# How to Deal with Ultra-Left Academia



## Adam's Apple (Mar 22, 2007)

*A Donor with Backbone*
By Walter E. Williams 
March 21, 2007

The College of William & Mary's Wren Chapel cross issue is simply the tip of a much larger problem. For decades, college administrators and professors have sanctioned or participated in an attack on traditional American values. They've denied campus access to military recruiters, promoted socialism and attacked capitalism, and instituted race and sex quotas in admissions and in the awarding of scholarships. They've used their positions of trust to indoctrinate students with anti-Americanism. Despite this attack, taxpayers and private donors have been extremely generous, pouring billions upon billions of dollars into institutions that often hold a generalized contempt for their values.

Mr. McGlothlin is to be congratulated for his courage in taking a stand against this liberal attack on American values. Other wealthy donors ought to emulate Mr. McGlothlin's courage by withholding their donations to colleges that foster or sanction attacks on traditional American values and decency. While it's a bit more difficult, since their money is taken from them, taxpayers ought to rebel as well by pressuring their legislators.

for full article:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/donor.html


----------



## Black Lance (Mar 30, 2007)

I am inclined to agree. Why the government continues to fund extreme left institutions which exist merely to denounce the very fabric of our society remains a mystery to me if the explanation is not simple incompetence.

By the way Adam's Apple, I am curious about your signature. Would you support using nuclear weapons in retaliation for a snowball attack, as the logic of your signature seems to imply?


----------



## maineman (Mar 30, 2007)

I, for one, wonder about the strength of faith of any so-called Christian whose faith comes under assault when visible symbols are removed from his or her field of view.  Is their faith so weak that it must be bolstered by images of crosses and tablets of commandments and creches at every street corner, on every wall, in every square and public building or they will somehow forget their risen Lord?

I know who Jesus is and He knows who I am...and I am sure that were I to suddenly go blind and not be able to see the symbol of His crucifixion, I could still find Him just as easily in my heart... as easily as He could find me.


----------



## jasendorf (Mar 30, 2007)

Oh no!  A donor has stopped donating because a cross was taken down... whatever will the evil liberal academia dooooooooo?


----------



## Black Lance (Mar 30, 2007)

jasendorf said:


> Oh no!  A donor has stopped donating because a cross was taken down... whatever will the evil liberal academia dooooooooo?



Perhaps the better questions is: Oh no, a poor atheist saw a crucifix! Will his skin turn to dust now or is sunlight also required?


----------



## Black Lance (Mar 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> I, for one, wonder about the strength of faith of any so-called Christian whose faith comes under assault when visible symbols are removed from his or her field of view.  Is their faith so weak that it must be bolstered by images of crosses and tablets of commandments and creches at every street corner, on every wall, in every square and public building or they will somehow forget their risen Lord?



I would question the strength of faith of such person also maineman. Yet the purpose of such monuments are not neccesarily to remind us all to be good Christians.


----------



## Annie (Mar 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> I, for one, wonder about the strength of faith of any so-called Christian whose faith comes under assault when visible symbols are removed from his or her field of view.  Is their faith so weak that it must be bolstered by images of crosses and tablets of commandments and creches at every street corner, on every wall, in every square and public building or they will somehow forget their risen Lord?
> 
> I know who Jesus is and He knows who I am...and I am sure that were I to suddenly go blind and not be able to see the symbol of His crucifixion, I could still find Him just as easily in my heart... as easily as He could find me.



Ah but you were raised in a Christian atmosphere, without a crucifix I'm sure, but with a cross. You were given the signposts early and as you say, they were burned upon your heart/soul, made part of your psyche.


----------



## maineman (Mar 30, 2007)

so in today's increasingly polycultural world, why do we NEED to hang onto such vestiges from a less diverse era when they serve no real purpose in the life of anyone's faith?  Jesus suggested we turn the other cheek.... do we instead stick out our chests and demand to display OUR religious symbols while neglecting the symbols of other more recent arrivals to our lands? Is that really what Jesus would have us do?


----------



## maineman (Mar 30, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Ah but you were raised in a Christian atmosphere, without a crucifix I'm sure, but with a cross. You were given the signposts early and as you say, they were burned upon your heart/soul, made part of your psyche.



and I do not feel compelled to thrust them in the faces of every American muslim and buddhist and Jew just because there are more Christians then there are their kind.  The cross of Jesus is burned into my heart and soul and his message of peace and love and turning the other cheek and crossing over to the other side of the road to HELP someone of another faith rather than demand they acknowledge the preeminence of MINE is also burned into my heart and soul.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 30, 2007)

Well when I was in college a couple friends and I decided to start an on campus organization to combat liberal acadamia.  We founded Students Fostering Conservative Thought.  We wanted to call it Fostering the University's Conservative Knowledge but figured we wouldn't get away with that.  It became one of the fastest growing clubs on campus and is still going strong.


----------



## Annie (Mar 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> so in today's increasingly polycultural world, why do we NEED to hang onto such vestiges from a less diverse era when they serve no real purpose in the life of anyone's faith?  Jesus suggested we turn the other cheek.... do we instead stick out our chests and demand to display OUR religious symbols while neglecting the symbols of other more recent arrivals to our lands? Is that really what Jesus would have us do?



Actually, since the 'other religions' have so many secular choices, why should the non-secular need to capitulate? Because they are being 'forced' to. Truth is, Christianity and Judaism are not acceptable, Islam and atheism are ok.


----------



## Black Lance (Mar 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> so in today's increasingly polycultural world, why do we NEED to hang onto such vestiges from a less diverse era when they serve no real purpose in the life of anyone's faith?  Jesus suggested we turn the other cheek.... do we instead stick out our chests and demand to display OUR religious symbols while neglecting the symbols of other more recent arrivals to our lands? Is that really what Jesus would have us do?



First of all, given his repeated statements that he was the _only_ way to salvation, I highly doubt that Jesus walked around with a little statue of Zeus hanging from his neck...

Second, since freedom of religion extends to all religions, we cannot constitutionally discriminate betweenthem in terms of legal rights, so it's a zero or nothing game. Either all can be displayed or none can. That being said, not all are of the same significance to our social fabric and history, and as such some merit display and recognition more than others.


----------



## maineman (Mar 30, 2007)

Black Lance said:


> First of all, given his repeated statements that he was the _only_ way to salvation, I highly doubt that Jesus walked around with a little statue of Zeus hanging from his neck...
> 
> Second, since freedom of religion extends to all religions, we cannot constitutionally discriminate betweenthem in terms of legal rights, so it's a zero or nothing game. Either all can be displayed or none can. That being said, not all are of the same significance to our social fabric and history, and as such some merit display and recognition more than others.



in case you forgot, Jesus was a Jew, so I doubt that he would have cared then, nor cares now about such  symbols without the works of faith that go before it.....


and are you suggesting that the cross in the chapel was there much like a objet d'art in a museum, and your issue is one of being upset at the removal of an historical exhibit, or are you suggesting that the cross is, in fact, a spiritual icon.

And if so.... I suggest, as I did before, that those Christians who feel compelled to be able to look upon the iconography of THEIR faith at every turn in life are pretty shallow petty Christians.


----------



## Annie (Mar 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> in case you forgot, Jesus was a Jew, so I doubt that he would have cared then, nor cares now about such  symbols without the works of faith that go before it.....
> 
> 
> and are you suggesting that the cross in the chapel was there much like a objet d'art in a museum, and your issue is one of being upset at the removal of an historical exhibit, or are you suggesting that the cross is, in fact, a spiritual icon.
> ...



Well not exactly. Though I would say that I have been able to handle Mary in elephant dung, 'My Sweet Lord' in chocolate, without offering death threats. If my school, church, university wished to continue a tradition of a crucifix or cross, especially if it were 'private', can't see where that crosses some line. Much less so than the 'Danish cartoon caper' in MSM media, few reprints, but lots of death threats and capitulation by media. That the 'world' you are going for Maineman?


----------



## Dirt McGirt (Mar 30, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> We wanted to call it Fostering the University's Conservative Knowledge but figured we wouldn't get away with that.


HAHA.

Reminds me of this...


----------



## maineman (Mar 30, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Well not exactly. Though I would say that I have been able to handle Mary in elephant dung, 'My Sweet Lord' in chocolate, without offering death threats. If my school, church, university wished to continue a tradition of a crucifix or cross, especially if it were 'private', can't see where that crosses some line. Much less so than the 'Danish cartoon caper' in MSM media, few reprints, but lots of death threats and capitulation by media. That the 'world' you are going for Maineman?



are you hyperbolically suggesting that I would prefer a world where folks threatened each other with death over silly symbols to a world where we were all respectful of each other's beliefs and faith journeys and tried to not be confrontational for the sake of relatively meaningless iconography?

no.  I would prefer the latter, thank you.


----------



## Annie (Mar 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you hyperbolically suggesting that I would prefer a world where folks threatened each other with death over silly symbols to a world where we were all respectful of each other's beliefs and faith journeys and tried to not be confrontational for the sake of relatively meaningless iconography?
> 
> no.  I would prefer the latter, thank you.



Actually, I was not offering hyperbole. Seems that only Christians and Jews are supposed to 'take it.'


----------



## maineman (Mar 30, 2007)

I really could care less about other people's acceptance of me or my faith.... Jesus was pretty clear what I am supposed to do.  Are you suggesting that Christians get to abandon the teachings of Jesus to turn the other cheek and to forgive our enemies seven times seventy times in order to keep our icons in front of everyone's faces?


----------



## Annie (Mar 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> I really could care less about other people's acceptance of me or my faith.... Jesus was pretty clear what I am supposed to do.  Are you suggesting that Christians get to abandon the teachings of Jesus to turn the other cheek and to forgive our enemies seven times seventy times in order to keep our icons in front of everyone's faces?



Are you suggesting the 'turning the other cheek' is an excuse for annihilation?


----------



## maineman (Mar 30, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Are you suggesting the 'turning the other cheek' is an excuse for annihilation?



no I am saying that turn the other cheek makes more sense that throwing a hissy fit about a cross in a chapel.


----------



## Annie (Mar 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> no I am saying that turn the other cheek makes more sense that throwing a hissy fit about a cross in a chapel.



so it's 'Christian appeasement' based on 'turning the other cheek?' Should the university put up the crescent and star? Star of David? hexagon? What would be good? Just removal, seems such a base way of going. Full sell out!


----------



## maineman (Mar 30, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> so it's 'Christian appeasement' based on 'turning the other cheek?' Should the university put up the crescent and star? Star of David? hexagon? What would be good? Just removal, seems such a base way of going. Full sell out!




What I am saying is that, as a Christian, I do not view the school's decision to remove the cross from the chapel anything of even miniscule importance to me and my own faith journey that it doesn't even make it on my radar.  I have a sterling silver cross that I got when I was confirmed around my neck 24/7 in case I need to look at one.  I think that any "Christian" who makes a big deal about symbols has "sold out" already.


----------



## Annie (Mar 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> What I am saying is that, as a Christian, I do not view the school's decision to remove the cross from the chapel anything of even miniscule importance to me and my own faith journey that it doesn't even make it on my radar.  I have a sterling silver cross that I got when I was confirmed around my neck 24/7 in case I need to look at one.  I think that any "Christian" who makes a big deal about symbols has "sold out" already.



and what I'm saying, if I was of a different religion persuasion, with different rules, I'd consider you have a deathwish. I'd happily agree.


----------



## maineman (Mar 30, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> and what I'm saying, if I was of a different religion persuasion, with different rules, I'd consider you have a deathwish. I'd happily agree.



I have a "deathwish" because I don't care to make a big deal out of the display of an icon?

whatever.


----------



## Annie (Mar 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have a "deathwish" because I don't care to make a big deal out of the display of an icon?
> 
> whatever.



Now you are being obtuse, but so would anyone with a deathwish, so yeah.


----------



## maineman (Mar 30, 2007)

I am not being obtuse...this is a tempest in a teapot... true Christians could care less about silly stuff like this.

I have no deathwish at all.  I wish to live my life and my faith in my country.  I do not expect everyone to worship my God.


----------



## Annie (Mar 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am not being obtuse...this is a tempest in a teapot... true Christians could care less about silly stuff like this.
> 
> I have no deathwish at all.  I wish to live my life and my faith in my country.  I do not expect everyone to worship my God.



You are saying that Christians have less need for passing on history/icons than others. That IS what you are saying. What YOU have is enough, f the future. The Islamicists are not so pansy.


----------



## maineman (Mar 30, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> You are saying that Christians have less need for passing on history/icons than others. That IS what you are saying. What YOU have is enough, f the future. The Islamicists are not so pansy.



so...you are suggesting that the continuance of Christ's mission and message here on earth is dependent upon the physical displays of crosses?  Do you think that good works and reading and preaching the gospel are chopped liver without crosses everywhere?

Do you honestly believe that Jesus would make a big deal about a symbol, or would he worry more about whether or not you loved the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind....and that you loved your neighbor as yourself?

Tough call, I guess... and you would go with:  crosses.

not me.


----------



## maineman (Mar 30, 2007)

and I have to tell you, just so you know, I really don't like being referred to as a pansy... I find it offensive.


----------



## Annie (Mar 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> so...you are suggesting that the continuance of Christ's mission and message here on earth is dependent upon the physical displays of crosses?  Do you think that good works and reading and preaching the gospel are chopped liver without crosses everywhere?
> 
> Do you honestly believe that Jesus would make a big deal about a symbol, or would he worry more about whether or not you loved the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind....and that you loved your neighbor as yourself?
> 
> ...



Like all other history that needs to be passed on, Christianity has its icons, crosses and the Bible. The US has its Constitution, Declaration, Federalist Papers. The DNC has the Kennedy speeches, while the RNC has IKE and Reagan. We need the signposts. We, meaning people are seriously confused when the signposts are absent.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 30, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Like all other history that needs to be passed on, Christianity has its icons, crosses and the Bible. The US has its Constitution, Declaration, Federalist Papers. The DNC has the Kennedy speeches, while the RNC has IKE and Reagan. We need the signposts. We, meaning people are seriously confused when the signposts are absent.



I am seriously confused.  Though I think the point is that some believe not all religions are being treated equally.  Some are being asked to forgoe things that are important to their relgion in order to not offend the disposition of another religion.  We are bending over backwards to appease some, while making every attempt to make sure that another is not offensive in some way.


----------



## maineman (Mar 30, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Like all other history that needs to be passed on, Christianity has its icons, crosses and the Bible. The US has its Constitution, Declaration, Federalist Papers. The DNC has the Kennedy speeches, while the RNC has IKE and Reagan. We need the signposts. We, meaning people are seriously confused when the signposts are absent.



wow....

I am guessing you don't go to church much.  I am guessing you don't read the Bible very often.  

Christianity needs the Bible because people need to be able to read and study the word of God but it does not NEED to have crosses displayed all over town.  Like I said, I cannot imagine Jesus would condone making a big deal out of icons.... that would be like glorifying the pharisees who prayed loudly in the synagogue.  Broadcasting piety is anything but Christlike.


----------



## Annie (Mar 30, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> I am seriously confused.  Though I think the point is that some believe not all religions are being treated equally.  Some are being asked to forgoe things that are important to their relgion in order to not offend the disposition of another religion.  We are bending over backwards to appease some, while making every attempt to make sure that another is not offensive in some way.



What I am seeing, We, meaning US/West, are bending every which way for Islam. MSM refused to post the cartoons which created brouhaha. Now universities, religious/private universities are hiding cross/crucifix. No one, has a problem with Islam-public grammar schools are having Islam months of indoctrination. Colleges are welcoming Saudis, Jordanians, Palistinians, Pakistanianis, etc. All the while, they call for the annhilation of Israel and the end of 'the Great Satan.'


