endlessly helpful government.
Also, note that these people who believe everyone needs their help don't plan on inconveniencing themselves to help anybody.

Wow. That was a seamless transition there.

[Skysooner]

First of all, there are poor white kids in this country who have no better chance of getting into college than anyone else. This notion that whites have it better is nonsense. Poverty is the real barrier, not skin color.

And why is it that American Indians continually get left out of the discussion?

Second of all, most of the denigration you are complaining about is hurled at white people, not minorities. We allow them to do it to us. Because of white guilt like yours.

People should be treated equally. I don't find it equal when the white guy in the commercial is continually cast as the overweight, dimwitted buffoon, set up as a prop for the upstanding minority to knock down. I also don't like the idea of comedians making fun of white people, and white people in the audience laughing. Yes, it is good to be able to poke fun at ourselves and doing so shows some maturity; but at some point the humor transcends to self-denigration. Where's the self-respect?

First of all, when my grandfather and father were growing up, racism and sexism was a part of society. It still is to some degree. I do not have white guilt. I happen to be colorblind and think it is a shame we aren't all on the same level playing field. To deny otherwise is plain ignorant. Even when we say we are equal, we are not due to people like you trying to defend the white "race". We are all one species with slight differences in DNA that lead to color differences. The only place I can think of right off hand that is truly colorblind is the military. Even then sexism is still rampant there. I don't have guilt for what happened in the past, because I wasn't alive then. I have no part of racism or sexism now. I'm also not for affirmative action, but there has to be safeguards in the system to make sure that racism, sexism, etc. does not intrude. The only part I agree with you on is that poverty is the main barrier to getting to college. While I never think that education is a "right", I think that we could do the country a world of good if kids of every socio-economic level who could succeed at college due to their intelligence or work ethic had the ability to go there whether through student loans, government work programs, military service, etc.

[C&CDean]

First of all, when my grandfather and father were growing up, racism and sexism was a part of society. It still is to some degree. I do not have white guilt. I happen to be colorblind and think it is a shame we aren't all on the same level playing field. To deny otherwise is plain ignorant. Even when we say we are equal, we are not due to people like you trying to defend the white "race". We are all one species with slight differences in DNA that lead to color differences. The only place I can think of right off hand that is truly colorblind is the military. Even then sexism is still rampant there. I don't have guilt for what happened in the past, because I wasn't alive then. I have no part of racism or sexism now. I'm also not for affirmative action, but there has to be safeguards in the system to make sure that racism, sexism, etc. does not intrude. The only part I agree with you on is that poverty is the main barrier to getting to college. While I never think that education is a "right", I think that we could do the country a world of good if kids of every socio-economic level who could succeed at college due to their intelligence or work ethic had the ability to go there whether through student loans, government work programs, military service, etc.

1. Paragraphs. Use them; they're your friend.

2. Liar. EVERYONE is prejudiced/sexist to some extent. Saying people "defending the white race" keeps racism going is only half true. The other half (or maybe even 3/4s) is people demanding separate societies/rights/clubs/holidays/etc. based on their race. As long as you have Miss "Black/Asian/Hispanic/Druid" or whatever going on you're just perpetuating the rift/differences between the races and in turn perpetuating racism.

3. Economics is BY FAR the most hindering component in the educational/financial success formula. Poor folks are ****ed. Rich folks can buy their way into pretty much anywhere. Color/sex doesn't matter one iota. Michael Jordan can go anywhere Bill Gates can go.

[Skysooner]

2. Liar. EVERYONE is prejudiced/sexist to some extent. Saying people "defending the white race" keeps racism going is only half true. The other half (or maybe even 3/4s) is people demanding separate societies/rights/clubs/holidays/etc. based on their race. As long as you have Miss "Black/Asian/Hispanic/Druid" or whatever going on you're just perpetuating the rift/differences between the races and in turn perpetuating racism.

3. Economics is BY FAR the most hindering component in the educational/financial success formula. Poor folks are ****ed. Rich folks can buy their way into pretty much anywhere. Color/sex doesn't matter one iota. Michael Jordan can go anywhere Bill Gates can go.

True but only to a certain extent. I don't make automatic assumptions on someone based on color or gender. I was dating interracially all through high school and college, so I got over that pretty early. The homophobic part of me was bad until the end of college when I found out several close relatives were gay/lesbian. I hadn't confronted that before. It took about a decade to get over it and come to grips with the prejudices that had been instilled in me. Really since I renounced organized religion in my life, I have become far less prejudiced in my life. Basically I agree with you since it is impossible to be perfectly balanced about anything. However, it has no effect on how I deal with people in general since I have figured out where it came from in my life and dealt with it in my mind.

I do agree on the separation of races causing much of the racism that is rampant today. Racism is obviously not solely a white issue. It is a black, Hispanic, Asian etc. issue as well.

On the economics, we need to be helping the poor in our society get an education. It can be structured so the cost is minimal. Some of the best engineers and scientists I have worked with come from a poor upbringing, but they had help in their life (usually a relative that modeled what going to college can do for someone). Intellectual property is what has driven this nation and will continue to drive it into the coming future since our manufacturing base has gone overseas.

[C&CDean]

Our manufacturing base went overseas because the POS unions priced themselves out of a job.

Help the poor huh? Go ahead. I'm busy helping my own poor white relatives.

[Skysooner]

Our manufacturing base went overseas because the POS unions priced themselves out of a job.

Help the poor huh? Go ahead. I'm busy helping my own poor white relatives.

Of course they did. That along with emerging nations becoming more competitive.

So am I on my relatives. I'm helping one of my nieces go to a private school to enhance her opportunities later on. My sister lives in a very bad school district in the Phoenix area. On the rest, tie an education to service. Nothing has to be a free lunch. With our current budget deficits, we can't afford to do it all. It would be much better if it were revenue neutral or even revenue producing.

[Harry Beanbag]

My sister lives in a very bad school district in the Phoenix area.

Which one?

[Skysooner]

Which one?

Glendale. While the district as a whole is not too bad, the elementary school she was sending her oldest to wasn't very good per her. She and her husband are just about to move at the end of the school year, and my niece will go back to public school.

[Harry Beanbag]

Glendale. While the district as a whole is not too bad, the elementary school she was sending her oldest to wasn't very good per her. She and her husband are just about to move at the end of the school year, and my niece will go back to public school.

Glendale sucks. Gilbert, Chandler, Scottsdale, NE Phx, Tempe, Ahwatukee, and parts of Mesa are the places to live in the Phoenix area, basically the East Valley.

[Skysooner]

Glendale sucks. Gilbert, Chandler, Scottsdale, NE Phx, Tempe, Ahwatukee, and parts of Mesa are the places to live in the Phoenix area, basically the East Valley.

I had heard that. It is my favorite part of the city anyway. She is moving up to Peoria just after school is out to be closer to the business she just started (and hence the low cash flow for private school).

[Leroy Lizard]

First of all, when my grandfather and father were growing up, racism and sexism was a part of society. It still is to some degree. I do not have white guilt. I happen to be colorblind and think it is a shame we aren't all on the same level playing field. To deny otherwise is plain ignorant.

I can show you plenty of opportunities for people of certain races to gain scholarships to college.

Can you show me a single one that selects poor white kids?

I can show you examples of Chamber of Commerces specifically set up to help certain races. Can you show me one set up specifically to help whites?

So let's deal in tangibles here. If you think that poor white kids have a better chance of getting into college than others, you are the one that is truly ignorant.

[TopDawg]

I can show you plenty of opportunities for people of certain races to gain scholarships to college.

Can you show me a single one that selects poor white kids?

Here are 3:

Tennessee State University is so down in its minority—white—population that the State is now funding “scholarships for Caucasian Tennessee residents.”

Diversity Scholarships for both undergraduate and graduate white students are a special program of Alabama State University and Alabama A&M University. The goal is to boost enrollment of those underrepresented in the school: whites and Native Americans, specifically at ASU and “Caucasians” at Alabama A&M.

Jackson State University in Mississippi has a student body composition of over 6,000 African Americans and about 200 Caucasians.2 The university’s Diversity Scholarships are restricted to Caucasian applicants.

[TopDawg]

And those are the ones that select them because they are white. I can show you lots more that select poor white kids (along with other races).

[Leroy Lizard]

Here are 3:

Tennessee State University is so down in its minority—white—population that the State is now funding “scholarships for Caucasian Tennessee residents.”

Diversity Scholarships for both undergraduate and graduate white students are a special program of Alabama State University and Alabama A&M University. The goal is to boost enrollment of those underrepresented in the school: whites and Native Americans, specifically at ASU and “Caucasians” at Alabama A&M.

Jackson State University in Mississippi has a student body composition of over 6,000 African Americans and about 200 Caucasians.2 The university’s Diversity Scholarships are restricted to Caucasian applicants.

Good job on that. I will have to do some research to respond.

BTW, do you have any examples of businesses groups that only target white-owned businesses? (A different argument, I know.)

[Skysooner]

I can show you plenty of opportunities for people of certain races to gain scholarships to college.

Can you show me a single one that selects poor white kids?

I can show you examples of Chamber of Commerces specifically set up to help certain races. Can you show me one set up specifically to help whites?

So let's deal in tangibles here. If you think that poor white kids have a better chance of getting into college than others, you are the one that is truly ignorant.

I have also said I was against affirmative action. I am talking ideals and not reality. I don't make policy. I am stating what I would like it to be. It would be nice if you would stop with the slams. You started it with "white guilt". I'm a former Republican that is now Independent. I am one of the ones that your party has to win over this year to put the Rs back in power. You don't influence by slams. You influence by stating your position and rebutting mine. You don't call someone names, etc.

[Leroy Lizard]

I have also said I was against affirmative action. I am talking ideals and not reality. I don't make policy. I am stating what I would like it to be. It would be nice if you would stop with the slams. You started it with "white guilt". I'm a former Republican that is now Independent. I am one of the ones that your party has to win over this year to put the Rs back in power. You don't influence by slams. You influence by stating your position and rebutting mine. You don't call someone names, etc.

I didn't call you a name. I said you were inflicted with white guilt.

[Curly Bill]

I didn't call you a name. I said you were inflicted with white guilt.

Yup, he denies it, but he's eat up with it.

As for me, I kinda like being white. ;) :D

[Skysooner]

Yup, he denies it, but he's eat up with it.

As for me, I kinda like being white. ;) :D

Okay, whatever. I have no guilt. Not that you want to hear anything outside your little world view anyway.

[delhalew]

I was always confused by people who held this view in regards to people in America, but then passionately defended the war in Iraq because the Iraqi people needed to be helped out.

You and I both TDawg.

[Leroy Lizard]

You and I both TDawg.

There is no connection between the two. I might go next door to help someone who is getting beaten to a pulp, but that doesn't mean I am going to let him come into my house and raid my kitchen. Especially if he shows no appreciation for letting him.

[Skysooner]

You and I both TDawg.

Same with me.

[Skysooner]

I didn't call you a name. I said you were inflicted with white guilt.

You called me the "ignorant one". I don't buy your whites are the ones that are denigrated the most. My experience has been different. It is bad on both sides. I don't have white guilt, but I don't feel white superiority either. Put us all on the same playing field, and the best will win regardless of color, etc.

[PDXsooner]

Dear Sooner fans and Americans,

Kind of off topic here but any American who thinks that America is close to becoming or is a Socialist country is a freaking dumbace. Here's why:

I live in Europe, Ansbach, Germany to be exact. I am employed by the US Government. I am in charge of both a German and Italian local national employee for the US Government. So I have an idea of how things are done here in Europe.

First off, Americans don't pay 46% in Federal taxes. Americans pay about a 1/4 of 46%, maybe even less. Americans don't have to pay a tax on how many televisions they own in their own home. Americans have the least expensive gas prices in the world. American busines hours are not regulated by the federal government. The German Polizei can approach/question/pull me over without any type of probable cause. Americans don't pay a 19% sales tax.

