Is this forum conservative? Why?

[camaraderie]

You wanna talk about the cost of the war?
One has to consider the costs of the alternative, which in this case was leaving Saddam Hussein in power...do you KNOW what the cost of THAT would have been in human lives and $$?? Economically, what matters in a war is whether you win or lose. It is as simple as that.
How about the TRILLION the economy lost as a result of 9/11 due to CLINTON not getting Osama and treating terrorism like a crime instead of a war?
You wanna see the list of dems pre and during the Bush years that SUPPORTED going to war with Iraq? That said Iraq had WMD's...BEFORE Bush was even elected? One of them is YOUR secretary of state now.
Typical liberal crap slinging.

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by hangalen

We're fooled into bickering about petty sums for social programs while corporations and the war machine rob us blind. It's the age old conservative foolery of whining about feeding the hungry while electing crooks to rob the country of sums that make any concern over social programs irrelevant.

They are distracting us with petty bull*** so they can get on with their real agenda - and it ain't immigration or schools folks. Cheney just ripped us off for trillions and we want to argue about mexican's getting food stamps????

The myth that the great wealth of this nation is being spent on social programs is playing small town politics with the wealthiest nation on earth. We can feed, house, clothe, school and medicate everyone without a blip in our taxes once we do away with the war machine and corporate giveaway.

And yes we should take away benefits for congress, so they vote with their own vested interests in mind.

- Han

Didn't you post the same line of malarkey here last year about this time under a different name? Or is it a standard text at the conspiracy site?

[brk101]

We can all agree that there are examples of politicians who seem to think that the rules don't apply (Tom Daschle, Randy Cunningham, Congressman Foley, Richard Nixon) the list goes on. What bugs me is the selective recall people employ to formulate their political outlook.

One poster said Sadam was evil and heaven knows what he would do next if not stopped. The fact that he was responsible for ONE MILLION deaths in the Iran-Iraq proves that, but what does our complicity with him in suppling war materials and satellite intelligence to target Iran in that war make us? Which ex-Secretary of Defense and which ex-Vice-President have their smiling faces photographed with Sadam? (Hint: Rumsfeld, Cheney) Or does anyone remember the USS Stark that was attacked by our ally Iraq in 1988 that left 133 sailors dead when George the First was at the tiller?

While G W Bush gets to whack weeds in Waco, 4300 and counting brave soldiers get to push up weeds for eternity. Add in 10,000 permanently maimed, 100,000 wounded mentally and physically and 100,000 Iraqis dead for good measure, ONE TRILLION dollars is a gross under estimate of this little excursion into Iraq. To boot, conservatives claim fiscally superiority, well how about a nice war tax for everyone who supported this blood bath. (There's a spot on the 1040 form for your voluntary contributions to pay down the national debt these morons ran up - only $5.7 trillion under Bush et al)

Now we can argue all day long about US foreign policy(spelled OIL addiction), but a disaster is a disaster. At least be objective enough to admit who was in charge and when.

We are all Americans and I would hope we would all be for righting the ship of state. I'm pretty sure most people agree things are not going swimmingly, so let's lay our partisan differences aside and try to evaluate problems and solutions that have the promise of the greatest good for the greatest number.

[PBzeer]

For someone who worries about "dittoheads", you certainly spout the MoveOn.org talking points fluently brk. Or perhaps it's the Daily Kos or Huffington Post. Doesn't really matter.

We've seen though what Iran, the chief sponsor of Islamic terrorism, thinks about Bambi's grovelling on Arab TV. Now, instead of them looking over their shoulder for incoming, we can go back to doing it here. Perhaps that's what you call righting the ship of state, but I don't.

Nor do I find the "Keep Dems in Power Act", otherwise known as the urgently necessary stimulus bill, to be an improvement. If federal spending was the answer, we'd already be rolling in clover.

[AE28]

Originally Posted by brk101

We are all Americans and I would hope we would all be for righting the ship of state. I'm pretty sure most people agree things are not going swimmingly, so let's lay our partisan differences aside and try to evaluate problems and solutions that have the promise of the greatest good for the greatest number.

AGREED!!!

[PBzeer]

That's surely a great sentiment to agree with, but just how is the "Ship of State" listing, that it needs to be righted? Or perhaps what he actually meant was the economy, which isn't the ship of state.

[poopdeckpappy]

Originally Posted by brk101

Who would inform their world view with the mutterings of a drug addict?

You do realize that you, along with 53% of the US voted for a President used Cocaine right ??

[AE28]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

That's surely a great sentiment to agree with, but just how is the "Ship of State" listing, that it needs to be righted? Or perhaps what he actually meant was the economy, which isn't the ship of state.

Just my opinion, but I think they go hand-in-hand.

[PBzeer]

AE - while they certainly are tangential, they aren't codependent on each other. For instance, under Carter, we had similar economic turmoil, yet I doubt that any who find the ship of state in need of righting at this time, would feel that was necessary back then.

Though there has been much TALK about doing what's right for the American people, the ACTIONS, to this point, are all about doing what's right for the Democratic Party.

Symbolism is nice, but it's time for some substance, and until Washington comes to that conclusion, nothing worthwhile will be accomplished there. We've been living in a state of economic "emergency" for over 4 months now. Constantly being told we have to act, and act now. And what do we get? We get a bill over 600 pages long, that puts us $819 billion deeper in debt, that got ONE DAY of debate.

And this is while there are ways of stimulating the economy that will generate revenue, rather than spend what we don't have. How? Open up ANWR and offshore drilling. They can throw the whole damn stimulus at alternative energy, but we still need oil. But rather than put people to work, generate royalties and tax revenue, they sit in DC and dream about a world without fossil fuel.

So, as I said, a nice sentiment, but that's all it is. Just more words.

[N0NJY]

Originally Posted by cardiacpaul

Maybe pounding on the table and ranting works for you, but for me, I rather enjoy having an informal discourse that does not include over 1000 words in a post or a complete congressional record of a bill.

1) I don't post pictures, and you will just take what I say out of context if I keep it short. Sorry, you get the explanation. Don't read it, read the first line of a paragraph and move on.

2) I didn't post the entire bill, just most of it

Yes, I've certainly done my share of that and have been politely told that being able to make your point in a clear, concise manner goes much further than what can be perceived to be the rantings of a lunatic.

You know very well I'm neither ranting, nor lunatic and yet you persist in insisting I am. This is called "Attempting to discredit the poster by attacking his person".

Please be put on notice by me (and me alone) that I don't really need to have the Constitution slapped at me at every opportunity, I'm familiar with it, thank you..

Obviously you're NOT familiar, as I can tell by several of your postings. You seem to think it is "OK to have some laws limiting abilities to own guns". Thus, I WILL slap it in your face and the face of every person in the United States that continues with that idiotic stance.

I understand that you are passionate about your feelings and opinions.

Again, obviously, you feel like some others I shouldn't be allowed on this site at all.

Please, take this opportunity to consider that others may not want to go thru the trouble of putting you on ignore, but so much of what you write is really pissing people off

Good. If they are pissed off, that means they are at least paying some attention to some parts of what I say. I don't care about their "feelings" when it comes to the Second Amendment and the Constitution, and individual rights. They have the right to walk away, they don't have the right to tell me that I can't have guns (and they don't have the right to TELL YOU THAT EITHER).

( ok, pissing me off).Its not what you write about so much as the sheer volume.

I've gone through this before. The point is simple. Write two lines on a subject and you get misquoted, taken out of context and your "one liners" are used against you.

There's NO issue with me explaining a point (which you apparently don't get ANYWAY). The only waste here, is my breath to people who continue to think that it is ok for the government to take individual rights, a little bit at a time. If you don't listen and take up the case yourself, then you're the one in the wrong. Not me.

(because I write TOO much for you? That argument is intellectually LAZY.)

You and I have the same views on many subjects and for what its worth, your additions here are welcome (to me) but I can see where the rantings are a bit grating and it dilutes your message.

You just got finished saying what I write pisses you off - "sheer volume"....

I'll keep it very concise for everyone then.

How's this.

"What part of 'shall not infringe' do you people NOT understand?"

(Ok, now about the people who go into "hunting" and "fishing" and "the second amendment - just as an example - how do you go on to not explain it to them???????)