----------



## Adam's Apple (Mar 31, 2007)

Black Lance said:


> I  By the way Adam's Apple, I am curious about your signature. Would you support using nuclear weapons in retaliation for a snowball attack, as the logic of your signature seems to imply?



That not what MacArthur had in mind, as I am sure you are totally aware.


----------



## Adam's Apple (Mar 31, 2007)

maineman said:


> Jesus suggested we turn the other cheek.... do we instead stick out our chests and demand to display OUR religious symbols while neglecting the symbols of other more recent arrivals to our lands? Is that really what Jesus would have us do?



Was Jesus turning the other cheek when he cleared the temple of the money changers?  Where is the b.s. flag when you need it?  

But getting back to the substance of the article--the posted article is about standing up to those who would rid college campuses of Christianity and its influence in the U.S. culture.  What better place for eradicating the influence of Christianity and its symbols than in the schools where the purpose is to train up future generations? 

Hasn&#8217;t getting rid of Christianity and its influence in the U.S. been a major goal of the ACLU for years?  I am sure you read the part about this particular college president&#8217;s involvement with the ACLU at a high level (board member), and you purposely missed seeing the connection between the removal of the cross and the president's involvement in the ACLU.  I doubt that your obfuscating posts will have the blinding effect that you hoped.


----------



## maineman (Mar 31, 2007)

Adam's Apple said:


> Was Jesus turning the other cheek when he cleared the temple of the money changers?  Where is the b.s. flag when you need it?
> 
> But getting back to the substance of the article--the posted article is about standing up to those who would rid college campuses of Christianity and its influence in the U.S. culture.  What better place for eradicating the influence of Christianity and its symbols than in the schools where the purpose is to train up future generations?
> 
> Hasnt getting rid of Christianity and its influence in the U.S. been a major goal of the ACLU for years?  I am sure you read the part about this particular college presidents involvement with the ACLU at a high level (board member), and you purposely missed seeing the connection between the removal of the cross and the president's involvement in the ACLU.  I doubt that your obfuscating posts will have the blinding effect that you hoped.




I didn't purposely miss anything... I just don't think it is a big deal.  The ACLU is a terrible organization until it represents some republican... in fact, it is an organization designed to protect ALL our rights.... it protects nazis and drug using conservative radio hosts as well as atheists.

and my point was:  I do not think Jesus would want us to throw a fucking hissy fit about a cross.


----------



## Black Lance (Mar 31, 2007)

maineman said:


> in case you forgot, Jesus was a Jew, so I doubt that he would have cared then, nor cares now about such  symbols without the works of faith that go before it.....



Agreed.



> and are you suggesting that the cross in the chapel was there much like a objet d'art in a museum, and your issue is one of being upset at the removal of an historical exhibit, or are you suggesting that the cross is, in fact, a spiritual icon.



A cross is a symbol for Christianity, an icon that reminds us of the pivotal person and event of that religion. Such a symbol might be placed in a building for many reasons. 



> And if so.... I suggest, as I did before, that those Christians who feel compelled to be able to look upon the iconography of THEIR faith at every turn in life are pretty shallow petty Christians.



First, as already said, I would agree with this statement.

Second, however, I would also suggest that those people who demand never to look upon the iconography of any faith are but shallow atheists, whose opinions and desires should not be applied in publicly funded institutions.


----------



## Black Lance (Mar 31, 2007)

Adam's Apple said:


> That not what MacArthur had in mind, as I am sure you are totally aware.



I'm not asking what MacArthur thought, I'm asking if you see immediate and total escalation of the conflict as the logical conclusion of "as soon as there is a war do everything possible to destroy the enemy."


----------



## maineman (Mar 31, 2007)

Black Lance said:


> A cross is a symbol for Christianity, an icon that reminds us of the pivotal person and event of that religion. Such a symbol might be placed in a building for many reasons.
> 
> Second, however, I would also suggest that those people who demand never to look upon the iconography of any faith are but shallow atheists, whose opinions and desires should not be applied in publicly funded institutions.



and true Christians would NEVER throw a hissy fit about a symbol.  And there would be NO reason for putting a cross on a building that would compel true Christians to lose sight of the great commandment of Jesus and care more about a cross than obeying it.

And I would certainly agree that people who are offended by crosses are shallow... but if they are taxpayers, they have some say as to what sort of symbology and iconography is placed upon buildings at their expense or even merely on buildings built and maintained at their expense....and I can only shake my head at them and pity them for not knowing the peace and serenity that comes from having a personal relationship with Jesus... and again.... not worry about it in the least, because, as I have said, I have a sterling silver cross around my neck... and I know that I will always be able to close my eyes and see the face of my risen Lord even if I NEVER see a cross in public again.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 1, 2007)

maineman said:


> and true Christians would NEVER throw a hissy fit about a symbol.  And there would be NO reason for putting a cross on a building that would compel true Christians to lose sight of the great commandment of Jesus and care more about a cross than obeying it.
> 
> And I would certainly agree that people who are offended by crosses are shallow... but if they are taxpayers, they have some say as to what sort of symbology and iconography is placed upon buildings at their expense or even merely on buildings built and maintained at their expense....and I can only shake my head at them and pity them for not knowing the peace and serenity that comes from having a personal relationship with Jesus... and again.... not worry about it in the least, because, as I have said, I have a sterling silver cross around my neck... and I know that I will always be able to close my eyes and see the face of my risen Lord even if I NEVER see a cross in public again.




Next those poor offended people will want to get rid of those pesky crosses that are all over Arlington National

There are even "offended" nuts who object to crosses at memorials in honor of fallen Policemen and members of the US military

We have wasted enough time trying to appease these people who go through life looking for things to be offended over


----------



## maineman (Apr 1, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Next those poor offended people will want to get rid of those pesky crosses that are all over Arlington National
> 
> There are even "offended" nuts who object to crosses at memorials in honor of fallen Policemen and members of the US military
> 
> We have wasted enough time trying to appease these people who go through life looking for things to be offended over





and as I said, true Christians do not throw hissy fits about symbols.  They try to keep their focus on the great commandment.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 1, 2007)

maineman said:


> and as I said, true Christians do not throw hissy fits about symbols.  They try to keep their focus on the great commandment.



to the left, "true Christians" just sit back and keep quiet about being insulted and having their Religion dragged thru the mud


----------



## maineman (Apr 1, 2007)

red states rule said:


> to the left, "true Christians" just sit back and keep quiet about being insulted and having their Religion dragged thru the mud



I do not think that removing a christian symbol for an ecumenical chapel on a college campus used by students of all faiths is 'dragging my religion through the mud".... and if you were a Christian, you would KNOW what Jesus requires you to do... and it is not to get angry about a symbol.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 1, 2007)

maineman said:


> I do not think that removing a christian symbol for an ecumenical chapel on a college campus used by students of all faiths is 'dragging my religion through the mud".... and if you were a Christian, you would KNOW what Jesus requires you to do... and it is not to get angry about a symbol.



It is only part of the issue. I wonder if libs would be as tolerant if it was a Muslim symbol being removed - it is OK now to remove any Christian symbol to be removed. Some teachers and workers are forbidden from wearing a cross around their neck. Now even the Easter bunny and Christmas decorations are under attack in the work place and in schools 

Look at the Edwards campaign for the intolerance and acceptance of smearing Christians

Libs do blame Christiands for putting Pres Bush in the Oval office - that is the most unforgivable sin one can commit


----------



## maineman (Apr 1, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It is only part of the issue. I wonder if libs would be as tolerant if it was a Muslim symbol being removed - it is OK now to remove any Christian symbol to be removed. Some teachers and workers are forbidden from wearing a cross around their neck. Now even the Easter bunny and Christmas decorations are under attack in the work place and in schools
> 
> Look at the Edwards campaign for the intolerance and acceptance of smearing Christians
> 
> Libs do blame Christiands for putting Pres Bush in the Oval office - that is the most unforgivable sin one can commit



again...if YOU were a Christian, you would KNOW that Jesus could give a shit about Christmas decorations or easter bunnies.... OR crosses.

And I do not blame Christians for Bush...I blame those who voted for him of ANY stripe.  I am a deeply committed Christian who voted against him as, I am sure, the majority of MY congregation did.  "Christians" aren't to blame for Bush.... Bush voters are to blame for Bush.


----------



## Emmett (Apr 1, 2007)

maineman said:


> I, for one, wonder about the strength of faith of any so-called Christian whose faith comes under assault when visible symbols are removed from his or her field of view.  Is their faith so weak that it must be bolstered by images of crosses and tablets of commandments and creches at every street corner, on every wall, in every square and public building or they will somehow forget their risen Lord?
> 
> I know who Jesus is and He knows who I am...and I am sure that were I to suddenly go blind and not be able to see the symbol of His crucifixion, I could still find Him just as easily in my heart... as easily as He could find me.



I must say Maineman, you making alot sense today. I do disagree with this stat4ement for the following reason: Would you then see it as just as wrong to hang a banner of your favorite sports team in your garage or on the wall of a child. So, no banners, posters, beltbuckles of race fans, on and on and on,etc,..........etc,......etc,.......

Do you have any bumper stickers?

Posters?

Favorite anythings? Indicated by a collection or presence of any memorabilia?

You get my point, right?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 1, 2007)

maineman said:


> again...if YOU were a Christian, you would KNOW that Jesus could give a shit about Christmas decorations or easter bunnies.... OR crosses.
> 
> And I do not blame Christians for Bush...I blame those who voted for him of ANY stripe.  I am a deeply committed Christian who voted against him as, I am sure, the majority of MY congregation did.  "Christians" aren't to blame for Bush.... Bush voters are to blame for Bush.



If only your fellow libs would be so "tolerant". Year after year, the left and the ACLU launches their annual war on Christmas - and now Easter

Again, I wonder if you be so dismissive if it was Muslims having their symbols removed. Why do I suspect you would be playing the race card right now?

Under threat of legal action, schools are being forced to see things the kook left and the ACLU see things - the secular America they want and demand


----------



## maineman (Apr 1, 2007)

comparing the life of a Christian to that of a sports fan is ...

not on target...I was going to say "insulting", but realized that was not appropriate.

and as I have said on this very thread...I still wear a sterling silver cross around my neck that I recieved over 40 years ago when I was confirmed.

My faith is strong and deep and has NEVER required the display of my religion's iconography to the exclusion of others in order for it to survive.


----------



## maineman (Apr 1, 2007)

red states rule said:


> If only your fellow libs would be so "tolerant". Year after year, the left and the ACLU launches their annual war on Christmas - and now Easter
> 
> Again, I wonder if you be so dismissive if it was Muslims having their symbols removed. Why do I suspect you would be playing the race card right now?
> 
> Under threat of legal action, schools are being forced to see things the kook left and the ACLU see things - the secular America they want and demand



If muslims had their iconography on public property and it offended taxpayers, I would have absolutely no problem with removing it.

And rather than ask my "fellow libs" to be tolerant, maybe you should consider the story about the speck in your neighbor's eye and the log in your own....


----------



## red states rule (Apr 1, 2007)

maineman said:


> comparing the life of a Christian to that of a sports fan is ...
> 
> not on target...I was going to say "insulting", but realized that was not appropriate.
> 
> ...



so why are so many tolerant libs "offened" over a cross around the neck, a Christmas tree, or the Easter Bunny

Could it be, some libs are always on the look for something to be offended over?

A lib once demanded me to remove a small 9 inch Christmas tree off my desk at work - I told he "NO".

She whined and HR said I could keep it. In my cube, on my desk, - and it offended her. 

Typical cry baby lib


----------



## maineman (Apr 1, 2007)

and schools that are funded by the tax dollars of muslims and buddhists and jews and atheists ought NOT be preaching OR teaching the primacy or validity of Christianity to students....

I have no desire for my children to learn about Jesus from school teachers...that is my job... their Sunday School teachers' jobs, and our minister's job.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 1, 2007)

maineman said:


> and schools that are funded by the tax dollars of muslims and buddhists and jews and atheists ought NOT be preaching OR teaching the primacy or validity of Christianity to students....
> 
> I have no desire for my children to learn about Jesus from school teachers...that is my job... their Sunday School teachers' jobs, and our minister's job.



we are talikng aboput a Christmas trees, Christmas Carols, and Christmas plays at school. The same thing you had when you were a kid - or is the New World Order libs want to impose on the people? Christmas is now forbidden in the public schools?


----------



## maineman (Apr 1, 2007)

red states rule said:


> we are talikng aboput a Christmas trees, Christmas Carols, and Christmas plays at school. The same thing you had when you were a kid - or is the New World Order libs want to impose on the people? Christmas is now forbidden in the public schools?



when I was in grade school, there were no non-Christians attending.  

And again.... church and home are the appropriate places for children to learn carols.... 

I am curious, RSR....are YOU a Christian?  Is the risen Christ YOUR savior?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 1, 2007)

maineman said:


> when I was in grade school, there were no non-Christians attending.
> 
> And again.... church and home are the appropriate places for children to learn carols....
> 
> I am curious, RSR....are YOU a Christian?  Is the risen Christ YOUR savior?



You are one screwed up lib MM

Now it so UN PC to let kids enjoy the season of Christmas because if offends your sorry liberal ass

Get a life and stop trying to spoil the holiday for the rest of us

When non - Christians move to the US they have to accept the way things are done here. Try reading a Bible in public in Saudi Arabia and see what happens


----------



## Emmett (Apr 1, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You are one screwed up lib MM
> 
> Now it so UN PC to let kids enjoy the season of Christmas because if offends your sorry liberal ass
> 
> ...



Rough subject! Technically, he has a point RSR. So do you. I got pissed when my grand daughters third grade teacher told the kids they should say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. Problem with that however is that it is "offensive" to families of another religion. Jews always seemed to live with it fairly well, they more or less allowed us to do our thing and we in turn allowed them to do theirs. Now we are experienceing an influx of "others". You are right, when theycome here, like our ancestors they should expect to make some changes or be "tolerant" of the fact that  this is "our" country, right? Ut-Oh, 1 problem, we took it from Indians! Do we practice thrie religion. Did all of them practice one religion? No, they were not ONE nation.

Sounds like doubletalk, huh?


----------



## maineman (Apr 1, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You are one screwed up lib MM
> 
> Now it so UN PC to let kids enjoy the season of Christmas because if offends your sorry liberal ass
> 
> ...



why won't you answer my questions, RSR?

My children have ALWAYS enjoyed the Christmas season.... because it is in our home, and our church.... it doesn't need to be in school.... I will teach my children about Christ....not some school teacher.

And you would like America to be MORE like Saudi Arabia?

I ask again:

I am curious, RSR....are YOU a Christian? Is the risen Christ YOUR savior?

Do you KNOW what his greatest commandment to us is?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 1, 2007)

maineman said:


> why won't you answer my questions, RSR?
> 
> My children have ALWAYS enjoyed the Christmas season.... because it is in our home, and our church.... it doesn't need to be in school.... I will teach my children about Christ....not some school teacher.
> 
> ...



What does my Religion have to do with libs tryiong to run Christmas out od society?

What harm does it cause for kids to enjoy the holiday?

If Christmas is so offensive to you libs, repeal it as a FEDERAL holiday, and make it a normal work day without additional pay

Libs are trying to appease the 3% of the population that does not celebrate the holiday of Christmas at the exspense of the 97% who do


----------



## maineman (Apr 1, 2007)

red states rule said:


> What does my Religion have to do with libs tryiong to run Christmas out od society?
> 
> What harm does it cause for kids to enjoy the holiday?
> 
> ...



why are you getting so bent out of shape about a cross?

