Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/6/06 04:14 PM, mackid wrote: Invited by MoralLibertarian to make a thread to parallel the "Typical Liberal" thread, I've done so. Here's the invitation: "If you want to make a thread called, "Typical conservative," I'd be happy to show you in detail how every single one of your caricatures are either false of not a bad thing."

Anyway.

From my experience, many, if not most, conservatives are economically illiterate,

Though the economy tends to do better under truly conservative ideals.

bible-bashing,

Very few conservatives are bible-thumping. They just strongly believe in morals that, oddly enough, coincide with pretty much every religion in the history of man.

gun-owning,

and? We support good people being able to buy guns instead of just letting the criminals have them. Gosh we're heartless.

anti-privacy rights,

We believe in privacy rights unless you are harming the rights of another individual. Or unless you are in PUBLIC. We don't believe that cameras on stop signs to catch people running reds are a bad idea, no.

anti-gay,

Actually, the pro-gay Republican movement is growing. And the people that truly care about gays who are in the anti-gay marriage camp, outnumber those who care about gays in the pro-gay marriage camp. Love the sinner hate the sin and all that.

chickenhawks who consider taxes to be immoral but support the "right" to own guns.

Hmmmm. Better to be a chicken hawk than just a plain chicken I suppose.

They think abortions are immoral,

We see it as the killing of a human life. How is that even remotely hard to understand, even if you disagree with it. The fact that you can't wrap your little mind around it is making me begin to doubt your intelligence.

but they deny that the rationale for Gulf War II is injust.

You later on say it is just under certain circumstances. He had WMDs and was killing his people. And he violated international law for a decade. Ignoring the WMD thing, you can't even remotely say we didn't do the right thing by forcing him to follow UN resolutions and laws.

They refuse to let people control their own bodies by living wills or by themselves. Simple as that.

Since the only example of this that even remotely supports your cause is Terry Shiavo, which you later support, it's easy to shoot you down. Tom Delay let his father go. As have several other conservatives. We opposed Terry Shiavo because it was her husband making the choice for her. Ironic how you support a woman's right to her body, but not when it comes to this. He was with another woman. His marriage was a sham at that point anyway. Of course her parents had a say. They were blood relation, as opposed to a man with a piece of paper and another family. Hell, I have yet to meet a REAL liberal who supported Michael Shiavo after hearing he had another family.

At 3/6/06 07:58 PM, Begoner wrote:

Yes because a Legalized Holocaust is always good.

It's not a Holocaust. It's the mother's decision if she wants to carry a fetus for 9 months of her life. If she doesn't, she can always get an abortion. However, if she thinks she's not ready for it, doesn't want to go through with it, thinks she'll make a bad parent, etc., she can always get an abortion. I think that banning abortion is morally reprehensible and completely wrong.

HAHAHAHAHA banning abortion is morally wrong. What an incredibly stupid thing to say. It can be morally wrong to have an abortion, but not to ban it.

At 3/6/06 08:14 PM, ironmaiden233 wrote: i have 4 things to say to pro lifers A.if your aganist abortion dont get one B.i doubt you give a shit about the fetus like cindy sheehan you take something and use it o push your poltical agenda C.you only control one boby yours its none of your busniess. D.you should stop haveing children and say to people at planed parenthood"if you dont get that abortion ill adopt the baby instead of bombing abortio clinics and killing doctors(army of god)

I have two things to say to your illiterate ass as well.
1) If it's a baby, you don't have a right to get one.
2) I do care very strongly about it. No one argues extensively on a topic they don't care about.
3) The government controls any action that is illegal. Can you smoke pot legally? No. It is one hundred percent my business.

Idiot.

At 3/6/06 04:31 PM, Begoner wrote:

And again, there is no comparison between us and Nazi Germany. There are a lot of differences: freedom of speech, religion, petition, assemble, and the press to name five.

He wasn't comparing those aspects of Nazi Germany with the US. For example, if I say "you are as tall as that Hummer (terrible example, I know)," are you going to say "I am not a car, I don't have four wheels, I don't run on gas, etc." No, because I am not comparing you to the car -- I am comparing your height to the car's height.

Actually, the guy you are defending did indeed compare me directly to Nazi Germany, and stupidly suggested that endorcing the liberation of a nation of long-suffering people was somehow comparable to endorcing mass genocide of the Jews. Moral relativism pisses me off a lot. I saw what it did to my father. I saw what it did to my uncle. The bottom line is: comparing what we are doing in Afghanistan/Iraq to what Hitler did with the Jews is a direct comparison. And then for people to say "Well, even though I made the direct comparison...what I MEANT is...." Don't bother. We know what you meant. It's like if I said "I think we should kill all the ragheads." Then people complain that that was racist and endorcing genocide, so I do a 180 "Well, I don't like genocide or being called a racist, so what I really meant was....."

At 3/6/06 04:00 PM, ReiperX wrote: Because the US planes were technocally in Iraqi territory. Should they have shot at them, no. Were they a threat to the US, no.

And they were required to be there under the terms of the UN negotiated surrender. Since he was firing on OUR MILITARY, that was a hostile act, and we could've retaliated at any time for it. Therefore by attacking our military, he was a threat to us.

Sadam, didn't admit he had WMDs, the inspections showed nothing. Iran, is saying they are persuing Uranium Enrichment. North Korea says they have nukes. Both of these countries are far more extreme than Iraq was. Yet we try and talk to them which isn't a bad thing, but the guy that isn't a threat, we invade under bad intel with pressure from above to make the intel look a certain way.

He didn't have to admit anything, and we'll go over the intelligence in a minute. Let's assume he had no WMDs, we could still have invaded him. He was required to give UN inspectors access to any area they wanted at any time. He refused this repeatedly for a decade. So much so that we bombed him under Clinton. Innocent men don't refuse access to areas they are required to give access to. He did. Therefore, obviously guilty.

