Eddie,

Agreed. ;)

Tim. :)

Wow. mra may be young, but it seems like you guys are just giving him the once over because he tends to lean the opposite direction than the rest of you obviously lean. I don't mean to start a fire here, but as much as you all have just pounded the crap out of Republicans in the last few posts, how can you point fingers at that party in support of Democrats after what you've just displayed? Thats pretty scary. What I basically just heard from you guys is "See! Democrats are the ones in the right! It's the Republicans that are evil!" Mra made some fine points about Democratic finger pointing, and name calling just as some of you have accused Republicans of doing. Talk about "locking step", or maybe I should say bulldozing.

Tim,

I agree with you that we're SORELY in need of more "parties". But I think you'd be doing an injustice by voting "none of the above". If you did, you might as well not vote at all. Because it would still come down to which candidate had the most votes. Your vote of "none of the above" would wind up being an inconsequential statistic, making no difference what soever. As I said, it would still come down to whom had the most votes. I hope some day we do have more parties, and or more candidates in the future. It's too bad that almost everything in this country comes down to money. Money to support a campaign, or money to buy votes, you name it.


I thought I knew you guys to be objective people. What I just read here really took me back. I consider you guys friends. Maybe not in the let's go hang out at the diner sense, but friends none the less. What's being said here is DEFINITELY not friendly, or respectful (save Tim's last comment).

In any case, I'm sorry if I offended anyone, and I hope this thread takes a turn for the better.

- Josh

Tim,

Your last post was the worst I have seen in a long time.
You are extreeeeemly condescending.
YOU have mad MANY assumptions about me which are FALSE!:@
I have most of the same responsibilities which you mentioned in your first paragraph, and more.
I NEVER SAID I WAS 16. YOUR MISTAKE [again!].
I have plenty of life experience. I remember the 60's. [1960's] - so figure that one out. I have been interested and followed current events since the 70's.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes, the economy had been marching forward for a year after a (relatively) mild recession when Clinton started out. And that is the perfect time to start out.
Again, the malaise and big mess Reagan inherited from Carter was the worst it's been since the great depression. That also is a significant cause of the deficits. Go get a chart of the economy since 1945 and compare that with a chart of the deficits. You'll see.
I am sorry you had a bad time financially after the Reagan era. But that obviously doesn't mean it was the same for everyone else. I got my best job at the end of 1987 and business was booming. During the 90's, things leveled off, and the company went overseas and we all got laid off in the summer of 1999. So by your logic, there was a big recession during the mid to late 90's (there was not).
___________________________________________________________________________
Finally, it's bad enough that you keep getting your historical facts wrong.
You condescend to people, and you make up stuff about people.
You made up a straw man version of me and then attacked me.
Everything you said about ME was wrong. And I should know!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So while it is OK to discuss movies with you, you really blew it here.

mra,

whatever! ..!..

Tim. :)

Josh,

mra keeps talking about how "great" Reagan was, but the fact of the matter is that Reagan was responsible for giving America $2 trillion in debt (this is the seed money that has ballooned to more than $4 trillion). In order to "improve" the economy on a superficial level, he did what FDR did--rashly plunge the country into debt, trading long-term stability for short-term lift.

Bear in mind that I talk about presidents regardless of their political affiliations because political platforms often change. Prior to Lyndon Johnson, the Democratic Party was strong in the South because it basically supported racist policies towards blacks. However, after Johnson, the Republicans became strong in the South (which is why Republican presidential nominees have always made appearances at that university in one of the Carolinas that, up until the past four years, banned interracial dating). I denounce both FDR and Reagan for egregious deficit spending; I denounce George W. Bush even though I think that his dad did a very good job (raising taxes was a serious attempt to deal with the damage that Reagan caused).

All of this is very sad because the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln. The Republican Party fought to end racial discrimination. Today, the Republican Party's unstated platform is to keep poor non-whites poor and forever powerless and to shove Christian extremism down people's throats. You wanna vote for Bush? Fine, but call dogma dogma and not "compassionate conservatism".

