does U2 still have a political stand?

[yolland]

Instead of repeatedly exclaiming 'That's a fact!' as if it might magically render your statements factual, why not try citing some actual quotes from Bono to support your interpretations. Or else stick to articulating your own stance (which you do quite well)rather than also trying to make it out to be Bono's, which you're altogether less convincing at.

P.S. There's really no need to quote the entire post you're responding to...

*************
(FROM Sunday Times Magazine, 7 Nov '04)

Suddenly there's a change of atmosphere, an adrenaline rush. Larry and Edge disperse and Bono tells me: "Tony Blair's just asked me to do an address at the conference." I tell him I don't think he should do that. He looks bemused and tells me that Mandela and Clinton had done this same spot for an international speaker. I tell him that they had everything to gain and nothing to lose, and why would he want to align himself with a party that is now alienating so many people? He says: "I am happy to stand alongside him and say I believe in him. I think he's one of the greatest leaders the UK has ever had. He has done extraordinary things for his country. There has to be applause. So far, it's my job to give him applause for what he's done, even though I didn't agree with the war. He believed in it, and isn't it extraordinary for a British prime minister to do something that was unpopular with the British people and his own cabinet and his Labour base? I believe that he is sincere... But sincerely wrong."

 

[melon]

I'm sure Dick Cheney's daughter and log Cabin Republicans would object to much of what you have said. There are Gay people who showed up on November 2, 2004 and voted for Bush.

Dick Cheney's daughter is a traitor. It's nice when you can mooch off your daddy's power and connections. After all, the elite don't abide by the same laws as us "common folk." If she didn't have daddy's power and money behind her and had to live like 99% of LBGT people in the U.S., then I don't think she would be so "silent."

As for the gay people who voted for Bush, they're traitors too.

And the Log Cabin Republicans aren't exactly your "friends" anymore. LCRs are more like "New England Republicans" like former MA Gov. William Weld. Put Weld next to former Sen. Zell Miller and you wonder why they just didn't switch parties. Likewise, I don't know why the LCRs don't switch parties either, unless Ann Coulter was right and New England Republicans are just liberals who like to think they're better than the blue collar folk.

When you say "Republican Party", I hope your not refering to myself and the others in the forum who are proud members of that party.

I spit on that party. The GOP is the antithesis of everything that is remotely ethical in America anymore, and the way they manipulate morality to win elections is shameless. I'm sure the baby Jesus is crying.

So here's my challenge to all you "proud" Republicans: lobby Bush and his GOP Congress to pass full and unequivocal equal civil rights for LBGT people *minus* marriage (but if it includes marriage, I won't complain). I've heard the GOP say over and over that it isn't about "discriminating against gays," but about "protecting traditional marriage." Well, I'm calling your bluff, Republicans. Now show me your true colors.

The day I can sponsor the love of my life to immigrate into the United States like any other hetero couple is the day I will finally believe the GOP isn't Satan incarnate.

Melon

 

[Anu]

Bono said: "Any civilian target hit is unacceptable."
The estimate is that as many as 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq due to the war since March 2003. That does not count the 500,000 children who died due to US policy under Clinton. And for the record, Kerry still supported the war, too, right up to election day.
And as for the Log Cabin Republicans: they refused to endorse Bush in the last election.
The amazing thing is, he's not even a conservative; he's borrowing money from foreign countries to pay for this ridiculous war.
The humanitarian rhetoric about Iraq is a little hard to stomach. If the troops had to be somewhere for humanitarian reasons, I wish they were helping to keep the peace in Sudan.
Anu

 

[A_Wanderer]

That 100,000 figure has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked and I am clueless why it has become accepted dogma among anti-war circles. The estimate was actually that as many as 198,000 civilians had died in Iraq mainly due to American air strikes. The range was 8,000 - 198,000 and when you included the clusters from Fallujah to get the results the figures were even higher. This is in sharp contrast to the number given by the anti-war site iraqbodycount.net which places the figure at under 20,000. It does not stand to reason that there are 80,000 dead civilians that the media simply failed to find out about especially considering the hostility towards this war from certain quarters.

A proper refutation of the Lancet survey can be found at Slate http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/

The oil for food program and sanctions were an abysmal failure on all fronts, it failed to prevent Saddam from staying in power (it actually entrenched his position), it failed to prevent the regime from smuggling weapons and oil, it was totally corrupt and the food and medicines did not get to the people. The blame for the dead Iraqi's rests upon the regime and it's use of the supplies as weapons against the Iraqi people and the United Nations which did nothing to adress the problem.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

...even though I didn't agree with the war....He believed in it...I believe that he is sincere... But sincerely wrong."

STING, plenty of people, Bono included (myself included) were okay with Afghanistan, very not okay with Iraq. You would say yourself that the 'War On Terror' is a very broad, wide ranging thing. I'd bet only 20% of people agree with everything, 20% with nothing, 60% with some, disagree with some. So if someone says "I agree with the US action in Afghanistan" don't say that they agree with the War On Terror.

 

[verte76]

I felt the same way, I supported the action in Afghanistan because it was so clear that the people in Afghanistan wanted to be rid of the Taliban, who were just about the most despicable people I have ever seen anywhere. This was supported by people everywhere. There weren't even any controversies over this. We've debated Iraq to death. It's something intelligent people can disagree on. But it's safe to assume that not everyone who supported the actions in Afghanistan supports everything Bush does in the War on Terror. I'm against terrorism as much as anyone. Bono, being from Ireland, knows what awful stuff terrorism is. We all have our own ideas about the best way to stop terrorism, and heck, even Colin Powell said the military can't do the whole thing.

 

[Anu]

"That 100,000 figure has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked and I am clueless why it has become accepted dogma among anti-war circles."

Since the findings were reported by a reputable and refereed medical journal, it has more cred. than you give it.

A reported and debated, and possibly refuted fact is not the same as *dogma,* by the way. A dogma is "A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church."

War kills civilians--even if it is the lowest figure detailed by "Iraq Body Count," that's too many lives; 1500 Americans is too many lives. And since this thread began on the basis of where Bono stands politically, particularly on the question of war, his statement against *any* civilian death is important here.

The "democracy" emerging in Iraq looks likely to be a form of Shiite Muslim theocracy, is the *victory*???

And just for the record, the sanctions, Clinton's "soft" shock and awe, may have been worse.

And why did Saddam's secular government that "we" once supported deserve the singular attention it got, considering all the other atrocious regimes in our fragile world?

Anu

 

[Irvine511]

I'm sure Dick Cheney's daughter and log Cabin Republicans would object to much of what you have said. There are Gay people who showed up on November 2, 2004 and voted for Bush.

When you say "Republican Party", I hope your not refering to myself and the others in the forum who are proud members of that party.

actually, the Log Cabin Republicans declined to endorse Bush in 2004. most of their members didn't vote for him, paid for ads attacking Bush (using Cheney's own words from the 2000 debate wtih Lieberman!) for his stance on the anti-marriage equality amendment. i believe the overall gay vote for bush was somewhere around 17%. take this in conjunction with the fact that a surprising amount of gay people are registered republicans because many tend to be very libertarian in their politics, combined with the fact that your average income for your average "out" gay man is probably well above that for your average straight man -- and since people with higher incomes tend to vote Republican because it is in their self-interests to have their taxes cut -- and you'll see that, African-American voters aside, gay people are probably the least likely group to vote Republican, despite these two (high incomes, libertarian values) usually Republican characteristics.

 

[STING2]

Bono said: "Any civilian target hit is unacceptable."
The estimate is that as many as 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq due to the war since March 2003. That does not count the 500,000 children who died due to US policy under Clinton. And for the record, Kerry still supported the war, too, right up to election day.
And as for the Log Cabin Republicans: they refused to endorse Bush in the last election.
The amazing thing is, he's not even a conservative; he's borrowing money from foreign countries to pay for this ridiculous war.
The humanitarian rhetoric about Iraq is a little hard to stomach. If the troops had to be somewhere for humanitarian reasons, I wish they were helping to keep the peace in Sudan.
Anu

Yes, there are wild liberal estimates that 100,000 or 200,000 people have died do to the war, but none of them are based on fact. Even the anti-war group bodycount, does not have figures nearly that high.

More importantly, your forgetting all the life saving work the US military is doing in Iraq and the US military does not TARGET civilians unlike Saddam or the insurgents do.

While Saddam was in power, the deaths of Iraqi's do to conflict or the withholding of supplies was Saddam's, doing and Saddam's ALONE. Saddam was the one that invaded and attacked 4 different countries, violated every resolution passed against him, used WMD more times than any leader in history and is responsible for the murder of 1.7 million people. In light of what Saddam had done to the region and his people, think about what would happen to the region and the Iraqi people if he had remained in power.

I don't see why its better to have US troops in Sudan than Iraq. Its in the interest of global security that Coalition troops are in Iraq building a democracy do to the regions importance to the planet. Its not that people in Sudan are any less deserving of the troops, but that with limited resources, one has to apply those recourses to the area's that have the greatest impact worldwide.

 

[STING2]

STING, plenty of people, Bono included (myself included) were okay with Afghanistan, very not okay with Iraq. You would say yourself that the 'War On Terror' is a very broad, wide ranging thing. I'd bet only 20% of people agree with everything, 20% with nothing, 60% with some, disagree with some. So if someone says "I agree with the US action in Afghanistan" don't say that they agree with the War On Terror.

Bono has said he supported the way that Bush went after the terrorist after 9/11 happened. It involved a lot more than simply the invasion of Afghanistan.

Its hard for me to understand how anyone could not be ok with the elections in Iraq this past week, elections that would have been impossible had the coalition not removed Saddam.

 

[STING2]

"That 100,000 figure has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked and I am clueless why it has become accepted dogma among anti-war circles."

Since the findings were reported by a reputable and refereed medical journal, it has more cred. than you give it.

A reported and debated, and possibly refuted fact is not the same as *dogma,* by the way. A dogma is "A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church."

War kills civilians--even if it is the lowest figure detailed by "Iraq Body Count," that's too many lives; 1500 Americans is too many lives. And since this thread began on the basis of where Bono stands politically, particularly on the question of war, his statement against *any* civilian death is important here.

The "democracy" emerging in Iraq looks likely to be a form of Shiite Muslim theocracy, is the *victory*???

And just for the record, the sanctions, Clinton's "soft" shock and awe, may have been worse.

And why did Saddam's secular government that "we" once supported deserve the singular attention it got, considering all the other atrocious regimes in our fragile world?

Anu

The Bush administration and most Americans are against "Any" Civilian deaths. But civilians die all the time, not just in wars, but when criminals committ crime and police try to catch them. The US military does not target civilians! Any deaths do to US military operations are accidents.

If your "reputable" source can name all the 100,000 people it claims has died and provide evidence that shows they were all killed as a result of the war, then you could say you have a legit source.

For example, in 2002, the Israely army when into the West Bank town of Jenin to kill or capture terrorist cells. The media and many of the same organizations that accuse Israel of attrocities claimed that the IDF murdered 7,000 Jenin Civilians. After the fighting was over, United Nations forensic experts went in to examine the situation. They found that only 48 civilians had been died and all had died as a result of accidents.


Let me remind you that SADDAM was not like any other dictator. SADDAM invaded and attacked four different countries in the region. He threatened the planets energy supplies with sabotage and siezure through his actions and could have created a global economic disaster if he had succeeded in cutting the planet off from the Persian Gulf energy reserves. He has used WMD more times than any leader in history. His actions have led to the deaths of 1.7 million people. He refused to comply with the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement including VERIFIABLY DISARMING of all WMD. This is why military action to remove SADDAM was necessary.

The Sanctions during the 1990s did not kill Iraqi civilians. Iraq was allowed to sell its oil to buy enough food and supplies to feed and support a country double the size of Iraq. Saddam would withhold supplies though from various communities which caused hardships in those area's.


How many SHIAT Theocracy's do you know have democratic elections where minority rights are respected. A constitution is going to be drafted by the new elected assembly followed by new elections at the end of the year. Its going to be a bad year for those hoping that democracy does not succeed in Iraq!

 

[STING2]

Dick Cheney's daughter is a traitor. It's nice when you can mooch off your daddy's power and connections. After all, the elite don't abide by the same laws as us "common folk." If she didn't have daddy's power and money behind her and had to live like 99% of LBGT people in the U.S., then I don't think she would be so "silent."

As for the gay people who voted for Bush, they're traitors too.

And the Log Cabin Republicans aren't exactly your "friends" anymore. LCRs are more like "New England Republicans" like former MA Gov. William Weld. Put Weld next to former Sen. Zell Miller and you wonder why they just didn't switch parties. Likewise, I don't know why the LCRs don't switch parties either, unless Ann Coulter was right and New England Republicans are just liberals who like to think they're better than the blue collar folk.



I spit on that party. The GOP is the antithesis of everything that is remotely ethical in America anymore, and the way they manipulate morality to win elections is shameless. I'm sure the baby Jesus is crying.

So here's my challenge to all you "proud" Republicans: lobby Bush and his GOP Congress to pass full and unequivocal equal civil rights for LBGT people *minus* marriage (but if it includes marriage, I won't complain). I've heard the GOP say over and over that it isn't about "discriminating against gays," but about "protecting traditional marriage." Well, I'm calling your bluff, Republicans. Now show me your true colors.

The day I can sponsor the love of my life to immigrate into the United States like any other hetero couple is the day I will finally believe the GOP isn't Satan incarnate.

Melon

I think for some of the Gay people who did vote for Bush, there were other things that were important to them and these other things were important enough to them to override whatever feelings that had about Bush administration policy on Gay Marriage.

 

[deep]

so that explains the 17%

 

[Do Miss America]

Bono has said he supported the way that Bush went after the terrorist after 9/11 happened. It involved a lot more than simply the invasion of Afghanistan.

Don't kid yourself into thinking Bono supported going into Iraq. I know you'd like to believe it, but there has been plenty of evidence to prove otherwise.

Its hard for me to understand how anyone could not be ok with the elections in Iraq this past week, elections that would have been impossible had the coalition not removed Saddam.

I don't think anyone here is against the elections per se. It's just that the elections in Iraq were more symbolic than they were a real democratic election. One can appreciate the fact that Iraq is moving towards a democracy and still not approve of the means to which it got there. It's hard for me to understand why some can't see that.

 

[drhark]

I felt the same way, I supported the action in Afghanistan because it was so clear that the people in Afghanistan wanted to be rid of the Taliban, who were just about the most despicable people I have ever seen anywhere. This was supported by people everywhere. There weren't even any controversies over this.

Substitute Afghanistan for Iraq and the Taliban for Saddam.

Or perhaps you'd like to retract this statement?

 

[Do Miss America]

Substitute Afghanistan for Iraq and the Taliban for Saddam.

Or perhaps you'd like to retract this statement?

Hello the Taliban attacked the US and killed 3,000 citizens. Saddam did not attack us, I love how people try and equate the two.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You should have noticed that drhack was referring to the Iraqi and Afghani peoples hatred for the despotic governance of both the Baathists and Taliban ~ now it seems that even Arabs prefer democracy over fascism.

 

[drhark]

Bullshit. Plain bullshit. The Bush Administration has blocked all and every attempt at giving gays EQUAL RIGHTS. So fine...they don't want gays to marry. Why haven't they pushed non-discrimination legislation? And I'm in love with a Canadian. Did you know that there's absolutely no mechanism for him to legally immigrate to the U.S.? If I want to stay with him for the rest of my life, I will have to move to Canada. Period. I shouldn't have to choose between love and country....things that fucking heteros take for granted every single goddamn day of their lives.

Don't ever ever ever ever tell me that the Bush Administration is not "anti-gay." Next time, ASK a gay person sometime whether or not the GOP and the Bush Administration is meeting their needs, rather than quoting from some supply-side conservative agitprop.

Every single day, I'm reminded why I will never vote Republican. And every single day, I'm reminded why I hate Bush with every fiber of my being. He could end terrorism or balance the fucking budget for all I care, but every day I cannot be with the one I love, I blame Bush and the GOP. And, yes, they are squarely and 100% to blame, because Democrats have introduced an immigration bill every year since 2001, and every year since 2001, the GOP has refused to even consider it.

Fuck Bush. Fuck the Republican Party. I hope they both rot in hell for eternity.

Melon

Wow. Does this count as "hate speech?" You and Howard Dean both. You might as well come out and say you hate Christians, but then the hate police would come arrest you. Oops, hate speech laws protect everybody BUT Christians so you're OK.

I'm assuming you believe in God, to condemn one to hell. But then to wish hell on someone wouldn't be something God would condone.

Hey, I'm bummed I can't be with my Canadian girlfriend but if it was really torturing me I'd do what thousands of Mexican citizens do every month. Hey, where there's a will, there's a way. We don't need to be sending anyone to hell over this.

I'm just curious, have you checked into immigration policies of other nations, such as Europe? I'm not sure if they're as lax as us, I could be wrong.

In any case, what's wrong with Canada? Why doesn't your lover mind leaving his liberal paradise of a country for love? You wouldn't do the same for him?

I think you're angry and will always be angry if you depend on a political party or presidential administration to "meet your needs".

Peace and Love, Buddy

 

[A_Wanderer]

I don't think anyone here is against the elections per se. It's just that the elections in Iraq were more symbolic than they were a real democratic election. One can appreciate the fact that Iraq is moving towards a democracy and still not approve of the means to which it got there. It's hard for me to understand why some can't see that.

How exactly were they more of a symbolic move than "real democratic elections". Most Iraqi's went out and voted, they braved the threats of the terrorists and ignored the naysayers. The turnout was greater than most countries ~ how the bloody hell was this mostly a symbolic election.

Being for democracy in Iraq while at the same time opposing the means to that end at every turn is as they say having your cake and eating it too.

 

[Do Miss America]

You should have noticed that drhack was referring to the Iraqi and Afghani peoples hatred for the despotic governance of both the Baathists and Taliban ~ now it seems that even Arabs prefer democracy over fascism.

Then he referenced verte76's quote incorrectly.

 

[drhark]

Hello the Taliban attacked the US and killed 3,000 citizens. Saddam did not attack us, I love how people try and equate the two.

verte76 didn't mention the Taliban attacking us (which they didn't)


he (or she) gave his reason for support of the Afghan invasion: "because it was so clear that the people in Afghanistan wanted to be rid of the Taliban, who were just about the most despicable people I have ever seen anywhere"

If that's his criteria for going to war, why is he (or she) opposed to Iraq?

 

[Do Miss America]

How exactly were they more of a symbolic move than "real democratic elections". Most Iraqi's went out and voted, they braved the threats of the terrorists and ignored the naysayers. The turnout was greater than most countries ~ how the bloody hell was this mostly a symbolic election.

Being for democracy in Iraq while at the same time opposing the means to that end at every turn is as they say having your cake and eating it too.

Real elections the citizens at least have access to the issues and the canidates running for them. Please show me evidence of how this happened in Iraq.

To enjoy eating the cake would in fact require you having the cake in the first place.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I don't think so, Verte is clearly opposed to the brutality of the Taliban ~ the Baathists of Iraq were no less brutal ergo an argument for removing the regime on the basis of that brutality could also be made.

Of course the stock standart retort is that there are plenty of bad governments out there why only go after this one or that one ~ perhaps the only answer is because you can, the political will and strategic benefits exist to justify that course of action. Deposing Saddam was not a purely altruistic use of American force ~ the US has a lot to gain; both in terms of long term Middle East stability and pushing reforms in the Arab Muslim world - both of which are big factors in the GWOT. Iraq is important to the War on Terror not just because Saddam sponsered terrorism but because democratisation and liberalisation of the region (especially Iran) requires for a competing ideology to take hold.

 

[drhark]

Then he referenced verte76's quote incorrectly.

no I didn't.

verte76 can change his statement if he wishes

for reference (with punctuation added):

"I supported the action in Afghanistan because:

it was so clear that the people in Afghanistan wanted to be rid of the Taliban, who were just about the most despicable people I have ever seen anywhere. This was supported by people everywhere."

in other words:

I supported the action in Afghanistan because:

they were bad people.

 

[Do Miss America]

verte76 didn't mention the Taliban attacking us (which they didn't)


he (or she) gave his reason for support of the Afghan invasion: "because it was so clear that the people in Afghanistan wanted to be rid of the Taliban, who were just about the most despicable people I have ever seen anywhere"

If that's his criteria for going to war, why is he (or she) opposed to Iraq?

Ok then who technically attacked us?

Oh but how you conviently left out this part;

This was supported by people everywhere. There weren't even any controversies over this.

Global community vs. non global community.

 

[Do Miss America]

no I didn't.

verte76 can change his statement if he wishes

for reference (with punctuation added):

"I supported the action in Afghanistan because:

it was so clear that the people in Afghanistan wanted to be rid of the Taliban, who were just about the most despicable people I have ever seen anywhere. This was supported by people everywhere."

in other words:

I supported the action in Afghanistan because:

they were bad people.

Please read my other post.

 

[Do Miss America]

~ perhaps the only answer is because you can, the political will and strategic benefits exist to justify that course of action.

One of the scariest statements I've seen posted in here, but at least your honest and not trying to cover it up like this administration and their blind supporters.

Deposing Saddam was not a purely altruistic use of American force ~ the US has a lot to gain;

At least your honest.

both in terms of long term Middle East stability and pushing reforms in the Arab Muslim world

I have my serious doubts, but now the actions been taken let's just cross our fingers.

 

[STING2]

Don't kid yourself into thinking Bono supported going into Iraq. I know you'd like to believe it, but there has been plenty of evidence to prove otherwise.



I don't think anyone here is against the elections per se. It's just that the elections in Iraq were more symbolic than they were a real democratic election. One can appreciate the fact that Iraq is moving towards a democracy and still not approve of the means to which it got there. It's hard for me to understand why some can't see that.

I NEVER said Bono supported going into Iraq, in fact I stated that he and the Edge did not support the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003.

I did say that Bono supported the invasion of Afghanistan based on what he has said in HOT PRESS and elsewhere.

I don't pretend BONO supports anything, but many in the liberal crowd like to pretend he MUST support every liberal cause they love and the fact is , he doesn't.

 

[STING2]

Real elections the citizens at least have access to the issues and the canidates running for them. Please show me evidence of how this happened in Iraq.

To enjoy eating the cake would in fact require you having the cake in the first place.

Listen, I dare you to tell any of the 8 million people that voted, that what they did last week was not real! My best friend in the US Marine Corp just got home from Iraq last week. His hard work over the past tour of duty, his second, has payed the way for these elections. The issue in this election was Iraqi Democracy and the voters voted for those they thought were most likely to support democracy and combat the terrorist.

 

[melon]

Wow. Does this count as "hate speech?" You and Howard Dean both. You might as well come out and say you hate Christians, but then the hate police would come arrest you. Oops, hate speech laws protect everybody BUT Christians so you're OK.

If they can dish the hate out, they had better be able to take it.

And get your facts straight. There are no "hate speech" laws in the U.S. Period. This is why groups like the KKK are free to trash on racial minorities, and Focus on the Family are free to trash on sexual minorities without risk of punishment.

I'm assuming you believe in God, to condemn one to hell. But then to wish hell on someone wouldn't be something God would condone.

Homosexuals, on a regular basis, are told they are going to hell. Does God condone that?

Hey, I'm bummed I can't be with my Canadian girlfriend but if it was really torturing me I'd do what thousands of Mexican citizens do every month. Hey, where there's a will, there's a way. We don't need to be sending anyone to hell over this.

I won't even dignify such a ridiculous statement. If you want your Canadian girlfriend to live with you, marry her and she'll be eligible for permanent residency. Newsflash: I don't have that option. If that's all it took, I'd marry him in an instant.

I'm just curious, have you checked into immigration policies of other nations, such as Europe? I'm not sure if they're as lax as us, I could be wrong.

The European Union is notoriously anti-immigrant. Unless you're an asylum seeker, then you have about zero chance.

In any case, what's wrong with Canada? Why doesn't your lover mind leaving his liberal paradise of a country for love? You wouldn't do the same for him?

Not that it is any of your business, but I have studied film/television, and want to work in that industry. With the exception of the American industry, all other nations are mostly government subsidized and have strict rules on who they can hire. And, yes, that includes Canada, which usually means "100% Canadian" productions. I wouldn't be able to become a citizen for at least 3 years.

But even at that, the Canadian media industry is horrendously limited. Canadians usually end up moving to Los Angeles to get jobs in media. The irony, of course, is that Canadians can take all the American jobs, but Americans? We don't have the same options.

I think you're angry and will always be angry if you depend on a political party or presidential administration to "meet your needs".

You know what? Coming from your position, that's easy to say. I presume that you're a straight white Christian male? Then you've never understood discrimination or prejudice one day in your life. Sure, the "angry white male" can make a mockery of what minorities face every day, but unless you live it, you don't understand. No, your interests are represented 24/7, 365 days a year. And if an inconvenience is found? Congress will put it on a legislative "fast track."

Religions will never condemn your behavior, within reason. Sure, you might be told not to be a whore, but despite all the direct condemnations of divorce in the New Testament, divorce is perfectly legal and accepted in most religions. Exceptions will always be made, so as to not inconvenience the straight white Christian male.

So go ahead: take your life and love for granted, and make a joke out of mine. Bush and the GOP can still go to hell.

Melon