Silly Mrs. Clinton

[Infinity]

You can't possibly be a Republican.

I can say that I am nothing like this new brand or Republicans (neo-cons) that have overtaken the Republican party. I consider myself a "True Republican" who believes in keeping taxes to a minimum and spending to a minimum. That is why I support Ron Paul for President. He believes in the free markets and is against policing the world.

I understand that people might say that a free market economy with low taxes works against the middle class. But I don't think the problem with the middle class is low taxes on the rich. The problem is that Americans are the worst savers and spenders in the world. We have more than a trillion dollars in credit card debt alone. I believe that lower capital gains/dividend taxes will provide a greater incentive for all these people to invest instead of overspend. And one more thing, people may think that I support lower taxes for only the rich, but I think the middle and lower classes deserve tax cuts too.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 08:33:35 AM PDT

Silly Democratic candidates, that they couldn't foresee this poll.

 

[BVS]

I can say that I am nothing like this new brand or Republicans (neo-cons) that have overtaken the Republican party. I consider myself a "True Republican" who believes in keeping taxes to a minimum and spending to a minimum. That is why I support Ron Paul for President. He believes in the free markets and is against policing the world.

Yeah it's odd when someone like Ron Paul is the truest "Republican" on the ballot.

 

[yolland]

Here's the link to the story/poll.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/13/03723/8431

Ah OK, thanks. Strange. That entry was just posted today, which explains why I wasn't finding it (and also renders any expectation that the candidates at last week's convention would've known about it senseless). At any rate, as I guessed, that isn't one of their main-page diarists, nor a very active one either, judging from his small number of entries over a year-and-a-half. Again, 61 out of 178 respondents indicating 'don't care' to one entry in one minor diary on an open site with more than 100,000 members and hundreds of diarists strikes me as a pointless thing to get worked into a huff about.

 

[Vincent Vega]

The term strawman comes to mind.

 

[martha]

Yeah. I wonder exactly how many people really do care if a candidate has had anything to do with a website?

Or do they care more about how the candidate is going to handle the war, the economy, the healthcare catastrophe, education, civil rights, etc.?

It's a tough call. Very very tough.

 

[2861U2]

It's not even the rude comments and pictures themselves that are the problems. It is the fact that they are not taken down. Any blog in the world will have people posting hateful things, but most of those sites have supervision and will delete such posts. Kos does nothing. Therefore, the operators (or lack of) at the Kos are just as much at fault as are the people who post the rude material. Any website that wants to be taken seriously needs to be responsible and have standards of behavior. I see none there.

 

[2861U2]

Yeah. I wonder exactly how many people really do care if a candidate has had anything to do with a website?

Or do they care more about how the candidate is going to handle the war, the economy, the healthcare catastrophe, education, civil rights, etc.?

It's a tough call. Very very tough.

No, of course those things are important, but attending Kos tells me what kind of person they are, and who they are trying harder to appeal to.

Need more? Here's Dodd looking like a fool- http://youtube.com/watch?v=7ApOkZJN7-c

O'Reilly is absolutely right. If I was Joe Lieberman, I would never talk to Chris Dodd again.

 

[BVS]

It's not even the rude comments and pictures themselves that are the problems. It is the fact that they are not taken down. Any blog in the world will have people posting hateful things, but most of those sites have supervision and will delete such posts. Kos does nothing. Therefore, the operators (or lack of) at the Kos are just as much at fault as are the people who post the rude material. Any website that wants to be taken seriously needs to be responsible and have standards of behavior. I see none there.

Free speech is a bitch isn't it?

 

[2861U2]

Free speech is a bitch isn't it?

I'm not saying they cant say it. I'm saying that it should be taken down. They can go wish Tony Snow ill elsewhere. There is a responsibility factor involved. The site should take a stand and create standards. Dont start to feel sorry for the people who want Tony Snow dead.

 

[BVS]

No, of course those things are important, but attending Kos tells me what kind of person they are, and who they are trying harder to appeal to.

Need more? Here's Dodd looking like a fool- http://youtube.com/watch?v=7ApOkZJN7-c

What? People who believe in free speech?

Seriously? This is the most ridiculous argument. Stop watching O'Reilly, he'll rot your brain.

Why is it you have no problem with Republicans associating themselves with religious hate groups, do they get a free ride because they are "religious"?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Some people say awful things online about Elizabeth Edwards' cancer too. Unfortunately people have the right to be completely insensitive and inhuman and heartless.

 

[2861U2]

Why is it you have no problem with Republicans associating themselves with religious hate groups, do they get a free ride because they are "religious"?

First off, I never said I didnt have a problem with it. Second, please give me an example of such hate group.

 

[BVS]

I'm not saying they cant say it. I'm saying that it should be taken down. They can go wish Tony Snow ill elsewhere. There is a responsibility factor involved. The site should take a stand and create standards. Dont start to feel sorry for the people who want Tony Snow dead.

I don't feel sorry for anyone. That's the hard part about free speech, sometimes you won't agree with it.

Look this website argument has failed.

Why don't you go back to trying and defining "far-left" and examples of pandering.

 

[2861U2]

Yet look, you are condemning Republicans for going to "hate groups", yet not Democrats. Be consistent.

I have explained how they have pandered. You just ignore it.

 

[LPU2]

I'm going to play "devil's advocate" for a second. Didn't Jesus say, "sale all your jewelery and give it to the poor"? Why is it that you push for certain Biblical teachings in government but not others?

No, Woodie Guthrie said that. Jesus said a few things like "Build a fence on thy border so that thy neighbor shall covet thy ox," and "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, but render unto the wealthy thy deepest tax cuts." It was something like that anyway. He also said "greed is good." Or was that Gordon Gekko? Gordon Gano? Nevermind.

 

[BVS]

Yet look, you are condemning Republicans for going to "hate groups", yet not Democrats. Be consistent.

I have explained how they have pandered. You just ignore it.

This website is not a hate group. You cannot judge a group by a few of it's members, especially when the membership is a free website. You can judge if something is a hate group by what their mission statement is.

If this website is your only example, even though you haven't even defined "far-left" yet, then you have failed.

 

[BVS]

First off, I never said I didnt have a problem with it. Second, please give me an example of such hate group.

Well there are many such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's crowds and many anti-gay groups that Bush pandered to by hinting at trying to get an ammendment banning gay marriage.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Giuliani continues his conservative shift
Favors fewer rights for same-sex unions

By Brian C. Mooney, Globe Staff | August 13, 2007

Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani continues to discard the moderate and liberal positions of his past. The latest is civil unions for same-sex couples, which the Republican presidential candidate has been backing away from in recent months.

A campaign aide told the Globe this weekend that Giuliani favors a much more modest set of rights for gay partners than civil union laws in effect in four states offer.

...as posted in the Rove thread.

 

[Bono's shades]

It's not even the rude comments and pictures themselves that are the problems. It is the fact that they are not taken down. Any blog in the world will have people posting hateful things, but most of those sites have supervision and will delete such posts. Kos does nothing. Therefore, the operators (or lack of) at the Kos are just as much at fault as are the people who post the rude material. Any website that wants to be taken seriously needs to be responsible and have standards of behavior. I see none there.

Do you feel the same way about Free Republic and other right-wing Web sites? I've seen some of the stuff posted there. It's every bit as bad as Daily Kos, if not worse.

 

[kellyahern]

Then, of course, there are pictures like this:

Oh, I'm sorry. That's hateful. Completely hateful.

 

[2861U2]

many anti-gay groups that Bush pandered to by hinting at trying to get an ammendment banning gay marriage.

Yikes.

You think opposing gay marriage is "hate?" You think that is the same as the Tony Snow poll, which is real hate? You cant be serious. If so, you dont know the meaning of hate, sir.

But you are right in one regard. I have failed. I am failing to convince you all that the Democrats attending Kos is an important issue, and says a lot that they will attend that but not go on FNC.

Seriously though, I'm getting bored with this topic. I think I'm done posting in here, so you all can say whatever you want. It ain't much fun being the "1" in a "20 against 1" discussion/debate/whatever you want to call it, regardless of which side is "correct".

 

[BVS]

Yikes.

You think opposing gay marriage is "hate?" You think that is the same as the Tony Snow poll, which is real hate? You cant be serious. If so, you dont know the meaning of hate, sir.

But you are right in one regard. I have failed. I am failing to convince you all that the Democrats attending Kos is an important issue, and says a lot that they will attend that but not go on FNC.

One is an example of poor humor, the other actually wants to deny rights. Apples and oranges.

One is harmless the other IS hate. Sorry you can't see that.

You failed because you never even attempted to define what you started. And your constantly bringing up FNC is hilarious, you've been shown why they pulled out.

Seriously though, I'm getting bored with this topic. I think I'm done posting in here, so you all can say whatever you want. It ain't much fun being the "1" in a "20 against 1" discussion/debate/whatever you want to call it, regardless of which side is "correct".

I'm sure it's difficult to have a minority opinion, but the only reason if feels like it's "against" is that you never back anything up. You say a lot of things but you never show sources, apply logic, or actually define anything. So of course you're going to get a little flack. If you did back things up things would be a lot different.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Apparently you have never seen hate.

 

[martha]

You think opposing gay marriage is "hate?"

YES.

Opposing rights for people based on their sexual orientation is far far far far more hateful than a lame, meanspirited internet poll about Tony Snow's cancer.

 

[MadelynIris]

YES.

Opposing rights for people based on their sexual orientation is far far far far more hateful than a lame, meanspirited internet poll about Tony Snow's cancer.

If I were to oppose heterosexual marraige, does that mean I hate heterosexual people?

I like this reasoning. I'm seeing a line of t-shirts.

 

[BVS]

If I were to oppose heterosexual marraige, does that mean I hate heterosexual people?

I like this reasoning. I'm seeing a line of t-shirts.

You may not hate heterosexual people, but denying a person rights just because of who they are is a hateful action.

 

[MadelynIris]

Right, inalienable rights.

I agree on that part. That's why, I think we should remove the 'sexual orientation' aspect of it from all law whatsoever. I think anyone should be allowed to form a civil union/partnership with anyone else. Question is, do you limit it to 2 people?

 

[MadelynIris]

You may not hate heterosexual people, but denying a person rights just because of who they are is a hateful action.

For that matter, we do deny a lot of people a lot of rights for a variety of reasons. Citizens enjoy certain rights over non-citizens. Felons are denied a variety of rights, as are children.

There are more examples, but the basic human rights, I think are generally protected well in this country.

 

[BVS]

Right, inalienable rights.

I agree on that part. That's why, I think we should remove the 'sexual orientation' aspect of it from all law whatsoever. I think anyone should be allowed to form a civil union/partnership with anyone else. Question is, do you limit it to 2 people?

Maybe you can ask Moses if having more than one wife was a good idea in hindsight.