Character counts

[Religious Dick]

As a conservative, I'm not "for" people based on their being their being rich or poor. In fact, other than ensuring everybody plays by rules, I don't think government has any more business in people's economic affairs than it does in their sexual ones.

You can not have a Democracy without an informed people.


Why did Obama not support Bush's war in Iraq>?

ON that element alone, I believe he has enough knowledge to be a better president than Bush was or McCain will be. Period.
I ask you this.Was it in our best interest to  invade Iraq ?-----to kill one bad ass leader...

I say no.

It was not the best decision in response to the terror that invaded our soil.

IN your GUT, can you really say that this Iraqi war makes sense?

If you say yes, because of 9-11, I challenge you to listen to your own balance of logic. But, if you say no...I applaud your balance of intelligence and common sense.


Obama has more intelligence than any Bush ever will.

Sit on your post of conservative rhetoric, BT. See how far you get with the future when we have blood on our hands. > When we have really never CALLED TO JUSTICE the man in charge of the attacks- Bin Laden. 

There are several possible perspectives concerning our posture regarding radical Islam. All of them have their arguments. If you're going to consider the matter in the same respect as you'd consider our more recent wars, such as WWII or Vietnam, than no, I don't think it makes a lot of sense. However, if you're going to regard the current situation as only the most recent battle in a very long war, as some people do, and with a fair amount of historical justification, then the so-called war-on-terror stands on a firmer rationale. Obviously, in that formulation, 9/11 is only the tip of the iceberg.

In either case, I'll agree that invading Iraq wasn't the most effective approach. But it wasn't entirely off the wall, either.

[Cynthia]

You are apparently in the wrong field, if you think that we can not "think" as Free Americans.

You think the poor should be treated differently than the rest of Americans?

Why?

I think that the poor should be given a fair share and place in this nation.

Reminds me of the century or two past, when ............a very dedicated president; Lincoln felt that the negro slave deserved to be treated with respect and given the same rights of freedom as the white folk.

Go figure.....your argument doens't wash, BT. You want to cloud over offer up the "pseudo truth" that republicans can give tothe poor? Laughable in comparison. Tell me what Bush did for the poor in this nation in his eigth years of command. Tell me what Clinton did for the poor .....I have yet to see any leader address the issues of health care and rights like I have seen Obama. He will win, my friend, He is goign to win this election....I will support him every step of the way. I am tired of the same of BS that elite gov has to offer.



There are those who are denied the same rights in this nation as you. wow, What a shock.

Who's going to stand up for those folks?

Not McCain

[Cynthia]

As a conservative, I'm not "for" people based on their being their being rich or poor. In fact, other than ensuring everybody plays by rules, I don't think government has any more business in people's economic affairs than it does in their sexual ones.

You can not have a Democracy without an informed people.


Why did Obama not support Bush's war in Iraq>?

ON that element alone, I believe he has enough knowledge to be a better president than Bush was or McCain will be. Period.
I ask you this.Was it in our best interest to  invade Iraq ?-----to kill one bad ass leader...

I say no.

It was not the best decision in response to the terror that invaded our soil.

IN your GUT, can you really say that this Iraqi war makes sense?

If you say yes, because of 9-11, I challenge you to listen to your own balance of logic. But, if you say no...I applaud your balance of intelligence and common sense.


Obama has more intelligence than any Bush ever will.

Sit on your post of conservative rhetoric, BT. See how far you get with the future when we have blood on our hands. > When we have really never CALLED TO JUSTICE the man in charge of the attacks- Bin Laden. 

There are several possible perspectives concerning our posture regarding radical Islam. All of them have their arguments. If you're going to consider the matter in the same respect as you'd consider our more recent wars, such as WWII or Vietnam, than no, I don't think it makes a lot of sense. However, if you're going to regard the current situation as only the most recent battle in a very long war, as some people do, and with a fair amount of historical justification, then the so-called war-on-terror stands on a firmer rationale. Obviously, in that formulation, 9/11 is only the tip of the iceberg.

In either case, I'll agree that invading Iraq wasn't the most effective approach. But it wasn't entirely off the wall, either.

Off the wall?

Of course it was off the wall.

Bin Laden is still out there. Men are still being mamed and killed and critically woulded in soul ...and for what?

9-11?

Bush took his chance to become an opportunist. Pure and simple.

[BT]

I think that the poor should be given a fair share and place in this nation.

And what is your plan to act on those beliefs? How would you give them a fair share and place in this nation?

What do you mean by that?

[sirs]

You are apparently in the wrong field, if you think that we can not "think" as Free Americans.

You think the poor should be treated differently than the rest of Americans?  Why?

I think that the poor should be given a fair share and place in this nation.  Reminds me of the century or two past, when ............a very dedicated president; Lincoln felt that the negro slave deserved to be treated with respect and given the same rights of freedom as the white folk.

SAME....not more.  Ironically, that's the same position as most conservatives and republicans have.  It's apparently the position of most liberal Democrats that thru some severe guilt, or more likely a need to perpetuate their power, that programs that place certain races ABOVE others is the right thing to do.  Pushing polices of reverse DISCRIMINATION, is supposedly the right thing to do.

That's the opposite of "fair".  That's prejudicial, if not out and out racist

[Religious Dick]

Off the wall?

Of course it was off the wall.

Bin Laden is still out there. Men are still being mamed and killed and critically woulded in soul ...and for what?

9-11?

Bush took his chance to become an opportunist. Pure and simple.

No, it wasn't off the wall. If you're going to take the perspective that Bin Laden is merely the symptom of a larger problem, then a more comprehensive approach makes sense. Whether invading Iraq was an effective tactic in that approach is another story.

[Cynthia]

Off the wall?

Of course it was off the wall.

Bin Laden is still out there. Men are still being mamed and killed and critically woulded in soul ...and for what?

9-11?

Bush took his chance to become an opportunist. Pure and simple.

No, it wasn't off the wall. If you're going to take the perspective that Bin Laden is merely the symptom of a larger problem, then a more comprehensive approach makes sense. Whether invading Iraq was an effective tactic in that approach is another story.

There is another story that was told to the American public for the past five years, RD.

Off the wall?

Oh my god, you're kidding. . .

Invasion for the sake of calling on the sword as a Christian...like Bush tried to do...is not what Jesus would have done.

 

and yet, Bush seems to feel that he was invading Iraq to capture WMD evil etc.....Sometimes ya gotta fight for your freedom???

Bridge to sell you in Rio

[Plane]

Bridge to sell you in Rio

I can't imagine a better choice of actions against Saddam , actions in favor of Saddam don't count, neither do impossibilitys.

As JFK was won't to say we fight for freedom , when anyone is not free we are not free.

[Cynthia]

Bridge to sell you in Rio

I can't imagine a better choice of actions against Saddam , actions in favor of Saddam don't count, neither do impossibilitys.

As JFK was won't to say we fight for freedom , when anyone is not free we are not free.

You actually like BUsh better than Kennedy? Wow

Plane get real.

[Religious Dick]

There is another story that was told to the American public for the past five years, RD.

Off the wall?

Oh my god, you're kidding. . .

Invasion for the sake of calling on the sword as a Christian...like Bush tried to do...is not what Jesus would have done.

And quite possibly it isn't what Mohammad would have done, either. I understand all that. All the same, it's certainly been done plenty of times by followers of both. Bush didn't manage to touch off a furor by referring to the war on terror as a "crusade" for nothing. This isn't exactly an unprecedented situation in history.

and yet, Bush seems to feel that he was invading Iraq to capture WMD evil etc.....Sometimes ya gotta fight for your freedom???

Bridge to sell you in Rio

I don't think anyone disagrees that the WMD rationale was a crock. But Saddam wasn't a nice guy, and it was entirely plausible that he had them. I was opposed to the invasion, and even I thought it was highly likely he had them.

It was probably a mistake to use the possible presence of WMD as a rationale. The entire invasion was probably a mistake. But that doesn't negate the threat that radical Islam presents.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The poor require a better opportunity to assist themselves in not being poor: education, housing where they will not be mugged or have their children bitten by rats.

We treat the sick differently: we give them medicine we do not give to the well.

[BT]

The poor require a better opportunity to assist themselves in not being poor: education, housing where they will not be mugged or have their children bitten by rats.

And the middle class does not require the same things?

I'm pretty sure 12 years of education is available to everyone, even the poor.

Define a better opportunity? What does that mean?