Davis Terminated! Arnold becomes Gov...

[HotRoddin]

Originally posted by 84_GT350
To me, the guy'll always be a pandering moron (much like certain other elected officials of higher power).

Problem is the dumb bastards fell for it.

Everybody on the planet is an idiot except you huh ??
Us "dumb bastards" out here in the Golden State have managed to put together the 5th largest economy on the planet ... imagine that ??
"Pandering moron" ... The thing i dislike most about flaming liberals is their propensity to insist that people take a weak unsubstantiated opinion as fact ... "hey if we all just keep calling him an idiot and a moron and a buffoon, pretty soon everyone will just take it as fact !!!" Heres one of my favorites ... "Well everybody knows hes a moron" Really ??? I'm callin ya out bro .... how do you figure a guy that comes to this country with basically nothing ... fighting obstacle after obstacle, manages to completely on his own become a multi millionaire and has been that way almost since the beginning???? Not only that but manages to convince 4 or 5 million Californians to put him in the governers mansion. Moron huh ? got something other than rhetoric to support that ? Lets hear it ? What makes him a moron ? While you're at it since you toss those thinly vailed criticisms at "George W" around, you might want to let us know how a buffoon got to be the leader of the free world ? Hanging chads in florida ??? Didn't buy it then ... don't buy it now ! You may or may not agree with the dicisions he's made but what has he done that makes him a moron or an idiot ?? Please be specific ... exactally what makes him a moron?

[84_GT350]

Jeez...this should be easy. Ok...as for Arnold...I'm sick of everyone touting his acclaims as "someone who came here with nothing and now he's a millionaire". Holy crap...it's sooooo hard for an insanely ripped guy to break into Hollywood. Especially if it's for a brainless roll in crappy 70's movies. He's a millionaire because he was a body builder who happened to get noticed in a documentary while smoking weed after winning the Mr. Universe title. Or did you carefully omit that part? My thoughts on why he's a moron: have you ever seen a movie of his that involved significant dialogue (i.e. anything besides Conan and the Terminator flicks) that he was good in? Go ahead...tell me he made a good actor in Kindergarten Cop or in Commando or Twins. He's a f@ckin dolt. And apparently, yes, California does have 4 or 5 million "dumb bastards" (using your words there) that would elect this tool to office. Either that or a change to a legitimate governor wouldn't have made a good enough sound bite for you all. 5th largest economy, eh? Are you taking credit for that? It can't be all of the computer companies saw an opportunity to set up shop there. And it certainly isn't because that's the bloodline of the movie industry and has been for damn near 100 years, is it? you know...the same people you were criticising 6 months ago for apposing the war in Iraq. They aren't a HUGE part of that economy, now are they? Now, how am I a "flaming liberal"? I like my guns and my tobacco...I guess I must be one of those danged democrats we've heard so much about. Sorry *******, I don't subscribe to either side of the polictical fence. Doing so only makes you a petty and biased part of our political system. People should vote for what they think is right...not who belongs to what party. As for our beloved president...since you went there I'll follow and this is even easier than Arnold. I'm not a fan of any man who can't pronounce simple words like nuclear (not nucular) or who makes up forms of government as he sees fit (in his state of the union address he referred to Hitlerism. Wow...I'm unfamiliar with that...I always figured Hitler was a Nazi). Secondly he's kept our people in harms way for way too long with a lot of double talk and bullsh!t. Either the people of Iraq are good people who know what's right or they're not and we need our troops there. If they're good folks we can pull out. But surely a country full of good people could overcome some "limited" pockets of resistance, right? Apparently not. Add to that he's got a pretty checkered past....what with the drinking and drugs and all and he adds up to a pretty piss poor elected official. Keep in mind (not to drudge up old events) that if not for our electorial college he wouldn't be in office...he lost the popular vote. The first priority of any given government is the protection and fair treatment of it's citizens. How can we pull this off when we're like a drunk in a bar swinging a bottle taking on all comers (I hear we don't like Cuba again...Syria's f@cked too)? I'm sorry...either that man's a douche bag or everyone he's appointed as "advisors" to do his thinking for him are douche bags because this country's gone to hell in a handbasket because of all of this crap. So if calling me a flaming liberal makes you feel better go ahead...we both know it's not true. I just hate to see this country go to ***** because of partisan assholes who vote on party lines because that's what they think is best and then call out people who actually have REAL opinions because they don't line up with what they believe. If you don't agree with me, fine. I'm not the one who's gonna get bent over and done dry when this actor ******* screws up.

[Snakeman]

that REALLY bugs me!
my 4-year-old says it correctly, how come the pres of the united states of america CAN'T?

how can the ignorant rise to power?

daddy was pulling strings.

now we have KaliFourKneeYah as well as Nuculer...

pretty soon they will sneak prayer into our public schools and throw away all the science books to accomodate.

I think George Orwell missed by a couple decades

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by Snakeman :

that REALLY bugs me!
my 4-year-old says it correctly, how come the pres of the united states of america CAN'T?

Now there a deep thought - and sadly typical of the Bush-haters: no substance, just mindless attacks based on basically nothing at all, like the pronouncation of a word. Yeah, that should determine who we elect as president. How foolish and arrogant can you people get?

how can the ignorant rise to power?

daddy was pulling strings.

Yeah, that's it. Former President G.H.W. Bush 'pulled strings'. Never mind the Electoral College. Clueless leftists never cease to amaze us with their nonsensensical stateements and lack of understanding of politics, thinking that name-calling and wild accusations with not a shred of evidence to support them actually constitutes a political argument. It doesn't.

now we have KaliFourKneeYah as well as Nuculer..

I love to watch liberals go ballistic when the the American people freely elect a Republican. Eat your hearts out...we're still a democracy, Snake.

pretty soon they will sneak prayer into our public schools and throw away all the science books to accomodate.

I hope so. If for no other reason, just to see the leftists and the die-hard atheists squirm. They simply can't stsnd defeat. Tough. America is a nation based on Judeo-Christian principles. That most Americans respect that is something the leftists better get used to.

I think George Orwell missed by a couple decades.

I think you don't have a clue. Clinton isn't president any more and the days of Democrat politicians lying about Republicans and using smear tactics to defeat them - as was tried in California with Arnold Schwartzenegger - no longer work as well as they once did. Americans are not satisfied with name-calling and smears passing for actual rational thought. Leftists are a dying political breed in America - and not a moment too soon and postings like yours show why America is turning away from the all-hate-all-the-time attitudes of disgruntled democrats who can't take defeat and think lying and name-calling somehow make their hatred justified. Not.

[84_GT350]

What gives Mr 5 0? I thought you'd made your point and were giving up on this thread. You know...I've got a lot of respect for you what with starting this site (I cut my teeth on Mustangs with a lot of help from you and others on this site years ago) which is why I've tried to be as polite and respectable as possible. Apparently you haven't seen fit to return the favor. Apparently you just don't get it. All you've done is revert to meaningless sanctimony and typical rhetoric about "flaming liberals" that I hear everyday watching TV. Guess what...some of us don't like prayer in schools or presidents who get elected solely based on their last name. Yes, a president should among other things speak with poise and meaning because, among other things, it's a sign of intelligence. I like how you pointed out the electoral college. If not for that we'd have the lesser of two j@ck@sses seeing as how Bush didn't win the popular vote. Just because a person may lean more toward the "liberal" side (if you'd payed attention in Poli-Sci class you'd know the entire American political system is classically liberal) does NOT make them a "flaming liberal". So why all the hate? Seems to me you feel so wary or insecure about the validity of your own beliefs and ideas that you feel the need to ridicule anyone who's opinions differ from your own. You said yourself that you'd like to see certain things happen just "to see leftists and die-hard athiests squirm". Why? You wanna talk arrogance? This country is NOT based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. People of every religion and faith live here and I can't believe you'd be so arrogant to disregard them just because you don't agree with them. But then again that feeds into my other point. Myself, I'm agnostic...NOT atheist. I'm not arrogant enough to claim to know who or what god is and those who DO claim that or that they know "what god wants" should be ashamed of themselves. Clinton was a total douche and I love how people dredge him up every time there's a democrat-republican debate, like he's a good example. Here's a crash course in politics: EVERYONE LIES ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE. It's not a party thing. You use words like "us" which to me says you feel you represent an entire party or school of thought. Trust me, I know some die-hard republicans who would be embarrassed by your diatribe. Yes, America is pulling back from the left but that's because they're scared and many to the right have a "if I can't understand it then it's gotta die" attitude (notice I said many, not all). When people are frightened they'll turn wherever they can for a feeling of comfort. Why these people think the right will give them comfort is beyond me...like wars with anyone anytime anywhere will make us that much safer. But there you have it. Basically I think everything you've said is incredibly biased and pompous and that you need to open your mind a little more to other possibilities. I know it's scary...but there's a good chance you aren't right.

[Unit 5302]

While pondering the quickly falling Alexa rating on this site I decided to take a look at how much traffic it truly has, and I accidentally stumbled across a topic that Mr 5.0 last posted on.

Naturally intrigued, I decided to take a peek. Here's what a find. Somebody from Kansas (a state the voted to remove the theory of evolution from education) denoucing California (a state that re-wrote the history books to be politically correct) as populated by morons.

Since I work in a slightly savvy division of one of the largest brokerage's in the world, I have no idea about this business stuff, but let me put it this way. California is home to a phenominal amount of large business, and has extremely successful, intellegent, and savvy business professionals. While the Midwest no doubt has, per capita, more large businesses because of cities like Minneapolis, Chicago, Detriot, St. Louis, and Kansas City (Missouri), they lack the professional financial credentials to manage such businesses.

California is in it's current predicament because of the cost of living there. The cost of living remains so high because of the favorable weather, high paying jobs, technology, recreation, and an often elite workforce. Obviously in the current age of cutting costs by layoffs, and moving jobs overseas will hurt the areas it's most expensive to live in hardest. California has experienced that first hand. Since Kansas is largely a farm based economy with little technology, low population density, modest big business, and a low cost of living, it's going to be hit much less hard. This stacks things against California from the beginning, but what the most difficult thing to understand about California is how much money it spends. I'm not even sure where their money goes. They have the highest tax rate in the country, and they have the most Fortune and Forbes 500 companies located there, yet they have a significant budget deficit, and a horrible loan rating.

On to putting "budget deficit" into perspective, just because the democratic media, and those from the Donkey party love throwing it around. It DOES NOT EXIST.... yet. The budget deficit is a forecast of what it will be, given certain economic conditions. If the economy turns around, the deficit is largely erased without any changes.

Arnold is underqualified for the position of California governor. Jesse Ventura was somewhat more qualified, but still underqualified for the position of Minnesota governor. If you think Ventura did a bad job governing this state, before he gave up after the partisan congress decided they weren't going to do a damn thing for the citizens of this state because they didn't like the governor, you're sorely mistaken. Though I will not agree with everything he did, he managed to set Minnesota up financially to be in very good shape considering the circumstances when the massive fallout occured after 9/11. Minnesota went from 3rd highest taxed state in the country to 12th during Ventura's campaign, and that includes the out of control leftist spending he veto'd and the legislature over-ruled. As proof of our financial situation, Minneapolis has remained the best or at the very least one of the very best major metropolitan areas in terms of unemployment. Minnesota is also in the top 10 wage vs cost of living states in the country.

How was this done? Ventura played a huge roll in forcing spending cutbacks, and the re-distribution of funding while taking the advice of an excellent cabinet. Would any other cantidate have performed as well? Certainly none that ran.

The governor is a position better used to explain the position of the state to the public, and put massive pressure on the legislature to uphold their promises to the taxpayers. In terms of policy, the governor should be well versed in economics, but also select a highly qualified cabinet of advisors who are EXPERTS at their individual fields to council him on difficult topics. Arnold is the nearly perfect cantidate to place in the governors seat because he isn't compromised by special interests, didn't lie by making up a false platform which indicates he understands he's not qualified to determine the entire economic and social policy of California, and has a tremendous amount of public appeal. The ONLY way to get California back on the track to stability is to dangle the jobs of the legislators above their heads by public pressure. It's a long, very tedious, and tiring job. Hopefully he'll have that last year in him that Ventura ran out of gas in.

Posting anti-Bush/anti-republican banter with no knowledge whatsoever regarding how economics, and social policy works is annoying, but rampent in the democratic cantidates. In short, most democrats never shut the hell up and let a person get a word in because they're too damn pleased with their meaningless partisan banter. Wake up, it's your happiness, and livelyhood, not a football game.

In summary (no particular order):

1. Mustangworks has become extremely slow traffic wise.
2. Californian's are often savvy businesspeople, not idiots.
3. Governor's should not try to run the state on their own.
4. The best governor's take advice from experts, command public attention and respect so they can wield it against corrupt legislators, and special interests.
5. Democrat's are often more interested in playing political games than they are in their own livelyhood.
6. The Budget Deficit isn't a reality, it's a projection.
7. Arnold Schwartzenneger has the necessary components to be a great governor.
8. People from Kansas should be careful when calling people from other states morons.
9. California has the cards stacked against it due to it's cost of living.
10. ...and Unit 5302 is smarter than you are, and can be forced to post by huge amounts of stupidity spewed in a single location.