Eddie

considering what you've said to me already, I won't be crying.:p

mra,

that guy should also be thrown out of congress.

anyway, i'm really through with talking to you any more.

eddie

About that hunting incident with Kerry... I live in Michigan, there is a LOT of hunting. Deer season is probably just as big as Football season is in Texas. I for one agree with the article...

Nothing in relevance to any serious issues, just my gripes with how far these people go to please the voters with these phony personas.
______________________________________________________________

John Kerry Wasn't Hunting - He Was Killing
By Larry S. Moore
CNSNews.com Commentary
October 22, 2004

Of all John Kerry's flip-flops, Thursday's staged hunting trip in Ohio was certainly one of the biggest FLOPS. The effort to portray him as a "guy's guy" showed instead that John Kerry is still an elitist.

Most of us hunters struggle for access to quality hunting grounds. But because of his status as a senator and presidential pretender, Kerry easily found premium land on which to hunt -- in a state where he knows few people, never mind hunters.

John Kerry did no homework for his hunting trip -- no landowner contacts, no scouting trips, no dog training. He probably did not even buy his own camouflage jacket.

He probably could not recite the laws governing his hunt -- which means he did not read his Ohio Hunting Guide or the federal migratory bird rules.

John Kerry is a poster boy for the Humane Society of the United States and PETA - groups that object to hunters just walking out into the fields and shooting things.

What John Kerry did is not hunting -- it was killing.

John Kerry did not develop landowner relations. Where were the photos of Kerry thanking the family for permitting him the opportunity to hunt on their land? Where were the photos of John Kerry asking the farmer if he needs help with any chores or offering to share some of the rewards of the hunt? Then he says he is too lazy to carry his own game!

As a hunter, I have great respect and honor for the reward of the hunt, which is the game I take. That means carrying out my game, and it means properly cleaning and preserving (freezing) the meat for later dining pleasure.

Beyond hunting, there always must be reverence for the game -- otherwise you don't hunt with me. There is always a special place for the dogs (in my case, beagles) as my hunting partners.

John Kerry was out of sight of the photographers when the actual hunting took place. Did he shoot his geese? To me it is unethical for someone else to shoot part of your bag limit. Depending on the circumstances, it could be illegal. Did John Kerry display respect for the land by picking up his empty shotgun shells?

John Kerry is taking every photo opportunity to convince us that he is a regular guys who loves to hunt. But Kerry is missing the mark with true sportsmen and women of Ohio who understand that hunting is about more than waltzing into a state and killing a couple of animals an sacrifice for your political ambitions.

For me, hunting is about family and friends. I hunt with my children. I am a volunteer Ohio Hunter Education instructor. I have worked hard to teach proper respect and ethics to our young people as they take up hunting.

My daughter is featured on the front cover of the Ohio Hunter Education Manual. There is a photograph of me when I was about seven years old with my cousin and his beagle. He taught me about beagles and passed down a family tradition.

We gather around a table of venison, rabbit or pheasant and praise God for the bounties of this land and the opportunities we have to share our hunting experiences as family. That is what true sportsmen understand.

Far from showing he is a regular guy, Kerry is showing Ohioans he just does not understand these things. His trips afield for photo opportunities are as staged and fake as when he threw someone else's war medals away.

John Kerry is not connecting with the true sportsmen.
______________________________________________________________________________

posters5,

>>>"Trent Lott said that, had Strom Thurmond been elected president, then we wouldn't have had so many of the problems that we have today. Strom Thurmond ran on a platform that was explicitly racist. All Lott got was a slap on the wrist. He really should've been expelled from Congress."<<<

The older I get, the more I realise it's not so much what someone says, but who says it. Sen. Byrd (D-WV), a former KKK man, used the "n" word a few times about five years ago. He's still there and, isn't he one of the senate leaders?

Is it possible to lock this thread?