Question for lurkers, Freepers, trolls and Repugs......

[Dees]

You are so willing to overlook fraud, lying, incompetence, sweetheart greed, ethics scandals, the Iraq disaster, sex scandals, record national debt, irresponsibility, photo-oping, collusion, profiteering, cronyism, neo fascism, anti democratic, terror creating short comings of this president and administration to retain the morality and values of...............

[bryant69]

1. Exactly!

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[distantearlywarning]

2. But at least Bush didn't get a blow job in the Oval Office.

And gays can't get married. Those are the important things. That's what makes them the "moral" party.

:eyes:

[Dees]

3. I think that is the heart of the matter..guns, god and gays

Is this still all about a blow job?

[davidinalameda]

4. as long as there's a Clinton

it will still be about a blow job

[Dees]

5. The messed up thing of it is that a day does not

go by that I'm not reading about some Repuke politician who is confused by the age of consent.

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. Don't forget abortion. Self serving, self absorbed and self righteous.

Great morals. :eyes:

[mwb970]

89. ...and Golf! (n/t)

[Toots]

7. Can you prove Gannon did not give Bush* a BJ in the oval office?

I think he did and Rove was there as well. There is a blue suit that is stained and it will be found but to no avail because it really doesn't matter to Republicans how corrupt they are. they are proud of it...

[0007]

10. ...and on top of that junior doesn't have the dexterity to do cigar tricks

[radwriter0555]

22. (bush)getting banged in the Oval Office by a gay male hooker at 2am is WAY

better than a blow job by an intern, by GOP standards!

[Greyhound]

71. Thank Dog amerikan moral superiority is intact! n/t

[Skidmore]

There was a woman caller this morning who basically said

that Brown, Delay, and Frist were all being picked on. How could people be pursuing them when they were good men? They weren't like that Clinton. He had sex and sex is terrible.

I rolled my eyes and wondered what her life's story was.

[madderthanhell]

8. OK, I will bite.

I read DU to find out what the far left is thinking. I am NOT a Republican, or a troll (at least I don't consider myself one).

My main reason for being opposed to the Democratic Party is gun control. I am a firm believer in my right to use whatever weapon I deem necessary to defend my life and the lives of those I love, and it REALLY bothers me that many in the Democratic Party would like to see me left defenseless.

Secondly, I believe strongly in people taking personal responsibility for their lives. I do not think that it is the job of the federal government to provide welfare, health care, social security, schooling and the like. I think that if people do want to provide these services, that they should be performed at the state and local level.

In fact, oppose anything that adds size and power to the federal government. If we hadn't allowed the federal government to collect all of the untold billions in tax revenues and create all of the programs to justify those revenues, then the federal government would not be such a powerful entity. You wouldn't have to hate Bush so much, because he wouldn't have much power or control.

I am also scared by the path that liberal ideas can lead down. It was liberal ideas that guided the thinking of the Supreme Court in making the eminent domain decision, which I think may be the worst decision to ever come out of the court. The idea that the government can seize our private property because it can be used for something that will generate greater tax revenue is appalling and very frightening.

I consider myself a true conservative in that I believe that the government should have as little intrusion into our lives as possible. The smaller the better.

I suppose this will be my last post, as I expect to be banned for this. So nice talking to ya.

ETA: Oh yeah, one more thing. I am Jewish, and don't much appreciate the anti-Israel rhetoric that spews from the far left either.

[Enraged_Ape]

11. I hope you don't get banned, madderthanhell

You and I might have more in common than you think. I am actually a pro-gun liberal. I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but I really think you'd have to be nuts to live in our crazy society and not at least think about arming up. You can bet the psycho who lives down the street is.

I have a couple of questions for you. You mention the "eminent domain" decision as being a result of liberal politics, to increase tax revenue. Do you really understand what that decision was about? It wasn't about the government taking your property; it was about PRIVATE COMPANIES taking your property with the approval of the government. It was corporations driving that decision, not bean counters in the IRS.

Secondly, you mention that your government should have as little intrusion into your private lives as possible. Do you REALLY think that the Republicans in power now have that same philosophy? (Think sexual preference and partnerships, as an example. Who cares who anyone else is shtupping? Apparently, Republicans do.)

Welcome to DU, by the way. :hi:

[madderthanhell]

21. Like I said, I most certainly am not a Republican

I am a registered Libertarian, but I don't even feel like they represent my beliefs very well.

The eminent domain decision was justified by SCOTUS by saying that the property in question would be put to a use that would generate higher tax revenues, which could in turn be used by the government for the "common good". That was the basis for the decision, and it is beyond liberal to the point of being blatant socialism. Of course, it will amost always be a commercial enterprise that will generate higher tax revenues than a private home, but that is beside the point.

You did notice that the decision was approved by the "liberal" justices while the "conservative" justices dissented, right? I put liberal and conservative in quotes because while I think that in this case that they more or less followed those labels, they often don't.

For your other point, of course the government should not be involved in our bedroom. Like I said before, I consider myself to be conservative, not a Republican. Republicans are far from conservative.

[Maru Kitteh]

90. That is CORPORATISM not socialism - it's not even CLOSE to socialism

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are actually familiar with what the term itself means, and I encourage you to give it a much closer examination.

This Limbaugh DELUSION that tax dollars are redistributing wealth from the middle class and the working joe to the lazy welfare mom is quite the bit of execrable deception. The truth is the vast majority of your tax dollars are being spent on the bloated privatized defense industry and it's various little camping excursions around the world along with all kinds of detestable corporate porky welfare. But hey, as long as they can keep the lemmings and the sheep dumping their indignation and outrage on the poor and defenseless everything's roses and posies for them. Too bad they've duped you as well.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Berserker]

12. Your not a republican?

What a crock of shit this statement is:
My main reason for being opposed to the Democratic Party is gun control. I am a firm believer in my right to use whatever weapon I deem necessary to defend my life and the lives of those I love, and it REALLY bothers me that many in the Democratic Party would like to see me left defenseless.
Perhaps you should read a bit more and study the facts and not go by what rush tells you.

[Maru Kitteh]

91. Great minds and all that - I picked up the LIMP-BALLS influence too n/t

[Beetwasher]

13. LOL!! "True Conservative"??? No. Selfish Idiot, Yes.

"I do not think that it is the job of the federal government to provide welfare, health care, social security, schooling and the like."

Really? Have you ever read the constition? What do you think "Promote the General Welfare" means?

You're just a selfish idiot who thinks "I got mine, fuck everyone else!"

[Mandate My Ass]

17. You beat me to it

All the talking points, none of the facts.

Under Bush we have a giant welfare state - it's the corporate welfare state. But hey, as long as single moms aren't getting any, then it's OK.

And we have the biggest government with the most intrusion of all time!

:rofl:

[madderthanhell]

24. Sigh. I never said I was a Bush supporter

he is not conservative at all. I am NOT, and never have been, a Republican.

You know so little about me, yet you call me selfish. All I said was that I do not think that it is the job of the federal government to provide those services. I think that if people want to provide them at the local or state level, then that is all good. I would personally PREFER to see it provided by provate donation, but if the people of a given state or city want to vote to provide those services, then I am not opposed.

[Dees]

29. You have yet to denounce Bu$h and thugs yet

while bashing liberals and Dems. He's not conservative enough is not an indictment.

[cynatnite]

30. But spending $200 billion for an obscene war is okay?? n/t

[Mutley]

32. Interesting question...

I wonder how he'll answer.

[cry baby]

41. This administration has put so much on the local and state govts

already that many are going broke. They have no money for the needy. Don't you believe in taking care of your fellow man? Private donations just don't cut it.

[madderthanhell]

45. If the taxes weren't going to the feds...

then there would be plenty available for the states and private donations.

[cynatnite]

46. Bullshit!

donations are not stable and fluctuate. They do not and will not do the job of helping those who cannot help themselves. Overburdened states can't do it all alone either.

It's disgusting to see anyone who is willing kick those less fortunate to the curb.

[titoresque]

48. well the way the welfare

system works now is like kicking them to the curb. At vert least it needs major overhaul! The system keeps poor people right where they are. Welfare should be a stepping stone, up and out. It's quite the opposite by design.

[cynatnite]

49. I agree with you all the way

As bad as the system is right now, it's still needed. It does need to be overhauled. My daughter was on a rant about it the other day. She is supporting two small children and is working fulltime. She still needs it because she doesn't make enough to get food on the table.

She wants off it so bad, but can't. There's not even a way for her to further her education so she can get off of it.

[madderthanhell]

51. Those who truly CANNOT help themselves would be a

short list: the elderly, the mentally and physically disabled, orphaned children. The states would have no problem taking care of just those people, particularly if we weren't burdened with all of the federal taxes, and I think that they should.

The problem comes from "helping" not those who cannot help themselves, but those who just don't. There are plenty of able bodied people collecting welfare, and this is bullshit. Those people do not deserve dime one from me or you. They could work, but they don't because they know that the government will take care of them. And they are just going to continue to be a drain on society until we refuse to support them any longer.

[cynatnite]

56. What's bullshit is the same old cry of those 'able bodied' people...

I hear that from the right all the time and it's the biggest load of crap there is. There is never any data to support the claim.

And let me tell you about one able bodied person who is on welfare. She is also working fulltime at a crappy job with crappy hours and makes crappy money. This is my daughter who is supporting two small children on her own. Their father is a bum who took off for parts unknown.

She needs welfare because her job REFUSES to provide health care and because it doesn't pay enough to put food on the table. The state will only pay so much of the day care so the children can't be in it longer than she is at work. That means if she could further her education, she wouldn't be able to pay for the daycare they need.

Furthering her education would get her completely off welfare but the system is not set up to do that.

[madderthanhell]

64. I personally know people who attended school full-time

while working a crappy full-time job to the pay the bills. School was financed using loans that don't have to be paid until well after the degree was completed. What prevents that from happening in your daughter's case, or any other case for that matter. I suspect it is simply a case of motivation.

The people I know who did that were highly driven and were determined to make their lives better than it started out. If they could do it, anyone who is motivated can.

I would possibly consider supporting a welfare system that allowed 4-5 of years of support while a person furthered their education, but after that, you are on your own.

[cynatnite]

69. As I stated quite clearly...she does NOT have the option

It has nothing to do with motivation. Daycare would not be covered and is very expensive. She can't afford to give up her job because welfare won't cover her utilities or rent.

If we could afford it, we'd pick up the slack so she could further her education.

She is stuck and the only thing she can hang her hat on at this point is when both children are much older. That's about five years away.

[cry baby]

59. How will a single mother in a poor area make enough at McDonalds

to pay rent, put food on the table, pay health care costs (probably no insurance from employer), and pay child care, plus all the other expenditures that come up in raising a family.

I think you statement is heartless and the drain on society is YOU with your non-empathetic way of life. Thank goodness you are in a small minority!

May you be poor in your next life!!

edited for spelling

[madderthanhell]

70. I have another friend who is a single mother

Her ex-husband used to be a good friend too, but that deadbeat can go fuck himself now.

She is uneducated (high school only) yet manages to provide a decent life for her and her child as an administrative assistant. She gets zero from her ex, she has done it all on her own.

Again, if she can do it, anyone can. Why should the government have to support those who choose not to better themselves?

[cynatnite]

75. In a perfect and equal world...sure it could happen n/t

[newportdadde]

65. Timeout. Your rolling a talking point.

Lets be real here, your buying out on the Reagan welfare queen mantra. Are there abusers of welfare? YES. Are there children who would go hungry without it because mom and dad are loosers? YES. Are there people who because of XYZ got on and will soon get off and become great tax payers again etc? YES.

When discussing a programs value you must be very careful to seperate fact from fiction.

[titoresque]

74. I agree to a point

but what we're seeing is generations of people who have grown up under a government that has spent more time,money and energy on keeping people down. I don't have all the answers but I think it's irresponsible and heartless to create the situation and then say "uh, sorry we can't help your sorry ass anymore"

Just one example: The goverment creates so much red tape in the "war on drugs" to the point that they can't fight "the war on drugs" so crack houses go up in poor areas just as fast as the gas stations do. People get hooked, the police do nothing to get rid of the crack houses...they arrest the users. The users become felons, the felons can't vote, can't get a decent job. They're on welfare, can't get off. And who's fault is it?
Yes, people choose their own paths. But unless you've walked in the shoes of people who are forced to make choices many of us cannot even fathom....who are we to condemn?

I organized for a non-profit in Dallas a few years ago. A neighborhood where Texas was bidding for the 2012 Olympics.
The local and state Government had it in for this area because it was poor and black and they had been working on it for years.....run it down,lock 'em up, bulldoze it......rebuild. That is the plan in so many poor areas.

[cry baby]

50. There is no way to get there from where we are now.

I agree with your statement as is, but that is just not going to happen...ever...unless there is revolution.

What you need to think about is how to take care of the needy with the tax system that is in place, like it or not. Are you a "survival of the fittest" for your fellow man? R. Limpballs is all for that, too. I like to follow the teachings of the New Testament that Jesus says that what you do to the least of us, you do to me. I give privately, too, but I want my taxes to go to people that can't take care of themselves or their children.

[newportdadde]

62. Your actual federal rate is probably pretty low sans deductions.

I'm talking about your actual federal tax, not property tax, not sales tax for the new stadium, not DMV tax etc. Out of that a very very small portion goes to 'welfare' something like 66% goes to military and debt service alone.

[Greyhound]

77. First let me congratulate you on venturing into the beasts lair.

I would like to remind (or perhaps enlighten) you to the fact that what you describe is what we had in the 19th century. The New Deal saved this country as well as the banking and insurance industries. Nobody (no little people that is) would have ever put another dime into a bank after what they were allowed to do in '29, nor would they buy insurance after the insurance companies were allowed to simply say "we're broke now, sorry and thanks for all the money", and BTW we're going to buy your house, for pennies on the dollar that the bank (which we own) foreclosed on.
The only system this nation had for people that had no homes, no food, no hope, was the private charities. They failed miserably, there was endemic corruption, shortages of everything, and charitable contributions dried up. We forget that this country was literally on the brink of dissolution, and people were joining the communist party in droves.
We had a system where the ruling classes could, and did, regularly call out police and private thugs to beat and kill people that dared to object to their greed. Look at what such esteemed capitalists like Ford and Rockefeller did to put down strikes.
Is that really a country you want to live in? Do you really believe that you will be one of the ruling class? Let me tell you, it is a 'restricted' club, and your type is not welcome.

[calmblueocean]

79. Well said.

If conservatives knew their history, there wouldn't be any. :)

[Mutley]

87. Beautifully stated.

:applause:

[Greyhound]

93. Thank you. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

101. Well said.

[Cats Against Frist]

73. Sorry to see the knee-jerkers try to run you out

I consider myself a Democrat, very much, and I am a small-government supporter, and I am also against giant social programs on the federal level, and the concentration of power within the hands of a few, at the center of a large bureaucracy.

That said, you have been fed some seriously whack talking points, by the right. I am pro-gun, and feel perfectly comfortable in the Democratic Party. I AM a libertarian, a registered independent, and vote Democratic, almost always. How do I square it?

Well, the right is certainly not for me, because I hate money worship, religion, conservative social institutions and all the other myth and magical realism bullshit that accompanies the right. I do, however, believe in more "personal responsibility," which doesn't just include the workers, but also the company owners, bosses, community citizens, families, etc. I got tired, as a Dem, of trying to save a bloated, lazy and apathetic middle class from itself. I refuse to blame the wealthy, solely, for the state of things, as I feel that it's a partnership, in crime, between the masses AND the corporations. When the GOP swept into all three branches of government, I realized exactly what "authoritarianism," is, and it's no prettier coming from the left, than the right.

When you say "small government," DUers will call you a racist. When you say "libertarian," they'll call you selfish. I consider myself VERY liberal, VERY leftist, VERY progressive, VERY radical -- I am just not comfortable with centralized power. I see community as subjective, and local, btween people who hold common goals and common values -- much like the borderless nations of the East, before the imperialists cut the fake borders.

The national consciousness makes us lazy, complacent, apathetic and stupid, de-creases our efficacy, and creates a huge, distant bureaucracy that we feel we have no control over -- and which can be usurped by the likes of the assholes we have in there, now.

There are many people here, with the same view as you. They're generally much more rational than the knee-jerkers.

[Beetwasher]

106. Is Your Brain Scrambled? Local Government is STILL Government?

Why one type of govt and not the other? Again, one of the MAIN jobs of the govt, according the constititution (again, have you actually read it?) is to "Promote the General Welfare." WTF do you think that means if not the health and well being of citizens, and how exactly do you promote that if not through health, education and security in old age?

Yes, you ARE a selfish idiot who apparently has never read or understood the constitution.

[Mutley]

14. You'd be surprised how many liberals are pro-gun.

I don't know a lot about eminent domain, so I really can't say much about that.

I understand, and respect, that TRUE conservatives are for small government, but today's Republican is NOT for small government (nor are they TRUE conservatives). They claim to be so they don't lose their base, but in practice they are not. Gay marriage, abortion, this new War on Porn; these are all cases of BIG government invading the private lives of the people.

And, BTW, be respectful in your disagreement with us and you might just be able to stay. Welcome to DU. :hi:

Edit: You are misinformed in your idea that all liberals are anti-semitic. Read the many threads here about A.N.S.W.E.R. and you will see how wrong you are. That is a GOP talking point used to turn people against the Left. Please, be informed before you say things against us.

[Dees]

15. I appreciate your input. Each of your mentioned

conservative point of views (opinions) could surely be debated for hours i.e. do you really need a 50 caliber do defend your loved ones?

My question to you...what redeeming moral values do you see in the current corrupt administration (mentioned in my post)that over shadow what Bu$h and company have exemplified in the last five years?

and BTW, I'm not far left. Just a progresive who likes a little honesty in government now and then.

[titoresque]

36. YES you MAY need a 50 caliber to defend

your loved ones! C'mon now.....
When Cindy Sheehan was carted away by the police Freepers suggested that "they should have beat her like they did Rodney King"

The climate of hate and division in this country is thickening quick! So let's just suppose "they" come and take all our guns away tomorrow? Personally I DO NOT TRUST our own government to be the only ones who carry guns! Oh you think it will never get that bad?
HA!!!! Did you ever imagine it to be..........this bad?!
I didn't!
You know who did?
CONSPIRACY THEORISTS! In the 80's and 90's......:rofl:

[Bridget Burke]

16. Please link to the part of the Democratic Platform that says...

"We are going to take away your guns."

How much has the federal government shrunk under your president? (One who used eminent domain to line his pockets, I might add.)

Since you want to do away with public education, social security & welfare, you sound like a Libertarian. One with real good health insurance through your job.

I hated Bush when he was my governor, too.

[madderthanhell]

27. While not stated specifically in the platform

there is really no question that the politicians (shudder) who consistently push an anti-gun agenda come from the Democratic Party. Surely, you don't disagree with that?

[Bridget Burke]

34. Yes, I disagree with that.

Please supply names of the these politicians & links to their "anti-gun" statements. Even better: Links to "anti-gun" legislation they have sponsored.

[madderthanhell]

39. Feinstein said,

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

[Bridget Burke]

40. That's one...

But where's the link? Context can help.

By concentrating on this one issue, I can assume that you agree with everything else in my original post.

[cynatnite]

44. Link, please n/t

[madderthanhell]

47. She said it on 60 Minutes in 1995...

I can't find the transcript online, but the quote itself is all over the place. Google the quote and you will find endless links.

She has never hidden that agenda.

[cynatnite]

52. So that makes the entire democratic party of the same belief?

I'll do some hunting on the quote.

You don't know the Democratic party too well. Besides, it's an opinion. Not an agenda.

[madderthanhell]

54. Oh it is her agenda alright.

When a politician gets on a national news show and makes statements like that, they are doing more than just expressing their opinion, they are announcing their agenda.

I know that not all Democrats are anti-gun, but it is no coincidence that virtually all of the politicians who are anti-gun are Democrats.

[cynatnite]

60. The Democratic party is a big tent which is why there is such diversity

Since the quote is a lone one it's hard to judge the context. I still say opinion.

You will find democrats who are conservative, anti-abortion, gun-toting dems, etc. Unlike the repukes, the democratic party allows beliefs of all kinds under it's tent.

[Bridget Burke]

84. What Bill resulted from her statement?

How did the vote go?

Can you come up with any linked quotations from reputable sites?

Google yourself!

[Mandate My Ass]

92. The thing you fear most has been done by Bush, not Dems

Guns were being confiscated in New Orleans after the feds came into town. And don't try to pretend the soldiers and mercenaries were disarming only the criminal elements. It was everybody. Would you want to be in New Orleans with no gun and no way to protect yourself? That is what's coming after the next emergency and Bush has said he wants total control over all disasters from now on, natural or not.

Read the PATRIOT ACT and the Model Emergency Health Powers Act and you will see that Bushco grants himself the right to send the military in and confiscate all guns in the event of an emergency. He also wants to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act.

WAKE UP!

[Greyhound]

94. She is a notorious hypocrite, especially when firearms are involved. n/t

[cynatnite]

35. Gun control does not equal taking guns away..

What politicians are anti-gun? I know there's a lot of them who want more gun control. I want more gun control, but it does not mean I want to take people's guns away. We own a gun.

This is what the insane NRA wants people to believe.

[madderthanhell]

57. How much more gun control do you want?

It is already illegal for a convicted felon to even touch a gun, much less own one. What sort of further limitations are needed?

[Dees]

61. We're trying to have a serious discussion here.

[cynatnite]

66. I don't want a convicted felon to own a gun...they broke the law n/t

[madderthanhell]

68. And that law is already in place

If a convicted felon even touches a gun, it is back to prison for them.

[titoresque]

80. well there are a lot

of non-violent reasons why people become felons. Some at very young ages when decision making is clouded at best.

My step father spent 2 years in prison for stauatory rape.
Sounds aweful huh? Wouldn't want a rapist having a gun thats for sure!!!!

Well.....he was 18.....his girlfriend was 16. They had sex. Consentual sex. Her very religious parents pressed charges and away he went.
Felon for life.
No gun.
No vote.

He married her as soon as he was released from prison and they had 5 children together. They were married for 16 years before they divorced.

[Arkana]

88. Exactly. I'm pro-gun control, yet I own a gun.

I don't want lunatics who've just escaped from prison getting their hands on AK-47s and the like. That's my idea of gun control--allowing honest, law-abiding citizens to keep their guns.

[gratuitous]

23. Really?

What specific legislation can you point to, introduced by Democrats in Congress, that would leave you "defenseless"? I note a curious lack of specifics all through your post.

What does "taking personal responsibility" mean to you? If a large corporation is pursuing rapacious profits and chiseling their workers with wages less than subsistence level, how can a person reasonably be expected to take care of himself and his family? Or do you believe that eventually the goodness of the hearts of these latter day robber barons will eventually cause them to cut their own salaries in favor of their workers?

You're opposed to a federal government of any size and power. Considering the overwhelming catastrophe just visited on the Gulf Coast, please let us know what private companies you think would be up to the task and challenge of providing relief to so many thousands of people?

You also have a poor grasp of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain. Please explain, using constitutional citations, prior decisions, and common law understandings of why government shouldn't have the power of eminent domain.

You claim that you believe government should have as little intrusion into our lives as possible, yet I seem to have missed your discussion about the USA PATRIOT Act, written and passed by a Republican-dominated government. Please explain how warrentless searches of citizens' homes and anonymous snooping through library records is less intrusive than any of the real or imagined "intrusions" you attribute to "liberals."

Finally, you also don't "appreciate" unspecified "anti-Israel rhetoric that spews from the far left." Without any citations or examples, it's impossible to tell what you're talking about. Is Israel above criticism, reproach or analysis, or are you referring to specific instances of "anti-Israel rhetoric"?

Your lame screed is unfocused, buzzword-laden, and fails to cite even one example of all your imagined sins of liberals. If you're banned because of this post, I submit that it's because you're a lamebrain spewing half-assed talking points more appropriate to a particularly unsophisticated schoolyard or the Bill O'Reilly program.

[madderthanhell]

37. My fingers are going to get tired from repeatedly typing that

I am not a Republican. I don't support the PATRIOT Act.

As far as disaster relief, I think it is pretty clear that the federal government was not up to the challenge, nor should they be responsible for it. You mentioned private companies, which is interesting because it WAS the private companies (namely Home Depot and WalMart) who along with the military were the only organizations that had the logistical wherewithal to provide any sort of substantial help.

If you support the SCOTUS decision that it is OK for our property to be seized so long as it increases tax revenues, then we will have to agree to disagree.

As for Israel, a group of people was nearly wiped off this planet. They established a safe haven so that it wouldn't happen again, and their neighbors promptly tried to do it again. There were Arabs who stayed in Israel during the Arab attack, and those people and their descendants are Israeli citizens with full rights, just as it should be. Those Arabs who left to support the attack have no right to come back.

Maybe if Yassir Arafat and Co. wouldn't have tried to overthrow Jordan, his people would be welcome in the surrounding Arab countries. But they did, so they are not.

I am not a "buzzword spewing lamebrain", I have never listened to Rush or watched O'Reilly. I don't vote Republican and I think for myself thank you very much.

[cynatnite]

43. If you've been lurking at DU for a while, you'd know that...

a lot of DUers were not happy with the SCOTUS decision. In fact, many of them including me were outright disturbed by it. Dems don't run the SC.

Most here supports a Palistinian state. They have just as much right as does Israel. No one is saying attacks that kills innocents is justified. I've never seen it. It goes both ways, BTW. The Israeli army has killed their share of innocents, too.

Thinking for yourself is fine...doing research would be better.

[gratuitous]

63. No, you clearly don't think for yourself

You're in thrall to a lot of ideas that you can't articulate, and obsessed with people who are dead and gone. You leave unaddressed several points about how people could be empowered to take more responsibility for themselves, without proposing your own ideas.

You're more worried about imagined gun-grabbing legislation that you can't identify than you are about the USA PATRIOT Act, which is the law of the land.

You can't explain the eminent domain decision, nor do you demonstrate any knowledge of the facts of the case, yet you're opposed to it for reasons you can't substantiate.

You're worried about a dead man and a heretofore unknown action of trying to overthrow Jordan, and do not address the pith of my question, which was whether Israel is above criticism, reproach or analysis, preferring instead to focus on a plucky bunch of survivors and what they did in 1948. There's been a mite bit of history since then, and a people who were once oppressed have demonstrated their own capacity for oppression in the years since 1948. I refer you to Christopher Hedges' book "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning" for examples.

You're very long on whining, very short on substance, and unable to provide examples, evidence or citations. You sound to me like you have a substantial amount of growing up to do, and if you ever move out of Mommy's basement, you have may have a chance to do so.

[madderthanhell]

72. I have already stated that I do not support the PATRIOT Act

And while I have no doubt that there is a some sort of legal basis for the recent eminent domain decision, I still do not agree with it.

[titoresque]

31. Welcome to DU.....I hope ya stick around!

If you've read posts here long enough you know that theres hardly
any of us who are in agreement about everything......actually I'll venture...none of us!

I'm also a pro-gun liberal. I'm terrified to think if some had their way the general public would be left unprotected from enemies....domestic. And I agree with a lot of what you've said.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! :patriot::hi:

[Clark2008]

42. Pro-gun liberal here, as well.

I don't own a gun, but, growing up in the South has made me aware of the need to be moderate on gun-control. I subscribe to the Wesley Clark attitude of gun control: rifles and personal protection pistols and weaponry should be available to anyone who qualifies in our society, but if you REALLY, REALLY have to play with an automatic weapon, then join the service - they have plenty. :)

I'm also the fiance of a Jewish man, but I have to say that I'm opposed to the way in which Israel treats the Palestinians (and so is the fiance). Of course, I don't like the Palestinians suicide bombing people, either - but just because one uses tanks and state-sanctioned funding and the other builds bombs in the basement, doesn't make one more right than the other. Please know that some of us don't hate Israel, we just hate its leadership in much the same way as we don't hate America, we just think Bush sucks.

Welcome, by the way.

[newportdadde]

53. My take on some of your points.

I'm also a supporter of gun ownership. I've owned since I was 12 a rifle and a shotgun, and since I was 16 a Ruger pistol. Although I understand your reasoning of and fear of being defenseless I think it is unfounded. My own personal take on this subject is that neither party has in its best interest gun control that would personally effect me, I do not belive either side would ever take my guns. So I try to table that out of my thoughts when supporting a party.

I also agree with taking personal responsibility. I’m 28 and will have a 30 year old suburban home paid off in 6 years if all goes well *crosses finges*. Of course this process hasn’t been easy, I pretty much spend no money on myself besides 25 bucks for online game rentals per month. That’s it, cars around 6 years old, paid off etc, no credit card debit because we are very careful. It helps that my wife thinks the same way she has saved us a lot of money, especially her decision to stay home with our son and future kids(we are expecting twins early next year).

I often get mad when I see folks who take help pursing destructive habits, smoking, drinking, gambling etc, that consume what money they do have. However and this is important, I also realize that I cannot judge an entire group of people based on the poor choices of a few. I’m not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak for a few abusers of a program. Instead I would like to see a bipartisan approach to stamping out the abuse.

In addition some programs such as public schooling, utility regulation etc just do not work on a small scale or privatized approach in my opinion. I personally do not need public healthcare at this time. However I believe the benefits, preventative care etc would in the long run save us a great deal of money as well as help keep workers healthy, paying more taxes, buying more products etc which benefits us all.

I agree totally with you on the Supreme Court verdict.. I found it very disturbing. Now I would find a ruling against say abortion much more disturbing so I will take the property over that, but yes it was disturbing and I was surprised by it.

I'm very much into government fiscal responsibility as well. The Republicans have shown they are poor at managing a federal budget. They are GREAT at cutting social programs but they then take that money and move it into other expeditures which in my mind are more wasteful. I believe at this time the Democratic Party has the best change of leading us to more firmer fiscal ground.

[sadiesworld]

55. Can you provide an example of a libertarian utopia?

Is there a country you can point to which doesn't provide some degree of healthcare, retirement security, education yet still retains reasonable rates of literacy, infant mortality, etc.? Or is this even a factor for you? Are high rates of illiteracy, infant mortality and poverty acceptable? Leaving moral concerns aside for the moment, does it occur to you that eventually such inequities lead to violence?

Do you believe that government has a role to play in regulating corporations? Are the FDA, SEC, etc. just more unnecessary big government?

I'm truly interested in any responses you might offer.

BTW, you do realize that the far left (in any way, shape or form) has very little to do with the Democratic Party, right?

[ingac70]

85. Charles Dickens novels are perfect examples of Libertarian utopias!!

:evilgrin:

[calmblueocean]

86. Good questions.

I had the same thoughts in my post. But it's my experience that folks like the parent poster have a politics that are almost entirely emotional, based in fear, resentment, and selfishness. Even when shown evidence that their beliefs don't make sense, the scary, negative feelings still exist, so their politics don't change. Sad.

[tjwash]

58. Um OK.

My main reason for being opposed to the Democratic Party is gun control. I am a firm believer in my right to use whatever weapon I deem necessary to defend my life and the lives of those I love, and it REALLY bothers me that many in the Democratic Party would like to see me left defenseless.

Just the fact that this was basically word one out of your mouth, means I can name that tune in one note: "Looneytarian." If you actually took some time to read anything around here, there are many pro gun and many NRA supporting liberals. Hell even Michael Moore has a lifetime NRA membership for corns sake. Most here though, have the ability to speak or write a sentence without a reference to the 2nd Amendment, and of course don't actually wish a gun toting social and economic anarchy upon the land.

I believe strongly in people taking personal responsibility for their lives. I do not think that it is the job of the federal government to provide welfare, health care, social security, schooling and the like. I think that if people do want to provide these services, that they should be performed at the state and local level.

So in other words, liberty is not is what driving your Libertarian mentality, but rather the base selfishness of Social Darwinism. Obviously those aforementioned programs that the federal government should not be providing, will be replaced by the BRING OUT YOUR DEAD wagons. Which, as I read more and more crap from Conservatives and Libertarians, is what you’re really after. And before you ask what all the losers did before there were social programs to help them (you know, what most people call "civilization"), the answer is they died of disease and malnutrition. So what huh?

I am also scared by the path that liberal ideas can lead down. It was liberal ideas that guided the thinking of the Supreme Court in making the eminent domain decision, which I think may be the worst decision to ever come out of the court. The idea that the government can seize our private property because it can be used for something that will generate greater tax revenue is appalling and very frightening.

To actually associate that with Liberalism when it was passed with a conservative majority in all three branches of the government is such a steaming pile of horse manure, I am not even going to glorify it with a response.

[indigo32]

76. Not to be too rude to the 'Libertarian'

As s/he is trying to be polite but... Awesome Rant :woohoo:

[ingac70]

83. awesome response!

[calmblueocean]

78. Interesting.

My main reason for being opposed to the Democratic Party is gun control.

Help me understand you here. Let's say you own a shotgun and handgun. What is the "gun control" fantasy that's terrifying you? You think Democrats are going to pass a law making it illegal to own shotguns or handguns, and Federal Marshals will knock on your door and ask you to turn them in?

I'm part of a growing number of Dems who support the right to responsibly own firearms. I hope you can come back to reality on this one.

I do not think that it is the job of the federal government to provide welfare, health care, social security, schooling and the like. I think that if people do want to provide these services, that they should be performed at the state and local level.

You want to cancel Social Security and public schools, yet you're scared of where *liberal* ideas lead? When Social Security was enacted, the poverty rate among senior citizens was greater than 50%. Old folks were living on the streets, and dying on them, too.

Today, senior citizens in America are able to support a much stronger American economy because Social Security enables even the worst investors to set themselves up with a dependable monthly income in their old age. Social Security, by any standard, any evaluation, left or right, has made this country economically stronger and morally better. You're pretty much alone in your views on this one.

But since I have a hunch you're not open to re-evaluating your beliefs based on the evidence, I'd like to make a suggestion to you.

If you're looking for a tax-free, government-free utopia to move to, one where personal responsibility reigns supreme, I have one for you: It's a little country called Somalia. Somalia currently has no world recognized government, and no national legal system. There is no payroll tax, no income tax, no sales tax. Social Security and public schools are just dreams there. Private militias provide security. Businesses print their own money. The government is toothless. It's every man for himself. Your personal philosophy in action.

Of course, there are all the predictable failures: widespread famine, disease, public life dominated by crime and terrorism, contaminated water, a despoiled environment, the list goes on.

Anytime you want to put your beliefs into practice, the opportunity is right there for you. Let us know how it works out!

[BrainRants]

98. Your Somalia reference is excellent.

Great way to frame a debate! This is something that should be used on a larger scale to counter the anti-tax, anti-government crowd.

[ingac70]

82. I'm a pro gun liberal

Because I know that this government wouldn't think twice about setting the military on it's own people, and practicing sexual humilation and torture to get its way.

I've got to protect myself from tyranny.

[Zhade]

95. "I am not a troll"

:rofl:

CLASSIC!

[CitrusLib]

96. By any chance have you read "Balance of Power" by Richard North Patterson?

I found it a amazingly throughly researched book covering gun control, tort reform and the inner workings of our three branches of government. It didn't really change my mind on 'gun control', but it was fascinating to see the arguments from both side and some deeper information on the topic. I'd be interested to hear your take on the book. If you ever get a chance to read it or already have, please feel free to PM me with your thoughts.

As for the balance of your post, I think others have responded much better than I could.

[BrainRants]

97. I may not agree with you, but I'll defend to my death your right

to express your opinion.

I honestly have to say that you're doing a great job engaging people in this discussion, and keeping everyone civil. (You DU'ers deserve some credit for not crucifying him too!)

For that you deserve respect, and a sincere "Welcome to DU!"

Hope you stick around!

Disclosure: I'm a Dem "anti-assault-weapon" type (1 each). I played with guns in the military and believe those that feel compelled to play with assault weapons should do the same.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

100. When Israel stops slaughtering civilians

I'll stop "spewing" rhetoric against Israeli policies. :hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. I'll answer that one with a simple question

you are aware that guns were confiscated in NOLA by Federal Agents, even from people who had all the paperwork?

Now quick question WHO CONTROLS the country right now?

What I am trying to tell you is that all the BS they tell you the Democrats will do, is exactly what this crew will do given the chance.

That said, as a wife of a police officer I really don't want the bad guys to have certain ammo or quite honestly outgun the cops... that means certain things do not, truly belong in the hands of civilians... now a shotgun, a pistol, an automatic, be my guest, but an M1A1 Abrans, I don't think so. Oh and don't give me the BS that the bad guys will get them anyway, gun control or no gun control... many of the AKs in the hands of the bad guys have been stolen, same goes for the MAC 10s, if not all of them... so they went from lawful owner to bad guy... but hey I am just saying ok.

(or for that matter a 50 Cal BMG, which is truly not necessary to go hunting, unless you are going after elephants, which last time I checked were in the endangered list anyway.)

[wideopen]

107. hey mth,

I'm glad your here, hope to see you around more often. No one here agrees on everything and it's good to see people who aren't afraid to have a dissenting opinion.
peace, WO

[bcbink]

9. lurkers

I am a lurker. I discovered this site during election 2004. I had considered myself well informed. I do not think you can understand how this site has opened my eyes, my mind and my heart. The roller coaster of emotion pre and post election was literally nauseating.

I turned my vote into four. (assuming they were counted) It may not be much by your standards, but it is my start to becoming a functioning member of my country.

There is so much to learn, at times it is overwhelming. I lurk to learn. I do not willingly overlook.

Thank you

[Norquist Nemesis]

18. Welcome to the floor!

Glad you came down from the rafters! :hi:

[Bridget Burke]

19. Welcome....

Post if you feel like it. Or--happy lurking!

[newyawker99]

20. Hi bcbink!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Mutley]

25. Welcome bcbink.

:hi:

[cry baby]

26. Welcome...This site has sparked my quest for information, too.

I did not know how ill-informed I was before I came here. I watched the corporate news media and had no idea what was really going on.

I'm almost 50 and enjoying the learning process again!

[ramondajk24]

28. What is the question?

I don't see a question in the OP, so I'll counter with a question of my own that really is a question:

Why assume that lurkers, freepers, trolls, (or anyone else that's here, for that matter) is willing to overlook the list you've come up with? That seems completely illogical to me. Why does the fact that someone lurks (and most of the members here are lurkers) have anything to do with your laundry list?

[Dees]

33. It's not a blanket question for all that do.

For those specific discreet readers who are here for other reasons than discussion and steadfastly hold on to the morality issue...get in the ring or take the gloves off.

[Bridget Burke]

38. Most lurkers are just fine....

In fact, quite a few of us post some silly stuff! Nothing wrong with waiting until you have something to contribute.

The freepers & trolls (a few of which are lurking at this minute) do, indeed, ignore the list.

[Hello_Kitty]

104. It's not the lurking, per se.

It's the type of lurker. And freeper trolls do far more than lurk. They disrupt, harass, and even stoop so low as to torment a dying man and prevent him from getting the help he needs (Andy S.). I don't know how long you've been lurking here, if you have. But surely you've seen some of the ugliness that descends upon this site if you've spent any time here.

The OP is directed at those assholes.

[Ioo]

67. But Clinton Lied about a BJ, but but but, Clinton, Monica, BJ!!!

WAit for it, wait for it.

[NMMNG]

81. Oh, but they're not willing to overlook sex scandals

when they are committed by Democrats, that is. :eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. getting rich, DUH!

and power, that is all they care for

[Hello_Kitty]

103. So Adam and Steve can't get married!!

I mean...duh...:eyes: