This was just kind of creepy.

[U2democrat]

 

[FullonEdge2]

Well you have to admit you have some scary ideas

 

[U2democrat]

Frightening. Simply frightening.

 

[FullonEdge2]

Frightening. Simply frightening.

Well I'm not that afraid because the president of the U.S really can't do much to affect the country by his or her self. However, I think that some people's vision of a country with a true Democrat in office is one with freaks and stilt walkers and PETA junkies running rampant on the streets and vehicles outlawed and people having sex with anything that breathes or doesn't breathe and 5 languages being approved as national languages...all silly, yes, but.....all this could have been possible had AlGore been elected

 

[U2democrat]

Very true. We liberals are clinically insane people.

 

[FullonEdge2]

Very true. We liberals are clinically insane people.

now now, that description was supposed to be a humorous vision of what some people may think of a liberal America. That's not exactly my vision, but it's a vision that liberals should try to alter.


man oh man, stilt walkers

 

[U2democrat]

that was a good one. the white house would turn into a circus with a freak show!!!!!!

 

[verte76]

Circuses in the White House? That'd be interesting.

 

[Do Miss America]

I know W and I are just simpletons, but by big ideas I mean things like freedom. The alternative to freedom in the Middle East is the status quo which is unacceptable. W had the balls to break the status Quo post 9/11. Yes, there is the prospect of failure but I hope to God there isn't and so should you. Personally I bet on the desire of most people to be free and live in peace. But that's just the secular humanist in me.

Simpleton is right. I love this "you don't stand for freedom if you don't believe in this war" bullshit, it makes me laugh. Then basically you would have been for any invasion of any country not living in freedom? Where to next? Come on let's put another country into war so they can live free. There's a whole list to choose from and apparantly we don't even need a reason, that's the beauty of it. You are right Bush had the balls to show the world that the USA doesn't need shit for justification. Go W.

 

[U2democrat]

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Correct. The ideas of the party are what keeps winning elections. Clinton was a great personality and was elected despite the ideas of the Democratic Party

This is dead on. I would not be so inclined to vote Republican if, say, Rudy Guiliani ran for president, being that he doesn't represent conservative social stances on key issues. Also, his extramarital affair is a bit of a turn off too. I don't want someone to manage our country if he can't even manage his own marriage.

 

[BVS]

This is dead on. I would not be so inclined to vote Republican if, say, Rudy Guiliani ran for president, being that he doesn't represent conservative social stances on key issues. Also, his extramarital affair is a bit of a turn off too. I don't want someone to manage our country if he can't even manage his own marriage.

Wait didn't you claim to have voted for Kerry, but was fine with Bush winning? So if you believe in the ideas of the party why didn't you vote for Bush? So are you saying you voted based on Kerry's "personality"? Now I'll be the first to admit Kerry is one of the least "personalities" in the Democratic party. So I'm confused.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Wait didn't you claim to have voted for Kerry, but was fine with Bush winning? So if you believe in the ideas of the party why didn't you vote for Bush? So are you saying you voted based on Kerry's "personality"? Now I'll be the first to admit Kerry is one of the least "personalities" in the Democratic party. So I'm confused.

Umm... Never claimed to vote for Kerry. I hope that helps.

 

[BVS]

Umm... Never claimed to vote for Kerry. I hope that helps.

Yeah my bad I had you confused with someone else, apparently it's too late, I need to get bed. Sorry.

 

[dazzledbylight]

Correct. The ideas of the party are what keeps winning elections. Clinton was a great personality and was elected despite the ideas of the Democratic Party

President Clinton had a bunch of good ideas/programs/Executive Orders- some of which have been attacked and dismantled, and he had some bad ones [IMHO].

ah.....the last duly elected president, and meanwhile The Resident.....

 

[dazzledbylight]

Well you have to admit you have some scary ideas

Compared to the Neo-cons, and the Far Right Theocratic wings {oh- btw I'm not an aetheist} of The Republican Party???
...........

[with the original 2nd wing of The GOP- 'rockefeller' & moderate mid-westernetc Republicans is rapidly being de-evolutionized]
---------------------------------------------------------------------

And another for you, U2dem <even if i will keep a bit of cerebral nerve groupings & synapses open for solid/good-source news for anyone trying to build a case that the mainstrem media cannot ignore in terms of impeachment,demanded for ousture...i'm also trying to strengthen/inform myself for various letter-writing etc campaigns against the resident's & co agenda.

 

[drhark]

Simpleton is right. I love this "you don't stand for freedom if you don't believe in this war" bullshit, it makes me laugh. Then basically you would have been for any invasion of any country not living in freedom? Where to next? Come on let's put another country into war so they can live free. There's a whole list to choose from and apparantly we don't even need a reason, that's the beauty of it. You are right Bush had the balls to show the world that the USA doesn't need shit for justification. Go W.

now now, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not going to reargue the reasons for the war other than to say that I believe it was in our best interests in the war on terror, in our national security, and the best hope for eventual peace. There's no certain outcome, I could be wrong, but I believe I'm not.
Freedom will be a product of our efforts over there if we succeed, and Peace follows freedom. Thats the concept. Maybe it'll end up a huge disaster, but that cannot be judged at this time. I believe as W does that the human desire for freedom is a powerful force and will prevail.

It would be nice if we could play superman and topple all dictatorships but a this point we strictly limit it to dictatorships that are a threat to our national security.

But I'll do a one up on another famous simpleton and change his lyrics to "All You Need is Freedom". To me, that trumps the original.

and I never said you don't stand for freedom. You just don't think that it's worth American lives for the freedom of the Iraqis. Neither do I but I do think it's worth the cost to facilitate a safer, more peaceful and prosperous middle east.

Again, I believe the status quo (poverty, corruption, terrorism, etc.) was unacceptable and I've yet to hear how the status quo would would be any different if we didn't go in.

I'll take it a step further and ask the question of what the world would be like had we not gone into Vietnam? or any war for that matter? We can only guess. My guess would be quite different than yours I imagine.

 

[Do Miss America]

Freedom will be a product of our efforts over there if we succeed, and Peace follows freedom. Thats the concept.

Yes it's still theory.

It would be nice if we could play superman and topple all dictatorships but a this point we strictly limit it to dictatorships that are a threat to our national security.

Well it ends up he didn't have WMDs but others do. Hmmm maybe keeping the inspectors would have saved us a lot of time, energy, and money.

But I'll do a one up on another famous simpleton and change his lyrics to "All You Need is Freedom". To me, that trumps the original.

Don't buy it.

Again, I believe the status quo (poverty, corruption, terrorism, etc.) was unacceptable and I've yet to hear how the status quo would would be any different if we didn't go in.

But you're still describing a lot of countries. Don't kid yourself this is not the reason we went to war. It was never a reason given by Bush and Co it was always WMDs. If it was humanitary reasons there are several other places to give our energy before Iraq. We went into Iraq to create a front in a frontless war, WMDs just an excuse. People fell for it.

I'll take it a step further and ask the question of what the world would be like had we not gone into Vietnam? or any war for that matter? We can only guess. My guess would be quite different than yours I imagine.

Never did I say I was a pacifist so I'm not sure why you are asking me this question.

 

[sue4u2]

People fell for it.

Just appeal to most everyone who has a TV and a house and a car and they will stop asking questions..
or something like that..
For the record I didn't come up with that quote. It was said by someone - some us know and love.
but.. I saw and heard this 'reasoning' all during this last election.
I am still asking "them" what exactly was the real reason you voted the way you did and when I find out, I still can't help but say - "I'm glad you thought not having gay's marry or because W claims he was a God fearing man, was worth all the men and women lives you haven't had to bury in a worthless excuse of a War."
and by the way, what exactly was this War all about?
"they" have a hard time answering, now"

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Compared to the Neo-cons, and the Far Right Theocratic wings {oh- btw I'm not an aetheist} of The Republican Party???
...........

Okay, in my personal opinion, radical left and radical right are both a wee bit terrifying.

 

[drhark]

Yes it's still theory.

Well it ends up he didn't have WMDs but others do. Hmmm maybe keeping the inspectors would have saved us a lot of time, energy, and money.

He kicked the inspectors out. He let them back in when we threatened war

But you're still describing a lot of countries. Don't kid yourself this is not the reason we went to war. It was never a reason given by Bush and Co it was always WMDs. If it was humanitary reasons there are several other places to give our energy before Iraq. We went into Iraq to create a front in a frontless war, WMDs just an excuse. People fell for it.

Ok. the anti-war folks always rejected the WMD excuse for war. So they assign their own theories on why we went to war such as oil, Halliburton, hegemony, to create a front, to kill innocent people because we're evil. etc. So I spell out the reason I think we're there and it's "No, man- It's always been WMDs". WMD was the #1 sales pitch but not the only reason given for war- these have been gone over in other posts. The war had to be sold to the American people- that's what politics is. The sum of all the factors was why we went- not just one reason.
[/B][/QUOTE]

 

[BVS]

He kicked the inspectors out. He let them back in when we threatened war

And then we took them out to strike, little prematrue don't you think?

You can convince yourself all you want about why. The truth is our reason were not noble. It wasn't about freedom. There are many on the list that would have needed this before Iraq.

 

[drhark]

And then we took them out to strike, little prematrue don't you think?

You can convince yourself all you want about why. The truth is our reason were not noble. It wasn't about freedom. There are many on the list that would have needed this before Iraq.

I wont be so quick to claim "truth" and neither should you.
Is Halliburton the "truthful reason"?
I have my opinion, I'm 99% sure I'm right, but I'd be a fool to claim it as truth.

Again, freedom was one of the many reasons that broke the threshold for going to war. Other nations haven't reached that same threshold.

I'm not trying to simplify things by attaching the idea of freedom as the light at the end of the tunnel in this mess. The reasons for war were complex. You're trying to simplify it by saying its just a Bush/neocon/Halliburton power play.

 

[verte76]

I will agree that this whole issue is very complex. I opposed the invasion, but not because I had any sympathy with Saddam. He wasn't the only odious dictator on the planet. But he *was* an odious dictator, no question. And there's still a chance that the elected government will be too hard-line Shi'ite Muslim.

 

[dazzledbylight]

Okay, in my personal opinion, radical left and radical right are both a wee bit terrifying.

well, I'm not a full-on throttle radical leftist -- but then again the republicans in general have pushed the general parameters of the Left to Right Continiumso Far to the Right , that what was considered oh 'liberal' Repupublican like Mayor John Lindsey >who was approved of in the then Republican Party]of NYC mid-late 60's [ i realize alot of you have never heard of him, but no other person comes to my mind quickly] is considered close to fairly left-leaning Democrat today maybe even 'worse' by some standards.
Sorry...brain is ...slowing...down....getting...late...

I'm a proud Liberal Democratic with a bit of Leftist in me , as well.

 

[drhark]

then again the republicans in general have pushed the general parameters of the Left to Right Continiumso Far to the Right ,

I never believe this rhetoric that the coountry has gone so far right. Yes, Republicans have been winning elections lately and the leftward drift may have slowed down, so it may seem that way to some, but I'm not familiar with a whole lot of legislation that has undone many liberal policies.

But let's hope this changes!

The term "progressive" is odd to me. How long do we "progress" for? Who says when progress is no longer necessary? The civil rights movement was definitely progress, but now its evolved into affirmative action. This isn't progress to me. Seems that over taxation hinders the progress of industry and wealth creation.

 

[diamond]

i liked that handle you had-U2andPolitix, Ms U2democrat

very cool.

you should ressurect it.
when you post as u2democrat some might think your views will only be slanted left where as U2andPolitix appears to have more of a broad universal appeal or ring to it.

just a thought.

db9

 

[verte76]

well, I'm not a full-on throttle radical leftist -- but then again the republicans in general have pushed the general parameters of the Left to Right Continiumso Far to the Right , that what was considered oh 'liberal' Repupublican like Mayor John Lindsey >who was approved of in the then Republican Party]of NYC mid-late 60's [ i realize alot of you have never heard of him, but no other person comes to my mind quickly] is considered close to fairly left-leaning Democrat today maybe even 'worse' by some standards.
Sorry...brain is ...slowing...down....getting...late...

I'm a proud Liberal Democratic with a bit of Leftist in me , as well.

I know what you mean. I vaguely remember stuff about Lindsay's "Give a Damn Campaign", that was pretty cool. Some people who were Republicans in the past are unhappy with what's going on in the party now. I'm a proud liberal myself, I've been raising hell for a couple of decades now.