We invaded with bad inteligence. Hell the US went in against the will of most of the world, and guess what, most of the world was right, Sadam wasnt' a threat to the world.

If we were wrong, the world was wrong with us. Every single country in the UN had the same intel: Saddam has WMDs. And if he doesn't have one already, he's trying to get a nuke. Just because they refused to act on it, that means nothing. And we know for a fact that he had WMDs. We've found the Serin, the missle tubes, the weapons grade antrax, hundreds maybe thousands of pounds of high grade explosives, missles buried in the desert. We have arial pictures of huge convoys leaving weapons sights right before UN inspectors accompanied by US troops arrived. Last I heard, we even found records of him trying to deal with China for a nuke. Everyone had wrong intel? Not possible. Saddam had WMDs. Every country does. To think otherwise is to be purposefully daft.

Some soldiers I talk to say its doing great in Iraq, some say its doing horrible, it all depends on where they are stationed. My company is spread out across 4 different areas in Iraq, 1 unit has had a total of 1 incident with insurgents, 2 have had a few encounters, and 1 has it almost daily. So it does depend on where these people are stationed. Yes I know the news stretches it to make it look bad, thats because bad news sells better than good news. Who wants to read about 30 kids who did something positive when 3 boy s were just raped and killed by their father? Its sad, but its what sells. Sadam kept his people at bay, he was a minority leading the majority, and he was a bad person, he did some good things for Iraq though in the begining, and he kept Iraq stable. Now they are moving towrds civil war, hopefully that doesn't happen.

It's bad now, but it was worse before. He didn't keep his people at bay. He allowed the minority (his group) to do pretty much whatever the hell the wanted to the majority. That is not stable. Hitler kept the trains running on time too, but in comparison to the massacres he perpetrated, I'd hardly say he "did good". Was Nazi Germany stable? USSR? Etc? Of course not. We just didn't have a close up view of what was going on then. Hell, if for nothing else, the sanctions and the bombings he got his country subjected to would suggest a lack of stability.

At 3/6/06 04:18 PM, Begoner wrote:

:Nonsense that we've been over and he is wrong on.

Well, they still need A WARRENT for all those things. They can no longer check your library records. They could check your internet records before the Patriot Act. And you are now notified if they search you. And the gag order is gone. You can bitch and moan all you want. But it is perfectly constitutional.

At 3/6/06 08:57 PM, mackid wrote: Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water for his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging commie liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

He then thanks the makers of PUR water treatment who came up with his tiny system that he put on his faucet so he couldn't taste the chlorene in the water.

With his first swallow of coffee, Joe takes his daily medications. His medications are safe to take because some evil lefty bomb-throwers fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of Joe's medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some fire-breathing lazy union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. Never would he turn it down.

Joe thanks God he has a private health care plan, unlike those seniors who have the inept governmental plan which they must pay monthly premiums on, and yet the price of their prescription drugs still comes almost entirely out of their pocket.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

He then curses PETA who is trying to make it outlawed to eat meat. Thank God for the Republicans sticking up for his right in an industry that has always been regulated by the conservatives!

In his morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo! His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe however, has never read the label. He thanks God for consumers who complained that the shampoo burned their eyes and that the company changed the formulation so it kept it's customers.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is healthy because some environmentalist wacko troublemaking militant fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

Joe lives in the county, where there's not as much pollution. He thanks the makers of hybrid cars for understanding that people want cars that guzzle less gas and thereby put out less pollution. However, a hippy driving an earth killing SUV drives past and forces him to choke on fumes.

Then Joe walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants limp-wristed freethinking idiot fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Unfortunately, being government run, it breaks down, forcing Joe to be late for work again, 5th time this month.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some fire-breathing Viet Cong-loving union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these high standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union in. So, Joe benefits from what others have gained.

Joe then remembers that the Unions supported Bush not Kerry and loves the Republicans all over again. And he remembers that hard work, not government intervention got him his benefits. He also looks around and notices all the minorities, who we're given fair shots by Affirmative Action, a Republican idea.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan, because some elitist pointy-headed liberal decided that Joe and the whole society would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. That's okay, but the bastards tricked him because he has to pay taxes. Bush will fix that, he tells himself.

Thankfully Joe is also fiscally responsible. He doesn't own credit cards, or try to use a loan to pay off the mortgage because his conservative father taught him the value of a dollar.

Joe picks up his kids from a public school, a concept created by commies who think that all children deserve education. But that's ok, he thinks, because Bush'll take money away from those liberal public schools and give me vouchers to send my kids to private school.

His little girl can't spell cat, and his son thinks 2 and 2 equals brown shoe, but at least they both know we are at fault for 9/11 and that Cheney shooting his hunting partner is more newsworthy than border security.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government New Deal Stalinist liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. His father lives on Social Security.

His father also unfortunately isn't big enough to get in on farm subsidies, which go to rich farmers so they won't have to do any work. He curses the liberals for not letting his father in on that deal. Also his father worries that social security will go bankrupt because the liberals refuse to even try and fix it.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that over the decades the beloved Republicans have fought to defeat every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.

He then turns to Air America that mocks our troops and doesn't tell Joe how the Army safeguards his freedom. Joe is confused all around.

At 3/7/06 06:15 AM, Esn wrote: Basically, the US government is running out of money, and according to their own laws they can only go so far into debt. The national debt limit is $8.2 trillion, and they are poised to go over it unless they take some drastic and ugly measures. Meanwhile, 14 provisions of the PATRIOT Act were signed into law and the remaining 2 given an extra 4-year extension.

This situation isn't even remotely new. It happens all the time. We come close to the "cap for bankrupsy" and we raise it. No one wants to see the US go under, because if we do, the world economy will collapse. So they say, fine fine, raise the cap.

