i love liberals!

[*Robert* 2]

InCanada and Stina, if someone prays that I figure out how to live like they do (less Jew-y, more Christian-y), I do not feel very respected. What is respect? Just saying that you respect someone?

Someone's praying for you?

That would be one more than is praying for you

Well, I'm glad you posted that erekose. Sometimes people are so ugly.

Yeah, that guy holding the "weak" sign IS weird looking!

(by the way, that sentence is funny coming from you. As we all know, you're such a sweetheart to everyone)

sheesh... talk about the pot...

and some ppl are more ugly than others, though with the individual in question, I can't imagine how that would be possible...

[Fandango 1,439]

InCanada and Stina, if someone prays that I figure out how to live like they do (less Jew-y, more Christian-y), I do not feel very respected. What is respect? Just saying that you respect someone?

Someone's praying for you?

That would be one more than is praying for you

Well, I'm glad you posted that erekose. Sometimes people are so ugly.

Yeah, that guy holding the "weak" sign IS weird looking!

(by the way, that sentence is funny coming from you. As we all know, you're such a sweetheart to everyone)

For everyone's information...the weak sign was for both of the 'praying for you' posts....no need for either of them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Mmmm no, pretty sure it's bitterness. Most liberals ARE extremely bitter though.

I think its already been established that you wouldn't know much of anything about that.

[*Robert* 2]

Mmmm no, pretty sure it's bitterness. Most liberals ARE extremely bitter though.

I think its already been established that you wouldn't know much of anything about that.

Actually, I think its been established that she doesn't know much of anything about anything!!!

Unless you count talking $hit knowing something...

[incanada1234 0]

Mmmm no, pretty sure it's bitterness. Most liberals ARE extremely bitter though.

I think its already been established that you wouldn't know much of anything about that.

Anyone that has any sense (in other words, conservatives) know much about THAT.

Shouldn't you be busy whining about something the Bush administration has done lately?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Anyone that has any sense (in other words, conservatives) know much about THAT.

Shame you can't demonstrate said knowledge isn't it.

[yogib37 3]

liberals have nothing better to do but blame all of the problems on a republican

That is because all the Republicans are causing the problems and should be blamed for what is going wrong.

[*Robert* 2]

liberals have nothing better to do but blame all of the problems on a republican

That is because all the Republicans are causing the problems and should be blamed for what is going wrong.

yeah, and the democrats are sitting back totally inocent right?!!

[Carol&Marc 0]

The official democrat plan, Bash Bush! in other words there is NONE!

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Bill Clinton is such a pompous a$$hole though; are people still naive enough to fall for his #######?

Oh I SO agree.

Get your eyes checked or get rid of that reinterpreter of statements you've installed on your computer. Twisting people's words is one thing, blatantly changing them shows a lack of ethics and morals evidencing not a true Christian but a true hypocrite.

Edited September 30, 2006 by Fischkoepfin

[Carol&Marc 0]

Yet up to the United Nations General Assembly podium strode Iranian “President” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week, renouncing American policy and America’s president. A day later, that same forum witnessed Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, similarly attacking President Bush, to the point of calling him “The Devil.” To the dismay of the left, the general public readily recognizes that these attacks from foreign leaders precisely echo the “patriotism” regularly being spewed by liberal Democrats.

Despite the desperate attempts of Democrat leaders to distance themselves from the UN spectacle, the parallels between their words, and more importantly, their motives, as compared to those of the two hostile foreign leaders, have become irrefutable. Their cover has been blown.

If the liberal Democrats can claim, by virtue of their subversive and consistently anti-American rhetoric of the past several years, that such behavior is indeed “patriotic,” then so must it be concluded that Ahmadinejad and Chavez are also great American “patriots.”

Oh so TRUE!

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Yet up to the United Nations General Assembly podium strode Iranian “President” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week, renouncing American policy and America’s president. A day later, that same forum witnessed Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, similarly attacking President Bush, to the point of calling him “The Devil.” To the dismay of the left, the general public readily recognizes that these attacks from foreign leaders precisely echo the “patriotism” regularly being spewed by liberal Democrats.

Despite the desperate attempts of Democrat leaders to distance themselves from the UN spectacle, the parallels between their words, and more importantly, their motives, as compared to those of the two hostile foreign leaders, have become irrefutable. Their cover has been blown.

If the liberal Democrats can claim, by virtue of their subversive and consistently anti-American rhetoric of the past several years, that such behavior is indeed “patriotic,” then so must it be concluded that Ahmadinejad and Chavez are also great American “patriots.”

Oh so TRUE!

Thanks for reproducing the gunk from the conservative news media.

Sure, it's easy to believe in a "vast left-wing conspiracy," but maybe it is time to stop conflating critics of the Bush-administration and their minions in congress with political leaders opposed to the US.