But yet, we have the Republicans and Tea Party retards who are dead set in their thoughts that America is becoming a Socialist county. And yet, most of your typical Southern, backwoods Republicans probably have no clue what the definition of Socialism is nor have they left their region of the world to experience another. Not to criticize them for that, but those people have no idea what they're talking about......BOOMER!

Stop making sense! People here will NOT let facts get in the way of a misinformed political opinion!!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

sssssssszzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZ...huh?...haha

[Leroy Lizard]

You called me the "ignorant one".

You mean, after you wrote this?


I happen to be colorblind and think it is a shame we aren't all on the same level playing field. To deny otherwise is plain ignorant.

[Skysooner]

You mean, after you wrote this?

Unless you were taking that personally. That was a general statement. You are the one that chose to personalize it.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Okay, whatever. I have no guilt. Not that you want to hear anything outside your little world view anyway.and you found it necessary to let everyone know you had an interracial relationship throughout HS and College because why?

[Skysooner]

and you found it necessary to let everyone know you had an interracial relationship throughout HS and College because why?

Because someone questioned whether I really was color-blind or not. Back when I was in hs and college, this was looked down on. I have always seen people as people. They are who they are and not defined by color to me. I didn't really break beyond my prejudices though until I was about 16. At that time I could question what I had been taught critically.

[TopDawg]

You and I both TDawg.

Good. And I assume you spoke out as strongly about that war as you do about welfare and stuff.

[Harry Beanbag]

Good. And I assume you spoke out as strongly about that war as you do about welfare and stuff.


Do you ever lay your own opinions on anything out there or just take pot shots from your high horse and call everyone a hypocrite?

[TopDawg]

There is no connection between the two. I might go next door to help someone who is getting beaten to a pulp, but that doesn't mean I am going to let him come into my house and raid my kitchen. Especially if he shows no appreciation for letting him.

We're talking about people who think the government shouldn't help feed starving Americans because "people should solve their own problems" but then supported the war in Iraq because we needed to help those people solve their own problems.

To illustrate how your analogy doesn't fit what we were talking about, I'll fix it two different ways. First, I'll take your analogy and put it in the real-world setting where it would fit our discussion, then I'll reword your analogy so that it would fit our discussion.

Your analogy would fit our discussion if we were talking about how the government shouldn't have gone into Iraq to help the people fix their situation, but should allow Iraqis to come to America and have anything they want for free. If that's what you thought we were talking about, I'm sorry it wasn't more clear.

Now if you actually did understand what we were talking about and just came up with a bad analogy, here's how it would better reflect our discussion. You might feel morally obligated to go next door to help someone who is getting beaten to a pulp, but you wouldn't feel morally obligated to feed someone in your own family who is starving.

I don't have a problem with someone who thinks our government shouldn't help Americans who are in a bind, as long as they don't go supporting wars on the basis that our government should help people in other countries who are in a bind. I don't agree with their sentiment, but at least they're being consistent.

[yermom]

are we talking about healthcare or immigrants now?

[delhalew]

Unless you were taking that personally. That was a general statement. You are the one that chose to personalize it.

You contradicted yourself with the statement in question. You can't be colorblind AND draw racial distinction. The only race I am aware of is the human race.
For the record that's twice you were "misrepresented" by a clear statement you yourself made. :D. Not that I'm counting...see how that works.

[Turd_Ferguson]

You contradicted yourself with the statement in question. You can't be colorblind AND draw racial distinction. The only race I am aware of is the human race.
For the record that's twice you were "misrepresented" by a clear statement you yourself made. :D. Not that I'm counting...see how that works.It's the white guilt thing. He's basically saying, look at me..I dated one of "them".

[TopDawg]

Do you ever lay your own opinions on anything out there or just take pot shots from your high horse and call everyone a hypocrite?

I'm not calling delhalew a hypocrite. If he spoke out as strongly against the war as he does against welfare and other things, I applaud him for it. If he didn't, I still don't think it makes him a hypocrite, just inconsistent in his criticisms. (But, hell, I'm inconsistent in my criticisms too, and I don't have a problem with people calling me out on it.) But, maybe he has a reason for it. If he does, I'll listen. If I think it's hypocritical, I'll say so.

For me, consistency and clearly stating your beliefs are important. It's something I strive for (but often fail at). This was something I posted a few weeks ago and I think it gets at the heart of it:


It bugs me that some people will say "The invading of our lives and the government taking away freedoms is a concern to me" when the topic of gun control comes up, but then all of a sudden that same invasion of lives and taking away of freedoms (or refusal to grant equal privileges) doesn't apply when it comes to civil unions for homosexuals.

If you feel like homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But it's then disingenuous to turn around and say that you're opposed to the government invading our lives when it comes to gun control. You're not opposed to the government invading people's lives, you're opposed to the government invading your life. And that's a perfectly reasonable stance to have. But don't pretend like it's something it's not.

To use delhalew's example, if he's against "helping people with their own problems" then does that also mean he was against the war in Iraq when those same reasons were given? Maybe not and maybe there are good reasons for his difference of opinion on the two subjects...they're certainly two different situations. But, at that point, "our government shouldn't help people with their own problems" isn't your core value or belief anymore and I think you need to be clear about that when you speak. Because it's a lot more powerful and easy to get behind statements that cut right to the point, but if they're not accurate and truthful, what's the use?

But, that's just my opinion. ;)

[TopDawg]

are we talking about healthcare or immigrants now?

heh...it felt to me like Leroy confused the two threads.

It's happened to all of us at one time or another.

[yermom]

the humanitarian side of the Iraq war is just a line of BS anyway

[Turd_Ferguson]

the humanitarian side of the Iraq war is just a line of BS anywayWhat do you think the real reason for the war in Iraq was?

[yermom]

WMDs of course ;)

[Turd_Ferguson]

WMDs of course ;)No, seriously. What do you think the REAL reason was?

[yermom]

oil

[Harry Beanbag]

the humanitarian side of the Iraq war is just a line of BS anyway

Yep.

[Turd_Ferguson]

oilHow's that work'n out for us?

[ndpruitt03]

We haven't gotten more oil because of Iraq. In fact oil prices have risen.

[yermom]

hey, it wasn't my idea ;)

i'm sure Cheney made a lot of money in the process though

didn't we just recently get the pipelines going? i know they were blowing them up early on...