"Republican Congressman Ron Paul has gone on record with his prediction that the impeachment of George W. Bush is right around the corner but warned that in the meantime the US was slipping perilously close to a dictatorship."

How long have they been predicting the impeachment of Bush? Since right after 9/11, his first year in office, if I remember correctly. He'll go down as a shitty president, but won't be impeached. If we can't impeach someone for breaking laws left and right, we won't impeach someone for general incompetence. As for a dictatorship, not hardly.

How to save money:
1) Cut funding to public school administrators. They get paid a lot of damn money to run schools that don't work. Ridiculous all around.
2) Cut welfare back further. Again, a lot of this can be done through administrative costs, but as for the rest, we need to slowly ween people off the system and make it as small as possible.
3) Since we forgave a lot of foreign debts, and a lot of our current debt is owed to people who we forgave debts to in the past, like France, we just call up our debt. OK, we owe you 400 billion. With interest, what you originally owed us will come to 600 billion. OK, we're square, the remaining 200 billion is owe us is AGAIN excused.
4) Stop paying for the UN. We damn near fund the thing. It is huge, redundant, and useless. And most of the bills it tries to draft are aimed at hurting the US. It promotes anti-Sematism, and we foot almost the entire bill.
5) Simplify or eliminate medicare. It is ridiculously inept and some of the plans it offers offer 0% coverage.
6) Stop wasting money buying inmates plasma screen TVs, PS3s, and the like. Not to mention a whole library of video games, movies, and the latest in weight training equipment. They can deal with a rusty basketball hoops and some freeweights.

I know there's more, but that's a damn good start.

At 3/7/06 03:10 PM, Alexi101 wrote: ok, really Abortion should be off the boards, Abortion should be goddamn the woman's choice

not the MEN running the government*

yes i said MEN for a reason, i do see Women in the government, I'm just saying majority of these people are Men who chose Women's decisions

but its defirntly u gotta be over 16 because being in middle school or high school and having a real baby is just...

Nonsense, you just made an argument that says 16 year olds have no right to their own bodies. Therefore if you can exert your own will over them, I can exert mine over you. Your ridiculous complaint has been thoroughly ignored as the garbage it is.

At 3/7/06 02:01 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: That's fair enough - but all you've done is shift the focus of the argument from the sperm to the zygote. The egg can be fertilised and still flushed out during a woman's period (depending on the level of oestrogen at the time of conception). Although this is technically an 'abortion', I presume you don't regard it as the same as a doctor actually destroying a foetus. My point is that at this period in time, it cannot be regarded as a life.

See, I don't know when life actually starts. I'll fully admit that. And since I don't know, the "better safe than sorry" approach seems to fit here. Of course a miscarriage is not an abortion. That's just nonsense. Women don't usually choose to have miscarriages, unless they're sick and ask their husband/boyfriend/etc to punch them in the gut. It's kind of like your body rejecting an organ. You don't choose it, but it sometimes happens. And no one really WANTS it to.

Well, I'm a Christian myself, so I hope I have a reasonable grasp of some Christian beliefs. The fact is, just because they are Judeo-Christian laws does not make them correct - the fact they are 'correct' and the fact they are modeled on Abrahamic religions are independant. Where the two clash, I believe it should be decided by reasoned argument, much as you and I are doing now. For these reasons I find the Islamic concept of Shar'ia law frightening - to allow something as 'absoloute' as that to dictate your morality is to sign away your freedom of thought.

On some level, I agree, but again, without a God that gives you a soul and intrinsic human rights, what is the point of much of our law? While we do need a balance, without the basis (Judeo-Christian values), it's very much the "nice house built on sand".

Fair enough. I'll trust you that your figures are accurate, but I don't believe your rebuttal is rigourous. Even if doctors are wrong, the question is a hypothetical - if the foetus was going to have a very poor standard of living, do we have a right to stop it suffering before it has to suffer? I'm genuinely unsure about this - I think the utilitarian thing to do is to have an abortion, but on a personal level I'm not sure I would be comfortable doing that.

The question may be hypothetical, but it is based on a fallacy. Doctors can't even predict the common cold. They are so clueless on so many issues. You hear stories all the time of doctors telling someone they'll never walk again, or that this or that patient will die, and they're completely wrong. Doctors have such a low prediction rate on people they can see, touch, put through x-rays, hook up to brain scans, etc, that why should we take their word on a patient not even born yet? All they have to go on is amniotic fluid and ultra sounds. After 25 years, the doctors still couldn't tell us what was wrong with my father's knee, and they did some pretty damned extensive tests. And we're supposed to believe that they can predict a life of suffering? I don't buy it. Hell, they can barely predict Down Syndrome. People who read tea leaves are about as accurate.

But you've said earlier that you believe that people can be 'pressured' into abortions, leading to the woman being 'victimised'. Would you not say it is the same for incest (or even certain cases of normal sex)? In this case, the woman has no REAL say in whether or not she concieves. If you argue she does have a choice, then surely you can't argue that she has no choice about getting an abortion.

If it is indeed life, then is it not wrong to end it despite the circumstances that led to it's creation? I am still very torn on this myself, but I am being pushed gradually in this direction. All the studies I've read have showed that all an abortion leads to after rape is a feeling of being victimized twice.

There's a point system? Sweet!

Yep. Didn't you know? I think you're winning by quite a bit :) I won't argue with your heartfelt opinion, since that's a bit low. Sufice to say that I disagree - but you will probably have guessed that.

Winning is good. But unless I can change opinions, it's not really a victory. Hell, I'm writing into a newspaper after this because they had an editorial on abortion. And not only does he express an opinion I disagree with, he lies to his readers to get them to agree with him. Most of the pro-choice campaign is based on lies, misunderstanding and distortion, from what I've seen. One need not even adopt a pro-life position to refute the meager arguments, as I've shown here. All can be completely refuted by the very premises the pro-choice movement is supposedly based on: health and welfare of the mother, women's empowerment, overpopulation, etc.

At 3/6/06 12:22 PM, Begoner wrote:

Also, just because it violated law doesn't make it "unconstitutional".

So you admit that it violated a law? Very well, then.

No, you keep going, it violates this or that so it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Laws are made all the tme that contradict each other. For example. George Bush Sr, put laws into place that restricted abortion. Clinton came along and signed into law a bill that nullified most of those restrictions. Then Bush Jr came along and reinstated those restrictions. Clinton's bill contradicted Bush Sr.'s. Jr.'s bill contradicted Clinton's. Hell for that matter, the Constitution had this little thing called Prohibition in it. And then it got repealed. The Constitution contradicts itself. New laws can be put into place that make old laws obsolete. That's taught to freshmen in high school. What it did was amended or changed laws. In some cases it repealed laws.

At 3/6/06 02:02 PM, Lhotun wrote:

:: If you actually think the world is clearly classifiable as "good" and "evil" you need to quit watching movies and living in a fantasy and realize everybody does things for reasons.

And you need to stop being stupid and acknowledge things such as good and evil.

Even those that are insane tend to have reasons for what they do, albeit very strange logic for doing such. Germany didn't think "lets go out and kill the Jews because we want to be evil."

Maybe they thought, let's exterminate them because....God will....throw us a tea party! Of course they did it to be evil. They looked at exterminating theJews like we do killing rats. Maybe the word EVIL wasn't flashing in their heads, but it was pretty damned evil nonetheless.

Instead, they used your train of thought. "Jews are evil. We are good. Therefore, we must defeat the Jews and topple their reign over society."

Actually, they used the logic that the Jews were no better than rats, as said above. They were a drain on the economy and dilluted the purity of the superior German blood. Jews weren't human therefore it was OK to kill them.

Yes, I'm comparing you to Nazi Germany. I guess that means I need to read a book and stop listening to Green Day because that makes so much sense.

And again, there is no comparison between us and Nazi Germany. There are a lot of differences: freedom of speech, religion, petition, assemble, and the press to name five. Gee we say that people who came over and killed 3000 of our citizens are evil? GASP! How could we? We say that those who rape, murder and torture their own are evil? THE HORRORS. I'm mocking you because you sound so unbelievably stupid.

Besides, what is wrong with the analogy? He is saying that you can't just use the phrase "you're lowering troop morale" as an excuse to stop criticism of whatever troops may be doing. In fact, it might be better as then nobody would want to join the army, making the government either foolishly try a draft or give up. Having influence over the government, isn't that part of a democracy?
The fact that an analogy is unoriginal does not mean it doesn't work. Although, yeah, it isn't a particularly good analogy, but it does illustrate the point...
A point that you don't really refute.

So you don't want a military to protect us? How is that a good thing? "If we protest teh cops, then maybe nobody will wanna join the cops!" And then we'd have no cops. Brilliant idea. Truly inspired. Come up with something even remotely intelligent to refute, and I'll shoot it down for you. Tho, I have refuted your idiotic "We are Nazis point", over and over and over.

By the way, Saddam did have a stable government. You confuse stable with moral. Under Saddam's regime, bad things happened. However, people probably didn't go to work worried they'll be blown up by a suicide bomber. You need to quit thinking of things as falling into as few categories as possible.

Committing genocide is by definition unstable. Political dissent was met with death. People were afraid to speak their opinions, unless they were in glowing praise of the government. Women were terrified to go outside. The people lived in constant fear. They were under UN sanctions because Saddam refused to follow the rules, and a huge part of the population had NO access to medical care period. Children were starving when they had food readily available before the sanctions. There was nothing even remotely stable about Iraq. Even by a survey of Iraqis, 75% feel optimistic about their future. Because things are better now than they were under Saddam.

Gee, you compare us to Hitler, say Iraq was stable and say we should disband our military because we disagree with the President. However could I question your intelligence and say you need to read a book. Half the crap you spewed even Michael Moore wouldn't put forward on a bad day.

At 3/6/06 12:16 PM, Begoner wrote:

No people who understand that Bush won the election are INTELLIGENT.

I did not edit the above quote in any way. Check your punctuation next time, because you just said only non-intelligent people think Bush won.

I missed a comma. Jesus, you know your argument is crap when you start going through: "oops, missed a comma there, should've capitalized, grammar mistake, etc". You knew exactly what I meant.

Stuff about Gore.

I wasn't talking about Gore at all.

Yes, you were. Did you forget that he was the guy who faced Bush in 2000? Since you keep throwing out "Bush tole the election", I recapped, in a nutshell, what happened and why Bush won. That information is key to any debate about the 2000 election. If you don't understand that, then you are just a useless partisan hack who's arguments have no basis in reality. Bush won the election. It was legal, it was fair, it was constitutional. Gore was the one who tried to "steal" it.

At 3/4/06 08:36 PM, EZ3 wrote: I'm not arguing that you should ALL BE VEGANS. I'm just saying killing chickens is wrong and you know it, even if its for food.

No it's not. If you're religious, we are better than the animals. If you're athiest, survival of the fittest. I love animals, but your point is unsustainable under any reasonable context.

And if the meat industry died, then other food industries would expand and more jobs would be created. So veganism doesn't take away jobs.

No, the net amount of jobs would decrease drastically. So many farmers get paid to grow vegetables they aren't growing. So they'd actually start growing them finally. A huge chunk of people would be unemployed. There is no good reason to go vegan, as vegans are less healthy, and the general public wouldn't agree to it anyways.

Also, put into mind that a lot of the PETA people are pro-abortion, and their arguments are completely decimated.

At 3/4/06 09:53 PM, mackid wrote:

Most often, at least, it's either his fault or the fault of archconservatives somewhere.

Of course 9-11...His fault!

He ignored the warnings.

Not the finding of the 9/11 Commission. While Bush had a small hand in it, the FBI and CIA do not need his direct approval to apprehend people. Most of the failing was found to be that of 30 years of weakening of the CIA/FBI's powers and their inability to communicate. The Patriot Act solved this.

Katrina...His fault!

No, FEMA's fault. And Bush's fault for picking someone with no real experience to run it (COUGH MICHAEL BROWN COUGH)

No, Ray Nagin and Katherine Blanco's fault. And the fault of the people. THEN the fault of FEMA, THEN the fault of Bush. And recent videos have mitigated Bush's fault in the whole fiasco. Don't ignore evidence that shoots you down.

Clinton perjuring himself.... archconservatives Fault!

Do you REALLY want me to explain how, in the beginning, it was the fault of the Republicans (IE they blew something that was not the nation's business way out of proportion!)

Actually it WAS the nations business. Clinton was being sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones. He was required, even as President, to give her her day in court. So it was the nations business to try the case. He tried to deny her right by witness tampering, perjury, obstruction of justice, suborning perjury, et al. Don't even blame that one on teh conservatives.

everything is bush's or archconservitves fault

How about, oh, the thousands of gun deaths in this country? The budget deficit? How about that, huh?

Gun deaths are neither party's fault. Was it Clinton's fault that thousands of people were gunned down on his watch? Of course not. He's not God. It's the blame of those who pull the trigger. The budget defecit, are you stupid? Every president over the past fifty years has done defecit spending. You never have anything useful to bring to any discussion.

At 3/5/06 07:33 PM, Begoner wrote:

He didn't do a very good job considering Saddam was still violating countless UN resolutions and had millions of tons of biological and ballistic missiles when the Military overtook Iraq two years ago or so.

He did not have any biological weapons that could be used. Remember? No WMDs were found in Iraq?

And in Clinton's own speech after 9/11, what did he say? Oh yes, "We have no way of telling how many of Saddam's WMDs we destroyed OR IF WE EVEN DESTROYED ANY AT ALL." (emphasis mine)

Sorry bud. A realistic point of view shoots you down again. Stop drinking the liberal kool-aid and we'll be good. Clinton did some good things, but ending Saddam's WMD capability wasn't one of them.

At 3/4/06 11:19 AM, Begoner wrote:

The debt is much larger than that, and it's been around since the 50s( maybe that's why this cat is a democrat, she doesn't know shit).

No, the debt has not been around since the 50s. In fact, we had a 230 billion dollar surplus in 2000 (you know, right about the time Bush got "elected").

http://archives.cnn.../27/clinton.surplus/

Clinton was still doing DEFECIT SPENDING. According to the IRS, if Clinton's plans had remained in effect, they would've stopped defecit spending in 2007. Which means, he was still very much doing defecit spending.

At 3/5/06 09:38 AM, Begoner wrote: Try editing a Wikipedia article and see how long it lasts. Here's the link, because you are too lazy to search back a couple of pages:

http://en.wikipedia...election_controversy

http://en.wikipedia...oversy%2C_exit_polls

Wikipedia is completely user submissions. And most of it is propeganda, either conservative or liberal. There've been times I've checked back and the article is different than the last time I saw it. Since anyone can post, it is not a reliable site, anymore than going to someone's blog.

That's not my point. I don't think we went into Iraq with the purpose of killing Iraqis, just that an Iraqi citizen is that is attemping to protect his homeland from a foreign invader isn't doing the wrong thing.

The insurgents are mostly from outside of Iraq. Also they deliberately target civilians. They have no desire to protect their country. Give me a break.

We are a union, even if we don't call ourselves that. Look it up in a dictionary:

a combination so formed, especially an alliance or confederation of people, parties, or political entities for mutual interest or benefit.

We are a country. Not a union. A state cannot secede from the US, because it is a state in a country, not an independant territory involved in a union. Read the history books.

No, NG is not liberal-leaning. If no one can see the irrefutable evidence of election fraud because they are so caught up in Bush-loving, they are not liberal. If they think that Bush stealing the election is a radical idea, they are not liberal, or just blind liberals. And Iraqis do have a duty to protect their homeland, because we invaded their country. The same way any of us would have to duty to resist a foreign invader coming into the US.

No people who understand that Bush won the election are INTELLIGENT. Only idiots think he stole the election. Anyone who understands how our system works, whether they agree with it or not, accepts that Bush won. For example: Sharpton is a race baiting, victimizing piece of garbage. He says Bush stole the election. Carville is an ex-marine and former strategist to Clinton, Gore and Kerry. He says Bush won and talks about why the liberals lost. Who is more credible? Carville. You really need to shut up on this because you're wrong.

Recap: Bush lost the popular vote. However, presidental elections are decided by electoral college voting. Bush won that. It is the second time in our nations history it happened. Gore, demanded a recount (which under Florida law, was his right). The recount came back Bush. He demanded ANOTHER recount. He lost that one too. There was no limit to number of recounts, however there was a time limit of a week. As that time limit approached, and Gore lost his third recount, he went to the Florida Supreme court, who blatantly ignored the law and announced there would be a recount of all of the Florida districts which might have gone in Gore's favor, despite the time limits set in both state and federal law. Gore was seeking to undermine Constitutional authority and state law. Bush went to the Supreme Court and argued that this violated the equal protection part of the Amendments. And the SC agreed and ordered the recount halted. While the decision was correct, Bush opened the door for the SC to interefere with future Presidental elections which is a huge violation of Seperation of powers. So Gore wanted to violate state and national law, and Bush may have expanded SC power unintentionally. So Gore still lost, and is the bad guy to boot. And Bush bumbled big time.

At 3/5/06 01:27 PM, Begoner wrote:

Exactly why, do you think its unconstitutional.

For one, read the fourth Amendment. Also read the laws that were passed to curtail executive power after Watergate. Then talk.

Doesn't violate the fourth amendment. We've been over that. Sorry.

Also, just because it violated law doesn't make it "unconstitutional". Unconstitutional means it violates the constitution, so don't even get on other people.

At 3/2/06 11:23 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: But I pretty much hate feminists too. The whole, "we made you, therefore you have to agree with us" argument is petty. Ann Coulter is her own breed of feminist: she's a liberal feminist who agrees with free market economics and rule by the people. She isn't begging to be a family woman, and she doesn't hate capitalism, like those radical nutjob feminists.

She's a conservative Republican.

At 3/4/06 08:02 PM, sylvostheyehudi wrote: You Know For such al franken lovers you guys really cant recognize satire.

She wasn't kidding. She had just lost a close friend in the 9/11 attacks, and was 100% serious. Everybody tosses that out there like they weren't angry on 9/11. And except for the "convert to Christianity" bs, I agree with the whole article.

At 3/4/06 11:58 PM, LettuceClock wrote: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

OK, I don't agree with the killing of civilians, BUT it is an unfortunate side effect of war. And again, he basic thesis was right on.

"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

John Walker SHOULD be executed. He is a traitor who killed Americans in service of al Quida. Screams firing squad to me.

"The only beef Enron employees have with top management is that management did not inform employees of the collapse in time to allow them to get in on the swindle. If Enron executives had shouted, "Head for the hills!" the employees might have had time to sucker other Americans into buying wildly over-inflated Enron stock. Just because your boss is a criminal doesn't make you a hero."

Sad but true. Being a victim does not make you a hero.

"There are no good Democrats"

Her opinion. And democratic management seems determined to make her sound right.

"Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."

Satire. I forget the rest of the column, but it had me laughing.

At 3/4/06 07:27 PM, ReiperX wrote: So with that we should remove a lot of dictators from the world and start policing the world ourselves, telling who can and cannot be in power. The US has other problems, real problems to deal with rather than go after a regeim that was not a threat to the US, and weakened our position to do something about real threats like North Korea and Iran.

Saddam's forces continually shot at planes inforcing the no-fly zone EVERY DAY for ten years. As for Iran, they are a country that is looking to get nukes, and has said they'd like to wipe Israel (our ally) off the map. We have no proof that they actually have nukes, but it looks pretty damn certain. Sound familiar? Yea, it's the same argument we had for Iraq. Don't give me this: Iran is a threat but Iraq wasn't. The intelligence is even shakier in Iran and we are trying to contain them. Just another case of someone saying "look over there" to hide the fact that they have no case.

Still doesn't change that the war was unjust, its called expression our opinions.

And what made the war unjust? Nothing. Give me a break. Standard talking point for someone who will bitch no matter what.

So what was the last thing you did to support the troops? Who is carrying around signs saying that they support the troops whe they shoot their officers? Hell friendly fire isn't always a bad thing either, a Master Sergeant in my batallion got hit by a 5.56 round in the shoulder from behind, he got a purple heart and now he's not an absolute dick to everyone, and yet still manages to get the mission accomplished just as well. Not justifying what happened to him, but you have to look at the positives.

Hmm, personally I visited the VA hospital and visited with all the wounded vets here. I've also participated in the "send a Vet a letter" program. Not as if that actually matters. Doing nothing is preferable to doing something negative.
There are always pictures of anti-war protesters. The sign he was talking about made BIG news headlines. Friendly fire is ALWAYS a bad thing. I doubt that round to the shoulder is what made the Serg a good leader. You said it yourself, he's a dick now. Please explain the positives of him getting shot.

Yet with Sadam, while he wasn't a good person, he actually kept Iraq fairly stable, much more stable than it is now.

Stable? Murder, rape, and torture is stable? The Iraqi people are some of the most optimistic in the world. And while things are bad, the Iraqis are forming their own gov't, slowly but surely. All the soldiers I've talked to since they came back have said the same thing: "It's a LOT better than the news portrays it." Look at our lack of news from Afghanistan. Things aren't bad so we don't hear about it.

As for the dbag who said we rampantly killed civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, no we didn't. There were almost no civilian casualties in Afghanistan, and the majority of dead in Iraq are from the bombers.

At 3/4/06 06:16 PM, Begoner wrote: If the result of lowering the troops' morale is that there are less recruits for the Army, I'm all for it. Have you ever heard of the Holocaust? Well, would you have the same argument for that:

Hey, people! If you criticize the killing of the Jews, you are only lowering the morale of those who are killing them! No matter how much you complain, you are not going to stop the Holocaust, so shut up! Sieg heil!

Because that's what I hear you saying.

Wow, another dbag comparing us to Nazi Germany. Where DO you get your originality from? There's no comparison. We're the good guys, the insurgents are the bad. Anyone who has watched five minutes of the news knows that the huge body count is due to mainly suicide bombers. If anything, the contradicting argument to your lame comparison is "If you criticize the saving of the Jews, who are being massacred by the Nazis, then you are unpatriotic." And yes, I'd have to go with that one.

And the fact that you have to compare us to Nazi Germany shows a lack of intelligence. Read a book and stop listening to the Green Day.

At 3/3/06 05:07 PM, furball1 wrote:

At 3/3/06 04:56 PM, PharaohRamsesII wrote: I'd say he is the typical liberal. All liberals are fucking little whiny high strung bitches.

I thought there were only like 5 conservatives on NG.

Me, 1wingeddragon, Proteas, Morallibertarian (he says he's liberal, but he really doesn't seem like it), FUNKbrs, and Slipperymoosecakes.

Moral libertarian is libertarian. There's a difference. Read Larry Elder. They come across more conservative than liberal, but there's still a difference.

And that wasn't fair about "the average liberal". I know a couple of intelligent Democrats. Unfortunately, I do know more of the "BUSH IS THE DEVIL" type, and they are quite insane.