All in all, a post that accomplishes a lot.

Brought to you by Unit 5302, devoted supporter of the "anti-political party" party.

[84_GT350]

To clarify...I'm not from Kansas...I'm here because it has the best auto tech school in the country. I can't stand this little podunk town.

[StangFlyer]

IMHO... Unit 5302 is mostly wrong about point "a", but otherwise an amusing read.

Alexa has absolutely no way to accurately track visits to any web site, much less this one... As a whole, the traffic on MW has not fallen at all (beyond up and down typical trends during the months of the year already shown over time). Albeit the message board fell off over the summer, as it typically does, it is starting to pick back up. And, in fact, the number of membership registrations each week has been increasing since last month quite a bit. In addition, remember that there is a lot more to this site than just the message forums. So, forum activity does not indicate overall site traffic by any means.

My end point... I know what the traffic is here... It's logged, archived, tracked, and has nightly reports generated on it. The message forum software also can generate statistics, on demand, of registrations, posts, etc.. No other source outside our network has access, or can possible have, that information. If some outside site claims our traffic has drastically decreased... it's not accurate.

[Unit 5302]

Sorry Dan,

Alexa is usually pretty accurate unless somebody is intentionally playing with the numbers. It's why Corral and Stangnet are ranked in the top 30,000 english speaking sites in the world, and Mustangworks is 147,000.

The rating compares the number of hits, page views, and reach that a site has.

While the forums aren't the only reason people visit, it's one of the biggest that actually shows your sites attractiveness to users. The artificial increase in memberships can probably directly be attributed to you altering the need to be a member to view pictures, ie 2005 Mustang. That will do a lot to increase members, but nothing to increase the number of people visiting. Oh, I can understand why you would choose to do that. Not only does it make a good number to point to when claiming the site is still "hopping" but it also keeps expensive (though this site doesn't seem to use too much anymore) bandwidth from being linked all over the internet at your expense.

Also, summer was always a little slow, but there have been 2 posts in female power in the last 10 days, one of them is "quiet?". BOL has about 5 active threads on a given day, SRC has been dead as noted by Sky.

The message board is the life of this site, and without it, the site would be completely unknown because the individual members are your advocates and mainly your advertising, though it looks like a couple new pop-ups have shown up for fun.

[Dark_5.0]

"...and Unit 5302 is smarter than you are, and can be forced to post by huge amounts of stupidity spewed in a single location."

What exactly qualifies you to be smarter than the rest of us. Other than your opinion.

Come on lets compare.

[Snakeman]

so predictable.

your point-by-point analysis of my post smacks of *personal attack*, but i'll ignore that.

putting the God myth in school textbooks just because many believe it is hogwash. people used to believe the earth was flat. some still do. the god myth was created by primative men who had no knowledge of science or scientific method. they believed in a geocentric universe and the bible (i assume this is your myth of choice) reflects this. If the bible is the word of god, how come he thought the earth was in the center? how can your god be wrong? i thought he was omnipotent.

so many believe in the god myth because it is taught to children before they have any reasoning or logic skills. kids would believe that the color blue is green if you told them that from the time they were babies.

to incorporate the god myth into public education, to me, is like teaching Tolkien as fact.

Here's a pretty good demolition of the Creationist Agenda and the God Myth in general;
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/

religion kills.
more folks have died because of your god, or their god, or someone else's god than in all the traffic accidents, diseases and other causes put together.

believe what you please, but don't teach fantasy bs in the school system as 'truth'. We have come a long way in the last thousand years, why undo it?

anyway, sorry to go off topic like that.


unit5302:

pretty reasonable arguments for a rightie except that your characterizing the deficit as something that hasn't happened is bull. there are CONTRACTS in place already. the money is SPENT just like your car payment for the next whatever period. just because you haven't received your bill yet doesn't mean it won't come.
unfortunately, every month the same bills show up.


California, and every other state gets about the same bills each month/quarter/year. unless there are big disasters, most stuff is already calculable.

the deficit is real.
arnold is in over his head and we can have another recall if we get tired of him.


i think the ONLY reason that people voted for him is that most people think arnold is his character that he plays in the movies. everyone knows the name, so he was bound to win right out of the box. once people realize he's just a guy, the novelty will wear off and we'll be saddled with the very reality of a republican gov in california.

i expect more recession, job losses and people and business flocking OUT of the state in the next several years.

i have been considering moving out of state.

[Dark_5.0]

"The God Myth"

You are entitled to your opinion. The good thing about it is unlike alot of debates. We will all get to find out if "The God Myth" is true or not.

[StangFlyer]

Unit 5302 - You crack me up. You say, sorry Dan... but, your response says... "I am still right and Alexa can't be wrong, and I know your traffic is lower. The message board proves it." Well, you are wrong. Also, you are still trying to say it all hinges on message board traffic, and that is wrong too. Although forum traffic does help a lot, it doesn't necessarily determine overall traffic levels on a site as a whole. MW's media center, user's rides, articles, and several other areas of the site are HIGHLY popular... and receive a lot of traffic; even without the message board.

In addition, Alexa does not have access to our web server logs, and there is no way it can track our traffic with any accuracy. The only thing Alexa tells is that less people clicked on Google search links to go to MW than a couple other sites. So what? There are thousands of people who come here every single day directly, through other search engines, and by clicking on links at hundreds of other web sites. Alexa can't track that either. Maybe Alexa shows some rating or traffic tracking that is lower than some other sites, but that is only based on what it can track. That's only clicks through Google search page results and anyone who installs the Alexa toolbar on Internet Explorer (if it even has that capability). Again, so what. I've never even seen anyone who has the "Alexa toolbar" installed. That tells me how widely used that is. Google is only one of many search engines out there and only a small percentage of our overall unique users each day initially get here through a google link.

Regardless, I like how you just "threw in" trying to poke at MW during the start of a post that really had nothing to do with MW or its traffic. It appears like your purpose in posting within this thread was an attempt to slam on MW, be an advocate for our competition, and put down some of its members while you also claim to be more intelligent and knowledgeable than everyone else. Too bad.

Now:

1] The only reason the Female Power forum died was because GC2 has launched as a complete Web site (where MW and GC2 are partnered) with its own dedicated forums. And, thus this forum is being removed.

2] Please keep this thread on topic to Arnold, California, and politics. MW is not the topic. I have already stated my position, the facts, and feel no need to debate it further.

[Unit 5302]

Snakeman, you got 1/2 the equation right, which is the spending part. The part you haven't seemed to notice is the income part. Income fluctuates with the economy. The deficit is projected income based on predicted economic conditions - spending.

In simple terms X - Y = Z.

Where X = predicted income, Y = known expenditures, and Z = the surplus or deficit. So, while Y is pretty much a known constant, X is not, and is based solely on forecasts. If the economy shifts, X increases dramatically, Y remains the same, and the deficit decreases dramatically.

In terms of Mr 5.0's faith, it's what he believes. Kansas believes it too, since they banned the most widely accepted scientific theory of evolution from their schools. Apparently, the knowledge we have aquired is more influential than the teachings of an old and outdated religious affiliation. That being said, the teachings of the Christian faith more than likely influence every decision you make as an adult American, regardless of whether you believe in the faith. Simply put, Christianity is the basis for almost all of our moral beliefs on what makes a "good person" good. To that, we obviously owe the religion quite a bit, but your analysis of the destruction and pain the very same entity has created as a direct result of the leaders' hypocrisy also contains great truth.

A brief summary would be that Christianity carries with it an extremely powerful and compelling concept that we are all loved and protected by a being with tremendous power, that we have the choice to continue existing, and that what we do in this life means something later. Fortunately, Christianity is meant to teach love, respect, and understanding. Unfortunately, such a powerful message is easily manipulated by the individuals with the responsibility to lead the faithful, and the people who seek such power often do so for their own benefit and agenda.

Dark 5.0, the mere notion that you would question my superiority over you in terms of intellegence, let alone all possible scenarios not limited to knowledge, wisdom, physical prowess, character, integrity, and charisma is just proof of your disasterous inferiority to me.

Simply put, you're apparently not intellegent enough to recognize just how much more intellegent I am than you. I apologize, but I cannot dumb it down more than that. Citing specific examples as I believe you requested would only depress you more as, by default, you wouldn't be able to understand them, either. Please accept my pity.

[84_GT350]

Originally posted by Unit 5302
[B]In terms of Mr 5.0's faith, it's what he believes. Kansas believes it too, since they banned the most widely accepted scientific theory of evolution from their schools. Apparently, the knowledge we have aquired is more influential than the teachings of an old and outdated religious affiliation. That being said, the teachings of the Christian faith more than likely influence every decision you make as an adult American, regardless of whether you believe in the faith. Simply put, Christianity is the basis for almost all of our moral beliefs on what makes a "good person" good. To that, we obviously owe the religion quite a bit, but your analysis of the destruction and pain the very same entity has created as a direct result of the leaders' hypocrisy also contains great truth.

Actually, Kansas repealed that decision shortly after it was handed down. People took a look at the education vs. beliefs debate and realized they were absolutely ludicrous. Plus Kansans didn't appreciate being the brunt of the world's jokes (yes, everyone everywhere thinks that ruling was complete garbage because it means you can basically throw out your entire science program...god did it all and that's all you need to know. What a load of *****.). God may or may not be a myth, but it's wrong to do things in his/her/it's name. Some many people twist the meanings of the parables in the bible (yes, parables...if you take those stories as direct fact you're just a blithering idiot) into whatever they want it to mean. On the whole the bible is a compelling story, but it's antiquated. It's very anti-woman and in some cases anti-tolerance. Plus if you're a baptist and you read the KJV then you're reading the version that King James thought would be best, not necessarily the whole story. Simply put, the bible is just a novel written by men...I don't see god sitting at a typewritter and going "here...read this...it's good stuff". Be careful when putting your faith in things written by man because on the whole man is infinitely flawed.

[Dark_5.0]

Dark 5.0, the mere notion that you would question my superiority over you in terms of intellegence, let alone all possible scenarios not limited to knowledge, wisdom, physical prowess, character, integrity, and charisma is just proof of your disasterous inferiority to me.

Simply put, you're apparently not intellegent enough to recognize just how much more intellegent I am than you. I apologize, but I cannot dumb it down more than that. Citing specific examples as I believe you requested would only depress you more as, by default, you wouldn't be able to understand them, either. Please accept my pity.
_____________________________________________

I think you put it best when you were on this site crying like a little beeotch a few years ago when you said "I guess I will always be just an internet guy."

I have seen a picture of your ugly @ss so lets dont even get into the physical prowess part of your pathetic attempt to sound smart.

As far as character, integrity and charisma go you wouldnt know a damn thing about it. People with these properties normally are not chronic @ssholes.

I understand that trying to sound smart and insult everyone on the internet is your way of expressing your alter ego cause in real life you are a ***** *** sorry excuse of a real man.

If only you knew

[Fox Body]

Originally posted by 84_GT350
... Some many people twist the meanings of the parables in the bible (yes, parables...if you take those stories as direct fact you're just a blithering idiot) into whatever they want it to mean. On the whole the bible is a compelling story, but it's antiquated. It's very anti-woman and in some cases anti-tolerance. Plus if you're a baptist and you read the KJV then you're reading the version that King James thought would be best, not necessarily the whole story. Simply put, the bible is just a novel written by men...I don't see god sitting at a typewritter and going "here...read this...it's good stuff". Be careful when putting your faith in things written by man because on the whole man is infinitely flawed.

***No one needs to take time to reply to my single insignificant post. Please read and move on.***

I just want to humbly confess that I am "just a blithering idiot." Have a nice day.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by 84_GT350 :

What gives Mr 5 0? I thought you'd made your point and were giving up on this thread.

Snakeman, to whom my last post was addressed (that's not you, is it?) simply annoyed me with his nonsensical outburst against Governor-elect Schwarzenegger and President Bush. It remains my option to post what and when I choose here, as it is yours

You know...I've got a lot of respect for you what with starting this site (I cut my teeth on Mustangs with a lot of help from you and others on this site years ago) which is why I've tried to be as polite and respectable as possible. Apparently you haven't seen fit to return the favor. Apparently you just don't get it.

Oh, I 'get it' alright. Both you and Snake have a mindless hatred for Republican office holders that you can't help venting. Yeah, I 'get it' very clearly. As for your 'respect': I do appreciate that but it has no bearing on what I post to anyone. My last post - again, directed at Snakeman - reflected his rather nasty little attack on Arnold Schwarzenegger and President Bush. I responded in kind, as I always do. You previously posted fairly calm messages to me and I replied in the same manner. Post nasty diatribles and you'll receive the same tone from me. Reaping and sowing I believe it's called. That's bibical.

All you've done is revert to meaningless sanctimony and typical rhetoric about "flaming liberals" that I hear everyday watching TV. Guess what...some of us don't like prayer in schools or presidents who get elected solely based on their last name.

All I've seen from you is calling a wildly successful actor with a degree in Economics and the holder of a huge fortune made in business as well as blockbuster movies - 'a moron' and you insinuate that he ran for Governor just to stoke his ego - which is nonsense, in my opinion, which is what all our exchanges amount to, for the most part. Guess what? Many Americans do want prayer in schools and think your dismissal of a successful president like George W. Bush is based on nothing but silly criticisms like his pronounciation of 'nuclear' and the fact that his father was once president, as if this enabled the elder Bush to negate Americans votes to somehow sneak his son into winning the presidency. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? . You willfully ignore President Bush's successes in favor of issuing petty insults and you seem to actually believe this equates to rational argument when it's simply childish name-calling.

Yes, a president should among other things speak with poise and meaning because, among other things, it's a sign of intelligence.

Yeah, Bill Clinton's Arkansas drawl and 'Aw, Shucks' mannerisms really impressed people no end. Not. Do you not yet see how foolish this superficial nit-picking sounds - and how useless it really is?

I like how you pointed out the electoral college. If not for that we'd have the lesser of two j@ck@sses seeing as how Bush didn't win the popular vote.

The Electoral vote determines the winner and by the way, Bill Clinton never won the popular vote, either, and liberals never complained one bit. Your low opinion of Bush and Gore is yours to hold but don't be so shocked and annoyed when others - like me - challenge you on it. That's how adults interact when they have political opinions so you had better get used to it if you want to go around bashing politicians based on little more than superficial nonsense like their accents.

Just because a person may lean more toward the "liberal" side (if you'd payed attention in Poli-Sci class you'd know the entire American political system is classically liberal) does NOT make them a "flaming liberal". So why all the hate?

'Hate'? Nice try at projection but I wasn't the one who called Governor-elect Schwartzenegger a 'moron' and spews contempt for the president...that would be: bi]you[/b], Kansas. Want to try again? You did get one thing half-right. The political system in the United States is 'classically' liberal, but that has zero, nada, no relation to the political liberalism we're discussing here, of the current Democrat variety which borders on and often embraces socialism. I suggest you be more cautious about attempting to lecture those you don't know about politics as they may know a whole lot more about it than you've leared in that Poli-Sci class you slept through, based on what you've posted here.

Seems to me you feel so wary or insecure about the validity of your own beliefs and ideas that you feel the need to ridicule anyone who's opinions differ from your own.

Ooooh, I love it when liberals try to play the psychoanalysis card. It's so cute. Unfortunately, ridicule is what Snakeman's opinions deserve and that's what they got. You want a serious, factual discussion? I gave you that, earlier, despite your silly name-calling, because I was trying to show you something, which you ignored and then boastfully and stubborly refused to concede that Arnold Schwartzenegger might be a better man than you gave him credit for. You want to post stupid name-calling attacks on Republicans you don't like: you get ridicule. Do you still not understand how this works, yet? Pity.

You said yourself that you'd like to see certain things happen just "to see leftists and die-hard athiests squirm". Why?

Are you sure you're really a college student or are you just faking it here? Do you not understand hyperbole. If you don't, look it up. New at political discussions on the internet, perhaps? You really need to learn how to determine and separate a rather clear overstatement meant in jest to a serious remark. Really.

You wanna talk arrogance? This country is NOT based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. People of every religion and faith live here and I can't believe you'd be so arrogant to disregard them just because you don't agree with them.

Get a clue. Contrary to what some Professor may have told you and you swallowed whole because you liked what he said: the United States was founded by serious, religious men who used Christian principles and respected and admired the Judeo-Christian heritage that the folks on the Mayflower brought with them in 1620 and that ran through America in 1776 and has continued to do so up until today. We are not a secular country, despite what secularists want. We are a nation of many religions, granted, but we are not secular. Government is secular but even then, government acknowledges the wealth of religious faith that underlies the miracle of freedom and democracy that is America.

But then again that feeds into my other point. Myself, I'm agnostic...NOT atheist. I'm not arrogant enough to claim to know who or what god is and those who DO claim that or that they know "what god wants" should be ashamed of themselves.

No one asked about your 'religious' beliefs here but since you saw fit to inject them: that 'unknowable God' stuff may make you feel better about rejecting religion so you can do as you please without any guilt and I understsnd that but you apparently have no clue whatsoever as to what Christianity is truly about. Your agnosticism is yours to cling to but your ignorant attempts to dismiss Christianity are not appreciated and show little tolerance for others. I tolerate all religions as well as atheists and agnostics but I do not accept what they choose to believe. They feel the same about my religion, of course. No problem, but the bashing of Christianity in America is getting too obvious to ignore and I will oppose that when I see it, especially when done by those who preach 'tolerance' for every other perversion known while bashing Christianity, one of the best forces on earth for the betterment of people.

Clinton was a total douche and I love how people dredge him up every time there's a democrat-republican debate, like he's a good example.

Really? I've never heard a Democrat say a bad word about Bill Clinton. He is held by many Democrats to be the finest president in the last-half of the 20th century. Clinton is often favorably compared to Bush for his oh-so-impressive speaking abilities and of course, the great economy 'he' made possible in the 1990's....a cherished Democrat myth. You apparently don't get out much in political circles and seem to have little understanding of the things on which you try to convince us you actually know something about.

Here's a crash course in politics: EVERYONE LIES ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE. It's not a party thing. You use words like "us" which to me says you feel you represent an entire party or school of thought. Trust me, I know some die-hard republicans who would be embarrassed by your diatribe.

You're becomeing ridiculous now. Trust me, Kansas, die-hard liberals would think you were doing just fine with your mindless name-calling and inane statements here. You're coming right out of the Democrat playbook only you delude yourself that you're some kind of rugged political independent. Not a chance. As for me: I'm a conservative Christian and I vote Republican. Not ashamed to be partisan one bit and I do not apologize for it. We need partisans on both sides but hiding behind the 'independent' tree is just being too wishy-washy to take a real stand, politically, while pretending you're an independent thinker. I don't see any of that in your posts, just witless Republican-bashing and name-calling to elected officials, proving nothing but your lack of substance on the issues.

Yes, America is pulling back from the left but that's because they're scared and many to the right have a "if I can't understand it then it's gotta die" attitude (notice I said many, not all). When people are frightened they'll turn wherever they can for a feeling of comfort. Why these people think the right will give them comfort is beyond me...like wars with anyone anytime anywhere will make us that much safer. But there you have it.