[Harry Beanbag]

I'm not calling delhalew a hypocrite. If he spoke out as strongly against the war as he does against welfare and other things, I applaud him for it. If he didn't, I still don't think it makes him a hypocrite, just inconsistent in his criticisms. (But, hell, I'm inconsistent in my criticisms too, and I don't have a problem with people calling me out on it.) But, maybe he has a reason for it. If he does, I'll listen. If I think it's hypocritical, I'll say so.

For me, consistency and clearly stating your beliefs are important. It's something I strive for (but often fail at). This was something I posted a few weeks ago and I think it gets at the heart of it:



To use delhalew's example, if he's against "helping people with their own problems" then does that also mean he was against the war in Iraq when those same reasons were given? Maybe not and maybe there are good reasons for his difference of opinion on the two subjects...they're certainly two different situations. But, at that point, "our government shouldn't help people with their own problems" isn't your core value or belief anymore and I think you need to be clear about that when you speak. Because it's a lot more powerful and easy to get behind statements that cut right to the point, but if they're not accurate and truthful, what's the use?

But, that's just my opinion. ;)


As far as your gun rights and homo post, one of those things is protected by the Bill of Rights, one of them isn't. Not that I'm against civil unions or anything, just saying.

[yermom]

just because it's in the Constitution now doesn't mean it always will be though

we aren't talking about laws, we are talking about opinions and potential changes/interpretations to laws

[Harry Beanbag]

just because it's in the Constitution now doesn't mean it always will be though

we aren't talking about laws, we are talking about opinions and potential changes/interpretations to laws

Seriously? And you guys still don't understand why people get upset about eroding Liberty?

[ndpruitt03]

Seriously? And you guys still don't understand why people get upset about eroding Liberty?

Exactly as long as the democrats see the constitution the people running this government right now want the constitution to be changed because they know that the constitution was written to not let the federal government do much of anything. They want that changed. Both on the republican and democrat side.

[yermom]

who is "you guys"?

i'm pretty much anti-marriage and pro-gun ;)

i'm just saying that the Constitution isn't some debate ending thing. it's changed a fair amount since it started

[ndpruitt03]

who is "you guys"?

i'm pretty much anti-marriage and pro-gun ;)

i'm just saying that the Constitution isn't some debate ending thing. it's changed a fair amount since it started

But the rights we are supposed to have an that the government is limited shouldn't have changed. They have but they weren't made to.

[yermom]

look, i'm really sorry that women and former slaves and their offspring can vote. it wasn't my call

[Skysooner]

You contradicted yourself with the statement in question. You can't be colorblind AND draw racial distinction. The only race I am aware of is the human race.
For the record that's twice you were "misrepresented" by a clear statement you yourself made. :D. Not that I'm counting...see how that works.

Nope, you just read into it what you want to read into it. Definitions of words aren't consistent among people. Even slight variations can cause issues with understanding. To me color-blind means I don't judge people by their color of skin, gender, etc. I judge people on who they are and not what they look like. However, not being aware of it would make me very naive, and I'm far from that. People react to what you say, do, etc. based on their cultural heritage, upbringing, etc. That is the way I draw racial distinctions in a cultural sense. Note I have said I want all people treated equally regardless of color. It has to be a level playing field which unfortunately is difficult to achieve.


It's the white guilt thing. He's basically saying, look at me..I dated one of "them".


Turd,

It would be nice if you knew what you were talking about.

White guilt by definition = White guilt refers to the concept of individual or collective guilt often said to be felt by some White people for the racist treatment of people of color by Whites both historically and presently. The term is generally used in a pejorative way (and in a partisan fashion within American political circles).

White guilt has been described as one of several psychosocial costs of racism for White individuals along with the ability to have empathic reactions towards racism, and fear of non-Whites.

I don't have white guilt, because I don't feel guilty about what has happened in the past. I had nothing to do with it. I am more of a humanist in that I see people as equal. Try again.

[ndpruitt03]

look, i'm really sorry that women and former slaves and their offspring can vote. it wasn't my call

The 3/5s clause was put in so that the south would have less representation therefore slavery would eventually be gone. Our founding fathers were slave holders(some of them) and recognized this.

Here's a vid that explains the 3/5ths clause and the importants of blacks in early American history. Of course you never hear about any of this anymore because they were conservative black people which don't exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XDdqEQwC8I

[delhalew]

I'm not calling delhalew a hypocrite. If he spoke out as strongly against the war as he does against welfare and other things, I applaud him for it. If he didn't, I still don't think it makes him a hypocrite, just inconsistent in his criticisms. (But, hell, I'm inconsistent in my criticisms too, and I don't have a problem with people calling me out on it.) But, maybe he has a reason for it. If he does, I'll listen. If I think it's hypocritical, I'll say so.

For me, consistency and clearly stating your beliefs are important. It's something I strive for (but often fail at). This was something I posted a few weeks ago and I think it gets at the heart of it:



To use delhalew's example, if he's against "helping people with their own problems" then does that also mean he was against the war in Iraq when those same reasons were given? Maybe not and maybe there are good reasons for his difference of opinion on the two subjects...they're certainly two different situations. But, at that point, "our government shouldn't help people with their own problems" isn't your core value or belief anymore and I think you need to be clear about that when you speak. Because it's a lot more powerful and easy to get behind statements that cut right to the point, but if they're not accurate and truthful, what's the use?

But, that's just my opinion. ;)

Sorry I took so long, but I'm just poor white trash shucking and jiving for the man, so I can support my family and you don't have to. :D

I can understand Leroy's initial response that the two are not related, but I will tell you why I believe they are.
First, I want to clarify that I am for helping people who are truly incapable. I would vote for that at a state level.
Now then, I would like to say that I am far more educated, not to mention mature, than I was eight years ago. At that time I was single and had no children and had only recently awoke from my liberal indoctrination. This corresponds directly with my change from (D) to (I) in 2002.
At the time of the Irag war's beginning, I bought the same false intelligence that most senate democrats bought. When there is a question of national security, I yield to those with the actionable intel.
They lost me when Congress abdicated their responsibility to declare war and allowed W to do it his way. That said, once our troops hit the ground they have 100% of my support. I say this because the words and actions of anti-war zeolots in the public were disgusting, but especially those in Congress.
To the point, when I learned what true Conservatism is, I realized that Conservatism doesn't stop at our borders.
Neocons that want an empire abroad, damage our freedoms at home. That is why I believe non-intervention is the mark of a true Conservative. If you read, this is what our founders will tell you(with a few exceptions).
Anyway I guess the answer is, when asked I voiced my displeasure with aspects of the Iraq war, but not so loudly as to harm our troops moral.
I can elaborate later if you like.

[Scott D]

sssssssszzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZ...huh?...haha

I just wanted to point out that this is the most intelligent post that this quoted poster has ever made in their entire time on this message board.

Now the rest of you can carry on with your guilt racked political nonsense.

[Scott D]

Of course you never hear about any of this anymore because they were conservative black people which don't exist.

you really should try thinking before you type.

[MrJimBeam]

What do you think the real reason for the war in Iraq was?

Why aren't people protesting the wars anymore? We're still at war aren't we? Did something change? The only diffenence I see between now and two years ago is there is a different guy running the wars. :confused:

[TUSooner]

We haven't gotten more oil because of Iraq. In fact oil prices have risen.

I read some conspiracy theory awhile back explaining that the war was designed exactly to cause oil prices to RISE -- so the Bushes, Cheney, Halliburton, and the usual suspects could get rich, of course. I gave it as much credence as a post from Rush's Parrot.

[yermom]

is oil more expensive? i know gas is...

i can't remember how much oil was when it started, but it's certainly dropped way lower than the last time i was paying almost $3 for gas

[Skysooner]

To the point, when I learned what true Conservatism is, I realized that Conservatism doesn't stop at our borders.
Neocons that want an empire abroad, damage our freedoms at home. That is why I believe non-intervention is the mark of a true Conservative. If you read, this is what our founders will tell you(with a few exceptions).
Anyway I guess the answer is, when asked I voiced my displeasure with aspects of the Iraq war, but not so loudly as to harm our troops moral.
I can elaborate later if you like.

My path was different than yours. I was a conservative to moderate R through college. I was a Young Republican and voted consistently R for 20 years. The same thing that happened to you brought me from R to I. We don't need to be intervening overseas when we have issues at homes. An empire makes no sense, and it eventually comes down.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I read some conspiracy theory awhile back explaining that the war was designed exactly to cause oil prices to RISE -- so the Bushes, Cheney, Halliburton, and the usual suspects could get rich, of course. I gave it as much credence as a post from Rush's Parrot.Dayum, TU, you ARE acting as goofy as the whacks I have on ignore. Well, you're usually OK when you don't discuss politics or economics, so...

[delhalew]

My path was different than yours. I was a conservative to moderate R through college. I was a Young Republican and voted consistently R for 20 years. The same thing that happened to you brought me from R to I. We don't need to be intervening overseas when we have issues at homes. An empire makes no sense, and it eventually comes down.

The founders who drafted our Constitution studied every civilization for which there was an available history. One thing the majority agreed on was that the downfall of every major power in history was directly linked to overreaching and overuse of their powers around the world.
America influences the world most effectivly with a strong economy and it's unique devotion to INDIVIDUAL freedoms. The policies of the left and the new right are destroying both of these. If we return to our principles, we don't need to intervene in 90% of the worlds matters to foster freedom. It is after all the natural desire of humans.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The founders who drafted our Constitution studied every civilization for which there was an available history. One thing the majority agreed on was that the downfall of every major power in history was directly linked to overreaching and overuse of their powers around the world.
America influences the world most effectivly with a strong economy and it's unique devotion to INDIVIDUAL freedoms. The policies of the left and the new right are destroying both of these. If we return to our principles, we don't need to intervene in 90% of the worlds matters to foster freedom. It is after all the natural desire of humans.Now, we have a bunch of totalitarian marxists running the country AND nation building at the same time. Yeah, that may not work out too well.

[TopDawg]

Sorry I took so long, but I'm just poor white trash shucking and jiving for the man, so I can support my family and you don't have to. :D

I can understand Leroy's initial response that the two are not related, but I will tell you why I believe they are.
First, I want to clarify that I am for helping people who are truly incapable. I would vote for that at a state level.
Now then, I would like to say that I am far more educated, not to mention mature, than I was eight years ago. At that time I was single and had no children and had only recently awoke from my liberal indoctrination. This corresponds directly with my change from (D) to (I) in 2002.
At the time of the Irag war's beginning, I bought the same false intelligence that most senate democrats bought. When there is a question of national security, I yield to those with the actionable intel.
They lost me when Congress abdicated their responsibility to declare war and allowed W to do it his way. That said, once our troops hit the ground they have 100% of my support. I say this because the words and actions of anti-war zeolots in the public were disgusting, but especially those in Congress.
To the point, when I learned what true Conservatism is, I realized that Conservatism doesn't stop at our borders.
Neocons that want an empire abroad, damage our freedoms at home. That is why I believe non-intervention is the mark of a true Conservative. If you read, this is what our founders will tell you(with a few exceptions).
Anyway I guess the answer is, when asked I voiced my displeasure with aspects of the Iraq war, but not so loudly as to harm our troops moral.
I can elaborate later if you like.

Thanks delhalew...that's good stuff.

As I've mentioned before on the SO, there are a lot of conservative beliefs that I can get behind. But I think there are also a lot of great things that come from the liberal ideology. I think America has benefited greatly from both sides and one of the things that is really working against America right now is the stubbornness of people on both sides who think that their side has all the answers and that anything that comes from the other side is inherently worthless (or evil).

As many of you have deduced, I tend to lean more left than right on most issues and the reason I vote Democrat more than Republican is that the actions and wishes (as I perceive them) of the Newcons and religious right frighten me more than the actions and wishes (as I...and even some of the strongly protesting conservatives here seem to...perceive them) of the left. And I think both outcomes are equally likely. Ultimately for me, many times I feel that as an American, I'm slightly more conservative but as a Christian, I'm more liberal. And since the latter is more important to me, that's the trump card.

[delhalew]

Thanks delhalew...that's good stuff.

As I've mentioned before on the SO, there are a lot of conservative beliefs that I can get behind. But I think there are also a lot of great things that come from the liberal ideology. I think America has benefited greatly from both sides and one of the things that is really working against America right now is the stubbornness of people on both sides who think that their side has all the answers and that anything that comes from the other side is inherently worthless (or evil).

As many of you have deduced, I tend to lean more left than right on most issues and the reason I vote Democrat more than Republican is that the actions and wishes (as I perceive them) of the Newcons and religious right frighten me more than the actions and wishes (as I...and even some of the strongly protesting conservatives here seem to...perceive them) of the left. And I think both outcomes are equally likely. Ultimately for me, many times I feel that as an American, I'm slightly more conservative but as a Christian, I'm more liberal. And since the latter is more important to me, that's the trump card.

I don't even know how to vocalize the frustration I feel. I am COMPLETELY disgusted by the left. If I am to be a conservative, that means I will be viewed as a neocon, because no one seems to remember what a conservative is. The crap coming from both sides makes me want to puke. My frustration turns to anger.
A true consrvative candidate would have NO social agenda. If a state wanted social policies ok. We are all to far removed from our federal governmen for any one size fits all agenda to be anything but oppressive.
I just wish folks would realize that the founders had it right and every time we dilute our founding principles we damage our freedoms and our prosperity.

[ndpruitt03]

I don't even know how to vocalize the frustration I feel. I am COMPLETELY disgusted by the left. If I am to be a conservative, that means I will be viewed as a neocon, because no one seems to remember what a conservative is. The crap coming from both sides makes me want to puke. My frustration turns to anger.
A true consrvative candidate would have NO social agenda. If a state wanted social policies ok. We are all to far removed from our federal governmen for any one size fits all agenda to be anything but oppressive.
I just wish folks would realize that the founders had it right and every time we dilute our founding principles we damage our freedoms and our prosperity.

This post hits it on the head. We think too much of everything being left or right and that Hitler was on the right and say Stalin or Mao was too far left. Both of those are really left we need to think of our founding fathers as right all those dictators of the 20th century were really the left wingers. I want to be with what the founding fathers wanted which is less government. That's really in essence why the entire revolutionary war was fought. England wanted to control the colonies without any representation from them.

[Skysooner]

The founders who drafted our Constitution studied every civilization for which there was an available history. One thing the majority agreed on was that the downfall of every major power in history was directly linked to overreaching and overuse of their powers around the world.
America influences the world most effectivly with a strong economy and it's unique devotion to INDIVIDUAL freedoms. The policies of the left and the new right are destroying both of these. If we return to our principles, we don't need to intervene in 90% of the worlds matters to foster freedom. It is after all the natural desire of humans.

Totally agree with that. History has taught us a good lesson in that.

[richsooner]

You are wrong. For all intents and purposes the GOP is dead. The fact is conservative right wing america is in the minority now, and it will be that way from now on (look at population by race/ethnic background) and you will see it will only get worse, not better. Sorry to paint such a bleak picture, but the USA we grew to love so much has the clock ticking on it.............

[ndpruitt03]

You are wrong. For all intents and purposes the GOP is dead. The fact is conservative right wing america is in the minority now, and it will be that way from now on (look at population by race/ethnic background) and you will see it will only get worse, not better. Sorry to paint such a bleak picture, but the USA we grew to love so much has the clock ticking on it.............

The population voting population is still overwhelmingly more right than left. And Barrack Obama and the policies of the left are probably the best thing to happen to conservatives in 30 years since the Reagan revolution. The problem with the GOP is that it basically turned into a progressive party.

[GKeeper316]

I read some conspiracy theory awhile back explaining that the war was designed exactly to cause oil prices to RISE -- so the Bushes, Cheney, Halliburton, and the usual suspects could get rich, of course. I gave it as much credence as a post from Rush's Parrot.

its actually not quite that esoteric.

nobody has built a new refinery in over 30 years, so the existing refineries are trying to produce enough petroleum to accomodate not only the existing load they already had, but the additional requirements of the new industrial china and india, who operate most of their factories with diesel generators. if china and india would get off their asses and build national power systems, the cost of gas would most likely go back down to $1.50 a gallon.

the reason we went back to war with iraq was because w was pissed saddam tried to kill bush, sr.

[GKeeper316]

The population voting population is still overwhelmingly more right than left.

that is statistically and factually untrue... unless you're talking about oklahoma. then its more like a sad reality.

[ndpruitt03]

that is statistically and factually untrue... unless you're talking about oklahoma. then its more like a sad reality.

A majority of the vote in this country is still older white people. Because they make up most of the population and most younger people don't vote as much. Even if you add the latino/black vote together it's around 25% combined.

[TUSooner]

I have to include myself with those who feel "stuck in the middle." On the left hand hand, we have meddling "ultrafederalists" who believe the national government is authorized to intervene in all areas of economic and social life and that it should do so, primarily through ever-increasing entitlements. One major defect in this line of thinking is that it regards the states as merely administrative units of the national government instead of the incubators of new and innovative policies. On the right hand, we have other ultrafederalists who also want the power of national government to increase, but mainly through an expansive use of military and police power, e.g., persistent warfare that serves to bankrupt us and corrupt us in the name of saving the world. This is, of course, a gross oversimplification, but the result of both extremes seems to overstretch the national government to the bad of the Nation.

Let me just add that if there were any Bolsheviks on the SO, I would argue against them with the same vigor I now expend on the right-wing rug chewers.

[Okla-homey]

I have to include myself with those who feel "stuck in the middle." On the left hand hand, we have meddling "ultrafederalists" who believe the national government is authorized to intervene in all areas of economic and social life and that it should do so, primarily through ever-increasing entitlements. One major defect in this line of thinking is that it regards the states as merely administrative units of the national government instead of the incubators of new and innovative policies. On the right hand, we have other ultrafederalists who also want the power of national government to increase, but mainly through an expansive use of military and police power, e.g., persistent warfare that serves to bankrupt us and corrupt us in the name of saving the world. This is, of course, a gross oversimplification, but the result of both extremes seems to overstretch the national government to the bad of the Nation.

Let me just add that if there were any Bolsheviks on the SO, I would argue against them with the same vigor I now expend on the right-wing rug chewers.

THIS^^^^.

That's why I started this trainwreck of a thread by stating we are a "center right" nation. Not a "Horst Wessel Lied" singing (Google it) bunch of militia-joining ultra-right-wingers who redirect their pent-up inability to get laid into reverence for nationalistic jingoism.

That said, I can't wait for November. Watching the returns on Election Night is going to be sweeet.

[Pricetag]

Let me just add that if there were any Bolsheviks on the SO, I would argue against them with the same vigor I now expend on the right-wing rug chewers.
You asked for it.

http://www.accelerator3359.com/Wrestling/pictures/bolsheviks.jpg

[Pricetag]

That said, I can't wait for November. Watching the returns on Election Night is going to be sweeet.
What will it take for you to feel vindicated in November? A simple majority, or a major crushfest? I'd like a qualifier from all you guys on what has to happen for you to be able to beat your chests on and after election day.

IMO, a Republican majority is inevitable, but to justify all the noise that has been made in the past months, it has to be more than that.

[TUSooner]

You asked for it.

http://www.accelerator3359.com/Wrestling/pictures/bolsheviks.jpg

Those filthy reds have chubby-girl thighs!! :mad:


How's that?

[Okla-homey]

What will it take for you to feel vindicated in November? A simple majority, or a major crushfest? I'd like a qualifier from all you guys on what has to happen for you to be able to beat your chests on and after election day.

IMO, a Republican majority is inevitable, but to justify all the noise that has been made in the past months, it has to be more than that.

I'll settle for 8 Senate seats and 35 House pick-ups. I think that's do-able. That will serve to make it completely impossible for BHO to advance his agenda. And that will be fine as long as it holds through 2016, just in case he manages to get re-elected. Me likey gridlock. Keeps politicians from monkeying with stuff.

[Skysooner]

The only problem with the whole thing is that it all depends on who the Rs nominate through the primaries. If it is hardcore right Rs, you might not pick up as much as you want. Look at the Crist situation in Florida. He just might win as an Independent. He was a shoe-in win for the Republicans, but the more conservative Rubio is going to win the nomination. No doubt the 'Pubs will pick up seats. That is virtually guaranteed in mid-term elections. The number depends on the local races. At this point, it is hard to predict what the number will be.

[Leroy Lizard]

Here are 3:

Tennessee State University is so down in its minority—white—population that the State is now funding “scholarships for Caucasian Tennessee residents.”

Diversity Scholarships for both undergraduate and graduate white students are a special program of Alabama State University and Alabama A&M University. The goal is to boost enrollment of those underrepresented in the school: whites and Native Americans, specifically at ASU and “Caucasians” at Alabama A&M.

Jackson State University in Mississippi has a student body composition of over 6,000 African Americans and about 200 Caucasians.2 The university’s Diversity Scholarships are restricted to Caucasian applicants.

Well, I poked around and didn't come up with much other than some interesting points:

Alabama A&M's diversity scholarship program can't be working too hard. This year, only 1.3% of its incoming student body is white and only 0.4% Hispanic. From what I can tell, that only comes to about 5 white students and one Hispanic. Keep in mind that I have no idea if any of these were enrolled on account of a diversity scholarship. The man in charge of the diversity program happens to be the dean of all academics, so the campus doesn't even appear to have a diversity office. I'll dig a little harder later.

more to come.

[yermom]

why on earth would i want to go to Alabama A&M as a white guy?

i'd have to have some seriously slim prospects

[Leroy Lizard]

There are lot of poor white kids who have some seriously slim prospects. I just think the whole notion that they have it better than poor black kids is ridiculous.

[yermom]

that's what i've said since i was in high school looking at entrance requirements

[Okla-homey]

Well, I poked around and didn't come up with much other than some interesting points:

Alabama A&M's diversity scholarship program can't be working too hard. This year, only 1.3% of its incoming student body is white and only 0.4% Hispanic. From what I can tell, that only comes to about 5 white students and one Hispanic. Keep in mind that I have no idea if any of these were enrolled on account of a diversity scholarship. The man in charge of the diversity program happens to be the dean of all academics, so the campus doesn't even appear to have a diversity office. I'll dig a little harder later.

more to come.

Problem is, a "degree" from Alabama State is less impressive than a "certificate of completion" from the Tulsa Welding School. Reason being, that "certificate" from Tulsa Welding School is proof the bearer actually demonstrated competence in his chosen field.

We knew white schoolteachers in Montgomery (when we lived there) who got Ed.D's from Alabama State just because it maxxed them out on the Alabama teachers salary scale. It was a classic "pay your fee, get your B" dealio. And the dissertation? heh. They wrote them in their spare time over a single summer.

[Leroy Lizard]

Problem is, a "degree" from Alabama State is less impressive than a "certificate of completion" from the Tulsa Welding School. Reason being, that "certificate" from Tulsa Welding School is proof the bearer actually demonstrated competence in his chosen field.

We knew white schoolteachers in Montgomery (when we lived there) who got Ed.D's from Alabama State just because it maxxed them out on the Alabama teachers salary scale. It was a classic "pay your fee, get your B" dealio. And the dissertation? heh. They wrote them in their spare time over a single summer.

Although that sounds pretty egregious, the requirements for an Ed.D. are pretty minimal at a lot of universities. Seton Hall is advertising their Ed.D. program as just 10 weekends and two four-week sessions over two years.

Tough stuff.

[royalfan5]

Although that sounds pretty egregious, the requirements for an Ed.D. are pretty minimal at a lot of universities. Seton Hall is advertising their Ed.D. program as just 10 weekends and two four-week sessions over two years.

Tough stuff.

As far as I can tell every Graduate level program for teachers is purely a diploma mill to get mandatory salary bumps.

[GottaHavePride]

As far as I can tell every Graduate level program for teachers is purely a diploma mill to get mandatory salary bumps.

See, many states (New York, for instance) say that to keep your job as a teacher, you have to begin working on a master's degree within three years (I think was the timeframe).

With that said, I think most master's degrees in education are silly. (Now, pedagogy of a specific subject is another matter... best calculus teacher I ever had held a doctorate in math pedagogy.) But really - if you've already been a teacher, you probably know how to teach. Your teaching would be most improved from just learning more about the subject you teach.

And for teachers working in elementary ed, where you sort of teach everything, get a graduate degree in child psychology. More useful.

[Leroy Lizard]

See, many states (New York, for instance) say that to keep your job as a teacher, you have to begin working on a master's degree within three years (I think was the timeframe).

With that said, I think most master's degrees in education are silly. (Now, pedagogy of a specific subject is another matter... best calculus teacher I ever had held a doctorate in math pedagogy.) But really - if you've already been a teacher, you probably know how to teach. Your teaching would be most improved from just learning more about the subject you teach.

And for teachers working in elementary ed, where you sort of teach everything, get a graduate degree in child psychology. More useful.

I think you are referring to the doctorate in math education. Typically it is a Ph.D. and handed out by the mathematics department. Although not as ulcer-ridden as a traditional math Ph.D., it is far more intensive than an Ed.D. (which is really a fancy master's degree).

I agree about the child psychology graduate degree.

[OU_Sooners75]

Not a dodge. I am for abortion. I prefer adoption or keeping the baby. I don't believe that a fetus is a human being as we define human beings until later in pregnancy. I won't condemn someone for getting an abortion.

Are you for capital punishment? Same argument applies.


Question....when does a human life start? When there is a heart beat, 2nd trimester, 3rd trimester, or after being born?

Before I get into my opinion on the matter, I too can be considered by the religious sect as an atheist.

I am also a center-left democrat.

That being said, if you you were to stop your heart from beating, would you be able to live without assistance? Short answer...NO you wouldn't. IMO life starts once the heart beat of a fetus is found!

Now then, you want to compare an unwanted pregnancy with that of a person being put to death because he killed people?

You seem pretty bright and all, but you are comparing Oranges to Bananas with that type of brainlessness.

[Skysooner]

Question....when does a human life start? When there is a heart beat, 2nd trimester, 3rd trimester, or after being born?

Before I get into my opinion on the matter, I too can be considered by the religious sect as an atheist.

I am also a center-left democrat.

That being said, if you you were to stop your heart from beating, would you be able to live without assistance? Short answer...NO you wouldn't. IMO life starts once the heart beat of a fetus is found!

Now then, you want to compare an unwanted pregnancy with that of a person being put to death because he killed people?

You seem pretty bright and all, but you are comparing Oranges to Bananas with that type of brainlessness.

Actually I was being facetious with that argument. I agree there is no comparison, but there are many conservatives that are totally against abortion and for capital punishment. They are mixed and have no connection.

[Leroy Lizard]

Actually I was being facetious with that argument. I agree there is no comparison, but there are many conservatives that are totally against abortion and for capital punishment. They are mixed and have no connection.

This last post didn't exactly clarify your stance much.

[Skysooner]

This last post didn't exactly clarify your stance much.

I wasn't pointing out my stance so much on this as pointing out the fallacy of both being against abortion and for capital punishment (at least in simplistic terms). The arguments for both are so complex that it can be possible to be both against abortion and for capital punishment as long as it isn't based on "eye for an eye".

I have stated my position for abortion. I wish everyone that had an unwanted pregnancy would allow for children to be adopted. I just don't see that happening for tons of reasons, so I believe that abortion has to be kept legal. I'm also for abstinence programs, but abstinence by itself isn't realistic. We have decided not to hide things from my two boys, so we have taught them about sex, birth control, etc. This is especially important for my older boy who is mildly autistic and anything complex has to be taught over and over for him to get it.

On capital punishment, I was absolutely for it for a long time. I don't believe it really deters anything, but I also can't see letting someone live who has murdered others in heinous ways. I started to have my doubts when there have been these cases of people who are on death row who were proven to be innocent. It caused me to realize that the justice system isn't really fair to those among us who can't afford good attorneys. It is fairer than other systems, but there is still room for error. As for now, I'm for capital punishment if there is absolutely no doubt about someone's guilt. If there is doubt then there is less harm in leaving them in prison than in executing them.

[OU_Sooners75]

Actually I was being facetious with that argument. I agree there is no comparison, but there are many conservatives that are totally against abortion and for capital punishment. They are mixed and have no connection.


That is your opinion. I am totally against Abortion, but all for the death penalty if the case fits such a judgment.

If someone is going around killing innocent people because they have a strange grasp of reality, then they too deserve to die.

Just my opinion of course.

[delhalew]

Abortion and capital punishment could not be more diametrically opposed. That is all I have to say about that. It should be obvious.

Remember this story?
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133313&highlight=oklahoma+abortion+law

No one ever mentioned on here that this happened.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2010/04/oklahoma-legislature-overrides-veto-of.php
To reiterate my position; if you seek an abortion, I feel the least you should do is take a look at the beating heart you wish to stop.

[Skysooner]

That is your opinion. I am totally against Abortion, but all for the death penalty if the case fits such a judgment.

If someone is going around killing innocent people because they have a strange grasp of reality, then they too deserve to die.

Just my opinion of course.

Yes, it is my opinion. I have reasons for my opinion as you have reasons for yours. What I meant about mixed though was that the process of deciding about both is completely different. There is no connection.

[OU_Sooners75]

Yes, it is my opinion. I have reasons for my opinion as you have reasons for yours. What I meant about mixed though was that the process of deciding about both is completely different. There is no connection.


I know what you meant. However, I pointed out my opinions on both matters because it is not just the conservative Republicans that feel that way. Some of us Democrats feel the same way as the Republicans on those issues.

[Skysooner]

I know what you meant. However, I pointed out my opinions on both matters because it is not just the conservative Republicans that feel that way. Some of us Democrats feel the same way as the Republicans on those issues.

Ah, I see what you mean. I forgot you were a centrist Democrat. Capital punishment and abortion are some of those subjects that can cross political ideology. I agree with that.