Personally I found Ann Coulter's "How to Talk to a Liberal" is a great book, it was meant to make right wingers more right, not to convert liberals. If you want a good conversion book, I suggest "Right Turns" by Michael Medved. Obviously, I'm a conservative too. So now you know a sixth.

At 3/3/06 02:25 PM, ReiperX wrote: If the tornado descimated the entire town like it did my mother-in-laws a few years back then yeah I can see the government helping with low interest loans to help rebuild. If its just 2 million dollars worth of damage, thats not that much. But just a suggestion if you do fall under a low interest government home, don't do what a lot of the people did and rebuild even bigger since they got a check from the government and the insurance company, now half the homes are in an area no one wants to live, they are way too extravigant for the area for people to afford them, and the people can't repay their loans now because they are paying two mortanges now. Fortunately my mother-in-law wasn't stupid enough to do that, they just used the government loan to help get by until their home was rebuilt and then paid off most of the loan with what they had left after they were back on their feet.

And then it's only 4 Million. Then 8. Then a billion. The fact still remains that it is not the job of government to rebuild private property. Bitch and moan all you want about "it's only this much". But there are things the government is supposed to do (protect us from our enemies, build roads, etc), then they're things they AREN'T supposed to do (fund science, chose between religions, rebuild private property, etc).

At 3/4/06 01:40 PM, Lawndeer wrote: nbc doesnt get their funding from tax payers, its owned by MICROSOFT. they donated 2.4 mil to get bush elected. and not showing something is not a right, it just denies others of their rights. if you dont want to watch, you don't have to purchase a tv. theres a difference between giving rights, and denying others theirs.

also CBS is owned by Westinghouse Electric Co., which happens to have Frank Carlucci (of the Carlyle Group) as the #1 board member.

ABC is owned by a man named Sid R. Bass, who also owns major shares in crude oil and gas.

check out the website for more, Fenrugghugger

http://la.indymedia...ws/2003/04/47530.php

You don't have a right ot watch porn. Actually, due to obscenity laws, major networks are prohibited from showing nudity, not even porn. It has to do with parents not wanting their children to see it. Even HBO and that doesn't show porn, just nudity. No one is denying anyone a "right to porn", we're just saying it won't be on PUBLIC (free) TV.

At 3/4/06 12:39 PM, Lawndeer wrote:

They still have to have a warrent.

actually, wolvenbearly-smart-enough-to-write-his-own
-name, that was the problem with the phone-taps. they weren't getting warrants. <----note the spelling of warrant. have you ever even watched the news? read a newspaper, even? check it before you post it.

And that VIOLATED the Patriot Act. That's why Bush is getting so much crap. This was not a right given to him. But hey, good public service announcement on calling me on it. Thank you, tho, I know what I'm talking about.

At 3/2/06 10:54 PM, mofomojo wrote: The government isn't about hand-outs, it's about assuring the welfare of the communities and the people and looking over and serving the people.

The government is more than a law-making body of authority. The government is there to serve us. If an entire town is destroyed and a lot of people are in trouble, it is the government's responsibility to look out for the welfare of the people.

The government should be free of charge, why? Because WE FREAKING PAY THEM!

It is the government's job to secure the public good. That does not include fixinf public property everytime something bad happens. Sorry. If the damage was only 2 million, then quite frankly, a whole city wasn't destroyed. Hell, property value in Missouri is about the lowest anywhere in the country. And even when I lived in a crap trailer park, 2 million probably wouldn't have covered the damage to my neighborhood, let alone the area, or even remotely the city. Sorry, try again. Tornados are a fact of life here in the midwest. You buy insurance or you don't bitch.

At 3/3/06 03:01 AM, MortalWound wrote: It's unconstitutional because for one it allows the government to conduct search and siezures on your home without a warrent, due process, probable cause, or without even telling you that they did a search. it also redefined the term domestic terrorism to include almost any peaceful orginization like Kids Againts War and Anti Racism Action as probable terrorist threats. It can also be used to search through past library, buissines, and internet record without your knowledge. And according to the FBI, few arrests have actually been made where the acused is a terrorist.

They still have to have a warrent. Read above. As of yet, there has yet to be a SINGLE violation reported. Not one. It redefined domestic terrorism to include enemies inside the state who were assisting the enemy through peaceable measures, such as money contributions, and those who used non-violent BUT ILLEGAL forms of protest, such as hacking, laundering ,etc. It can no longer be used to search through your library files, and hate to tell you, but the government didn't need the Patriot Act to check your internet records. Net records are considered public domain. Sorry, you have no clue what you're talking about.

At 3/2/06 10:06 PM, Qnslaught wrote: Gore would have won but Jeb did some crazy things in florida and the next thing you know bush wins....

At 3/2/06 11:55 PM, mofomojo wrote:

At 3/2/06 03:56 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 3/2/06 03:30 PM, SIMPLYB wrote: Al Gore won the first election in 2000 and had it stolen by the right in Florida.

George Bush won the election, not Al Gore. Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the electoral vote.

Bush is in office because he was chosen by the supreme court over Gore. Also, several thousand people were disenfranchised in a democratic county.

They should've had a re-count/re-election. That would've made a lot of people happy.

They had 6 recounts. Gore was willing to break the law to have more. A re-election would've cost billions, circumvented the constitution and been a farce. Piss on that. Neither of you know what you're talking about. Read the posts above. Until then, both of you need to have a nice tall glass of shut the fuck up.

At 3/3/06 11:06 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

Except that both of you are retards. There is no proof that Rove, Bush, Libby, or Cheney outed Plame's identity, nor is their proof that she was covert. The whole Fitzgerald court couldn't find evidence of it in 2 whole years, and Libby was only indicted because of a process charge. You guys are major tools.

Sorry you don't agree. That hardly makes me a retard. Though I understand your resentment to the stupids on this board. There's no proof that Plane was covert you are correct. But Libby got indicted for perjury. What was his lie? That "he didn't leak her identity". So in other words, he leaked her identity, lied about it under oath, and was caught on it. The evidence shows he did it. And since I don't believe he thought it up on his own, that leads me to Rove. I believe they're trying to get him to roll on Rove. But since he knows that he'll be pardoned when the President leaves, he has no reason to talk. We finally disagree on something. Which is cool, that's what our process is about.

At 3/3/06 09:54 AM, SIMPLYB wrote:

All tax cuts are tax cuts for the rich. Anyone who has any knowledge of taxes knows this.

Can't argue with you on that but the way it was presented by the bush administation to the people he was giveing tax cut to ordinary people.

And it was. But all tax cuts benefit the rich, no matter how they are worded. For example, if we said "No one pays taxes on the first 10,000 dollars they make", who benefits? Everyone, including the rich. No one pays taxes on the first 10 g. Just because it benefits the rich doesn't mean poor people get no benefit.

Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug Bill has already turned into a colossal failure. That is a healthcare bill isn't it.

I'd say it's a mediocre improvement to an already failed plan personally. Medicare in and of itself is horribly broken. So Bush tried to put a nice pretty bow on it and fix up a few cracks. It works a tny bit better and at the same time is more complicated.

Yes but Bush hasn't helped public schools at all. Anyone that knows a teacher will tell you the no child left behind act is a joke.

Sorry, but no one knows whether it'll work or not. The problem with fixing public schools is: no matter what you do, it'll get worse before it gets better. Sorry, a real fix could take as much as 10 years to see the results of. And as ML said, written by Kennedy anyways.

lying aout Katrina

Darth Cheney? Dude, get off the evil Republican BS. You don't like Bush, great. But attack him like a grown up. And how about the video showing Blanco telling the Bush administration "Hey, it's all good, the levees are intact." And like it or not, Katrina is not Bush's fault. It was thirty years of negligence by almost everyone in power. And just like 9/11, Bush just had the misfortune of being the one to hold the ball when it failed completely. While he may not have responded as well as he should, he can hardly be faulted for all the failures. Just his own.

I was one of those people warning of civil war from the start. I was all for the war in Afganistan which should also probably have included Pakistan since most people agree that is where Osama is hidding. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism utill we invaded it. I'm not even going to get into all the lies leading us to Iraq cause I sure you have heard them all.

Iraq was 100% involved with terrorism. People seem to forget that Osama bin Ladin is not the only terrorist out there. But even talking about OBL, his list of demands after 9/11, to prevent another attack, including lifting the sanctions on Iraq. He felt kinship to someone in Iraq. So much for no Iraq/al Quida connection.

Nice to see we can agree on something. Tho Rove is Bushes attack dog, he doen't act without Bush knowing it.

BS, people act all the time without the President knowing about it. He has a staff of hundreds. What he's omniscient? He knows all their movements all the time? Nothing can slip past him?

Agreed again, I am willing to hear out this investigation, but if it is nothing more than a show the republicans will reap what they have sowed come Nov. I also bet it really chafes Bushes ass that this whole 45 day extension came Via Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Cater also has his back.

I bet it really chaffs his ass that Hillary is calling for his impeachment while Bill is trying to get in good with the UAE, and get his own people fired. Regardless, while this deal reeks of cover-up, we'd still be in charge of security, and they wouldn't technically own the ports, just hubs within them. Stuff the news doesn't quite tell you.

Give up all your privacy if you want but I prefer to keep as much of mine as possible.

We had numbers associated with terrorism, and we spied on those who called them. I didn't call those numbers, so I have nothing to worry about. And the ironic part is, Bush kept Congress informed. He just left such lovely people like Kennedy, Clinton, and Edwards out of the loop because theyre media whores.

Jose Padilla. "Move along folks nothing to see hear"

He's been charged with a crime. His trial would have started if the Supreme Court realized they had no jurisdiction over military tribunals. However, he's in court NOW, so I fail to see your point.

Not true the underlings were scape goated. The people who gave the orders have not been Identified or prosecuted.

And who are they? Must be Bush again. Gee, for taking all those vacations that bastard is EVERYWHERE.

I understand a lot more than you think. Sorry if I peaged you a right winger, I thought you were using a libral to back up a right wing story. Anyway using Al Franken to back yourself up is as bad as using Ann Coulter or Pat Robertson.

I was using Al Franken because in the intro to his book he talked about the other candidate who won the popular vote but lost the election. Ann Coulter is actually pretty right on. She may be a bitch, but if you ignore her first book her outlook isn't bad.

Anyway Gore is very intelligent and capable of the post. I could vote for him but I will have to see how thing develope between now and 2008. Other possibles John McCain, or Hillary Clinton.

Gore is very intelligent. But I would never vote for him or Hillary. They are both extremely duplicitous, and have no care for the citizenry of this country. I'd actually like to see Danforth from Missouri run. McCain, I'm not sure where I stand on him.

At 3/2/06 11:05 AM, Engelsman wrote: Compared to the rest of the world America is still a baby in historical term, sure they've done well for themselves but i just dont see the entire fate of the Allies resting in the balance of America. They helped and we won... that doesn't mean we wouldn't have won without their help. tbh i would rather have seen germany win WWI/WWII then have all these americans go on about how "they saved the world all on their own."

Anyone who would prefer to have seen Germany win WW2 vs America having "bragging rights" is an idiot. Gee, America being a prick over saving us is soooooo much worse than genocide.

Hitler lost the same reason Rome failed. It kept trying to expand outwards without cease, and fight multiple wars on multiple fronts against multiple enemies. Remove America and Germany had several less fronts to fight on with one rather large less enemy. They'd have won. Same if Russia hadn't been involved. Probably England too.