Yeah, and there you have the empty liberal version of what the war on terror is about. You are so far wrong that it's rather sad, actually. Here's a 'crash course' in political and foreign policy reality for YOU: America is under an unrelenting attack from radical Islamists and it did not begin and end on 9/11/01. The current administration is doing everything in their power to halt the spread of terrorism to America by cutting it off at it's knees in the middle east, where it florishes and grows. Liberals think this is a bad thing, apparently, and do nothing but attack the president and whine about the war in Iraq. The majority of Americans, despite the 24/7 trumpeting of the liberal media that attack Bush, see the war on terror as necessary and vital to our security and way of life. No one wants another 9/11. That the Bush administration is fighting terrorism on many fronts in many ways is clear and that is what is turning Americans away from the always-negative, weak-on-defense Democrats that want to defer our national security to the United Nations and have the approval of France before making a move against our enemies. That foolish attitude and the constant attacks on Bush trun normal people off and probably ensure a Bush re-election in 2004.

Basically I think everything you've said is incredibly biased and pompous and that you need to open your mind a little more to other possibilities. I know it's scary...but there's a good chance you aren't right.

Well, basically, I think you have only the smallest understanding of the way America was founded and the political system works. You spout the liberal line very well, then believe you're independent because - what - you didn't like Clinton? It's not personalities that matter, it's policy and ideology, of which you show little grasp. It may surprise you but I've read all the Democrat/liberal positions many times and seen them debated and have debated the issues myself, more often than I like to. You see, I educate myself on the issues, the history and ideology behind the issue. You call people 'morons'. Big difference and one that is clearly and painfully obvious. I suggest you either become educated on what you're posting about or quit now while you're ahead as this is going downhill real fast.

A friendly hint: Compared to Unit 5301, I'm a loveable teddybear. He's very sharp - and very cynical - and never gives an inch so I wouldn't advise even trying to debate him with the meager rhetorical weapons you possess.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by Snakeman
:

so predictable.

your point-by-point analysis of my post smacks of *personal attack*, but i'll ignore that.

If you choose to post snide and petty attacks on public officials here then don't complain when your attacks are challenged. I do post analysis sentence by sentence, point by point, to exclude protests of "I never said that' and to clarify what I'm posting about. Works very well, especially in longer posts or those with many different points being made.

putting the God myth in school textbooks just because many believe it is hogwash. people used to believe the earth was flat. some still do. the god myth was created by primative men who had no knowledge of science or scientific method. they believed in a geocentric universe and the bible (i assume this is your myth of choice) reflects this. If the bible is the word of god, how come he thought the earth was in the center? how can your god be wrong? i thought he was omnipotent.

Snaky, you cannot for one moment prove to me there is not a God. You must know that. The atheist explanations of how the universe, the earth and man came into being are improbable except to those who want to believe them. On the other hand, I also know that I cannot prove to you that God exists in a tangible way and the bibical explanations of how the universe, the earth and man came into being are clearly seen as nonsense to you and thus, summarily rejected. I'm willing to let it rest there, unless you want the whole atheist/Christian debate to start here again. I'm willing but not anxious as nobody 'wins' - but I will defend my faith if you choose to ridicule it.

As for your claim that 'God thought the earth was in the center' (of the universe)...I have no idea what you're referring to except some atheist canard submitted as fact that twists something written in scripture. Elaborate or drop it.

so many believe in the god myth because it is taught to children before they have any reasoning or logic skills. kids would believe that the color blue is green if you told them that from the time they were babies.

Well, by gosh, they didn't fool you! Another rugged individualist who makes his own reality and calls it rational because he's at the center of it. Neat. Foolish, but neat.

to incorporate the god myth into public education, to me, is like teaching Tolkien as fact.

Oh give us all a break. You really think I have the time much less any interest in going to some anti-Christian, atheist website? Not likely, Snaky. I'll go to yours if you go to my pro-Christian, anti-atheist sites. Better yet, let's skip the whole exercise. I know full well what atheists think of Christianity and I've read all the arguments and had many debates over this subject, in person and on messageboards. By now, you appear to have at least a clue as to what Christians believe. Neither of us need to read more propaganda from the other side and even if we bothered to do so, I can guarantee that no one's opinion will be changed so why bother. You atheists demolish nothing but you make a lot of claims and ask a lot of 'questions' that you've already answered - in your favor. Ive been there - and it's really tiresome.

religion kills.
more folks have died because of your god, or their god, or someone else's god than in all the traffic accidents, diseases and other causes put together.

Absolutely wrong on every count but a popular atheist talking point I've seen a thousand times. Did you actually think you had an original thought, there? Atheist communist dictators like Stalin and Mao caused tens of millions of deaths in nations where no religion was ever allowed, far more than any religion ever caused, although the Islamists are catching up, but slowly.

believe what you please, but don't teach fantasy bs in the school system as 'truth'. We have come a long way in the last thousand years, why undo it?

'Religion' won't be taught, creationism may be, someday. , at least as an alternative to Darwinism, which is as much unproven as the existence of God in tangible form. Sounds fair to me.

[84_GT350]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0
[B]Originally posted by 84_GT350 :
Oh, I 'get it' alright. Both you and Snake have a mindless hatred for Republican office holders that you can't help venting. Yeah, I 'get it' very clearly. As for your 'respect': I do ppreciate that but it has no bearing on what I post to anyone. My last post - again, directed at Snakeman - reflected his rather nasty little attack on Arnold Schwarzenegger and President Bush. I responded in kind, as I always do. You previously posted fairly calm messages to me and I replied in the same manner. Post nasty diatribles and you'll receive the same tone from me. Reaping and sowing I believe it's called.

AHHHHHHH! No...apparently you still don't f@cking get it. I DO NOT "mindlessly hate" republican office holders. I simply dislike those who I believe are not up to the task and/or who are doing a bad job. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICAL AFFILIATION. I don't know how I can make that any clearer so there it is.

All I've seen from you is calling a wildly successful actor with a degree in Economics and the holder of a huge fortune made in business as well as movies - 'a moron' and you insinuate that he ran for his ego which is nonsense, in my opinion, which is what all our exchanges amount to, for the most part. Guess what? Many Americans do want prayer in schools and think your dismissal of a successful president like George W. Bush is based on nothing but silly criticisms like his pronounciation of 'nuclear' and the fact that his father was once president. You willfully ignore his successes in favor of issuing petty insults and you seem to believe that equates to rational argument when it's simply childish name-calling.

His acting career doesn't even have the slightest bearing on his intelect. Next thing ya know you'll be telling me Steven Segal is a genius because he's a successful actor. I'll give a little on the economics degree but a degree doesn't necessarily dictate intelligence either. There's plenty of degree-holding professionals out there who don't have a clue. Perhaps I should've made my reasons for my dismal thoughts of our fair president more clear. Besides having the grammar of a 10 year old and, in my estimation, the intelligence to boot, here's some more reasons. First, our economy is in one of the the worst states it's been in my admittedly short lifetime. People are loosing jobs left and right and I haven't seen a single thing done about it yet (I'll throw in yet...let's see if he can pull something out of his @ss on this one). His "leave no child behind" program does absolutely nothing but put a higher stress on teachers and an economical strain on already wafer thin city and state budgets. So far, I've seen no REAL progress in the "war on terror". Yes, our men and women fought in Afghanistan and are still in Iraq and god only knows wherelse but the fact is we're still supposed to be in a "constant state of alert". IMHO, he's left our people in harm's way way too long and he seems to be just itching for any chance to keep them there. He's also done the diplomatic equivalent of thumbing his nose at anyone who doesn't agree with us like their opinions are invalid...great foreign policy tactic.

Your low opinion of Bush and Gore is yours to hold but don't be so shocked and annoyed when others - like me - challenge you on it. That's how adults interact when they have political opinions so you had better get used to it if you want to go around bashing politicians based on little more than superficial nonsense like their accents.

I'm neither shocked nor annoyed at anything except the fact that you've completely ignored anything I've said regarding my political affiliation (or lack thereof). You still lace your posts with words like "liberal" or "democrat". Guess what...I'M NOT EITHER ONE. Unless you feel like calling me a liberal because it either makes you feel better or because I tend to do my own thinking instead of choking down whatever my political friends tell me to think. I think I cleared the rest of that up in the above paragraph.

'Hate'? Nice try at projection but I wasn't the one who called Governor-elect Schwartzenegger a 'moron' and spews contempt for the president...that would be: you. Want to try again? You did get one thing half-right. The political system in the United States is 'classically' liberal, but that has zero, nada, no relation to the political liberalism we're discussing here, of the current Democrat variety which borders on socialism. I suggest you be more cautious about attempting to lecure anyone you don't know about politics as they may know a whole lot more about it than you've leared in that Poli-Sci class you slept through, based on what you've posted here.

I used the word "hate" simply because that's what your disdain for anyone left of conservative seems closest to. Just because I called Arnold a moron doesn't mean I hate him...can't say I know the man personally. Just because I don't think he's up for the job is a far cry from hating him. Now who's being a projectionist? As far as classical liberalism vs. practical liberalism, I'm quite aware of what you're saying. Just pointing out that in the eyes of the rest of the world we're ALL liberals (yes, that includes you) so I don't see the point in throwing that word around. I also think your views on the democratic party are pretty skewed. I'd say they're pretty far off from socialism. What's your next trick? Call them all pinkos or commies? But if that happens then I call you a reactionary and it just never ends. You know...political parties don't always have to be like two little school kids calling each other names. Like it or not we have a bicameral political system and you're going to have learn to get along with "leftists" or "liberals" or whatever name you want to paint on them or else nothing will ever get done. And I assure you...I've been quite awake in all of my poli-sci classes and my american government classes so don't discount my knowledge just because you don't like what I have to say. I've given you that courtesy and I'd appreciate it returned.

Ooooh, I love it when liberals try to play the psychoanalysis card. Unfortunately, ridicule is what Snakeman's opinions deserve and that's what they got. You want a serious, factual discussion? I gave you that. You want to post stupid name-calling attacks on Republicans you don't like: you get ridicule. Do you still not understand how this works, yet? Pity.

You still speak of republicans and democrats as seperate beasts. In reality they're much more alike than I'm sure you'll ever admit. Everybody wants pretty much the same things done but has different ideas on how to get there. They also resort to the same petty name calling and bickering. When you speak with such intolerance it makes anything you say hard to take seriously.

Are you sure you're really a college student or are you just faking it here? Do you not understand hyperbole. If you don't, look it up. New at political discussions on the internet, perhaps? You really need to learn how to determine and separate a rather clear overstatement meant in jest to a serious remark. Really.

Trust me....if I didn't understand hyperbole I wouldn't have been able to stomach much of what you've said. And honestly...with the remarks you've made I'm honestly not sure when you're serious and when you're not. You know...like when somebody says enough things that are ridiculous or sarcastic you begin to wonder when they're serious and when they're not?

Get a clue. Contrary to what some Professor told you and you swallowed whole because you liked what he said: the United States was founded by serious, religious men who used Christian principles and respected and admired the Judeo-Christian heritage that the folks on the Mayflower brought with them in 1620 and that ran through America in 1776 and has continued to do so up until today.

Yes...FOUNDED. And that's even a stretch if you consider landing in a pretty random place and then chasing/killing off the native peoples and taking whatever you want then enslaving other to do what you don't want to do part of judeo-christian beliefs (unless I missed that part in philosophy of religion. If you have documents that say otherwise please send them my way). It may have been FOUNDED on those principals but it is far from BASED on those principals. Not to be a huge downer...but you're talking about 380 years ago. Last I checked a lot has changed. If we were so judeo-christian there'd be no seperation of church and state as many christians seem to like to cram their message down anyone's throat whether they want to hear it or not (and this is coming from the son of a fairly democratic ex-priest). Simply put, religion holds ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS in modern day politics other than as a platform to win the votes of other church/temple goers or as a finger-pointing campaign like prayer in schools or the ten commandments on judicial buildings. It's all just soundbytes.

No one asked about your 'religious' beiefs here but since you saw fit to inject them: that 'unknowable God' stuff may make you feel better about rejecting religion so you can do as you please without any guilt and I understsnd that but you apparently have no clue whatsoever as to what Christianity is truly about. Your agnosticism is yours to cling to but your ignorant attempts to dismiss Christianity are not appreciated and show little tolerance for others. I tolerate all religions as well as atheists and agnostics but I do not accept what they choose to believe. They feel the same about my religion, of course. No problem, but the bashing of Christianity in America is getting too obvious to ignore and I will oppose that when I see it.

Oi...again...as I stated, I don't "reject" religion. I merely don't see any point in picking one, blindly following it, and calling all those who don't believe what I believe wrong. Please, don't tell me I know nothing about religion. As I said, I'm the son of an ex-priest so I know enough not to know it. I'm just lucky enough my parents (my father especially) was kindly enough not to ram it down my throat. I can see your parents didn't afford you this courtesy. Again...I'm not dismissing christianity...but I'm not embracing it either. Nor will I dismiss any other religion because they can't all be right and there's an excellent possibility that none of them are. I know how it must drive you nuts to know there are others out there with different ideas about god and that you can't stop them. The reason people bash christianity in America is because the spotlight as of late has been on a lot of negative things that the church is committing and then deposing. I'm not sure people are knocking the religion as a whole, but rather generalizing it for bad acts of a few(priests molesting boys, the nomination of an openly gay bishop which, while not bothering me, seems to really piss off 700 Club fans). Trust me, this I get. But I also realize that many of christianity's bigger symbols are simply codes of living that any man of any faith can embrace. Everything from the parables of the bible to the ten commandments. There's nothing special there...just stories and rules that, if you're a good person regardless of your faith, you already live by anyway.

Really? I have never heard a Democrat say a bad word about Bill Clinton and he is held by many Democrats to be the finest president in the last-half of the 20th century. Clinton is often favorably compared to Bush for his oh-so-impressive speaking abilities and of course, the great economy 'he' made possible in the 1990's....a cherished Democrat myth. You apparently don't get out much in political circles and seem to have little understanding of the things on which you try to convince us you actually know something about.

Ok...hopefully this will get across my lack of political loyaties. I totally agree. Clinton was a total @ss who disgraced the job with his very presence. I'll compare him to Bush only in the light that I think they've both done this (unless, as I stated before, Bush can pull something out of @ss real quick). While you may not agree that he made the economic upturn in the 90's possible (I honestly don't care if he did or not...he's still a dickweed), you have to realize that people will give him credit for it. I doubt many of the decisions Bush is handing down are his own, but people will give him credit for those as well. All of the presidents of the last 50 years have only been as good as the people they have doing their thinking for them.

Trust me, die-hard liberals would think you were doing just fine with your mindless name-calling and inane statements here. You're right out of the Democrat playbook only you delude yourself that you're some kind of rugged political independent. Not a chance. As for me: I'm a conservative Christian and I vote Republican. Not ashamed to be partisan one bit and do not apologize for it. We need partisans but hiding behind the 'independent' tree is just being too wishy-washy to take a real stand, politically, while pretending you're an independent thinker. I don't see any of that in your posts, just witless Republican-bashing and name-calling to elected officials.

Apparently I need a copy of this "playbook" of which you speak because you still haven't gotten the fact that I'm neither liberal nor a democrat. Perhaps this post will clarify why I make the distinctions I make and if they don't then I can't help you. For what it's worth, I think staunch political loyalties are a huge mistake. If that's the case then this country is screwed. Nothing will ever get done because of pety difference and partisan bickering not to mention endless philibusters on bills that could help the people of this country. As I said before...the main function of any given government is the protection and well-being of it's citizens. I don't see that with a purely partisan attitude. There need to be people out there like myself and many others who just call it like they see it with no across the line voting and support of initiatives and ideas that are actually good rather than voting on who those ideas are coming from.

Yeah, and there you have the empty liberal version of what the war on terror is about. You are so far wrong that it's rather sad, actually. Here's a crash course in political and foreign policy reality: America is under an unrelenting attack from radical Islamists and it did not begin and end on 9/11/01. The current administration is doing everything in their power to halt the spread of terrorism to America by cutting it off at it's knees in the middle east, where it florishes and grows. Liberals think this is a bad thing, apparently, and do nothing but attack the president and whine about the war in Iraq. The majority of Americans, despite the 24/7 trumpeting of the liberal media that attack Bush, see the war on terror as necessary and vital to our security and way of life. No one wants another 9/11. That the Bush administration is fighting terrorism on many fronts in many ways is clear and that is what is turning Americans away from the always-negative, weak-on-defense Democrats that want to defer our national security to the United Nations and have the approval of France before making a move against our enemies. That foolish attitude and the constant attacks on Bush trun normal people off and probably ensure a Bush re-election in 2004.

This I can semi-agree with. I DO think there needs to be a war on terrorism but I don't think we're doing it the right way. America may be under unrelenting attack from radical groups (although some are in our backyards...not halfway around the world) but soon, if we keep up this trend, the rest of the world will be under unrelenting attacks from US. The only things I can see to criticize here are that we've gotten to the point that we're almost as bad as those we persue...we're (as I stated before) like a drunk in a bar swinging a bottle. Pretty soon it's going to be the diplomatic equivalent of "what the hell are you lookin at France?". I think we may have gone a bit too far on this. It also seems ike some think that now is a good time to get all of those people we just plain don't like. Take Cuba. The last time they were anything near what you could call terrorism was during the missle crisis. But hey...we can go after them because it'll look good to the hispanic community. You may not agree with Castro and his form of government but you can't say they pose any harm to us. Besides...he'll be dead soon and the Cubans can do whatever they want. I also don't believe vague thinly veiled threats being announced helps anyone. "Be on the look out...but we're not sure for what or for whom.". WTF is that? Does that mean that taxi driver who doesn't speak good english is a terrorist or that the nuclear missle cruising over my head is a threat? Plus I honestly don't see a huge reduction in the propensity to commit terrorism or in the chance of another attack. Go into their countries and piss them off even more....sounds like a good plan. Although that's a catch 22...can't exactly sit around and do nothing either. Lesser of two evils I suppose. Also, I'd like to see this liberal media you speak of. I watch quite a bit of Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC and besides those two jack@ss crybabies Donahue and Geraldo I haven't seem much. Unless you count Hannity's retarded step-brother Colmes (sp?)

Basically, I think you have only the smallest understanding of the way America was founded and the political system works. You spout the liberal line very well, then believe you're independent because - what - you didn't like Clinton? It's not personalities that matter, it's policy and ideology, of which you show little grasp. It may surprise you but I've read all the Democrat/liberalpositions many times and seen it debated and have debated it myself, more often than I like to. You see, I educate myself on the issues, the history and ideology behind the issue. You call people 'morons'. Big difference, clearly and painfully obvious. I suggest you either become educated on what you're posting about or quit now while you're ahead as this is going downhill real fast.

You couldn't have illustrated my point of you're inability to grasp anything I've said any better. I consider myself nothing...not an independent, not a democrat, not a republican. If I spout a "liberal line" it's only because I support those things which I believe are right and some (though certainly not all) may happen to be a bit to the left. Whether or not you and I agree has nothing to do with my place in the political spectrum. Your belief that I'm uneducated on issues and simply reduce myself to name calling is yours to keep but I assure you is greatly mislead. Just because I'm a good bit younger than you doesn't mean that I don't keep up with what's happening in our world (remember the word "our"...I'm sure it's been a while since you've used it) and do my reading on it. In fact it's most likely because of that age difference I have the open mindedness to see things for what they are and not for what some party tells me they should be. And before you accuse others of "name calling" I suggest you go back over your posts and count the number of times you used the terms "leftist" or "liberal" or some combination of the two of which I have stated numerous times I am neither. The funny thing is that I think you and I are more alike than you'd care to admit...we just believe in different means to the same ends. Although I'm sure you're inflexible enough to even realize that.

A friendly hint: Compared to Unit 5301, I'm a loveable teddybear. He's very sharp - and very cynical - and never gives an inch so I wouldn't advise even trying to debate him with the meager rhetorical weapons you possess.

This just confuses me...I don't have a clue what that's supposed to mean.