Yeah? And how’s that workin’ for ya? The world we all live in is monopolized by conservatives.
Maybe we have considered them, and we rejected them? I’m sorry if we liberals aren’t going to all of a sudden drop everything we believe in and fall in line with you.
Is there a cite for the OP. I don’t doubt it, but I would like to reference it on another board for folks.
Hey, I have no problem with escapism. I just wish you wouldn’t muddy the waters of other people’s political discussions with your masturbation.
A-fucking-men. Turning the Democratic Party into “Libertarian Lite”, isn’t gonna do jack shit. The reason Bush got re-elected is ignorant voters - plain and simple. Even as late as February 2005, a disturbingly high percentage of Americans are ignorant about the facts in Iraq:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544
64 percent believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (up slightly from 62% in November).
47 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 (up six percentage points from November).
44 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis (up significantly from 37% in November).
36 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded (down slightly from 38% in November).
What good is the truth when people refuse to believe it?
There was plenty of calm, rational, cogent, and evidence-based opposition to the war in Iraq well before the invasion even occured. There has been much calm, rational, cogent, and evidence-based opposition since. Your protestations against “screeching” ignore the fact that even calm, sober, measured arguments were repeatedly rejected by the Administration and its supporters.
Well, you’ve still to convince me that Jones’s change of heart was about the issue of “freedom.” Nowhere does he say that in any of the news reports i’ve read about his desire to bring the troops home. In fact, although he concedes that the whole WMD issue was based on bad intelligence, and blames neocons in the Administration for “poor war planning,” he has not even conceded that his vote to invade was the wrong choice. He says “I voted for the resolution to commit the troops, and I feel that we’ve done about as much as we can do.” No indication that we never should have been there in the first place.
By the way, do you think the fact that his district includes Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point marine bases, and that he probably has plenty of constituents who want their husbands and wives and sons and daughters home from Iraq, has anything to do with his decision? To tell you the truth, i think that any call for withdrawal now from someone who was so gung-ho in favor of the war is nothing but blatant political opportunism. I was against the war in the first place, but now that it’s happened it would be the height of irresponsibilty simply to wash our hands of it and leave the Iraqis to their fate.
I am still, as the Brits say, gobsmacked that you can, with a straight face, blame liberals for the inability of conservative lawmakers to look beyond their own personal and party interests and think about the consequences of their actions, and the inability of conservative Americans to hold their own representatives accountable for their lies and obfuscations.
Hell, even if we give Jones the benefit of the doubt and concede that he truly believed that Iraq posed a threat to the United States, and that his vote for war was made in good faith, why has it taken him so long to arrive at his current position? We knew months and months ago that the whole WMD thing was bullshit, and the number of dead Americans passed the 1,000 mark last September. Surely, if he was the kind of guy whose conscience is pricked by writing condolence letters, he should have had his epiphany by then?
Are you asking for a news story about Jones’s new position? If so, here’s one, and Googling “Walter Jones” in the News section turns up plenty more.
I have the ABC interview on DVR. I don’t think that the transcript is posted yet. But here’s a link to a story on the Raleigh article.
I am trying in this godawful heat to follow this, god knows why.
Maybe the Dems(or modern American liberals, of which I consider myself one) are “divisive” by nature. Because they represent many many different groups. But here’s the thing: they want equal access to opportunity for all those groups; they want a level playing field for all, and they want it, not just for the present people sitting in the catbird seat, but for future generations.
Hence, as a liberal/progressive/Dem–I am pro-choice (how’s that for advocating freedom or is the health and welfare of American women a special interest niche?), I am pro-environmental standards that don’t rape the sky, water and earth(there’s a narrowly-focused porkbarrel for ya); I am pro-national health care, since “freedom” here seems to mean “freedom to go bankrupt by medical bills and now it’s harder to declare it and start anew”.
As for choice in hiring, it sure would be nice if we could get to the point where the color of one’s skin or one’s gender or religion or sexual orientation wasn’t looked at upon interviewing. You have any solutions to the insidiousness that is institutionalized racism/sexism/pure outrigt prejudice, I’d be happy to listen.
Maybe you just don’t know how to convey truth. How successful do you suppose Giraffe will be in getting across to me whatever damnable point it is he is trying to make? How am I to see past his taunting and condescension to hear whatever it is he’s trying to say? Maybe y’all should stop assuming that everybody who offers suggestions is your enemy, and that people who advocate liberty are stupid. That’s why it seems like you’re ashamed of the words. You make fun of them.
Let’s see if you mean that. I recommend you let the market put them out of existence. Despite what you might have heard, it was people who took to the streets and forced government to make changes that brought about civil rights. It is not the case that an enlightened government stirred the hearts of its people. All government did was mollify those with the most political clout. Government does, and will do no more than, whatever is politically expedient. That’s why Indians still have no political voice, and gays can’t get married.
No, no, no! We’re not making fun of the words. We’re making fun of you. Leave the words out of it. The words are innocent victims in all this.
As for how successful I’ll be in getting my damnable point across, my guess is not at all, if history is any guide. You seem to have anti-criticism blinders which flip on whenever someone criticizes how and what you post.
Not very, apparently. But that’s not *his * fault, any more than the Republicans’ actions are the Democrats’ fault.
Um, perhaps by reading it and thinking about it?
Did you consider “a thousand screeching Kennedys” to be an overture to reasoned discourse? Hypocritical shithead.
Exactly and Libertarians should return to their original usernames instead of using disengenuous false and misleading ones.
Then it is an uncanny coincidence that you make fun of everyone who uses the words.
That is demonstrably false. If I show you dozens of instances in which compelling argument has convinced me that I was wrong this year alone, would you recant that accusation? Or is it something you you’ve already decided regardless of evidence to the contrary.
What is with your Kennedy fixation? Why do you take insult from that?
Oh, that’s rich, considering your own username. At least mine is factually accurate, while yours belies a man who refuses to examine an argument, but instead hops on the bandwagon that experiences the fewest bumps in the road.
What is your Kennedy fixation, my friend? Why do you make it an insult?
No, but it would be a helluva band name.
Watch out, or you are going to get this rugged individualist and opponent of centralized government to start crying foul because he has a moderator’s ruling about the use of his screen name.