When Ahmadinejad levels his attacks on the US, he does that with his own population in mind and for retribution purposes (see Bush's speech the same day which was a similarly frontal attack on Iran). Same goes for Chavez, who views himself as another victim of American propaganda and in a way does nothing but rebut the Bush-administration's attack on him. You harvest what you sow is probably the best way to explain that.

In contrast, critics of the Bush-administration in the US are actually concerned about America. When some democrat or left-winger lashes out at Bush, it is not in retribution but because the administration is betraying American values. But why am I even trying to explain this to you; it's not like you would stop taking the words of the right-wing media as the absolute truth.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yet up to the United Nations General Assembly podium strode Iranian “President” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week, renouncing American policy and America’s president. A day later, that same forum witnessed Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, similarly attacking President Bush, to the point of calling him “The Devil.” To the dismay of the left, the general public readily recognizes that these attacks from foreign leaders precisely echo the “patriotism” regularly being spewed by liberal Democrats.

Despite the desperate attempts of Democrat leaders to distance themselves from the UN spectacle, the parallels between their words, and more importantly, their motives, as compared to those of the two hostile foreign leaders, have become irrefutable. Their cover has been blown.

If the liberal Democrats can claim, by virtue of their subversive and consistently anti-American rhetoric of the past several years, that such behavior is indeed “patriotic,” then so must it be concluded that Ahmadinejad and Chavez are also great American “patriots.”

Oh so TRUE!

Thanks for reproducing the gunk from the conservative news media.

Sure, it's easy to believe in a "vast left-wing conspiracy," but maybe it is time to stop conflating critics of the Bush-administration and their minions in congress with political leaders opposed to the US.

When Ahmadinejad levels his attacks on the US, he does that with his own population in mind and for retribution purposes (see Bush's speech the same day which was a similarly frontal attack on Iran). Same goes for Chavez, who views himself as another victim of American propaganda and in a way does nothing but rebut the Bush-administration's attack on him. You harvest what you sow is probably the best way to explain that.

In contrast, critics of the Bush-administration in the US are actually concerned about America. When some democrat or left-winger lashes out at Bush, it is not in retribution but because the administration is betraying American values. But why am I even trying to explain this to you; it's not like you would stop taking the words of the right-wing media as the absolute truth.

Indeed - and these people who constantly bemoan alleged foreign anti-americanism can't seem to find an angle on it other than that "foreigners" are somehow predisposed to hate america. Of course when America is represented by people who can't make simple distinctions between media soundbites and party political talking points - it doesn't seem to be much of a surprise.

[Carol&Marc 0]

Yet up to the United Nations General Assembly podium strode Iranian “President” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week, renouncing American policy and America’s president. A day later, that same forum witnessed Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, similarly attacking President Bush, to the point of calling him “The Devil.” To the dismay of the left, the general public readily recognizes that these attacks from foreign leaders precisely echo the “patriotism” regularly being spewed by liberal Democrats.

Despite the desperate attempts of Democrat leaders to distance themselves from the UN spectacle, the parallels between their words, and more importantly, their motives, as compared to those of the two hostile foreign leaders, have become irrefutable. Their cover has been blown.

If the liberal Democrats can claim, by virtue of their subversive and consistently anti-American rhetoric of the past several years, that such behavior is indeed “patriotic,” then so must it be concluded that Ahmadinejad and Chavez are also great American “patriots.”

Oh so TRUE!

Thanks for reproducing the gunk from the conservative news media.

Sure, it's easy to believe in a "vast left-wing conspiracy," but maybe it is time to stop conflating critics of the Bush-administration and their minions in congress with political leaders opposed to the US.

When Ahmadinejad levels his attacks on the US, he does that with his own population in mind and for retribution purposes (see Bush's speech the same day which was a similarly frontal attack on Iran). Same goes for Chavez, who views himself as another victim of American propaganda and in a way does nothing but rebut the Bush-administration's attack on him. You harvest what you sow is probably the best way to explain that.

In contrast, critics of the Bush-administration in the US are actually concerned about America. When some democrat or left-winger lashes out at Bush, it is not in retribution but because the administration is betraying American values. But why am I even trying to explain this to you; it's not like you would stop taking the words of the right-wing media as the absolute truth.

Indeed - and these people who constantly bemoan alleged foreign anti-americanism can't seem to find an angle on it other than that "foreigners" are somehow predisposed to hate america. Of course when America is represented by people who can't make simple distinctions between media soundbites and party political talking points - it doesn't seem to be much of a surprise.

Please answer these simple questions:

why do you have the freedom of speech?

how did this right come about?

How many died for this right?

were you born in the U.S.

Do you love America? If yes why?

Is president Bush EVIL ?