Who ever said that kids can't enjoy holidays?  As I said, my children have a great time during the advent season.

And when did I ever say that Christmas was offensive to me?

Why can't you try to carry on a conversation with ME instead of talking AT me and PAST me and doing nothing but ranting about "libs"?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 1, 2007)

maineman said:


> why are you getting so bent out of shape about a cross?
> 
> Who ever said that kids can't enjoy holidays?  As I said, my children have a great time during the advent season.
> 
> ...



Because this what the left wing of your party does every year at Christmas time

and this is what they do daily toward any religious symbols they find "offensive" i,e - Christian symbols


----------



## maineman (Apr 1, 2007)

here are the questions I asked you:



maineman said:


> why are you getting so bent out of shape about a cross?(1)
> 
> Who ever said that kids can't enjoy holidays?(2)  As I said, my children have a great time during the advent season.
> 
> ...


how about answering those questions?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 1, 2007)

maineman said:


> here are the questions I asked you:
> 
> 
> how about answering those questions?



I have - but being the "offended" liberal you are - you cannot see the forest for the trees

I have had to deal with your kind at work and still do on a dialy basis.

Libs like you set aside logic, reason, truth, and facts - and run entirely on emotion and feel good liberalism


----------



## maineman (Apr 1, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I have - but being the "offended" liberal you are - you cannot see the forest for the trees
> 
> I have had to deal with your kind at work and still do on a dialy basis.
> 
> Libs like you set aside logic, reason, truth, and facts - and run entirely on emotion and feel good liberalism





you have not answered a single one of my four questions...try again:

why are you getting so bent out of shape about a cross?(1)

Who ever said that kids can't enjoy holidays?(2) As I said, my children have a great time during the advent season.

And when did I ever say that Christmas was offensive to me?(3)

Why can't you try to carry on a conversation with ME instead of talking AT me and PAST me and doing nothing but ranting about "libs"?(4)


----------



## red states rule (Apr 1, 2007)

maineman said:


> you have not answered a single one of my four questions...try again:
> 
> why are you getting so bent out of shape about a cross?(1)
> 
> ...





Are you realy this dumb or do you play the role of a fool on message boards to pass time?


----------



## maineman (Apr 1, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Are you realy this dumb or do you play the role of a fool on message boards to pass time?



why are you so afraid of ever answering a question of mine?

you have no idea how many folks PM to laugh about how badly I embarrass you and your inability to write your own stuff!


----------



## red states rule (Apr 1, 2007)

maineman said:


> why are you so afraid of ever answering a question of mine?
> 
> you have no idea how many folks PM to laugh about how badly I embarrass you and your inability to write your own stuff!



I have pointed out how libs want to impose their secular views on America and how I have to put up with libs like you on a daily basis

You are one the liberal embarrassments on the board MM - you are a military legend and superior debater in your own mind


----------



## maineman (Apr 1, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I have pointed out how libs want to impose their secular views on America and how I have to put up with libs like you on a daily basis
> 
> You are one the liberal embarrassments on the board MM - you are a military legend and superior debater in your own mind



and I asked you, if you were a Christian,. why you felt it so important tohave symbols of your religion be a part of your public life?  ANd I asked you if you could explain what Jesus would think about such concerns about crosses... and I have asked you in this thread and every other thread I have encountered you in to please express yourself.

I don't think I embarrass any liberals...I certainly don't think that anything YOU have ever written has embarrassed me in any way.  I am far froma military legend....I am just a vet who served.... but you only seem to support those troops and those vets who believe exactly like you do...if they don't you disrespect them.  nice touch.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 1, 2007)

maineman said:


> and I asked you, if you were a Christian,. why you felt it so important tohave symbols of your religion be a part of your public life?  ANd I asked you if you could explain what Jesus would think about such concerns about crosses... and I have asked you in this thread and every other thread I have encountered you in to please express yourself.
> 
> I don't think I embarrass any liberals...I certainly don't think that anything YOU have ever written has embarrassed me in any way.  I am far froma military legend....I am just a vet who served.... but you only seem to support those troops and those vets who believe exactly like you do...if they don't you disrespect them.  nice touch.



tell that to the peace niks who spit at a crippled Iraq war vet at the last pro terrorist rally in DC

it seems you peace loving tolerant libs are the ones who express hate toward those who disagree with you


----------



## maineman (Apr 1, 2007)

red states rule said:


> tell that to the peace niks who spit at a crippled Iraq war vet at the last pro terrorist rally in DC
> 
> it seems you peace loving tolerant libs are the ones who express hate toward those who disagree with you



what does that have to do with a discussion between you and me concerning public displays of the iconography of christianity?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 1, 2007)

maineman said:


> what does that have to do with a discussion between you and me concerning public displays of the iconography of christianity?



as with the liberal bimbo at work - if a small Christmas tree inside my cube - "offends" her - that is her problem

Much like most libs, they look for things that do measure up to how they WANT America to be shaped and formed - and they must be removed from public view


----------



## maineman (Apr 1, 2007)

red states rule said:


> as with the liberal bimbo at work - if a small Christmas tree inside my cube - "offends" her - that is her problem
> 
> Much like most libs, they look for things that do measure up to how they WANT America to be shaped and formed - and they must be removed from public view



we are not talking about cristmas trees on people's desks in cube farms..we are talking about crosses on display in public places.

I agree completely with your right to have a christmas tree in your little cube.... but I wonder why you would, you clearly have no idea about the teachings of the man whose birth the season celebrates.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 1, 2007)

maineman said:


> we are not talking about cristmas trees on people's desks in cube farms..we are talking about crosses on display in public places.
> 
> I agree completely with your right to have a christmas tree in your little cube.... but I wonder why you would, you clearly have no idea about the teachings of the man whose birth the season celebrates.



Is that why libs want top have memorial crosses removed that honor fallen Policemen, and members of the US military?

Libs have such class

oh well, I am only off by two letters


----------



## maineman (Apr 1, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Is that wjy libs want top have memorial crosses removed that honor fallen Policemen, and members of the US military?
> 
> Libs have such class
> 
> oh well, I am only off by two letters



I have never suggested removing the crosses from any memorial.


----------



## maineman (Apr 1, 2007)

you need to quit talking past me and attacking "liberals"....

debate ME.... use YOUR words to debate MY words.

try it for once.


----------



## Paul Revere (Apr 1, 2007)




----------



## maineman (Apr 1, 2007)

I say again, RSR...



maineman said:


> you need to quit talking past me and attacking "liberals"....
> 
> debate ME.... use YOUR words to debate MY words.
> 
> try it for once.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 2, 2007)

Donor Pulls $12 Million From W&M Over Wren Cross

Feb 28, 2007 11:27 AM EST 

A long-time donor to the College of William and Mary will withhold a $12 million pledge to the public university because the school removed a cross from a campus chapel. 

School spokesman Mike Connolly says the donation was pledged to the campaign fund before Gene Nichol became the university's president. Connolly says it was revoked because the donor disagreed with Nichol's decision last fall to remove the brass cross from permanent display on the altar at Wren Chapel. 

The donor was not identified. Nichol calls the loss of the donation "a serious setback to the college." 

Nichol decided the cross should be displayed only during appropriate religious services or when someone using the chapel requested it. He said he wanted the chapel to be welcoming for students of all faiths. The 18-inch brass cross had been displayed on the altar since about 1940. Nichol recently created a committee of clergy, professors, students and alumni to study the Wren Chapel's use. 

It will make a recommendation to the Board of Visitors in mid-April. 

http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=6154964


Yes, libs cannot have a cross in a Chapel - what an outrage!


----------



## Adam's Apple (Apr 2, 2007)

Black Lance said:


> I'm not asking what MacArthur thought, I'm asking if you see immediate and total escalation of the conflict as the logical conclusion of "as soon as there is a war do everything possible to destroy the enemy."



My opinion would not be worth 2 cents to you or anyone else since I am not a military man who has had professional training and education in the techniques of conducting war.  However, having been one of our nations foremost generals who had such education and training, MacArthurs comment on the conduct of war seems reasonable and sane to me.  If you see the situation differently, you are free to enlighten me on how you think he erred.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 2, 2007)

Then we have these liberal nuts educating our kids


March 26, 2007
Georgia Professor's Website: 9/11 an Inside Job
What sort of lunacy comes out of Dalton State College Associate Professor of Sociology Dr. Hassan A. El-Najjar's aljazeerah.info website, today?

Editorial by Jim Kerwin on Cheney's role in 9/11. Notice that he never directly accuses Cheney of orchestrating 9/11, but, instead, presents us with a set of "fact" along with a number of "questions" which inevitably lead us to that conclusion:

There were between three and five military war games being conducted on the morning of September eleventh that were being coordinated through the Office of the Vice President of the United States. Dick Cheney is not, nor has he ever been, a qualified military officer: He did successfully dodge the draft, during Vietnam War five times over, but that was as close as he ever got to military service. His office is not part of the Military Operations Chart, so long as the alleged-president remains alive. Why then was Cheney involved in those War-Games on September 11, 2001? ...

Whoever created those war-games also had to know what was going to happen long before it did happen. Because the closed-circuit software for the games had to be created and then issued to the North East Air Corridor radar sites, and that meant that they had to come from official NORAD sources. It is crystal clear that NORAD command was involved, right up to their phony gold-braid.

Yes, it's that bad. But, apparently, it used to be worse. Chad at In the Bullpen notes:
El-Najjar penned numerous editorials, that are simply gone from the site now, including one in which he praises Kim Jong-Il, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by calling them heroes of the year. In contrast, leaders and figures of England, the United States and Israel were heralded as villains of the year.
Your tax dollars at work.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/187102.php


----------



## maineman (Apr 2, 2007)

ahem...




maineman said:


> you need to quit talking past me and attacking "liberals"....
> 
> debate ME.... use YOUR words to debate MY words.
> 
> try it for once.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 2, 2007)

So the truth hurts about teachers teaching their liberalism as fact?


----------



## maineman (Apr 2, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So the truth hurts about teachers teaching their liberalism as fact?




no....nothing you have ever posted "hurts" me.... I just remain really disappointed at your absolute refusal to debate me on any issue.... 

you really have shown yourself to be incapable of putting thoughts into words.  I am not sure if that is because you don't know the words, or you don't have the thoughts.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 2, 2007)

maineman said:


> no....nothing you have ever posted "hurts" me.... I just remain really disappointed at your absolute refusal to debate me on any issue....
> 
> you really have shown yourself to be incapable of putting thoughts into words.  I am not sure if that is because you don't know the words, or you don't have the thoughts.



or being a liberal you hate to have the light of truth shined on liberalism, and those who are teaching it as fact


----------



## red states rule (Apr 2, 2007)

In Virginia, a young conservative student named Rebecca Beach invited a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom to come and report on the progress being made in Iraq. Progress that you don't hear being reported by the hopelessly liberal mainstream news media. 

In response, adjunct English professor John Daly sent an e-mail to Beach, letting her know such patriotism would not be tolerated. In the e-mail, Daly threatened "to expose right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like yours won't dare show their face on a college campus." Daly then went on to add, "Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors." 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48038


----------



## maineman (Apr 2, 2007)

red states rule said:


> or being a liberal you hate to have the light of truth shined on liberalism, and those who are teaching it as fact



I certainly do not hate the light of truth...and I am against extremists of either variety preaching what they believe to the exclusion of others.  

I am just really growing tired of your foolishness.  I really am not sure what it is that causes you to avoid putting your own thoughts into words: a shortage of words or a shortage of thoughts, but either way, you seem determined to continue your role as the conservative clipping service here on USMB, and, as I have said over and over again...I come here to talk politics and foreign policy with people, not read editorials and news clips.  

I really have been beating my heat against the wall on this point for too long.  It was silly to think you would ever change your ways.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 2, 2007)

maineman said:


> I certainly do not hate the light of truth...and I am against extremists of either variety preaching what they believe to the exclusion of others.
> 
> I am just really growing tired of your foolishness.  I really am not sure what it is that causes you to avoid putting your own thoughts into words: a shortage of words or a shortage of thoughts, but either way, you seem determined to continue your role as the conservative clipping service here on USMB, and, as I have said over and over again...I come here to talk politics and foreign policy with people, not read editorials and news clips.
> 
> I really have been beating my heat against the wall on this point for too long.  It was silly to think you would ever change your ways.




Yes, you do hate to see liberalism showed for what it is - a miserable failure

Liberals like you continue to say how open minded you are - but your own words show the opposite


----------



## maineman (Apr 2, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Yes, you do hate to see liberalism showed for what it is - a miserable failure
> 
> Liberals like you continue to say how open minded you are - but your own words show the opposite




two points:

1.  Liberalism is hardly a miserable failure...liberalism clearly and unambiguously WON the 20th Century.  women's suffrage, child labor laws, union rights, minimum wage, social security, environmental protection, workplace safety, medicare, medicaid, civil rights... and on and on... ALL programs championed by progressive liberalism, all programs opposed by conservatives.... and you lost the fight on each and every one of them... 

We liberals realize that this is a battle that spans centuries, not merely election cycles...and we kicked ass in the 20th century and will undoubtedly do the same in the 21st.

and... 

2.  You can have an opinion about my WORDS, because I routinely and exclusively use MY words to express MY thoughts.  Your words say nothing, because YOU never use your OWN words, but rely solely on cutting and pasting the words of others - how pathetic you are!


----------



## red states rule (Apr 2, 2007)

maineman said:


> two points:
> 
> 1.  Liberalism is hardly a miserable failure...liberalism clearly and unambiguously WON the 20th Century.  women's suffrage, child labor laws, union rights, minimum wage, social security, environmental protection, workplace safety, medicare, medicaid, civil rights... and on and on... ALL programs championed by progressive liberalism, all programs opposed by conservatives.... and you lost the fight on each and every one of them...
> 
> ...





Liberalism does nothing but make people dependent of governemnt - via wealth transfers from the producers to the non producers

Like the neighborhood drug dealer - liberals want people to be dependent on them for their next fix - the next government check

As far as big hearted libs - they use school choldren to send hate mail to wounded troops in Walter Reed



This Will Make You Sick...
During our visit to Walter Reed, we all piled into a room of a young soldier who had just come out of surgery.  His parents were there to take care of him.  His room was decorated with autographed photos...one from Stevie Nicks of Fleetwood Mac who had visited the previous day...others of professional football players.  There was also a card from a child...a get well card...


..or so one would think.  

It was actually a "I hope you die" card.  Think I'm kidding?  I'm not.  We were all speechless.  Now I gave my word to the Public Relations officer of Walter Reed that I wouldn't publish any pictures of the soldiers that I took.  I'm not sure if that covers pictures of cards, but until I get clarification, I will only quote the card for you and tell you that the handwriting looked like it was from a child in the third to fourth grade.

Here's what it said....

Dear Soldier,

Have a great time in the war.  

And have a great time dieing in the war.

From,

Miguel Gallier

P.S.   Die

(there were bullet holes drawn around the word "Die")

Unfortunately the envelope wasn't kept so the origin of such a heinous act is unknown.  Luckily, this soldier and his parents decided to hold on to the note because you will be seeing more about it on Fox and Brian Kilmeade.

What parents condone this type of hatred?  What teacher allowed this note to be sent to a soldier who was wounded serving this country?  What school system allows these type of people to teach our children?

To my far left wing anti-war Code Pink, Mama Moonbat Sheehan worshipers...

If you want to protest the war....knock yourself out.  If you want to march till the cows come home....by all means, have at it.  But don't spew your hatred directly at the soldiers who are injured and sacrificed so that you have the liberty and freedom to protest.  Stop using children to promote your agenda.  Its shameful and disgusting and the rest of America won't stand for it.

Lisa

http://twobabesandabrain.typepad.com/two_babes_and_a_brain/2005/12/this_will_make_.html


This is not the first time liberal teachers have done this, and it will not be the last


----------



## maineman (Apr 2, 2007)

and...true to form, you respond with a one liner and...a cut and paste!  imagine that!


----------



## maineman (Apr 2, 2007)

what a loser!


----------



## red states rule (Apr 2, 2007)

maineman said:


> and...true to form, you respond with a one liner and...a cut and paste!  imagine that!



I respond with more examples of liberal love and tolerance - which you are a shining example of


----------



## maineman (Apr 2, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I respond with more examples of liberal love and tolerance - which you are a shining example of



I find the story about the card to the soldier despicable.

I find your repeatedly demonstrated inability to form your own thoughts into words both pathetic and amusing.

RSR = cut and paste....that's it.

My guess is, it might have started back when you were a kid.... when you played baseball, did the coach always pinch hit for you?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 2, 2007)

maineman said:


> I find the story about the card to the soldier despicable.
> 
> I find your repeatedly demonstrated inability to form your own thoughts into words both pathetic and amusing.
> 
> ...





Nothing like posting examples of what libs really think of America and the troops, and watching their fellow libs try and change the subject


----------



## maineman (Apr 2, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Nothing like posting examples of what libs really think of America and the troops, and watching their fellow libs try and change the subject




I clearly stated that I thought the postcard was inappropriate and tasteless...

I am not trying to change the subject at all...i am only trying to get you to speak for yourself and carry on a dialog with you that is devoid of broad generalizations and the cut and pasted opinions of others.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 2, 2007)

maineman said:


> I clearly stated that I thought the postcard was inappropriate and tasteless...
> 
> I am not trying to change the subject at all...i am only trying to get you to speak for yourself and carry on a dialog with you that is devoid of broad generalizations and the cut and pasted opinions of others.



Probably you find it inappropriate and tasteless that the cards made their way to the public view

I wonder if the "treacher" was fired or if liberals called this acadmic freedom


----------



## maineman (Apr 2, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Probably you find it inappropriate and tasteless that the cards made their way to the public view
> 
> I wonder if the "treacher" was fired or if liberals called this acadmic freedom



no... you are wrong about that.  I find it inappropriate and tasteless because it IS.... 

and I have no fucking idea what a TREACHER is!


----------



## red states rule (Apr 2, 2007)

maineman said:


> no... you are wrong about that.  I find it inappropriate and tasteless because it IS....
> 
> and I have no fucking idea what a TREACHER is!



I was right the first time

You are more upset the "right wing" media reported the story

You sounds like you look at this as academic freedom


----------



## maineman (Apr 2, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I was right the first time
> 
> You are more upset the "right wing" media reported the story
> 
> You sounds like you look at this as academic freedom




I could care less if the media reports the story...i think they should find out who the child was who wrote that card.... and demand his parents drag him to Walter Reed to publicly apologize to the soldier in question.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 2, 2007)

maineman said:


> I could care less if the media reports the story...i think they should find out who the child was who wrote that card.... and demand his parents drag him to Walter Reed to publicly apologize to the soldier in question.



and give the "teacher" a pass of course

To libs the ends justify the means


----------



## maineman (Apr 2, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and give the "teacher" a pass of course
> 
> To libs the ends justify the means



if a teacher knowingly passed that card on to Walter Reed, they should be disciplined as well.  Your cut and paste did not indicate that a teacher had done so.


----------



## Gurdari (Apr 2, 2007)

Adam's Apple said:


> *A Donor with Backbone*
> By Walter E. Williams
> March 21, 2007
> 
> ...



Love the 'ownership' of American values - 'we have them, you don't'.
How is promoting socialism anti-american, capitalism isn't anti-Russian, these are ideas! People (even in USA) have different ideas, opinions. Deal with it, and let yours stand or fall on their own merit - this bullshit about 'attacking' values is fantasy. 

And as a mostly-atheist, all I ask for in regards to public spaces is we get equal treatment, that means YES - you take your cross down, and I take down my banner that says 'There is no such thing as GOD'.

Opps, my banner was never up to begin with, nor was it shoved into the hands of kids in school..hmm. Scratch that.


----------



## Black Lance (Apr 2, 2007)

Adam's Apple said:


> My opinion would not be worth 2 cents to you or anyone else since I am not a military man who has had professional training and education in the techniques of conducting war.  However, having been one of our nations foremost generals who had such education and training, MacArthurs comment on the conduct of war seems reasonable and sane to me.  If you see the situation differently, you are free to enlighten me on how you think he erred.



Correct me if I am mistaken, but wasn't MacArthur also encouraging Truman to nuke China? If you consider the probable consequences of that action, I think the problem with his thinking on this point is well-illustrated. It assumes a total war scenario that it not always in effect, and is often not desirable, from either a practical or ethical point of view.


----------



## Black Lance (Apr 2, 2007)

maineman said:


> and true Christians would NEVER throw a hissy fit about a symbol.



But what does revocation of use of that symbol imply?



> And there would be NO reason for putting a cross on a building that would compel true Christians to lose sight of the great commandment of Jesus and care more about a cross than obeying it.



So is it your position that Christians should not move to protect the rights of others?



> And I would certainly agree that people who are offended by crosses are shallow... but if they are taxpayers, they have some say as to what sort of symbology and iconography is placed upon buildings at their expense or even merely on buildings built and maintained at their expense....and I can only shake my head at them and pity them for not knowing the peace and serenity that comes from having a personal relationship with Jesus... and again.... not worry about it in the least, because, as I have said, I have a sterling silver cross around my neck... and I know that I will always be able to close my eyes and see the face of my risen Lord even if I NEVER see a cross in public again.



But should such people be allowed to design public policy around what offends them? What are the likely consequences of that?


----------



## Adam's Apple (Apr 3, 2007)

Black Lance said:


> Correct me if I am mistaken, but wasn't MacArthur also encouraging Truman to nuke China? If you consider the probable consequences of that action, I think the problem with his thinking on this point is well-illustrated. It assumes a total war scenario that it not always in effect, and is often not desirable, from either a practical or ethical point of view.



Can you provide a link to back up your thinking that Truman fired MacArthur because he wanted to nuke China?  I thought the dispute between Truman and MacArthur was whether to expand the war into China because China had sent Chinese troops into the war to fight on the side of North Korea.


----------



## maineman (Apr 3, 2007)

Black Lance said:


> But what does revocation of use of that symbol imply?
> 
> So is it your position that Christians should not move to protect the rights of others?
> 
> But should such people be allowed to design public policy around what offends them? What are the likely consequences of that?



who is revoking the use of a symbol?  They are merely removing it from a location.  If anyone wants to USE the cross, they can wear it, they can have it tattooed on their body..they can display it in their yard on their rooftop.... nothing is being REVOKED.  For that matter, if you would like to display a swastika on your house, go for it.

It is my position that no one has a RIGHT to display their religious iconography in taxpayer funded locations in America.

Public policy ought to be neutral on the subject of religion.  period.  When zealots of any persuasion attempt to force THEIR iconography or THEIR dogma or doctrine on the rest of the public, I have a problem with it.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 3, 2007)

maineman said:


> who is revoking the use of a symbol?  They are merely removing it from a location.  If anyone wants to USE the cross, they can wear it, they can have it tattooed on their body..they can display it in their yard on their rooftop.... nothing is being REVOKED.  For that matter, if you would like to display a swastika on your house, go for it.
> 
> It is my position that no one has a RIGHT to display their religious iconography in taxpayer funded locations in America.
> 
> Public policy ought to be neutral on the subject of religion.  period.  When zealots of any persuasion attempt to force THEIR iconography or THEIR dogma or doctrine on the rest of the public, I have a problem with it.




Tell that to Muslims praying in an airport food court and you would be called a racist


----------



## maineman (Apr 3, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Tell that to Muslims praying in an airport food court and you would be called a racist



where did I say that it was not OK for anyone to pray in public?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

Libs get their shorts in a knot whenever Christians want to pray before a football game - libs never tell members of another Religion when and where they cannot pray


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs get their shorts in a knot whenever Christians want to pray before a football game - libs never tell members of another Religion when and where they cannot pray




I say again:  please show me one single instance where I have ever suggested that individuals ought to be prohibited from praying in public.

(even though Jesus himself was quite clear that prayer is best conducted alone and in private Matt 6:6)


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> I say again:  please show me one single instance where I have ever suggested that individuals ought to be prohibited from praying in public.
> 
> (even though Jesus himself was quite clear that prayer is best conducted alone and in private Matt 6:6)



Nice dodge job. I do not see Christians saying people cannot express thier Religion in public - only libs saying Christains cannot expres theirs in public


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Nice dodge job. I do not see Christians saying people cannot express thier Religion in public - only libs saying Christains cannot expres theirs in public




I say again...show me one quote of mine where I ever say that Christians should not be allowed to pray in public.

I'll wait.

and you ought to go read Matthew 6:6.... it is on point here.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> I say again...show me one quote of mine where I ever say that Christians should not be allowed to pray in public.
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> and you ought to go read Matthew 6:6.... it is on point here.



You are in a constant spin mode son


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

so...you admit that I have never said anything that even vaguely resembles anything like what you say I said?

I LOVE it when Christians pray.  I pray at my desk often throughout the day... and if you were to open the door and enter my office, you would not even know I was praying.... 

You are the one who is running away from your own cut and paste jobs...

are you ever gonna just admit that your posting of the Iraq casualty website was a big mistake and that it does not show any decrease in American casualties and certainly not a 60% decrease as you suggested?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> so...you admit that I have never said anything that even vaguely resembles anything like what you say I said?
> 
> I LOVE it when Christians pray.  I pray at my desk often throughout the day... and if you were to open the door and enter my office, you would not even know I was praying....
> 
> ...



Libs are the only ones I see trying to remove God from the public view

Libs are the only ones I see trying to prevent people from openly expressing their Christian views

I did post several examples backing up the decrease in US deaths - much to your dismay and sorrow


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs are the only ones I see trying to remove God from the public view
> 
> Libs are the only ones I see trying to prevent people from openly expressing their Christian views
> 
> I did post several examples backing up the decrease in US deaths - much to your dismay and sorrow



Why does God need to be in public view.  Is He not in your heart?

I have never EVER suggested that people should not be free to openly express their christian faith....

and you posted this link that disproves your case.  why did you do that?

http://icasualties.org/oif/


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> Why does God need to be in public view.  Is he not in your heart?
> 
> I have never EVER suggested that people should not be free to openly express their christian faith....
> 
> ...





Libs always seem to be offended by having Christians openly expressing their Religion in public

BTW, sorry to hear your party has been cancelled


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs always seem to be offended by having Christians openly expressing their Religion in public
> 
> BTW, sorry to hear your party has been cancelled




When have I ever said I was offended by any such thing?

when will YOU address the fact that YOU posted that website, not me?

and when are you ever gonna go fight in the war in Iraq instead of hiding behind your computer and waving pompoms like the chickenshit yellow bellied fighting keyboardist that you are?


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

again...here is your website that YOU posted:

please show me there the 60% decrease in American deaths:

http://icasualties.org/oif/


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> When have I ever said I was offended by any such thing?
> 
> when will YOU address the fact that YOU posted that website, not me?
> 
> and when are you ever gonna go fight in the war in Iraq instead of hiding behind your computer and waving pompoms like the chickenshit yellow bellied fighting keyboardist that you are?




Libs and the ACLU have an ongoing war against Christains and anytime they express their Religion in public - but have no problem with other Religions doing the same in public

I see you are so upset your death watch party is on hold

What's wrong? You can't get a refund on the band and food/drink order?


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs and the ACLU have an ongoing war against Christains and anytime they express their Religion in public - but have no problem with other Religions doing the same in public
> 
> I see you are so upset your death watch party is on hold
> 
> What's wrong? You can't get a refund on the band and food/drink order?




I have asked you to show me one quote of MINE where I have ever expressed any problems with Christians expressing their religion in public.

Please find one.

and why are you so afraid to admit that you fucked up?

It would be one thing if I were the one to post http://icasualties.org/oif/
and you were to say that it was some liberal site that did not have good numbers...but is was YOU who posted it and now you cannot even admit that it disproves your case!


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have asked you to show me one quote of MINE where I have ever expressed any problems with Christians expressing their religion in public.
> 
> Please find one.
> 
> ...



My you are in such a testy mood today knowing you have been proven wrong on so many diffenerent topics

You try to duck and hide from your liberalism when you are proved wrong

I damn near pity you


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> My you are in such a testy mood today knowing you have been proven wrong on so many diffenerent topics
> 
> You try to duck and hide from your liberalism when you are proved wrong
> 
> I damn near pity you




you have never proven me wrong about anything ever...you have only insulted my faith and my service to my country while having not served yourself.  And you run away from your own mistakes all the time.  again... why did you post this link?
http://icasualties.org/oif/

it shows a constant rate of American casualties from Janaury right through into April.... the fact that the deaths in Baghdad may be down slightly is more than counterbalanced by increases in other areas... which proves what many of us have been saying all along..the surge was too little too late and the handful of extra troops in baghdad will only cause the insurgency to move somewhere else for a while.... the deaths are still there...DoD is clear:  the rates of American casualties in Iraq are steady NOT down by 60% as you suggested...and the website that YOU posted proves that.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> you have never proven me wrong about anything ever...you have only insulted my faith and my service to my country while having not served yourself.  And you run away from your own mistakes all the time.  again... why did you post this link?
> http://icasualties.org/oif/
> 
> it shows a constant rate of American casualties from Janaury right through into April.... the fact that the deaths in Baghdad may be down slightly is more than counterbalanced by increases in other areas... which proves what many of us have been saying all along..the surge was too little too late and the handful of extra troops in baghdad will only cause the insurgency to move somewhere else for a while.... the deaths are still there...DoD is clear:  the rates of American casualties in Iraq are steady NOT down by 60% as you suggested...and the website that YOU posted proves that.




I do question the patriotism of libs like you who do nothing but smear, undermine, and support Dems who want deafet in Iraq

I have posted several links that show the surge is working, but since you and your party have based your political future on failure in Iarq - you do not want to know the good news

Military and Secuity 3/14/2007 11:30:00 AM 



KUN0014 4 GEN 0266 KUWAIT /KUNA-QVN0 MIL-IRAQ-US SOLDIERS Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) -- The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre. Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before. Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes. The remarkable decrease in killings among the US troops came at a time when more of these troops were deployed in the Iraqi capital, especially in districts previously regarded as extremely hazardous for them such as Al-Sadr City, Al-Azamiyah, and Al-Doura. Meanwhile, US attacks on insurgent strongholds north of Baghdad curbed attacks against helicopters. Before the new security plan, many such craft were downed leaving 20 soldiers dead. The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan. The statistics excluded US troops killed in other governorates such as Al-Anbar, Diyala, and Salahiddin. As to the latest human losses, the US army announced Wednesday that two American soldiers had been killed, one in southern Baghdad and the other northeast of the capital.(end) ahh.msa KUNA 141130 Mar 07NNNN


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

I have never smeared the troops and I want victory in Iraq as much as anyone.

I understand that you have posted news stories that talk about a decrease in violence in baghdad and that the "surge" therefore is "working"... I pointed out, and you keep running away from the FACT that the death rate among Americans has NOT decreased in Iraq one iota.... even the website you posted a link to proves THAT out.  When we put more troops into baghdad...surprise surprise.... the insurgents take their fight to other less protected areas of Iraq....because, as I predicted, the "surge" was too little and too late and we do not have enough troops available to keep order everywhere and the insurgency is agile enough to simply move to where we do NOT have a predominance of power and continue their fight there.... the FACT remains...the very website YOU linked us to shows that Americans are dying at the same rate before and after the surge and we have NOT experienced a 69% decrease regardless of optimistic highly spun press releases to the contrary.


----------



## Louie (Apr 4, 2007)

for the love of Christ on the Cross RSR, invest in some kind of friggin' spell check you tool!!


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have never smeared the troops and I want victory in Iraq as much as anyone.
> 
> I understand that you have posted news stories that talk about a decrease in violence in baghdad and that the "surge" therefore is "working"... I pointed out, and you keep running away from the FACT that the death rate among Americans has NOT decreased in Iraq one iota.... even the website you posted a link to proves THAT out.  When we put more troops into baghdad...surprise surprise.... the insurgents take their fight to other less protected areas of Iraq....because, as I predicted, the "surge" was too little and too late and we do not have enough troops available to keep order everywhere and the insurgency is agile enough to simply move to where we do NOT have a predominance of power and continue their fight there.... the FACT remains...the very website YOU linked us to shows that Americans are dying at the same rate before and after the surge and we have NOT experienced a 69% decrease regardless of optimistic highly spun press releases to the contrary.




The left wants and needs a loss in Iraq for their political future. The terrorists are watching the Dems roll over and  could not be happier.

The last things Dems want is any good news from Iraq - your blind loyality to trhe surrender monkies proves that point

What do you do for relaxation? Watch home moveis of Pearl Harbor with a laugh track?


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The left wants and needs a loss in Iraq for their political future. The terrorists are watching the Dems roll over and  could not be happier.
> 
> The last things Dems want is any good news from Iraq - your blind loyality to trhe surrender monkies proves that point
> 
> What do you do for relaxation? Watch home moveis of Pearl Harbor with a laugh track?



that is a lie... the left would LOVE for America to win in Iraq just as much as the right would.  We are going to win the white house back because your guys have been inept, incompetent and corrupt in everything they have touched.  We don't need a failure in Iraq... it already is a quagmire of your making... WE will be the white knights who pull victory from the jaws of defeat that your party's abysmal foreign policy has gotten us into.  It is YOU who seeks to minimize the number of our casualties and make light of their sacrifice for political gain.  How do you sleep at night?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> that is a lie... the left would LOVE for America to win in Iraq just as much as the right would.  We are going to win the white house back because your guys have been inept, incompetent and corrupt in everything they have touched.  We don't need a failure in Iraq... it already is a quagmire of your making... WE will be the white knights who pull victory from the jaws of defeat that your party's abysmal foreign policy has gotten us into.  It is YOU who seeks to minimize the number of our casualties and make light of their sacrifice for political gain.  How do you sleep at night?



So how does the "Surrender At All Costs" bill make America safer?

Now Dems want to delete the word "terror" from the Global War on Terror. I guess libs do not want to offend the terrorists


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So how does the "Surrender At All Costs" bill make America safer?



YOur cute misnaming of our initiative aside, it will make America safer by freeing up DoD assets to actually fight the war against islamic extremists instead of having them tied up in the middle of a civil war in Iraq that does not do anything to deal with our real enemies.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> YOur cute misnaming of our initiative aside, it will make America safer by freeing up DoD assets to actually fight the war against islamic extremists instead of having them tied up in the middle of a civil war in Iraq that does not do anything to deal with our real enemies.



So handing the terrorists an entire country, with huge oil revenues, with influence from little Adolf in Iran will make the US safer?


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So handing the terrorists an entire country, with huge oil revenues, with influence from little Adolf in Iran will make the US safer?




No one said we would hand terrorists Iraq.  Do you honestly think that the "handful of deadenders" are going to take Iraq away from Iraqis?

Do you honestly think that the shiite majority in Iraq - finally freed from Saddam's iron fisted regime and now in power - are going to let a handful of terrorists from outside Iraq take their country over?

and you need to realize that Iran is more powerful today because of our invasion of Iraq.... with Saddam gone, Iran has been free to expand their influence in the region in ways that would have been impossible with Saddam sitting next door.

If Iran is now a bigger problem...we have created that.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> No one said we would hand terrorists Iraq.  Do you honestly think that the "handful of deadenders" are going to take Iraq away from Iraqis?
> 
> Do you honestly think that the shiite majority in Iraq - finally freed from Saddam's iron fisted regime and now in power - are going to let a handful of terrorists from outside Iraq take their country over?
> 
> ...





So now it is Bush's fault little Adolf is pulling the strings and providing weapons to kill our troops?

With Pelosi on her "Coddle A Dictator Tour" I see the Dems are going down the path of Neville Chamberlain


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So now it is Bush's fault little Adolf is pulling the strings and providing weapons to kill our troops?
> 
> With Pelosi on her "Coddle A Dictator Tour" I see the Dems are going down the path of Neville Chamberlain




it is Bush's fault that Iran has gained credibility and influence in the wake of our invasion of Iraq.  Saddam kept Iran in check.... Iran would never have been able to pull off the Hezbollah support it did last summer if Saddam had been in power.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> it is Bush's fault that Iran has gained credibility and influence in the wake of our invasion of Iraq.  Saddam kept Iran in check.... Iran would never have been able to pull off the Hezbollah support it did last summer if Saddam had been in power.



So know the kook left says Saddam was a peace maker!

LOL!


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So know the kook left says Saddam was a peace maker!
> 
> LOL!



not at all...Saddam was a meanass prick...but he kept Iran from spreading their wings and exerting their influence throughout the region.  Don't you wish Bush could do that?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> not at all...Saddam was a meanass prick...but he kept Iran from spreading their wings and exerting their influence throughout the region.  Don't you wish Bush could do that?




Is that why ABC reported on the opposition groups last night and how, with advice from the US, is trying to take down the government?

Yes, the liberal media is always ready to help the enemies of the US if it hampers Pres Bush and our intel agencies


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Is that why ABC reported on the opposition groups last night and how, with advice from the US, is trying to take down the government?
> 
> Yes, the liberal media is always ready to help the enemies of the US if it hampers Pres Bush and our intel agencies



that is nothing new.... we have been working with Iranian opposition groups for years.... Bush hasn't had much success, and Iran does have more influence in the region now that Saddam is gone.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> that is nothing new.... we have been working with Iranian opposition groups for years.... Bush hasn't had much success, and Iran does have more influence in the region now that Saddam is gone.



So you have no problem with the liberl media keeping the opposition up to date with what we are doing?

Then you wonder why your patriotism is questioned. Of course one cannot question something that does not exist


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So you have no problem with the liberl media keeping the opposition up to date with what we are doing?
> 
> Then you wonder why your patriotism is questioned. Of course one cannot question something that does not exist



I must admit that that poorly constructed and even more poorly spelled "sentence" is unintelligible.

I have no problem with the media reporting the news. Bush's inability to have any success with Iranian opposition groups has nothing to do with news media and everything to do with the fact that his invasion of Iraq has been like a shot of steroids for the regional influence of Iran... 

My patriotism is based upon my love of country... when my country is headed in the wrong direction, I will stand up and try my damnedest to get her to change course.  

Your "patriotism" is based on three things:  1.  your love of party.  2.  your love of George Bush 3.  your pathetic ignorance.  For you, anything the republican party or George Bush does is, by definition, just ducky, because you really are too fucking stupid to think for yourself.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> I must admit that that poorly constructed and even more poorly spelled "sentence" is unintelligible.
> 
> I have no problem with the media reporting the news. Bush's inability to have any success with Iranian opposition groups has nothing to do with news media and everything to do with the fact that his invasion of Iraq has been like a shot of steroids for the regional influence of Iran...
> 
> ...



You have shown over and over you have put your party ahead of your country. To you, America should be a haven of liberalsim, where misery is spread around equally, where you would live in a fantasyland of utopia, and where government is the solution to any and all problems.

Your contempt and sheer arrogrance oozes into every post and you are the one has allowed his hate and rage to cloud any judement and common sense you ever had (if you ever had any to begin with)


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You have shown over and over you have put your party ahead of your country. To you, America should be a haven of liberalsim, where misery is spread around equally, where you would live in a fantasyland of utopia, and where government is the solution to any and all problems.
> 
> Your contempt and sheer arrogrance oozes into every post and you are the one has allowed his hate and rage to cloud any judement and common sense you ever had (if you ever had any to begin with)




nice tapdance.

I served my country for a quarter of a century.  And YOUR service was????

I have served my country in harm's way... and your service was?????


I believe in progressive liberalism..and I realize that you are still licking your wounds from the last century which your side lost hands down, and I realize you love to mischaracterize liberals as utopians or socialists, but the fact remains:  the list of our accomplishments over the last century is very long...just about as long as YOUR list of defeats.

women's suffrage
child labor laws
workplace safety
union protection
social security
minimum wage
medicare
medicaid
environmental protection
civil rights

it must suck to be a conservative in America and KNOW that you never really WIN anything, you, at best, just delay losing.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> nice tapdance.
> 
> I served my country for a quarter of a century.  And YOUR service was????
> 
> ...



I know you served in the Navy, commanding a boat in the Tunnel Of Love (and had to be rescued several times)

Liberalsim has given America many things - taught people to be dependent on government, a tax code where over $1 trillion has to be spent so people and companies can prepare their tax returns, over $9 trillion in wealth transfers which has accomplished nothing, a Social Secuirty program that is nothing more then a huge pyramid scheme, and an EPA which is more interested in the life of a kangaroo rat then a farmer growing his crops

I would not talk about unions - union representation in in the single digits (Thank God)


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I know you served in the Navy, commanding a boat in the Tunnel Of Love (and had to be rescued several times)
> 
> Liberalsim has given America many things - taught people to be dependent on government, a tax code where over $1 trillion has to be spent so people and companies can prepare their tax returns, over $9 trillion in wealth transfers which has accomplished nothing, a Social Secuirty program that is nothing more then a huge pyramid scheme, and an EPA which is more interested in the life of a kangaroo rat then a farmer growing his crops
> 
> I would not talk about unions - union representation in in the single digits (Thank God)



and your service to our country was?????

like I said...progressive liberalism won the 20th century and will undoubtedly win the 21st.  It must suck to be a conservative and have gotten your ass kicked for 100 years... it msut double suck to be a chickenshit chickenhawk yellow coward conservative who waves pompoms for war but never quite finds the courage to get up from behind the safety of his computer and actually go fight for his freedoms.  Fucking coward.  YOu disgust me.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> and your service to our country was?????
> 
> like I said...progressive liberalism won the 20th century and will undoubtedly win the 21st.  It must suck to be a conservative and have gotten your ass kicked for 100 years... it msut double suck to be a chickenshit chickenhawk yellow coward conservative who waves pompoms for war but never quite finds the courage to get up from behind the safety of his computer and actually go fight for his freedoms.  Fucking coward.  YOu disgust me.



Liberalism has been proven to be a failure - libs do not want people to take care of their own problems - then they would have no need for libs and their handouts

You must have forgotten about Ronald Reagan who cleaned up the mess of Pres Peanut and how he took down the Soviet Union (much to the dismay of lis)

Lins always fall back on their chickenhawk talking points - you are the coward MM. You have sold out your country and pledged your loyality to your party


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Liberalism has been proven to be a failure - libs do not want people to take care of their own problems - then they would have no need for libs and their handouts
> 
> You must have forgotten about Ronald Reagan who cleaned up the mess of Pres Peanut and how he took down the Soviet Union (much to the dismay of lis)
> 
> Lins always fall back on their chickenhawk talking points - you are the coward MM. You have sold out your country and pledged your loyality to your party



If you are saying that liberalism is a failure, then you are saying that America in the 20th century is a failure.

I have not forgotten Reagan...but he didn't repeal social security or medicare or medicaid or the EPA or the civil rights act or child labor laws or the minimum wage or a woman's right to vote, did he?

And you are really brave...and you "support veterans" so well when you call a man a coward who served most of his adult life so that YOU could remain free.  shame on you you pathetic little man.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> If you are saying that liberalism is a failure, then you are saying that America in the 20th century is a failure.
> 
> I have not forgotten Reagan...but he didn't repeal social security or medicare or medicaid or the EPA or the civil rights act or child labor laws or the minimum wage or a woman's right to vote, did he?
> 
> And you are really brave...and you "support veterans" so well when you call a man a coward who served most of his adult life so that YOU could remain free.  shame on you you pathetic little man.




You nhave sold out your country to your party - you are the pathetic loser


There are three (at least) deficiencies in modern liberal thinking: 

The assumption that people will act in the interests of the common good. 
A basic lack of understanding of economics and capitalism. 
The view from the ivory tower is not the view that most of the world sees. 

The notion that people will act in the interests of the common good is simply erroneous. People first act in their own self-interest and in the interest of self-preservation. Children are naturally selfish and must be taught to share. Many never learn and even those that do only practice benevolence once their basic needs are met. 

It is for this reason that many welfare programs fail. If people can get something for nothing, they will, whether or not they are in need. Only in a fantasy world will people act for the common good that is necessary for liberal doctrine to succeed. 

In order to achieve the goals of a civilized society, the plain fact that people are selfish must be channeled in a way that ultimately benefits everyone. In this country, we do this. It is called capitalism. It is the desire for self-preservation and maximization of ones personal station in life that drives the engine of capitalism that ultimately benefits the society as a whole. 

It is the challenging of the individual to achieve and rewarding that achievement that elevates the society. Handouts and bailouts reward and yes, encourage, failure. Preferences also undermine the achievement incentive by rewarding some over others on a basis other than achievement. 

Liberals know what they want, but dont know how to achieve them. A couple of practical examples in the news today are prescription drugs and energy. Liberals want affordable prescription drugs but they also demand breakthrough drugs. The only way to get new, lifesaving drugs is to turn to the capitalistic system that produces them. Controlling the profit mechanism, i.e. price controls, reduces the incentive for any company to invest the resources to produce new drugs. Yes, existing drugs may become affordable but at what cost of future breakthroughs? 

When it comes to energy, the liberal mantra is toward renewable energy. The only way renewable energy will ever be developed on a large scale is when there is a profit potential that provides incentive for companies to invest. One way to do that would be to increase the price (through taxation) of petroleum-based energy. I would offer that a five-dollar per gallon gasoline tax would drastically reduce domestic consumption, and would provide the incentive for research and development of alternative energy sources. Of course such a radical attempt to change the economics of energy would be disastrous to the economy, but until alternative energy sources make economic sense, we will continue to depend on petroleum. 

Liberals also dont understand why wealth redistribution is not a good thing. The rich, the group most often reviled by liberals, dont just stuff their money under their beds. They invest their money, they spend their money and they even put their money in the bank. All of which ultimately create jobs. Everyone, by their inherent instinct for self-interest would like to be wealthy, but yet the liberal views the achievement of wealth as being somehow evil. Many, many people have benefited from the wealth of entrepreneurs such as Sam Walton, Bill Gates and Michael Dell. Why would we ever take away the incentive and opportunity for anyone to become wealthy? This incentive is what drives capitalism and that, in turn, makes everything else possible. Excessive taxation diminishes the incentive to work and invest. The redistribution of wealth and the imposition of disincentives to capitalism results in a society like the now defunct Soviet Union. 

Another serious shortcoming of modern liberal thinking is that few on the left can view the world from a viewpoint other than their own. It would be utopian for everyone to just get along but the undeniable fact is that some in this world would eliminate all that do not share their view of life, one example being those that practice the so-called radical Islam. A liberal would say that one should sit down and work out differences with such people, but the reality is that while the liberal is sitting on one side of the table, his adversary would shoot him dead. Liberals always denounce war. Conservatives do not want war, but at times there comes a point where talk and diplomacy fail and one must speak in a language, force, that the opponent understands. 

The goals of both liberals and conservatives are not all that different. Liberals just have to figure out that most of the world doesnt live in their ivory tower and doesnt work the way they would like. 

[1] http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article\_7196.shtml


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

mr. cut and paste.... when will you ever be able to carry on a debate without that crutch?

fucking loser


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

just answer my questions regarding Reagan:

he didn't repeal social security or medicare or medicaid or the EPA or the civil rights act or child labor laws or the minimum wage or a woman's right to vote, did he?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> mr. cut and paste.... when will you ever be able to carry on a debate without that crutch?
> 
> fucking loser



The article points out the failures of liberaism very well. I am not surprised you fell back on your crutch faster then Bill fell on an intern


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The article points out the failures of liberaism very well. I am not surprised you fell back on your crutch faster then Bill fell on an intern



I have no crutch. I stand on my own words.  I asked you a queston about Ronnie... care to try and answer it in your own words?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have no crutch. I stand on my own words.  I asked you a queston about Ronnie... care to try and answer it in your own words?



The only cruth you have is your inability to set aside your arrorgance and hate

Pres Reagan did not try to reform those liberal disasters - he should have - but he did a great job with what he did do

Cleaning up the mess libs and Pres Peanut created


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The only cruth you have is your inability to set aside your arrorgance and hate
> 
> Pres Reagan did not try to reform those liberal disasters - he should have - but he did a great job with what he did do
> 
> Cleaning up the mess libs and Pres Peanut created



I have no hate...and if I appear "arrogant" in regards to my knowledge of the middle east versus YOUR knowledge of the area, would you say that a heart surgeon was "arrogant" when talking about cadiovascular health to a kindergarten class?

NOw...answer my question about Reagan...

he didn't repeal social security or medicare or medicaid or the EPA or the civil rights act or child labor laws or the minimum wage or a woman's right to vote, did he?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have no hate...and if I appear "arrogant" in regards to my knowledge of the middle east versus YOUR knowledge of the area, would you say that a heart surgeon was "arrogant" when talking about cadiovascular health to a kindergarten class?
> 
> NOw...answer my question about Reagan...
> 
> he didn't repeal social security or medicare or medicaid or the EPA or the civil rights act or child labor laws or the minimum wage or a woman's right to vote, did he?



I did not think even a lib could be as stupid as you

What part of Pres Reagan did not try to reform those liberal disasters - he should have, do you not understand?


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I did not think even a lib could be as stupid as you
> 
> What part of Pres Reagan did not try to reform those liberal disasters - he should have, do you not understand?



but he didn't do it, did he?  SO reagan was not quite the conservative hero you portray him to be...and the march of progressive liberalism can only be slowed down...it can never be turned around.  Oh...and it is nice to see that you think that child labor laws are a liberal disaster.  Do you feel the same way about civil rights?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 4, 2007)

maineman said:


> but he didn't do it, did he?  SO reagan was not quite the conservative hero you portray him to be...and the march of progressive liberalism can only be slowed down...it can never be turned around.  Oh...and it is nice to see that you think that child labor laws are a liberal disaster.  Do you feel the same way about civil rights?




Now Reagan was not a conservative?

He only cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28%

Pulled the country out of the Pres Peanut recession and gave us the greates and longest economic growth ever

Built up our military and took out the Soviets

Dismissed the libs crying about how he was going to start WWIII

Keep trying to rewrite history - that is all libs have left


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Now Reagan was not a conservative?
> 
> He only cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28%
> 
> ...



when did I say that reagan was not a conservative?

I pointed out that he did not reverse the social programs of progressive liberalism.  

do you disagree with that?

and do you consider child labor laws to really be a liberal disaster?

and if so, do you feel the same for civil rights laws?  what about women's suffrage?


----------



## Louie (Apr 5, 2007)

Ronnie "I don't remember, I don't recall, I don't remember anything at all!" Raygun was a joke, much like your posts and spelling rsr.

All hail the great actor!
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

      

some of his "greatness"

he invades a country 1/2 the size of Rhode Island over a runway strip instead of going after the people responsible for bombing the marine barracks in Lebanon 

He promoted an economic theory known as "supply-side economics" - which GHWB derided as "voodoo economics" when running against Reagan for the Republican presidential nomination in 1980. The theory held that tax cuts for the rich would lead them to save and invest money, leading to increased productivity and lower unemployment. 

The 1980s, it was the worst decade of post-World War II growth. The median wage was flat, and there was a massive redistribution of income, with wealth going to the top one or two percent of the population 

he would cut student aid  

He and his administration backed anti-Communist Guatemalan strongman Efrain Rios Montt, who led the Central American country during some of the worst human rights abuses of its 36-year-long civil war. 
Congress required him to certify that [Guatemala] was improving human rights, which he did. Reagan was praising Rios Montt when there were systematic rapes and tortures going on

His fiscal rhetoric rarely matched his actions. He was a person who said he believed in balanced budgets but ran the biggest deficit in history and he never produced a balanced budget

Reagan promised to reduce the size of government - but government spending increased by 25&#37;, adjusted for inflation, on his watch

and of course everyone's favorite: Iran-Contra affair 

He and his "Reagan's National Security Council" (NSC) backed them secretly - with money raised by selling arms to Iran in violation of a separate US embargo. The arms sales to Iran were carried out with the knowledge of, among others, President Ronald Reagan and his vice-president. They inturn withheld... large volumes of highly relevant, contemporaneously created documents 

Impeaching the bastard should have been considered 

I am sure Ronnie has his own private spot in hell.


----------



## maineman (Apr 5, 2007)

I like to imagine that if there is reincarnation, Ronnie comes back as a poor, unmarried ,uneducated, pregnant black woman.


----------



## Louie (Apr 5, 2007)

LOL Maine, that would be justice!


----------



## red states rule (Apr 5, 2007)

maineman said:


> I like to imagine that if there is reincarnation, Ronnie comes back as a poor, unmarried ,uneducated, pregnant black woman.



They are in that state thanks to liberals and how the train them to depend on government handouts


----------



## Louie (Apr 5, 2007)

you have ZERO grip on reality!


----------



## red states rule (Apr 5, 2007)

Louie said:


> you have ZERO grip on reality!



Libs are like the local drug dealer - they want their "customers" to be totally dependent on them for their next fix (i.e government handout)


----------



## maineman (Apr 5, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs are like the local drug dealer - they want their "customers" to be totally dependent on them for their next fix (i.e government handout)




do you ever have anything other than the same old shopworn conservative platitudes?  YOu have posted that same sentence about three dozen times in the last few weeks....it really does seem like you are not really a human being but some form of very crudely programmed newsbot.... 

sort of like those old "eightballs" you would ask them a question...shake them up and then one of a finite number of messages would appear...


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> do you ever have anything other than the same old shopworn conservative platitudes?  YOu have posted that same sentence about three dozen times in the last few weeks....it really does seem like you are not really a human being but some form of very crudely programmed newsbot....
> 
> sort of like those old "eightballs" you would ask them a question...shake them up and then one of a finite number of messages would appear...



It is a great description of liberals

What other groups wants to keep their voters down, in poverty, dependent on government handouts, and unable to make it on their own without a government program?

The answer is liberals


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It is a great description of liberals
> 
> What other groups wants to keep their voters down, in poverty, dependent on government handouts, and unable to make it on their own without a government program?
> 
> The answer is liberals



so...in answer to my question.... NO... you DON'T have anything other than the same old shopworn platitudes straight from Rush and Hannity.  

It is a ridiculous and erroneous mischaracterization, as most intelligent thinking people well understand.  Liberals do not want to keep voters in poverty.  We want to empower voters and raise them OUT of poverty.... but I realize that, for someone as intellectually bankrupt as you, platitudes and aphorisms - and editorials - written by others is really all you've got.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> so...in answer to my question.... NO... you DON'T have anything other than the same old shopworn platitudes straight from Rush and Hannity.
> 
> It is a ridiculous and erroneous mischaracterization, as most intelligent thinking people well understand.  Liberals do not want to keep voters in poverty.  We want to empower voters and raise them OUT of poverty.... but I realize that, for someone as intellectually bankrupt as you, platitudes and aphorisms - and editorials - written by others is really all you've got.



So why do libs fight any attempt to refrom the welfare state and Social Security?

Libs need people to be dependent on them so they will secure their votes


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So why do libs fight any attempt to refrom the welfare state and Social Security?
> 
> Libs need people to be dependent on them so they will secure their votes



how does the democrat's opposition to Bush's risky social security privatization scheme translate into wanting to keep people poor?

How does wanting to make sure that older Americans have some sort of guaranteed nest egg mean that democrats want to keep voters in poverty?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> how does the democrat's opposition to Bush's risky social security privatization scheme translate into wanting to keep people poor?
> 
> How does wanting to make sure that older Americans have some sort of guaranteed nest egg mean that democrats want to keep voters in poverty?



Risky?

To allow people to invest 2% of their OWN money so they will get a better return on their investment

Libs have this belief only libs can spend and invest people money better then  the people who earn it

If you live long enought to collect you get maybe a 2% return

Why should I finance someone else retiremnt?

Why should someone else finance my retirement?


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Risky?
> 
> To allow people to invest 2% of their OWN money so they will get a better return on their investment
> 
> ...




having a difference of opinion about the wisdom of Bush's privatization plan does NOT translate into democrats wanting voters to remain in poverty.  that is just a silly political aphorism that you continue to spout that has no real intellectual underpinning.  grow up.... can't you at least TRY to raise the level of this debate?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> having a difference of opinion about the wisdom of Bush's privatization plan does NOT translate into democrats wanting voters to remain in poverty.  that is just a silly political aphorism that you continue to spout that has no real intellectual underpinning.  grow up.... can't you at least TRY to raise the level of this debate?



Translation - liberals can spend and invest people money better then they can; and hitting me with facts that is not fair


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Translation - liberals can spend and invest people money better then they can; and hitting me with facts that is not fair



not at all...I merely want you to show me how disagreeing with Bush's privatization plan is synonymous with wanting to keep people IN POVERTY.  Can you do that?  (another question....let's see if you answer this one)
and again...you really need to understand the difference between "facts" and "opinions"


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> not at all...I merely want you to show me how disagreeing with Bush's privatization plan is synonymous with wanting to keep people IN POVERTY.  Can you do that?  (another question....let's see if you answer this one)
> and again...you really need to understand the difference between "facts" and "opinions"



So you think people cannot get more then a 2&#37; return on their SS money? Even a passbook savings account pays more then the current SS system

If you die before 67 at least your family gets the money in the passbook account

SS is a rip off and people are starting to see it

In a few more years, the system wil be broke and the amount of taxes needed to fund it will be so high workers and employers wil be unable to pay them


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

I asked you some rather specific questions.... can you at least TRY to address them?

_"not at all...I merely want you to show me how disagreeing with Bush's privatization plan is synonymous with wanting to keep people IN POVERTY. Can you do that? (another question....let's see if you answer this one)
and again...you really need to understand the difference between "facts" and "opinions"_


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> I asked you some rather specific questions.... can you at least TRY to address them?
> 
> _"not at all...I merely want you to show me how disagreeing with Bush's privatization plan is synonymous with wanting to keep people IN POVERTY. Can you do that? (another question....let's see if you answer this one)
> and again...you really need to understand the difference between "facts" and "opinions"_



Libs do not want people to invest their own money - they might make more

If people can assume the role of taking care of their own retirement Dems would lose a large part of their power and voters (seniors)

The last thing libs want is for people to be able to take care of their own finances

and I posted before and you ignored...........


So you think people cannot get more then a 2% return on their SS money? Even a passbook savings account pays more then the current SS system

If you die before 67 at least your family gets the money in the passbook account

SS is a rip off and people are starting to see it

In a few more years, the system wil be broke and the amount of taxes needed to fund it will be so high workers and employers wil be unable to pay them


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs do not want people to invest their own money - they might make more
> 
> If people can assume the role of taking care of their own retirement Dems would lose a large part of their power and voters (seniors)
> 
> ...



your opinion that people can make more by investing privately does NOT mean that democrats want to keep voters in poverty.  Can't you understand that your hyperbolic rhetoric is just that?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> your opinion that people can make more by investing privately does NOT mean that democrats want to keep voters in poverty.  Can't you understand that your hyperbolic rhetoric is just that?




So why are they oppsoed? If people can better their lives why are Dems so against it?

It is either they want them to stay where they are or they do not care about their financial future


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So why are they oppsoed? If people can better their lives why are Dems so against it?
> 
> It is either they want them to stay where they are or they do not care about their financial future



suggesting an either/or set of answers is ridiculous...it is a complex issue...and you cannot reduce it down to a soundbite.

They are opposed for a variety of reasons, the biggest of which is the lack of guaranteed protection of the portfolio.... there is an element of risk that many deem too high.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> suggesting an either/or set of answers is ridiculous...it is a complex issue...and you cannot reduce it down to a soundbite.
> 
> They are opposed for a variety of reasons, the biggest of which is the lack of guaranteed protection of the portfolio.... there is an element of risk that many deem too high.



If people can better their retirement future, why are Dems against people investing 2% of THEIR money in their OWN retirement accounts?

Dems are more interested in their power is the correct answer

Even during the Great Depression the stock markert made gains. There is no "guaranteed protection" when investing, but you can find many low risk investments with better returns then SS


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> If people can better their retirement future, why are Dems against people investing 2% of THEIR money in their OWN retirement accounts?
> 
> Dems are more interested in their power is the correct answer
> 
> Even during the Great Depression the stock markert made gains. There is no "guaranteed protection" when investing, but you can find many low risk investments with better returns then SS




you say that there is no guaranteed protection when investing....that is the reason why those who view SS as a guaranteed retirement income do not want to see it put into investment vehicles that do not provide that guarantee.

Your opinion of what the "correct answer" is..is just that - an opinion.  I don't share it...and I am still waiting for you to explain how having a difference of opinion about how SS funds are held by our government is snynoynous with the democrats WANTING TO KEEP VOTERS IN POVERTY.

Can you address that question?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> you say that there is no guaranteed protection when investing....that is the reason why those who view SS as a guaranteed retirement income do not want to see it put into investment vehicles that do not provide that guarantee.
> 
> Your opinion of what the "correct answer" is..is just that - an opinion.  I don't share it...and I am still waiting for you to explain how having a difference of opinion about how SS funds are held by our government is snynoynous with the democrats WANTING TO KEEP VOTERS IN POVERTY.
> 
> Can you address that question?



You STILL can get a BETTER RETURN in a passbook savings account then you get with Social Security. You can find many mutaul funds that provide modest returns with little risk

By doing this libs, would not have a hold over people - that is why they are oppsoed

Plus you ignore the fact that unless we scrap this program the money will not be there to fund this pyramid scheme

Again, why should I be financing someones elses retirement and visa versa?


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You STILL can get a BETTER RETURN in a passbook savings account then you get with Social Security. You can find many mutaul funds that provide modest returns with little risk
> 
> By doing this libs, would not have a hold over people - that is why they are oppsoed
> 
> ...




can you address my question please?

you really should stop peppering me with MORE questions until you have answered a few of mine.

I'll wait.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> can you address my question please?
> 
> you really should stop peppering me with MORE questions until you have answered a few of mine.
> 
> I'll wait.



I have

If libs do not want people to make more money for the retirement what other reason could they have other then to make sure they stay right where they are?

Dependent on governemnt for their retirement


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I have
> 
> If libs do not want people to make more money for the retirement what other reason could they have other then to make sure they stay right where they are?
> 
> Dependent on governemnt for their retirement



and I answered your "what other reason" question already.

and all you have is the same old shopworn aphorisms and Rush/Hannity/RNC talking points one liners.

I really am growing tired of this...talking with you is just like Br'er Rabbit puncing the tarbaby.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> and I answered your "what other reason" question already.
> 
> and all you have is the same old shopworn aphorisms and Rush/Hannity?RNC talking points one liners.
> 
> I really am growing tired of this...talking with you is just like Br'er Rabbit puncing the tarbaby.



Translation - I cannot expalin why Dems are against people making more money to secure their retirement


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Translation - I cannot expalin why Dems are against people making more money to secure their retirement



translation:  I understand that he explained that social security is viewed as a guaranteed retirement safety net and therefore should NOT have any risk associated with it.... and that the option of "making MORE" money carries with it the risk of making LESS..... but I really want to keep spinning this out because I don't have a fucking clue how I am going to get out from under the stupid shit I said in that "surge" thread and the damning data from DoD about US casualties NOT dropping by any percentage, let alone 60&#37;!


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> translation:  I understand that he explained that social security is viewed as a guaranteed retirement safety net and therefore should NOT have any risk associated with it.... and that the option of "making MORE" money carries with it the risk of making LESS..... but I really want to keep spinning this out because I don't have a fucking clue how I am going to get out from under the stupid shit I said in that "surge" thread and the damning data from DoD about US casualties NOT dropping by any percentage, let alone 60%!





Here is the REAL reason libs are oppsoed to allowing people to make more money to finance their retirement. To keep people dependent on government and to keep their politcal backers happy



Democrats are united in opposition to private accounts, which they claim would be too costly to implement and too risky a gamble for low-income participants. They are backed by a number of labor-funded groups that also claim private accounts would be a boon for the securities and investment industry, which contributed more than twice as much money to Bush ($8.7 million) than to Democrat John Kerry ($4.3 million) during last years presidential campaign.

Leading the opposition is Americans United to Protect Social Security, a coalition of about 200 left-leaning groups and labor unions that hopes to raise $40 million for the Social Security fight. The group has staged 249 events in 45 states since Bushs State of the Union address, National Journal reported April 4.

Americans United also plans to run advertising in congressional districts throughout the country. Spokesman Brad Woodhouse told National Journal that the group would focus on lawmakers who favor Bushs approach or who are undecided.

"We are going to be on these folks like a bird dog to a quail," Woodhouse said.

Two of the largest labor unions in the country, the AFL-CIO and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, helped to found Americans United. The AFL-CIOs political action committee and employees contributed $1.5 million to federal candidates and parties in the 2004 election cycle, 93 percent to Democrats. AFSCME contributed $2.1 million in PAC and individual donations, 98 percent to Democrats.

The two unions also were among the biggest donors to so-called 527 groups during the last election cycle. AFSCME contributed $30.3 million and the AFL-CIO sent $11.4 million to Democratic-leaning 527s, which played a big role in trying to defeat Bush last November.

Another major backer of Americans United is the Campaign for Americas Future, a coalition of liberal groups and unions. CAF has partnered with the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org to stage protests along Bushs campaign route in opposition to private accounts, which the groups call a "scam."

(Full disclosure: Ellen Miller, CAFs deputy director, currently serves on the board of directors of the Center for Responsive Politics.)

CAF is paying for its Social Security efforts from a 501(c)(4) account, according to its Web site. Groups with such accounts are commonly referred to as "social welfare" organizations and may engage in some level of political activity. They are not required to disclose their contributors. CAF maintained a 527 account during the 2004 election cycle, from which it spent $645,000 to support progressive causes. 

Another group opposing private accounts, the Alliance for Retired Americans, spent $160,000 on federal lobbying from January 2003 through December 2004. But the groups power is in its membership; the non-profit is associated with 22 unions, including the AFL-CIO, AFSCME and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 
http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=162


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

you really are incapable of "debate" aren't you?

Do you have any idea how silly I will feel if you turn out to be some rudimentarily programmed newsbot?


----------



## Louie (Apr 6, 2007)

seriously, you are a blithering idiot.


----------



## Louie (Apr 6, 2007)

RSR: your logic is not backed up with any proof other than your absurd preconceived notions of your reality.
Proceed to the nearest wall and bash your skull please.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> you really are incapable of "debate" aren't you?
> 
> Do you have any idea how silly I will feel if you turn out to be some rudimentarily programmed newsbot?



are you surprised the usual liberal groups are opposed to people saving more for retirement?  

Their power is on the line and it must be protected at all costs


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

Louie said:


> seriously, you are a blithering idiot.



Yes, MM is for ignoring and spinning the facts


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> are you surprised the usual liberal groups are opposed to people saving more for retirement?
> 
> Their power is on the line and it must be protected at all costs



again...why would anyone be opposed to people saving more?  they are not.  what they ARE opposed to is injecting risk into what was established as a guaranteed safety net.  Why do you find is so hard to address that point?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> again...why would anyone be opposed to people saving more?  they are not.  what they ARE opposed to is injecting risk into what was established as a guaranteed safety net.  Why do you find is so hard to address that point?



Look stupid I have. I have posted many times people can get a better return in a passbook saving account then they get from SS

SS will not be around in 20 years unless the government raises the taxes thru the roof

Workers and business can not afford to pay the taxes needed

Libs think people are to stupid to invest their own money,and only the government can wisely help finance their retirement


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Look stupid I have. I have posted many times people can get a better return in a passbook saving account then thee get from SS
> 
> SS will not be around in 20 years unless the government raises the taxes thru the roof
> 
> ...



I am not stupid. I don't care what people get from passbooks...I care what will happen to a portion of the SS endowment if it is invested in the stock market.  If that happens, an element of risk is injected into system that was designed from the outset to be risk free.

There are many many fixes to the SS system that can be made:  upping the retirement age by two years.... upping the maximim contribution level to allow more contributions at higher income levels.... that would keep SS solvent.... we do not need to inject risk into people's safety nets.  Folks have 401Ks that they can be risky with... not SS.

and regardless....this is a discussion that is taking place...it is NOT proof that "democrats want to keep voters in poverty" as you have so inanely claimed.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Apr 6, 2007)

I agree with both of these statements


Kathy, to libs, when Republcians win election - the election must have been stolen - or the people were to stupid to understand the complex issues
However, when libs win the election, the people spoke and conservatives need to accept the decison and shut the hell up


unfortunately for both sides, elections are a measure of popularity and not quality.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am not stupid. I don't care what people get from passbooks...I care what will happen to a portion of the SS endowment if it is invested in the stock market.  If that happens, an element of risk is injected into system that was designed from the outset to be risk free.
> 
> There are many many fixes to the SS system that can be made:  upping the retirement age by two years.... upping the maximim contribution level to allow more contributions at higher income levels.... that would keep SS solvent.... we do not need to inject risk into people's safety nets.  Folks have 401Ks that they can be risky with... not SS.
> 
> and regardless....this is a discussion that is taking place...it is NOT proof that "democrats want to keep voters in poverty" as you have so inanely claimed.



Just as libs said the Bush tax cuts would cripple the US economy - how is allowing the people to invest 2% of their own money int eh stock market going to destroy SS?

SS is running out of money and their is no stopping it

As usual, libs say raise taxes

Now SS was sold as "the amount you get back will be based on what you pay in"

Since you want to soak high income people even more - are you going to increase their benefits?


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> SS is running out of money and their is no stopping it




I gave you two simple adjustments that would stop it.  Can you not read?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> I gave you two simple adjustments that would stop it.  Can you not read?



I did stupid - please answer the question I asked


Just as libs said the Bush tax cuts would cripple the US economy - how is allowing the people to invest 2% of their own money in the stock market going to destroy SS?

SS is running out of money and their is no stopping it

As usual, libs say raise taxes

Now SS was sold as "the amount you get back will be based on what you pay in"

Since you want to soak high income people even more - are you going to increase their benefits


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I did stupid - please answer the question I asked
> 
> 
> Just as libs said the Bush tax cuts would cripple the US economy - how is allowing the people to invest 2% of their own money in the stock market going to destroy SS?
> ...



you say that there is no stopping it...I gave you two simple solutions that would stop it...you claim that you "read"them, but you fail to discuss them.  WHy is that?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> you say that there is no stopping it...I gave you two simple solutions that would stop it...you claim that you "read"them, but you fail to discuss them.  WHy is that?



You are so dense. You say to raise taxes - are you going to increase the benefits for those who pay more in the system?

One way to save the syatem is to wean people off SS. Let them invest their money and they will not need SS

Libs however need SS to make people dependent on government


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You are so dense. You say to raise taxes - are you going to increase the benefits for those who pay more in the system?
> 
> One way to save the syatem is to wean people off SS. Let them invest their money and they will not need SS
> 
> Libs however need SS to make people dependent on government



benefit levels are a political issue that is determined by the political process.   All I have ever said was that by raising the eligible wage cut off and by raising the retirement age, that the "crisis" could be averted.

I have said that several generations of Americans have grown up with the idea that SS was a no risk guaranteed safety net source of income.  If you introduce risk, you destroy that guarantee.

and please, for the last time, explain how wanting to guarantee the safety net source of income from SS is "WANTING TO KEEP THE VOTERS IN POVERTY"


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

and look... don't call me dense...I had more education than you when I graduated from high school...I am smarter than you are, infinitely more articulate than you are, and way more experienced in a variety of areas than you will EVER be.  Just accept that and we'll get along a lot better.


----------



## Annie (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> and look... don't call me dense...I had more education than you when I graduated from high school...I am smarter than you are, infinitely more articulate than you are, and way more experienced in a variety of areas than you will EVER be.  Just accept that and we'll get along a lot better.



Careful, people are going to start confusing us.


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Careful, people are going to start confusing us.



oh...we certainly have all of that in common.... we just ended up with slightly different perspectives.

Comparing the two of us is not a stretch....

comparing you to RSR is like comparing a human to an amoeba.


----------



## Annie (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> oh...we certainly have all of that in common.... we just ended up with slightly different perspectives.
> 
> Comparing the two of us is not a stretch....
> 
> comparing you to RSR is like comparing a human to an amoeba.



Thank you. I like most of what RSR posts, though I don't think the articles should 'speak' for him or anyone. 

Now you and I? LOL! We come from polar opposits, but I do respect your point of view and for the most part, I think you return that. We both respect the military, our country's constitution. We disagree I believe in how power is distributed, regardless of our respect of the document.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> and look... don't call me dense...I had more education than you when I graduated from high school...I am smarter than you are, infinitely more articulate than you are, and way more experienced in a variety of areas than you will EVER be.  Just accept that and we'll get along a lot better.



Then why do you have all the warmth and charm of a scorpion?


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Then why do you have all the warmth and charm of a scorpion?



what does my lack of warmth and charm when dealing with morons like you have to do with my level of education?  Are you under the impression that graduate degrees come hardwired with warmth and fuzziness?

That question is nonsensical.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> what does my lack of warmth and charm when dealing with morons like you have to do with my level of education?  Are you under the impression that graduate degrees come hardwired with warmth and fuzziness?
> 
> That question is nonsensical.



You may have an education but you failed the course in common sense


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You may have an education but you failed the course in common sense




what does warmth have to do with common sense?

And please show me where I have exhibited a lack of it....

and just because we don't have agreement on OPINIONS is not proof that I lack common sense..only that we disagree on things.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> what does warmth have to do with common sense?
> 
> And please show me where I have exhibited a lack of it....
> 
> and just because we don't have agreement on OPINIONS is not proof that I lack common sense..only that we disagree on things.



You refuse to accept the facts no matter how many sources I post to back them up. 

You sit aloft in your ivory tower, so smug, and keep ducking and dodging, and keep tossing out the insults


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You refuse to accept the facts no matter how many sources I post to back them up.
> 
> You sit aloft in your ivory tower, so smug, and keep ducking and dodging, and keep tossing out the insults



and again...you can post eighteen million different editorials from newsbusters.... editorials are OPINIONS...they are NOT FACTS.


And just because I routinely insult your intelligence, how is THAT proof that I lack common sense?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> and again...you can post eighteen million different editorials from newsbusters.... editorials are OPINIONS...they are NOT FACTS.
> 
> 
> And just because I routinely insult your intelligence, how is THAT proof that I lack common sense?



the AP is now an opinion/editorial?


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> the AP is now an opinion/editorial?



are you suggesting that the AP is your primary source of cut and paste articles?  I could have sworn it was newsbusters.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you suggesting that the AP is your primary source of cut and paste articles?  I could have sworn it was newsbusters.



I post facts - you rely of spin and denial


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

and answer my question.... you were the guy who doubted my education because I was not warm.... then you said I may be educated, but I lacked common sense... and now you have abandoned that stupid argument as well?

Face it....you just disagree with me... 

I disagree with you... AND I am smarter and more experienced than you are...
and admittedly, I am not all warm and fuzzy with you because you are a koolaid soaked moron who lets others do your talking for you nearly all the time and you RUN THE FUCK AWAY from any thread where you get cornered.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> and answer my question.... you were the guy who doubted my education because I was not warm.... then you said I may be educated, but I lacked common sense... and now you have abandoned that stupid argument as well?
> 
> Face it....you just disagree with me...
> 
> ...



Try telling the retired couple who will see their tax bill go up over 150% how Dems did not raise their taxes


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I post facts - you rely of spin and denial



No....nearly all of what you post is opinion/editorials.... and that is what you rely on.  I rely on my own knowledge and intellect and experience as well as my ability to express my own thoughts and my own ideas with my own words.

Prove me wrong by going to the thread about the surge working that you have avoided like the plague...and, rather than post anyone ELSE's words, take my arguments and rebut them with YOUR own words.

I dare ya.


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Try telling the retired couple who will see their tax bill go up over 150% how Dems did not raise their taxes



got a link for that 150% figure or is that from one of your websites?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> No....nearly all of what you post is opinion/editorials.... and that is what you rely on.  I rely on my own knowledge and intellect and experience as well as my ability to express my own thoughts and my own ideas with my own words.
> 
> Prove me wrong by going to the thread about the surge working that you have avoided like the plague...and, rather than post anyone ELSE's words, take my arguments and rebut them with YOUR own words.
> 
> I dare ya.



I have ans since you know for a fact Dems lied about not raising taxes on the working class -you have to try and change the subject


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I have ans since you know for a fact Dems lied about not raising taxes on the working class -you have to try and change the subject




no...you have never answered any of my questions.

and you are saying that a retired couple whose tax bill was- let's say - $5000 dollars, will  see that go UP by 150%.... that means that it will now be $12,500?  Is that really your contention?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...you have never answered any of my questions.
> 
> and you are saying that a retired couple whose tax bill was- let's say - $5000 dollars, will  see that go UP by 150%.... that means that it will now be $12,500?  Is that really your contention?



Elderly Couple with $40,000 in Income

This elderly couples tax bill would rise by 156% in 2011  from $583 to $1,489

The Dems way of showing their compassion for retired couples


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Elderly Couple with $40,000 in Income
> 
> This elderly couples tax bill would rise by 156% in 2011  from $583 to $1,489
> 
> The Dems way of showing their compassion for retired couples



do you have a link that would back up that math?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> do you have a link that would back up that math?



I posted it on the other thread - find it (not that you bother to read any of the links I post)


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I posted it on the other thread - find it (not that you bother to read any of the links I post)



oh yeah...the one from the republican congressman's editorial!  lol


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> oh yeah...the one from the republican congressman's editorial!  lol



First you said the dems never passed the tax increase

Then you denied all the Republcians sites that gave the breakdown

Then you say they are not really tax increases at all, they were to expisre anyway

Now you dismiss the numbers to show how libs are going to stick it to the retired folks

My you libs are soooo compassionate

Try hating us - it would be so much cheaper for all of us


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> oh yeah...the one from the republican congressman's editorial!  lol



I understand why libs want more money - they have spending plans like this


The Detroit News

We have come to the conclusion that the crisis Michigan faces is not a shortage of revenue, but an excess of idiocy. Facing a budget deficit that has passed the $1 billion mark, House Democrats Thursday offered a spending plan that would buy a MP3 player or iPod for every school child in Michigan.

No cost estimate was attached to their hare-brained idea to "invest" in education. Details, we are promised, will follow.

The Democrats, led by their increasingly erratic speaker Andy Dillon of Redford Township, also pledge $100 million to make better downtowns.

Their plan goes beyond cluelessness. Democrats are either entirely indifferent to the idea that extreme hard times demand extreme belt tightening, or they are bone stupid. We lean toward the latter.

We say that because the House plan also keeps alive, again without specifics, the promise of tax hikes.

The range of options, according to Rep. Steve Tobocman, D-Detroit, includes raising the income tax, levying a 6 percent tax on some services, and taxing junk food and soda.

We wonder how financially strained Michigan residents will feel about paying higher taxes to buy someone else's kid an iPod.

That they would include such frivolity in a crisis budget plan indicates how tough it will be to bring real spending reform to Michigan.

Senate Republicans issued a plan a week ago that eliminates the deficit with hard spending cuts. Now their leader, Mike Bishop of Rochester Hills, is sounding wobbly, suggesting he might compromise on a tax hike.

We hope Bishop is reading the polls that say three-quarters of Michigan residents oppose higher taxes.

There are few things in the House budget outline from which to forge a compromise.

For example, Dillon says he would shift the burden of business taxes to companies that operate in Michigan, but don't have a facility here. The certain outcome of that plan is to drive even more businesses out of Michigan.

About all we see of merit is a call for government consolidation and a demand that state employees contribute more to their retirement benefits -- which is no more than House Democrats suggested for future state lawmakers a few weeks ago.

We find it ironic that the Democrats are proposing floating $5 billion in revenue bonds to pay for retiree health care, when Gov. Jennifer Granholm vetoed a nearly identical plan by Oakland County because it would cost the state money.

Instead of advocating cost-saving changes in public school teacher pension and health plans, Dillon suggests more study. There have been plenty of studies of the issue, with the conclusion being that hundreds of millions of dollars could be saved through reforms. Michigan needs action, not more study committees.

Dillon also proposes that the state cover 50 percent of the cost of catastrophic health insurance for everyone in the place, but once again doesn't specify a funding source.

Stop the stupidity. Michigan can't tax or spend its way out of this economic catastrophe.

The only responsible option is to bring spending in line with current revenues. The mission must be to expand the tax base, rather than to expand taxes, by crafting a budget that encourages growth.

We won't get there by wasting money on early Christmas presents for Michigan kids.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...=2007704060333


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Try hating us - it would be so much cheaper for all of us



I don't HATE you RSR.... I just think you are a moron who is incapable of using his own words to express his own thoughts and argue his own ideas.

You are too inconsequential in my life to HATE.... 

I don't like you very much, but I don't like the squirrel who raids my birdfeeder either.... But I don't HATE the squirrel....do you see the similarity?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> I don't HATE you RSR.... I just think you are a moron who is incapable of using his own words to express his own thoughts and argue his own ideas.
> 
> You are too inconsequential in my life to HATE....
> 
> I don't like you very much, but I don't like the squirrel who raids my birdfeeder either.... But I don't HATE the squirrel....do you see the similarity?



If it will keep my taxes from going throught the roof - please hate me and forget I exist

I cannot afford to pay for compasion libs want to show me

Of ocurse beignt he arrogrant liberal you are - you believe I am to stupid to see this is for the common good and I need to shut up and pay my increasing taxes


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> If it will keep my taxes from going throught the roof - please hate me and forget I exist
> 
> I cannot afford to pay for compasion libs want to show me
> 
> Of ocurse beignt he arrogrant liberal you are - you believe I am to stupid to see this is for the common good and I need to shut up and pay my increasing taxes



I doubt, in terms of dollars, that your taxes will go up all that much.

And if you wanted to avoid paying for progressive liberalism, maybe you should have won the election!

And if you wanted to win the election, maybe your team would have figured out how NOT TO START A STUPID WAR IN IRAQ AND THEN FUCK UP THE EXECUTION OF THAT WAR ONCE STARTED.

Just a thought.


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

I mean, really...from any vantage point, 15% is hardly "through the roof"


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> I doubt, in terms of dollars, that your taxes will go up all that much.
> 
> And if you wanted to avoid paying for progressive liberalism, maybe you should have won the election!
> 
> ...



My taxes will go up big time - and yet you many posts ago you were denying Dems raised them

Howvere there are two good things that will haapen

Pres Bush will veto the bill and it will be a joy to watch the Dems try to lie their way out of the fact they those tax cuts back

So far the numbers are not looking good for your side 50&#37; say they will not vote for her period


45% say Hillary is corrupt an


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

big time in terms of real dollars for a moron loser like you is not really big time for most other folks.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> big time in terms of real dollars for a moron loser like you is not really big time for most other folks.



as I said - libs are very generous with other peoples money

at least now you are admitting Dems are raising taxes


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> as I said - libs are very generous with other peoples money
> 
> at least now you are admitting Dems are raising taxes



I admit no such thing.... and I said, if you don't want to pay for progressive liberalims....try winning elections.... and then, when you DO win, try governing with a degree of competence so that the American people don't toss you ass out of power because you are so inept!


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> I mean, really...from any vantage point, 15% is hardly "through the roof"



from 10% to 15% - a 33% increase in taxes is through the roof


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> I admit no such thing.... and I said, if you don't want to pay for progressive liberalims....try winning elections.... and then, when you DO win, try governing with a degree of competence so that the American people don't toss you ass out of power because you are so inept!




Lying again.

big time in terms of real dollars for a moron loser like you is not really big time for most other folks.

You are saying my taxes are not going up all that much compared to others


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Lying again.
> 
> big time in terms of real dollars for a moron loser like you is not really big time for most other folks.
> 
> You are saying my taxes are not going up all that much compared to others



I am saying that 15% of a pittance is a pittance


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am saying that 15&#37; of a pittance is a pittance



It is nice to know such a compasionate liberal knows what other people can afford to fork over to government

Then on top of that we pay sales taxes, property taxes, local taxes, state taxes, SS taxes, gas taxes, and excise taxes

Who can afford all this liberal compassion?


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It is nice to know such a compasionate liberal knows what other people can afford to fork over to government
> 
> Then on top of that we pay sales taxes, property taxes, local taxes, state taxes, SS taxes, gas taxes, and excise taxes
> 
> Who can afford all this liberal compassion?



I havce no idea how you manage your money.

The fact remains:  15% of a pittance is a pittance.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> I havce no idea how you manage your money.
> 
> The fact remains:  15% of a pittance is a pittance.



so a 33% increase in taxes is a pittance?

tell that to the workers you meet as you shop, and dine out


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> so a 33% increase in taxes is a pittance?
> 
> tell that to the workers you meet as you shop, and dine out



Do you understand what the statement "15% of a pittance is a pittance" means?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> Do you understand what the statement "15% of a pittance is a pittance" means?



Perhaps to you  - not to the folks who are in that income bracket

Again, tell that to the people you meet who wait on you in stores and restaurants


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Perhaps to you  - not to the folks who are in that income bracket
> 
> Again, tell that to the people you meet who wait on you in stores and restaurants



like I said... your three digit increase in tax payments next year goes through no one's roof, unless it goes through the top of the cardboard box you call home.


and the people I meet in stores and restaurants know that Bush has flushed a trillion dollars down the shitter in Iraq FOR NOTHING and somebody is gonna have to pick up that tab.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> like I said... your three digit increase in tax payments next year goes through no one's roof, unless it goes through the top of the cardboard box you call home.
> 
> 
> and the people I meet in stores and restaurants know that Bush has flushed a trillion dollars down the shitter in Iraq FOR NOTHING and somebody is gonna have to pick up that tab.



it is a 33% increase

meanwhile revenues are at record highs and the deficit is down over 57%

tax cuts bring in more money


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

but if you flush it down the shitter faster than you take it in, who cares?

You realize, of course, that the costs of the Iraq war are "off budget" and therefore do not show up in "budget deficits"?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> but if you flush it down the shitter faster than you take it in, who cares?
> 
> You realize, of course, that the costs of the Iraq war are "off budget" and therefore do not show up in "budget deficits"?



So even with a war, high energy prices, rising revenues, and a defict down 57% - libs still want to raise taxes

Raising taxes will reduce the amount of money coming in to the government

If you are worried about "flushing money down the toilet" why not tell Dems to get rid of the pork

It is a shock to find out hundreds of millions for peanut storgae and money for shrimp farmers now falls under military spending


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

You realize, of course, that the costs of the Iraq war are "off budget" and therefore do not show up in "budget deficits"?

and when democratic pork starts to rise to the level of even 5% of the cost of the war that IS being flushded down the shitter with NOTHING to show for it, I will start saying something.


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

because with the "pork" at least we'll have succesful shrimpers...and more peanuts being stored...in Iraq, all we have is more dead and more blood and more enemies


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> You realize, of course, that the costs of the Iraq war are "off budget" and therefore do not show up in "budget deficits"?
> 
> and when democratic pork starts to rise to the level of even 5% of the cost of the war that IS being flushded down the shitter with NOTHING to show for it, I will start saying something.



With a near $3 trillion budget that is alot of pork you can go along with - of course when it is liberal pork you could not care less

I wondere if you were so vocal about sticking our nose in another country when Clinton sent troops to Bosnia - I bet not


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> With a near $3 trillion budget that is alot of pork you can go along with - of course when it is liberal pork you could not care less
> 
> I wondere if you were so vocal about sticking our nose in another country when Clinton sent troops to Bosnia - I bet not



do you understand that the cost of the war in Iraq is not reflected in the budget?  yes or no?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> do you understand that the cost of the war in Iraq is not reflected in the budget?  yes or no?



As you say - prove it

I for one do not care how much it costs. The US took a $1 trillion hit on 9-11 I do not want another one

Do you?

Libs could really attack Pres Bush then


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> As you say - prove it
> 
> I for one do not care how much it costs. The US took a $1 trillion hit on 9-11 I do not want another one
> 
> ...



you do not care how much it costs to put our troops in the middle of an Iraqi civil war that does NOTHING towards making us or the world safer from Islamic extremism?

Why am I not surprised?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> you do not care how much it costs to put our troops in the middle of an Iraqi civil war that does NOTHING towards making us or the world safer from Islamic extremism?
> 
> Why am I not surprised?



Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?

DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants. 

The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Husseins regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services. 

The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war. 

Officials in Washington and London are likely to be buoyed by the poll conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB), a respected British market research company that funded its own survey of 5,019 Iraqis over the age of 18. 
The 400 interviewers who fanned out across Iraq last month found that the sense of security felt by Baghdad residents had significantly improved since polling carried out before the US announced in January that it was sending in a surge of more than 20,000 extra troops. 

The poll highlights the impact the sectarian violence has had. Some 26% of Iraqis - 15% of Sunnis and 34% of Shiites - have suffered the murder of a family member. Kidnapping has also played a terrifying role: 14% have had a relative, friend or colleague abducted, rising to 33% in Baghdad. 

Yet 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddams era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer. 

Not surprisingly, the divisions in Iraqi society were reflected in statistics  Sunnis were more likely to back the previous Baathist regime (51%) while the Shiites (66%) preferred the Maliki government. 

Maliki, who derives a significant element of his support from Moqtada al-Sadr, the hardline Shiite militant, and his Mahdi army, has begun trying to overcome criticism that his government favours the Shiites, going out of his way to be seen with Sunni tribal leaders. He is also under pressure from the US to include more Sunnis in an expected government reshuffle. 

The poll suggests a significant increase in support for Maliki. A survey conducted by ORB in September last year found that only 29% of Iraqis had a favourable opinion of the prime minister. 

Another surprise was that only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war. Again, that number divided along religious lines, with 41% of Sunnis believing Iraq was in a civil war, compared with only 15% of Shiites. 

The survey is a rare snapshot of Iraqi opinion because of the difficulty of working in the country, with the exception of Kurdish areas which are run as an essentially autonomous province. 

Most international organisations have pulled out of Iraq and diplomats are mostly holed-up in the Green Zone. The unexpected degree of optimism may signal a groundswell of hope at signs the American surge is starting to take effect. 

This weekend comments from Baghdad residents reflected the polls findings. Many said they were starting to feel more secure on the streets, although horrific bombings have continued. The Americans have checkpoints and the most important thing is they dont ask for ID, whether you are Sunni or Shiite, said one resident. There are no more fake checkpoints so you dont need to be scared. 

The inhabitants of a northern Baghdad district were heartened to see on the concrete blocks protecting an Iraqi army checkpoint the lettering: Down, down with the militias, we are fighting for the sake of Iraq. 

It would have been unthinkable just a few weeks ago. Residents said they noted that armed militias were off the streets. 

One question showed the sharp divide in attitudes towards the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq. Some 53% of Iraqis nationwide agree that the security situation will improve in the weeks after a withdrawal by international forces, while only 26% think it will get worse. 

Weve been polling in Iraq since 2005 and the finding that most surprised us was how many Iraqis expressed support for the present government, said Johnny Heald, managing director of ORB. Given the level of violence in Iraq, it shows an unexpected level of optimism. 

Despite the sectarian divide, 64% of Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government. 

One statistic that bodes ill for Iraqs future is the number who have fled the country, many of them middle-class professionals. Baghdad has been hard hit by the brain drain  35% said a family member had left the country. 

Additional reporting: Ali Rifat

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1530526.e


----------



## Louie (Apr 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You may have an education but you failed the course in common sense



now where is the irony in this little ditty???
:


----------



## Louie (Apr 9, 2007)

And to respond to a few posts in the beginning of this rant...

I am offended by organized religion whining about their twisted version of "truth" on a college campus. There are plenty of private institutions and Jesuit schools for the religious fanatics to go to. Stay out of the state universities.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 9, 2007)

Louie said:


> And to respond to a few posts in the beginning of this rant...
> 
> I am offended by organized religion whining about their twisted version of "truth" on a college campus. There are plenty of private institutions and Jesuit schools for the religious fanatics to go to. Stay out of the state universities.



It is about time someone spoke up about Rev Al, Rev Jessiem and Looney Louie Farrakhan


----------



## red states rule (Apr 9, 2007)

Louie said:


> And to respond to a few posts in the beginning of this rant...
> 
> I am offended by organized religion whining about their twisted version of "truth" on a college campus. There are plenty of private institutions and Jesuit schools for the religious fanatics to go to. Stay out of the state universities.



The outrage of a cross in a Chapel


----------



## Louie (Apr 10, 2007)

who cares about your silly little cross and chapels?
if a kid wants to go to church when they are at school, friggin go. enough already.


----------

