Well, that distraction didn't work . . .
 

Are we taking bets on what Shrub will do next to divert attention away from immigration problems, eroding public perception of his war, the economy and the nation's massive debt, eroding foreign policy and perception of the U.S. worldwide . . . .

trying to rally the faithful around an AMENDMENT banning gay marriage just failed in the House . . . .

now what is he going to do?

How long has it been since the color coded threat chart was knocked up a level or two?

Either that or some other dog and pony show. Anything to keep our attention diverted from what's really going on.

You best be careful... you mush minded liberal... Burt will be along shortly to put you in your place for doubting our great 'mercan president...

BTW, I say its time for terr' threat...

This, AMENDMENT banning gay marriage, sure has kobi upset...

:coffee:

&

With regard to being a "mush minded liberal":

Aside from the fact that these days the concept of "liberal" and "liberalism" have been completely turned on their head, if using today's perverted view of "liberal" as Marxist (or something like it), then I would inform you that I am "conservative". However, you might find it interesting to note that liberalism was the very ideology that the founding fathers based this country on. Liberalism, in the truest sense, is LIBERTY. Liberalism was (and actually still is) freedom of thought and speech, limited government, and capitalism (a free market), and other such quaint ideas.

The Republican Machine and the "right" in general, have turned it into something entirely different, demonizing the word, and tying the concept to some sort of neo-communistic ideology. The irony is that "the right", the "conservatives", at least as they perceive themselves, embody a lot of real liberal ideas in their (somewhat warped) philosophy. This is not to say that the "liberal" "Democrats" are any better. Some of their ideology actually does tend toward Marxism (for those that are most extreme) and their perspective is just as skewed as those on "the right".

That said, and staying in the present day with it's seriously confused outlook (see kids, this is why learning to read and also studying history is important, so please, stay in school!), I can wear the label of "more conservative than not"; for even though I'm not that ignorant, I can play that part.

As for Burt, if you read our many posts throughout the history of this forum, you would find that Burt and I get along quite well. I respect Burt, and while I do not agree with him on numerous things, I agree with him on many others. Burt operates on a level of common sense (for the most part), as do I (also for the most part). I'm a big believer in common sense, and if you are too, then you should easily see why having debates and bringing forth votes on Constitutional Amendments with regard to marriage, especially in times when there is a host of other - more serious - things going on, is absolutely absurd.

Which brings me to litnfast's poor attempt at baiting me with the gay reference. It's not about gays. I couldn't care less if gays get married, live in sin, and/or have mass orgies with other gays every Thursday. Personally, while I think that gays are seriously "F'd" up psychologically, I also believe that they are entitled to live their lives just like you or I. They are entitled to live together if they want, work any job they want, whatever. They are entitled to all the rights and freedoms that any of us are entitled to. The issue is that our Government (well, actually Bush & Co.) is looking to try to involve itself in running your life. Saying whom you can and can not marry. A "conservative" (by today's definition) is for less government (remember Reagan?) and therefore, a "conservative", based on such a value, would/should be adamantly opposed to such an amendment. Once you start a ball like this rolling, you will never be able to stop it. It's starts with an amendment opposing gay marriage . . . from there it's a short step to government dictating who can and can not get married in general. Interracial couples? Ugly women? Interfaith marriages? Where do you draw the line?

-Continued-

- Continued from previous-



I'm not even going to start with how amending the Constitution should not be taken so lightly, especially for such inane reasons; this is about how we can not allow government to start dictating how we can live our personal lives. In the context of today's conservative, Bush (& Co.) is/are anything but conservative. And this brings me to the original intent of this thread; what with the disaster that our state of affairs are in, mostly as a result of the failure of this administration, there are a lot more important things this administration should be focusing on instead of trying to distract us by whipping up a frenzy among the faithful over who one should or should not be sleeping with. Like CrAz3D, I too voted for this clown. I was blind and optimistic at the time, but the fact remains I voted for him. Unfortunately, that has proven to be a big mistake. (And please, if you are inclined to write "Well he's better than Kerry, or whoever else was running . . . " - that's not the point). What has happened is that we got an administration that has failed in more ways than we can count, and that now resorts to such tactics. We have a President ,and the handlers that came with him, who are so desperate to take attention away from their failures that they stoop to such nonsense. If that were not bad enough, such antics that ,in trying to take the focus off of their failures, could result in government controlling your personal lives, telling you who you can and can not marry, what you can and can not do.

I guess G.B.Shaw was right when he said, "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."

K -

I suspect most of the eyes your post was meant for glazed over after the word "Marxist."

:coffee:

On a more important topic did you see this article?

Dr. Manny: Coffee's Powers of Persuasion

I don't adhere to all of those philosophical political concepts.

I just want, revenge.

Vader -

Hadn't seen that one.

I had three cups of coffee this morning and I don't believe it.

So much for that theory.

Actually, one of my degrees is a Master's Degree in Clinical Psych.

Here's some inside poop on psych. - most of it is crap. (Both theoretical and practiced, including any academic studies. I could break the article down for ya and show you it basically amounts to zip, but I've got better things to do. (I gotta do laundry, buy dental floss, and such).

However . . . I started leaning more left after having breakfast with Bubba some months ago . . . huuummmmmm. I wonder . . .

Well in my defense I was drinking a Mountain Dew while reading the article.

(and for the official record I don't much stock in all the psycho-babble)

If Bush could run for re-election, he might slightly care about this thread, your opinions, and the price of tea and China.:smoke:







(P.S. I am not a Bush fan.)

He does care about his legacy.
Nov '06 and '08 will wipe the smirk off his face.
The history books will take care of the rest.

I think you left out....sexists, bigots, homophobes, racists and hicks....

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! I wasn't calling you a mush minded liberal. In fact I couldn't really tell you what a liberal is or what left and right mean. That's just what I was called by Burt for speaking up against everyone else's president...

I'd be willing to bet the "Shrub" will be the president for a couple more years. I'd also be willing to bet that the "liberals", the democrats will continue to bash the current administration and not offer up a viable alternative.

I'm not pleased with alot that has happened with this administration. However there are hundreds of thousands of our millitary men and women fighting "his war". I'd like to think that they are fighting to facilitate changes to a region of the world that will have lasting effects, and that will better protect people around the world from radicals. It's not going to be nice and neat, and speedy, like a season of The Apprentice, or American Idol. It's going to happen in real time, something I think people in this country are having a problem conceptualizing.

You can provide reasons that "liberal" is a term that has been bastardized by the republicans. What ever the defination, I don't want a liberal democrat in the white house. I don't want them in the majority in the house and senate either. We have a liberal democrat majority here in Massachusetts. They want to blame the republican govenor for the high cost of living, the main reason this is the only state that is losing population. I think not. We can thank people like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry for the high cost of living. We can't let all the "poor people" suffer, so give us more taxes and we'll make life good for them too. Thanks so much for allowing me to work hard for my money so that the "poor people", the ones I see doing nothing, can have something for nothing. It's so great here that even though I was born and raised here, and a lot of my family is here, I'm seriously considering moving out of the area.

Yes. I'd be willing to bet that nothing is going to change. There will continue to be tension, and we as a country, will continue to be counterproductive.

Unfortunately, W will be Pres. for a couple of more years. And BOTH sides will act like children and do nothing but blame each other, engage in finger pointing and doing very little in terms of action, and what they do end up doing is nothing more than attempting to undermine each other, which ultimately undermines us all. Liberal or conservative (the terms have little meaning any more) in terms of the politicians in office and the powers behind them, are pretty much the same any more . . . useless a-holes interested only in their own survival and foolish partisan politics for the sake of partisan politics.

Ultimately, this fight for truth, justice, and the American way won't happen at all (in that it won't be won). You can not force democracy on a people, nor can you give it to them. Democracy is a system that is entered willingly (ultimately). If you fight for it, you do so out of a deep conviction and belief that is based on something you want and are willing to create for yourself. The middle east is not ready for democracy, and for the most part, they don't want it. It does not fit in with their culture . . . certainly not a democracy on the order of American democracy (although that is dying over here). (Yeah, yeah, I know, we are a Republic). Also, this war, be it "his" or not, is essentially against no one. As Raoul has pointed out repeatedly, we have declared war against a noun . . . an idea. You can't fight a war against such a thing. There is nothing to defeat and nothing to win. It is ultimately an exercise in futility.

This is still the type of thinking that operates in the realm of partisan politics. Sooner or later we are going to have to let go of this notion of "US" vs "THEM" as it exists within our own country. Remember, a nation divided will not stand. To say that people like Kennedy and Kerry are responsible for your high cost of living is rather short sighted. This administration alone has done more to further the divide between rich and poor and eliminate the middle class. It ultimately will only create more of the welfare state that the Dems are so vilified for. Like I said, any more, these clowns are all the same. Dems, Repubs. Conservatives, Liberals . . . the kids in office are all the same guys. They no more represent us than the supposed ideologies the parties they belong to supposedly embrace. Ultimately all of us "citizens" are getting screwed . . .in fact, the very concept of "citizen" is being destroyed with the ever increasing illegal immigration problems and the impending amnesty. Laws, just like the ideas that started this country, are being ignored and tossed away.

Exactly. In fact, "We", as a country become more divided with each day, and we as a country (certainly as the country we imagine ourselves to be) will cease to exist if it keeps up.