Why is President Bush like HITLER? if yes HOW?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yet up to the United Nations General Assembly podium strode Iranian “President” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week, renouncing American policy and America’s president. A day later, that same forum witnessed Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, similarly attacking President Bush, to the point of calling him “The Devil.” To the dismay of the left, the general public readily recognizes that these attacks from foreign leaders precisely echo the “patriotism” regularly being spewed by liberal Democrats.

Despite the desperate attempts of Democrat leaders to distance themselves from the UN spectacle, the parallels between their words, and more importantly, their motives, as compared to those of the two hostile foreign leaders, have become irrefutable. Their cover has been blown.

If the liberal Democrats can claim, by virtue of their subversive and consistently anti-American rhetoric of the past several years, that such behavior is indeed “patriotic,” then so must it be concluded that Ahmadinejad and Chavez are also great American “patriots.”

Oh so TRUE!

Thanks for reproducing the gunk from the conservative news media.

Sure, it's easy to believe in a "vast left-wing conspiracy," but maybe it is time to stop conflating critics of the Bush-administration and their minions in congress with political leaders opposed to the US.

When Ahmadinejad levels his attacks on the US, he does that with his own population in mind and for retribution purposes (see Bush's speech the same day which was a similarly frontal attack on Iran). Same goes for Chavez, who views himself as another victim of American propaganda and in a way does nothing but rebut the Bush-administration's attack on him. You harvest what you sow is probably the best way to explain that.

In contrast, critics of the Bush-administration in the US are actually concerned about America. When some democrat or left-winger lashes out at Bush, it is not in retribution but because the administration is betraying American values. But why am I even trying to explain this to you; it's not like you would stop taking the words of the right-wing media as the absolute truth.

Indeed - and these people who constantly bemoan alleged foreign anti-americanism can't seem to find an angle on it other than that "foreigners" are somehow predisposed to hate america. Of course when America is represented by people who can't make simple distinctions between media soundbites and party political talking points - it doesn't seem to be much of a surprise.

Please answer these simple questions:

why do you have the freedom of speech?

how did this right come about?

How many died for this right?

were you born in the U.S.

Do you love America? If yes why?

Is president Bush EVIL ?

Why is President Bush like HITLER? if yes HOW?

1. and 2. We have freedom of speech because it is part of Equality that the Constitution was founded on - all men are created equal - no more monarchies or aristocracies. We are a nation of equals and it is a Truth that the founding fathers stated as 'self evident' - meaning that we are born equal and that no other human has power over us.

3. An estimated 25,000 American Revolutionaries died during active military service. About 8,000 of these deaths were in battle; the other 17,000 deaths were from disease, including about 8,000 who died while prisoners of war. The number of Revolutionaries seriously wounded or disabled by the war has been estimated from 8,500 to 25,000. The total American military casualty figure was therefore as high as 50,000

4. I was born in Mesa, Arizona, of Irish and English heritage and a great great grandmother who was Native American (Comanchee?..not sure)

5. I love pizza and I love beer. I love my fiancee but it ain't the same. So when you ask if I love America, I embrace the Constitution as to what defines America and to that I love it, yes. I would never 'love' a President. I may be fond of him, his ideals and policies, but I think it's a bit weird to say you love America by loving the President. I'll leave that up to the First Lady.

6. I'm hestitant to call someone evil because based on my Christian faith, no one is 'evil'. They may do evil things but we are all God's children. So with Bush, I don't think he is evil, but some of the things he's been responsible I find morally reprehensible. Do I think he knows he's doing something immoral? I'm not sure because many people can fool themselves into believing they are right and just.

7. While some of Bush's critics have characterized him as being like Hitler, let's keep in mind that Clinton also was compared to some notorious people as well. The Presidency by default is open for criticism, even if that criticism is unfounded and exaggerated, it comes with the territory. Is it fair? No. Should we silence those who take it too far? No. The best way to counter such labels is to ask those critics to articulate why they are saying Bush is like Hitler. You know, many Republican congressman would often compare themselves to Reagon knowing that he was a popular and well loved President. So it can go both ways. Ridiculous comparisons go both ways.

I've never myself claimed that Bush is like Hitler but if I were to guess why his critics (remember it's not just who you call liberals that have criticized him) might make that comparison has to with what they believe is his circumvention of our Constitutional Rights and his concentration of Presidential powers. I'm doing you the service of answer for them, but again, I've never called him that and perhaps you should ask the next person you hear compare Bush to Hitler what they mean. I personally think it's pointless to make comparisons to people. Don't you think you're adding fuel to the fire by repeated the outrageous comparison? Who has said it? Somebody prominent? Some prominent politician? Give credit where credit is due, but don't assign blame to ever critic of Bush because a few have used that comparison.

Edited October 1, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky