President Rick Santorum?

[Brian]

Does anyone else here think that Rick Santorum (http://spreadingsantorum.com/) might be the scariest possible President ever?

That guy seems to have no qualms at all about forcing his particular selections from the bible on as many people as he can get away with.

I mean the magic underwear guy would be bad enough for sexual liberation but...

- Drew :paw:

[pepperjack]

I saw Obama as scary during 2008 campaign; used to refer to him as " a silver-tongued-devil." I feel so tempted to play the " I told you so," card.

[DuckiesDarling]

Neither side looks good for the Presidential election but at least Obama did better for LGBT than any of the Republican candidates. What is frustrating is so many of them signed the Marriage Pledge to try and push for a constitutional amendment to say that marriage is between a woman and a man. The Republican party by and large is made up of conservative members and even though we do have LGBT Republicans, there are not enough to stand up and say hey, we agree with your other political agenda but LGBT are just as deserving of the same rights as anyone else. Until that magic day happens, I am happy to be a Democrat and will vote for Obama. I'd like to see what he can do if Congress would get off their ass and do the job they were elected to do instead of debating endlessly. There was a nice press conference during the debt limit crisis where Obama basically took Congress to task for not passing bills that would help improve our economy. Basically told them even his kids do their homework so why hasn't Congress dealt with the things at hand instead of finding more and more things to push an agenda with?

Rick Santorum really needs to read the Bible entirely and understand that God is the only one who can judge anyone and it point blank states "Judge not lest ye also be judged" so I think Rick Santorum will have quite a bit to answer for when he meets the God he so devoutly believes in.

[pepperjack]

He (Obama) will keep plunging the country deeper into debt & inviting scorn & disrespect from our enemies.

[falcondfw]

Right now, Obama is killing us and our kids and grandkids. He called Bush unpatriotic for raising the debt 4 trillion in 8 years. He has raised it 5 trillion in 3 years. What does he call that? I see Santorum as the best alternative. Romney is a squish and will cave to the Libs. Paul is FANTASTIC domestically, but he is truly dangerous internationally. Gingrich would have a tough time beating Obama. Santorum is the only choice. If Obama gets another 4 years, there will be nothing left of the country.

[Brian]

I shouldn't get started on politics, it distracts me from work, but... :)

I don't buy it pepperjack and falcon. Give Obama a cooperative Congress (incl. Senate) and he'll have your budget balanced in less than 4 years. How much of the deficits that you are concerned about is a result of the Bush tax cuts and other tax code measures which reduce the tax rates of guys like Romney to 13.9% while his secretaries pay 30%? I read somewhere that 80% of the deficit is directly a result of the Bush tax cuts - that doesn't even include the preferred tax rates for investment income. If fiscal prudence is really your concern then you should be all for Obama and condemning the "The Party of No".

It is the great lie that true liberals like Obama (and myself) believe in "tax and spend". Fiscal prudence has always been a key plank of liberalism, because liberalism is all about creating a land of greatest opportunity for the most number of people to the benefit of all, and a broke country is no opportunity for anyone other than the perhaps the banking system insider.

Here in Canada it was the Liberals who balanced the books from '93 to 2006. Clinton (and a willing Congress) did the same in the US, balanced the books, until Bush. The ones who really know how to balance the books are the reasonable liberals.

What are Romney, Santorum and Gingrich going to do any different than Bush? Where Obama will reduce the size of government, reduce military spending, and balance the tax code (with a willing Congress). The Republicans will do only the first one of those things, and very possibly not even that (They could have reduced the size of government if they really wanted to under Bush right, and the Bush before that, and Reagan before that. But they declined every single time.)

Our conservatives are just like your conservatives - they feign fiscal prudence for votes. Moderates/liberals/centrists like Obama practice fiscal prudence (when allowed by those who say "no") for the same reason they are concerned about global warming, because it is all about ensuring that not just the present, but also the future, is a land of opportunity for the most number of people.

- Drew :paw:

[12voltman59]

It's a scary proposition that former Senator and presidential hopeful Rick Santorum could possibly become President Rick Santorum---as president he says he would work to overturn cases like Roe v Wade and other cases he doesn't like, he would seek to re-criminalize "sodomy" which at one time and I assume its Santorum's goal---that the legal definition of sodomy not only includes anal sex (especially between two males) but nearly every other sex act other than coital sex between a married man and woman, he would unilaterally overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the service and other things of that nature---that as a lawyer and two-term US Senator he either doesn't know that or care for the limits on presidential power that doesn't allow him to do things like overturn cases decided by the Supreme Court is pretty scary---along with Newt Gingrich making the suggestion that as president that he would do away with the Ninth Judicial District, Santorum has said that he thinks that would be a good idea too.

When it comes to Barack Obama running the country deeper in debt and bringing disrespect from other countries----the same thing could be said of George W. Bush---it is true that our debt has grown since Obama took office---but there are so many factors that go into that---some of which Obama is responsible for, but most of that debt growth took place during the Bush years---and when it comes to disrespect from other countries---that has actually been improved a great deal with most countries since Bush pretty much killed any respect that most countries and people of the world had for the US---that drop was very dramatic since right after 9/11--the world was with us but within a year or so---most of the rest of the world hated us thanks to Bush going to War with Iraq and all of the lies that were told to justify going into that war. Compared to Bush---many of the worlds leaders like Obama more with credit for that largely thanks to him having appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State---she has really done much to repair torn fences with US allies and foes alike that the Bushites pretty much trashed.

Obama is surely no great shakes--but let us fervently hope and pray that neither Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum becomes the Republican nominee and then somehow makes it as president---it will be an unmitigated disaster in so many ways if either of them make it---Romney might be somewhat "tone death" when it comes to those who aren't able to make a little bit each year on the speech making circuit with "only a little bit" being like a half million bucks!! but I do think that for the most part--a President Romney would not be a nut job crazy radically right conservative once he got in office---and that is one of the main reasons that he has not quite yet caught the love from the Republican base and they would rather go with someone like a Rick Santorum.


When it comes to Obama getting re-elected---if its Romney---Romney could very likely pull out a win--but if its Santorum or Gingrich---Obama probably wins if the Republicans have not rigged the election system---they have made it tougher with their efforts to make voting harder in most states with the rules they put into effect serving to disenfranchise many of those who would probably vote the Democratic Party ticket, so if its a fair election---then Obama will be able to eke out a narrow margin of a win--because one thing for sure---I do think that by the time November comes if there is a Republican candidate like Santorum---the Democratic base will be so fired up and motivated to get out to vote for Obama since they may not like him all that much this time but they will shudder at the alternative---and with overall demographics in many parts of the country favoring the Democratic Party along with large numbers of women who may not otherwise vote Democratic--they will come to realize that a Santorum presidency will be bad for women, Obama can pull off the win thanks to a huge turnout of the Democratic "base" and that enough "independents" will also be scared by the prospect of a Santorum presidency, these factors will trump the voter suppression efforts of the Republicans.


One thing for sure---it is going to be an interesting time as we get closer to this fall's elections---and I have a very strong sense that if Rick Santorum somehow becomes president---the next few years are going to get very, very nasty because I am willing to bet that for many of those on the left---a Santorum presidency will be so onerous---that all of their pent up anger, fears, frustrations. etc. will finallly blow the lid off the pot and we will be in for some very violent times.

If this fall's elections are not clearly one way or the other and if it smells that a fix is in and any Republican candidate "wins" like Bush did back in 2000--then they had better roll out the tanks and all of the paramilitarized police forces---because "There will be Blood."

Sad to say I but I do think that such would be the case if that is how things turn out. No matter who you are for and want to see win---do hope that there is no taint and doubt about the results of the 2012 presidential election!!!

[darkeyes]

He (Obama) will keep plunging the country deeper into debt & inviting scorn & disrespect from our enemies.Elect some1 like Santorum and and expect even more from your enemies and at the very least as much from your friends...

[darkeyes]

Right now, Obama is killing us and our kids and grandkids. He called Bush unpatriotic for raising the debt 4 trillion in 8 years. He has raised it 5 trillion in 3 years .Bush did it in a time of economic prosperity.. Obama has faced the most devastating economic crisis in 3/4 of a century which began before he took office..

[æonpax]

Rick Santorum, like all of the far-right GOP candidates, exists in his own reality. While claiming to be Catholic, his beliefs are no more a factual representation of Catholic dogma than Hitler’s beliefs were of the German people. He is a consummate politician using any and all means available to garner himself votes. During his tenure in the House and Senate, he even drew a thunderous rebuke from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy for his contrived version of Catholicism; Kennedy who himself, was a Catholic in name only.

Santorum has compared homosexuality to bigamy, incest, bestiality and adultery which fall outside of most all mainstream Christian faiths save those of the extreme religious right. Most recently, the coward accused his wife of adding a section to his book without his knowledge, "It Takes a Family," that blamed "radical feminists" for undermining families by allowing women in the workplace. When pressed by George Stephanopoulos (ABC’s “This Week”) as to who these “radical feminists” were, he gave an ambiguous answer, babbling about the “elite culture”, “academia”, “Hollywood culture” and the “news media”.

The larger problem however is not Santorum per se, it’s those people who buy into his perverted and convoluted perspective on reality. They exist, in force and seem to be growing. That is something that should keep all rational people, awake at night.

[chuck1124]

Let's remember something. Obama had a Democrate Senate and House in 09 and 10, and did nothing. So to blame the "party of NO" is deceptive. History has always shown that tax increases, especially on capital gains (that is primarily Romney's income) decreases tax revenue, not increases it. (Tax revenue has not decreased over the last 10 years. Spending has increased.) Rich people just move their assets to other countries. And tax cuts on investment stimulates investment, and investment is where jobs come from, not by investment of tax money. Where it be Santorum, Romney, or Gingrich, this country cannot afford four more years of the Obaman Administration.

[Randypan]

Can anyone say "Bible Nazi"

[swmnkdinthervr]

Let's remember something. Obama had a Democrate Senate and House in 09 and 10, and did nothing. So to blame the "party of NO" is deceptive. History has always shown that tax increases, especially on capital gains (that is primarily Romney's income) decreases tax revenue, not increases it. (Tax revenue has not decreased over the last 10 years. Spending has increased.) Rich people just move their assets to other countries. And tax cuts on investment stimulates investment, and investment is where jobs come from, not by investment of tax money. Where it be Santorum, Romney, or Gingrich, this country cannot afford four more years of the Obaman Administration.

It's against the law to move assets to avoid taxes. The proposed tax on the wealthy includes capital gains increases as well as increases in regular income taxes, the rich don't drive job production at all, corporations and small business do based solely on the bottom line not taxes. Nowhere has history shown that an increase in capital gains tax decreases tax revenue! Supply side economics never works...historically!!!

The scariest scenario is an all Republican or all Democrat dominated government, only special interest or big corporations win when that scenario is in place.

[æonpax]

1)Let's remember something. Obama had a Democrate Senate and House in 09 and 10, and did nothing. So to blame the "party of NO" is deceptive.
2) History has always shown that tax increases, especially on capital gains (that is primarily Romney's income) decreases tax revenue, not increases it. (Tax revenue has not decreased over the last 10 years. Spending has increased.) Rich people just move their assets to other countries. And tax cuts on investment stimulates investment, and investment is where jobs come from, not by investment of tax money.
3) Where it be Santorum, Romney, or Gingrich, this country cannot afford four more years of the Obaman Administration.

1) You are correct. Obama actually had a supermajority which the Democrats squandered away because of their disorganization and what I see as cowardice.

2) History does no such thing. Such a pronouncement is not only false but some unprovable GOP talking point. Reagan actually raised taxes on the rich which only the most stubborn Republicans will refuse to admit.
~ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/02/cantor-refuses-to-admit-reagan-raised-taxes/ ~
& ~ http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm ~
and there was never any flood of wealthy leaving this country…even when Democrats did it. That’s just fear mongering.

3) I am an unabashed liberal, but much to the chagrin of a few other liberals, I will not be voting for Obama (or any of the GOP clowns for that matter) nor am I a Democrat. Both parties to me have become so similar that any difference between them is only window dressing. They both feed out of the same corporate money trough and are beholden to them.

My objections to Barack Obama are based on rationality and events I have witnessed and documented, not because of any of the pap laden political spew I’ve seen. The idea of voting for Obama just to prevent a Republican from getting in office, is one I reject. I most likely will be writing in “Elizabeth Warren”. In essence, Obama is a corporate tool as most corporately bought and paid for politicians are becoming. Neither party holds the moral upper ground and both owe their allegiance to their corporate contributors.


http://i.imgur.com/q5vo7.jpg

[Hephaestion]

When Colin Powell thought about going for the presidency, he was told in no uncertain terms that, as a negro, he would be a target for assassination (from his own mouth in interview). When Obama was going for the presidency, his image was made to look very pale, almost white. Latterly he is either a Muslim terrorist or a black boy. During the Kennedy administration, upsetting too many people got him and his brother plugged. The brother Edward was warned off.

One wonders what goes on behind the scenes that may have stiffled Obama. In the same way one wonders what turned our Blair in bLiar.

[jimdawg]

I view Santorum as very anti-gay, but I don't think he's nearly as scary as portrayed, in that everyone expects it so everyone would be on the lookout.

Drew, I have to pick on your characterization of Clinton in that, Clinton didn't have a cooperative congress, but a congress bent on impeaching him. However, after Gengrich shut down the government for no reason, they showed incentive to work together.

And what did Clinton do? He allowed congress to deregulate the financial sector leading to massive bubbles which allowed the budget to appear balanced. Not quite a good idea in the long run, and we have a massive deficit now.

The candidate that bugs me most on gay issues is Ron Paul. People think he's a libertarian and supports gay marriage on a states-rights basis. Not so. He supports BANNING it on a states-right basis and concedes if a state wants it legal, then they can. He also supports legislation making it illegal to bring such cases to federal court if you want to protest a state law on the basis of gender, orientation or religion. Sorry, support is the wrong word. He introduced it. Look up the "We the People Act"-

Since a lot of liberal leaning folks think they can live with Ron Paul, I strongly caution them to look at his record...they like his criticisms but seldom know anything about his proposed solutions.

In case you're wondering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul#We_the_P eople_Act

[Brian]

Good points jimdawg.

- Drew :paw:

[darkeyes]

It always does amaze me how often turkeys vote for xmas....

[12voltman59]

To add to my rant about Rick Santorum----it seems that even among the true "small government" type conservatives, they are not too keen about the prospect of a Rick Santorum presidency---in one of the most recent columns by Jonah Goldberg, who is a very staunch "libertarian" sort of small government conservative commentator, he lays out the reasons those in his camp don't aren't too happy that Santorum is gaining traction--the headline for the column is:

"GOP race is a mess after Santorum's wins"

I went to his official website, but they seem to be about a week behind in posting up his columns--this one appeared on Monday in most papers so I could not either copy to paste here or provide a link to the site.

Here are a few of Goldberg's observations/thoughts on Santorum that I quote directly:

Speaking of Santorum's recent wins: "Team Santorum understandably wants everyone to believe that this was a huge endorsement of their guy's message and candidacy. "I don't stand here to claim I am the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney," Santorum proclaimed Tuesday night in Missouri.

"I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama."

I'm sure he's sincere.

But I don't really buy it. The single biggest factor in this campaign remains that the base of the GOP is uncomfortable with Romney and refuses to believe that it can't do better than the guy who talks to conservatives like he's reading from a right-wing Berllitz phrasebook.

The irony is that, in a weird way, Santorum has many of the same problems Romney has. Superficially, he looks like an anti-Romney when it comes to personality.

But having an authentic personality doesn't mean you have a presidential one. All too often, Santorum looks like he has a thumbtack in his shoe that he presses down on to fool the polygraph. He can be dour and resentful."

Going on a bit further: "Likewise, on substance, if you were going to design a GOP candidate to fit the moment it wouldn't be Santorum. The difference between him and George W. Bush: Santorum's deadly serious about compassionate conservationism, He is honestly and forthrightly committed to using government to realize his moral vision for America. That's his prerogative, and he has many good (and some very bad) arguments on his side.

But suffice to say, he is not the one the Tea Partiers have been waiting for.

Now, the race is just a mess. I could live with either man being the nominee (earlier Goldberg talked about a past column why he came out to support Mitt Romney). And while I would happily vote for either in a contest against Obama, I honestly have no idea who would be more electable. Frankly, I find the prospect of any of them becoming the nominee worrisome and hard to imagine (we agree on that) A brokered convention seems ever more plausible----and desirable."

I have not seen what other conservative pundits like George Will, Charles Krauthamer, etc have to say about the prospects of Santorum becoming the Republican nominee---but from past experience---what Goldberg says tends to go along with the thinking of many on the right and its comforting to know that they would not feel good about Rick Santorum being the nominee, so I think it does tend to bolster my argument that, THANKFULLY---the probability of there being Rick Santorum as President of the United States is pretty low.

I also think that among Goldberg's unspoken concerns he would have with Santorum as the Republican nominee is that Santorum will become so emboldened by being the nominee, he will overreach and announce all sorts of things that he'd like to see as president---things that even most conservatives would have a major problem with---as Goldberg noted and it goes back to what I have long been saying about the hypocrisy of those on the far right who generally say they "hate government telling people what to do"--when it comes to "liberal things"---they have absolutely no problem whatsoever in using the power of the government to impose upon the rest of us, their version of a "perfect world," which in part in Santorum's case is that anyone who has any sort of "gayness" about them had better stuff that part of themselves away and go back very deeply into the closet because in Rick Santorum's world---GLBT people have no place and if you do express your homosexual side---you will have to pay a very high price for succumbing to your "perversions." Keep adding things--but if you are a woman in general or especially if you are a woman who is not "pure, virginal and chaste"---life would not be very good for you either.

[elian]

Obama has had the worst circumstances that a US president ever had to deal with in the last 25 years...he inherited a failed economy (due to lack of regulation in the right places), a massive debt and a war on two fronts from that last guy..what was his name?? Hmm, nobody seems to remember. Obama is a quiet president, that seems to bother a lot of people but it doesn't bother me because usually when he does say something it's worth listening to. It's very convenient for the opposition party to stonewall him at every turn, only to claim later that he was "ineffective". The two (or more) parties are going to have to learn to compromise with each other, otherwise I don't have much faith in our future.

Maybe we should have let the banks fail, believe me, the thought of it is tempting, that way none of us would have money for food, clothing or shelter.. Since all of us are connected globally it is still a very real possibility.

So many institutions we have faith in have shown their moral failings, but you know what? That's okay..

I recently got to watch the movie, "The Iron Lady" which I thought was interesting but incredibly sentimental and mostly about death and time. I have to say, I agreed with some of the snippets they took from Thatcher's speeches. ..but then you see the immense sorrow, pain and unrest that policy caused...which is better? I really don't know - seems like you're damned either way to me.

In the olden times people would rely on their communities for help, but now people don't want to deal with their neighbor, they just point a finger at the government and say "you need to help me".

I don't know about where you live, but it seems like most of the people around where I live feel frustrated and angry over having to carry a huge burden of unearned power and privilege. They are afraid to fail, they race from one thing to the next, always in a hurry, riding my bumper all the way down the highway. .

Our church partnered with another congregation that was about to lose their building in a "bad" section of town. I'll tell you the neighborhood makes me feel a LITTLE uneasy. The people there don't have much, but what they do have they share with each other. All of those "uptight" people could learn a thing or two, but they would never dare come into that neighborhood, they've been educated from birth and indoctrinated to believe that all the people that live in the "bad" section of town are on the "wrong" side of the tracks. I would much rather be around people who don't have much but share rather than people who resent their wealth and power in misery.

I'd like to know when worshiping power for power's sake ever became the highest ideal we could aspire to?

It's so interesting that our best and brightest minds don't graduate and go into science or engineering - but finance. If used wisely (micro loans and such) finance can benefit society for the better but perusing finance for its own sake does not actually add anything useful to the community as a whole...listening to some wall street traders talk, some of them sound a lot like sharks to me.

I think the free market is a neat idea, I think it has merit, I think you SHOULD be rewarded if you work hard but something very distressing happens when we treat human beings as just another market commodity..it makes me very sad.

If the community helps a person succeed then that person should be willing, of their own volition to give SOMETHING of value back to the community. Of course in the US this is not compulsory, but you still see many people participate in religious institutions for this. As a matter of fact it is encouraged in our tax policy.

What happens when you truly work hard and you DON'T succeed? Do people start bringing out the semi-automatic weapons? We need to value spiritual well being just as much as we value wealth and profit in this country or we will continue to suffer.

What can we do but dance??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NHjUEdiebE

It might feel as though we are in the middle of a tempest but each one of us is candle in the darkness. Keep smiling, it WILL get better.

[IanBorthwick]

I saw Obama as scary during 2008 campaign; used to refer to him as " a silver-tongued-devil." I feel so tempted to play the " I told you so," card.

yeah, but you wouldn't look smart with an 85% success rate on his campaign promises according to Independent researching. So the "I told you so" would fall flat on its face.

Now as for Santorum, he is without a doubt frighteningly ignorant of the political process, thinks he can over rule or overturn what the Supreme Court passes with a wave of his magic wand, and believes rights for anyone NOT christian and Rethug are "Special Rights".

I hope he gets the Reich Wing nod to run against Obama, it would be an even greater electoral slaughter.

[pepperjack]

First, Ian, I don't care what I look like to you; you sound like a politician yourself with that comment, preoccupied with image. Second, I don't know where you got your info but Obama's own claim is at 60% while Politifact.com rates it more at 30-39%. Third, I suspect some of the members here have erroneously drawn the conclusion that I'm in favor of Santorum when I simply posted a negative opinion of Obama. And what the hell is Rethug?

[wanderingrichard]

Dude,
This whole crap of the crop "candidate pool" all the way back to LBJ has been a huge slap in the face of the US voters. And I doubt seriously there has been a truly viable candidate for that office since Woodrow Wilson. I actually voted for RRR just to get rid of the under performing peanut farmer.

My youngest brother was a small town councilman in Santorums district back when. Brother told me, don;t ever shake hands with the guy unless you wear an iron guantlet, then take the thing off and make sure what you got back is yours!!

There still is and always will be viable doubt about the legitimacy of the eligiblity of the current sitting president, no matter what spin is put on it. Those of you who actually support the guy, more power to ya, but that's the way things are.

Santorum? Perry? oh puhleeze!! it's like the repugnicans have purposely stacked the deck against themselves in this mess. Whats next? A "Virgin Birth Miracle" of some type at the national convention to bring a true candidate forward?

Sitting here looking at this whole discraceful farce, I;ve become fully convinced that the US actually needs a true contender 3rd party. It might be the only way to salvage our Republic from a century of two party partisan debacles.

I've always considered myself and Independent, voting for the candidate i've thought would be the best person for the job. I still think that way, but have been really disappointed in the dwindling availablity of qualifiable candidates who are willing to subject themselves to the microscopes, lies, back stabbings and invasions of privacy that have become part and parcel of our current po;itical system.

More to the point, our best candidate, ever, for presidency, all personal fluff, foibles, likes and dislikes aside, would have been the late great Harvey Milk.

[void()]

George Carlin is genius pure. He said folks that vote will often use the fact you don't as an argument to shut you up. "You don't vote so, don't complain about it being messed up." Carlin says that is exactly why non-voters are justified in speaking up. "Well you're right, I didn't vote to f*k up our world, you did. So, it's your responsibility to fix the sh*t, not mine. And I have every right to say you f*ked it up." I don't care who is POTUS. Let's just agree to end a few wars though. Here's a short list.

War on Terror - It's obvious there was no serious threat. If there was why have there only been about eight serious arrests and take downs of such threats since 9/11? Nobody wants to f*k with the US, we've got enough nukes to boil the world three times over. You going to go p*ss in that guy's sandbox and expect him to not do anything?

War on Drugs - C'mon how much of a joke do you need to have here? Simply legalize and regulate pot, grant individuals the right to grow no more than six plants for recreational / medicinal use, tax it like tobacco and pack up joints for sell at 7-11's. Keep all the narcotics and opiates illegal but make it easier for big H users to have access to friendly docs, with clean needles and clean junk. Not saying legalize on narcotics and opiates, but help these folks either break away from addiction or stay safe. Drug war done. Destabilize Mexico because it supplies pot? So? America can bail them out like they've done with Euro. Oh wait, that means One World Money. BFD, it's all one money anyway.

War on Piracy - Make it illegal and some dumb Joe is bound to circumvent the legality somehow. This falls under the lock rule. There never has been, nor ever will be a lock that cannot be broken or swindled. Stop fighting, no one but greedy bastards are losing a thing anyway. If you have not, you have nothing to defend, you have and you have to defend everything. Make it level, no one has anything. We own nothing. What, you going to carry your rolls of Wilson's and Chases with you after you die? Tell us all how that works out for ya.

Wars we need to start are listed here.

War on Human Dignity - The wars fought about above are farces that encourage and keep their opponents going by doing the exact opposite of what is needed to win. So, it stands to reason if we fight these wars the same way, we'll get Human Dignity.

War on Education - Same idea here, use the reverse war psychology and let us be educated.

War on Prosperity for All - I think you can see where I'm going.

Beyond that all I have is a taunt. "Hey you voters, fix what you continually f*k up. You say the vote can do it. If it can, vote to fix this sh*t. I'll be happy if your precious vote can achieve a thing."

WanderingRichard has a point about a third party needed but I do not foresee that happening despite our governing system being alleged to be able to support such. It would be ruled unfair to have a common sense party.

[pepperjack]

I just happened to read something today about what's considered to be one of the most useless wars ever, instigated by a ruler of Paraguay who idolized Napolean. In order to prove his prowess as a tactician, he attacked three neighboring countries only to lose 90% of his male population.:rolleyes:

[æonpax]

<snip/unsnip>Since a lot of liberal leaning folks think they can live with Ron Paul, I strongly caution them to look at his record...they like his criticisms but seldom know anything about his proposed solutions.
In case you're wondering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul#We_the_P eople_Act

While Ron Paul’s objection to needless wars attracts me, the rest of him doesn’t. Paul runs under the Republican banner, however, he is classified as a Paleolibertarian which is defined as a person whose belief is,





“… based on a combination of radical-libertarianism in politics and cultural conservatism in social thought” - http://www.paleolibertarian.com/sample-page/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism



Some of the highlights of paleolibertarianism are;

Limited centralized government,
limited government constitutionalism,
all property is private (no public property),
immigration policy would be decided by individual property owners and not the state
forced savings as an alternative to social security,
opposed to ‘modernism’ in the forms of “"free" thinking, chaotic painting, atonal music, deconstructionist literature, Bauhaus architecture”,
advocates laissez-faire economics,
advocates non-interventionism,
strict Freedom of association (allowing for segregation)
social conservatism as a necessary part of society, without government intervention to enforce it,

While this list is not complete and as paleolibertarians themselves are often in disagreement to it’s tenets, it still is a fair assessment. In general though, it emphasizes the liberty of the citizens over the power of the State, the caveat is that property owners have the ultimate decision making powers.

Ron Paul, and his son, Rand, are pretty extremist in their beliefs.

[67torinouy]

I think a late night talk show said it best that Rick Santorum is so misguided that he thinks conception starts with an erection!

[*pan*]

Rick Santorum - obama - gengrich - romney - all the same, vote for any or all and you will have the same crap. big govt.
one of my main concerns is the deterioration of the u.s. constitution with the past presidents little by little we are loosing our freedoms. i would vote for any person who promises to uphold and defend the constitution of the u.s. because it is the only thing to protect us from tyrants who would abridge our freedoms. it is happening right now as we speak with a crooked judiciary system bending and looking for ways around the constitution. what people fail to realize is thats what made this country great is that we made laws but never abridged anyone's freedoms. we always treated criminals humanly and also prisoners of war reguardless of what they might have done. today we see fit to tourture, harrass and hurt people who are criminals and prisoners of war. this was never policy for this country before. we act like scared sheep wanting laws that abridge freedoms so we can be safe. one of the founding fathers said they that give up liberty for temporary safety deserve neither the liberty or the safety. this give you an idea of how the founding fathers felt. one must not look to government to protect them, they must do it them selves. once you let politicians think you want them to protect you then you open the door to abridge freedoms. i know a lot of people are scared of ron paul but i believe he will change this country back to it's constitutional status and do away with big government. but as far as the gay issue in this country even if ron paul is against gays he will have no recourse but to allow it because of the constitution. we must get back to the constitution stand on our own two feet and be proud americans once again to fix this country. not sheep looking to the shepard for protection and guidance.
every person to office has swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution and they lied because they let and sign laws that do just the opposite.
i will take a libertarian over a socialist or communist any day of the week. because i am an american.

[thongman45]

I agree. Anyone who would deny a woman the right to have an abortion in cases of rape or incest, is out of his or her mind! Not to mention some of the crap he claims to believe about gays and bisexuals.

[darkeyes]

.
i will take a libertarian over a socialist or communist any day of the week. because i am an american.

Wont have 2 worry boutya hand up me skirt then will I Pan hun?:tong:

However....http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=libertarian%20socialism

So 2 upset ya lil fantasy...

[torpedoman]

This is our welfare state in a nutshell.

The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

And, the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason?

The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 231 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that in 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

ELECTION 2012 IS COMING

A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!

Obama: Gone!

Borders: Closed!

Language: English only

Culture: Constitution, and the Bill of Rights!

Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare!

Voter ID in all states!

NO freebies to: Non-Citizens!

We, the people, are coming.

[*pan*]

Wont have 2 worry boutya hand up me skirt then will I Pan hun?:tong:

However....http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=libertarian socialism (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=libertarian%20socialism)

So 2 upset ya lil fantasy...

didn't know it would have worried you :smilies15

if there were different people then who are running today, i would probibly vote for one of them, the people who are running now with the exception of ron paul are all cut from the same cloth. they all want world control they all want bigger government, they all want to change the constitution to give the government more power over the people, they all want more power, more involvement in world affairs, you can always tell when a politician is lieing because his lips are moving. the only one different out of all the running mates is ron. he will only be in there 4 years and maby he will bring this country back, if not can always throw him out and stick in the vice president. people too scared of change me thinks. but i can tell you one thing, with the shape the country is in now. i dont think it will survive too many more presidential elections unless we do something radicial. even if i don't like a lot of ron's ideals i am willing to take the chance for the sake of the nation. because to elect any of the otheres will be the same or worst then it is now.

[darkeyes]

but you forget my dear i am bisexual also lol

,, but me luffly.. Im not.. tee hee:tong:

[keefer10.7]

This is our welfare state in a nutshell.

The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

And, the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason?

The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 231 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that in 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

ELECTION 2012 IS COMING

A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!

Obama: Gone!

Borders: Closed!

Language: English only

Culture: Constitution, and the Bill of Rights!

Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare!

Voter ID in all states!

NO freebies to: Non-Citizens!

We, the people, are coming.

Yes we are; Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead. I totally agree with ever word written here.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Alexis de Tocqueville

[*pan*]

if we look at how american's viewed political running mates in the past history of this country, president obama would never had even made it into the primarys or even been considered with his socialistic views. i was taught in school that socialism, communism, markism, facistism, lennenism, these were all ideas that were non american, and did not work. and not to be trusted or tolerated. it seems people have given up what worked for many years for something they thought was better. just like the new preventive state policys and laws. they are an abomination to freedom and a free society. with socialism encroaching on america we have opened the door to more extreme measures by government and the running mates today are preaching even more socialism. sorry but being a constitutionalist i am against any changes to the contrary . i believe it will lead to a totally socialistic state and facistism within our prospective governments. this will be the down fall of this country because it has already started.

[darkeyes]

if we look at how american's viewed political running mates in the past history of this country, president obama would never had even made it into the primarys or even been considered with his socialistic views. i was taught in school that socialism, communism, markism, facistism, lennenism, these were all ideas that were non american, and did not work. and not to be trusted or tolerated. it seems people have given up what worked for many years for something they thought was better. just like the new preventive state policys and laws. they are an abomination to freedom and a free society. with socialism encroaching on america we have opened the door to more extreme measures by government and the running mates today are preaching even more socialism. sorry but being a constitutionalist i am against any changes to the contrary . i believe it will lead to a totally socialistic state and facistism within our prospective governments. this will be the down fall of this country because it has already started.

*laffs*.. try finding out about what socialism is, not what u have been told it is... because it is not about what you seem to think it is... it is not about enslavement nor is it unamerican.. it is about empowerment, liberation and the creation of a properly democratic base for all people to control their own destiny.. power by the people of the people for the people... not of the people for an elite by the elite... forget what u were taught and try and find out what you were not taught... it is about uniting humanity in common cause for the good of all and for the peace of the world.. not for as big a piece of the world as u can grab...

[keefer10.7]

*laffs*.. try finding out about what socialism is, not what u have been told it is... because it is not about what you seem to think it is... it is not about enslavement nor is it unamerican.. it is about empowerment, liberation and the creation of a properly democratic base for all people to control their own destiny.. power by the people of the people for the people... not of the people for an elite by the elite... forget what u were taught and try and find out what you were not taught... it is about uniting humanity in common cause for the good of all and for the peace of the world.. not for as big a piece of the world as u can grab...

We know exactly what socialism is. Not by book or lecture, but by viewing the catastrophic mess that western Europe is in. This is not in part, but this is totally due to Europes fascination with socialism. Also, learn to quote Lincolns words in context. His words echo through the ages for those of us who love liberty and persue its pupose in our lives.

[darkeyes]

We know exactly what socialism is. Not by book or lecture, but by viewing the catastrophic mess that western Europe is in. This is not in part, but this is totally due to Europes fascination with socialism. Also, learn to quote Lincolns words in context. His words echo through the ages for those of us who love liberty and persue its pupose in our lives.It doesnt surpise me Keefer that you have no idea what it is... your post makes that quite plain... there is a world of difference between social democracy and socialism... and I havent quoted Lincoln at all however much u think I have... and it would be nice if you learned to love liberty for all and its purpose for other than yourself and your own country...

[bifocused6969]

The Republicans nearly destroyed the United States and are still trying. Can you imagine another 8 years of them!!! Santurom is a nut case from the 16th century.

[goldenfinger]

We know exactly what socialism is. Not by book or lecture, but by viewing the catastrophic mess that western Europe is in. This is not in part, but this is totally due to Europes fascination with socialism. Also, learn to quote Lincolns words in context. His words echo through the ages for those of us who love liberty and persue its pupose in our lives.

keefer you know so little, the problems in Europe, like in the US was started by sheer greed, good old american "Greed Is Good" mentality.
And your own constitution is so fucked up, no one knows what it really was meant to mean 230 years ago, so everyone is fighting for their own interpretations. Totally fucked up, you have become the laughing stock of the rest of the world. If you think you live in the most free country in the world, you'r kidding yourself.

[keefer10.7]

keefer you know so little, the problems in Europe, like in the US was started by sheer greed, good old american "Greed Is Good" mentality.
And your own constitution is so fucked up, no one knows what it really was meant to mean 230 years ago, so everyone is fighting for their own interpretations. Totally fucked up, you have become the laughing stock of the rest of the world. If you think you live in the most free country in the world, you'r kidding yourself.

Awww, c'mon now, little roo. No need to be jealous, just accept the fact that for 236 years people from all over the world have been literally dying to get to the good ole U.S. of A. Actually, the problems in Europe were created by their own misguided jealousies of American hedgemony, and a small dick mentality, that they went and creating the European Union. They're still a bunch of lackies to one another but alas, to start another world war just isn't in the cards for them anymore. In the future, if I want your opinion, I'll scrape it off my zipper.

[elian]

The US Constitution was actually designed to be a "living document" - meaning that by following proper procedure it can be amended. Having said that it still bothers me that many fundamentalists absolutely insist that "the founding fathers" were "all Christian" and that we should immediately enact many of the sweeping "moral reforms" that would do things like make love between individuals of the same gender a punishable crime.

This country DOES have free speech, which means that for certain folks there is always a CONSTANT debate going on about what should and should not be. Sometimes it gives people a headache, strange things happen during election years as they all pander for votes. The only thing that bothers me greatly about it is when people can find absolutely no consensus. I don't know about you but when I refuse to do MY job at work my boss lets me know tha I can start looking for another job..apparently this does not phase our esteemed colleagues in the US House and Senate chambers.

[darkeyes]

Awww, c'mon now, little roo. No need to be jealous, just accept the fact that for 236 years people from all over the world have been literally dying to get to the good ole U.S. of A. Actually, the problems in Europe were created by their own misguided jealousies of American hedgemony, and a small dick mentality, that they went and creating the European Union. They're still a bunch of lackies to one another but alas, to start another world war just isn't in the cards for them anymore. In the future, if I want your opinion, I'll scrape it off my zipper.

You know Keefer, with every word and almost every post,.. your knowledge and understanding of the world makes you look ever more foolish, arrogant, xenophobic and jingoistic... you make no arguments other than a barrage of offensive, small minded and abusive comments which bear no relation to the reality of the world.. they are the "thoughts" of the stupid and of the macho and no one takes them terribly seriously.. we chortle gently and sometimes even occasionally break out into huge belly laughs of great mirth at your inanity and apparent stupidity..

If you wish to be taken seriously, I suggest you begin to debate the merits of an argument and not simply roll out a few smart arsed offensive comments designed I am sure for no other purpose than to shock.. for it is all we do at your foolishness.. is laugh at the fool..

The post above is another statement of the ignorant, and have no hesitation at referring to you as such.. in both senses of the word... once again it displays your ignorance of the world and its realities... words set out to appeal to the most base instincts of those such as yourself and words which the vast majority of even conservative thinkers to my knowledge would dismiss as the ramblings of stupidity that they are.. and from our observations of the campaigns of the various Republican candidates running for the Oval office, it seems that you are in very good company.. they are just more long winded about it..

[keefer10.7]

Want some help with this one, Dark? Just ignore me.

[keefer10.7]

The US Constitution was actually designed to be a "living document" - meaning that by following proper procedure it can be amended. Having said that it still bothers me that many fundamentalists absolutely insist that "the founding fathers" were "all Christian" and that we should immediately enact many of the sweeping "moral reforms" that would do things like make love between individuals of the same gender a punishable crime.

This country DOES have free speech, which means that for certain folks there is always a CONSTANT debate going on about what should and should not be. Sometimes it gives people a headache, strange things happen during election years as they all pander for votes. The only thing that bothers me greatly about it is when people can find absolutely no consensus. I don't know about you but when I refuse to do MY job at work my boss lets me know tha I can start looking for another job..apparently this does not phase our esteemed colleagues in the US House and Senate chambers.

The United States Constitution was NOT designed to be a "living document". That is revisionism, and was espoused by Al Gore during his term as Vice President. The fact that an ammendment can be added is just proof of the brilliance that went into its crafting and the mindset of the framers that issues would arise for future generations. To try to paint it as a living and breathing document, is something that our forefathers would roll over in our graves about.

[elian]

OK well maybe I misspoke, the original document does not change, but amendments certainly are added to it. Four years after the original constitution was signed they added ten amendments to it called the Bill of Rights.. The original document does not change but interpretation of it can change based on legal precedent. Although this sounds frustrating human beings make "judgement calls" all the time. It's what frustrates "family values" advocates when higher courts decide that states really ARE infringing on people's rights when they recognize two same sex people as legally married, only to later pass a law to make that marriage null and void.

Talking of which, I really wish they would just call the civil rights part of the gay marriage debate "civil union" or "domestic partnership" and let the church call it "marriage". There ARE ALREADY churches that would gladly perform an LGBT marriage if they could legally do so.

[darkeyes]

The United States Constitution was NOT designed to be a "living document". That is revisionism, and was espoused by Al Gore during his term as Vice President. The fact that an ammendment can be added is just proof of the brilliance that went into its crafting and the mindset of the framers that issues would arise for future generations. To try to paint it as a living and breathing document, is something that our forefathers would roll over in our graves about.But would they Keefer? The very fact that it can be amended and grow is that not evidence that the founding fathers of your country intended it to be a living document? Brilliant it most assuredly is, but neither inanimate or dead..

[darkeyes]

Want some help with this one, Dark? Just ignore me.Not my way hun... would not be so discourteous.. however much I hate and disagree with what anyone says, ignoring and allowing to pass unchallenged can be not only a foolish but a dangerous thing... and vis a vis your good self, don't read into those last few words what isn't there..:bigrin:

[jimdawg]

This is our welfare state in a nutshell.

The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

And, the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason?

The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 231 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that in 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

ELECTION 2012 IS COMING

A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!

Obama: Gone!

Borders: Closed!

Language: English only

Culture: Constitution, and the Bill of Rights!

Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare!

Voter ID in all states!

NO freebies to: Non-Citizens!

We, the people, are coming.

So let me get this straight: We the people-that means you. You think you have a right to invade the privacy of those who collect welfare. Well, I got news for you-your police forces, fire fighting forces, military forces, they all make you the benefactor of government aid. Maybe we should drug test you?

Fine, so you don't like that comparison. We should invade their privacy because...they're all on drugs. Nevermind that in Florida, only 2% of the Welfare collectors failed drug tests (versus a 7% rate for the rest of the population), no, you're mad as hell, and you want to scapegoat...well, people you don't like.

Culturally, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights isn't a big deal. When people talk about that in those terms, I think Cult of Personality. Guess what? I'm happy there's no copy of the constitution in my kitchen, like a creepy picture of Kim Il Sung. I'm glad I can watch TV without thinking about the US government. Its not that I dislike the constitution remotely, its that...that's legal, that's government, and there's far more to life than government.

Speaking of NO freebies to: Non-Citizens!, are you aware states like NY take in far more tax revenue for the federal government than it receives? Did you know that's not true about conservative states in the US? Could it be that the real reason that conservative states, the right to work ones with low taxes have better budgets and economies simply because they gamed the federal government and are stealing the tax dollars from wealthier states like New York and California, plunging them deeper into debt?

Why is it that you think people who aren't the same as your situation and beliefs have no right to privacy? Don't you think there is a reasonable right to privacy and live in peace from the government with liberty? Or does liberty only refer to supporters of Ron Paul?

[darkeyes]

Why is it that you think people who aren't the same as your situation and beliefs have no right to privacy? Don't you think there is a reasonable right to privacy and live in peace from the government with liberty? Or does liberty only refer to supporters of Ron Paul?The liberty he talks of, Jim, is the liberty of the selfish, the liberty of the greedy, the liberty of those without compassion for those less well off than themselves.. the liberty to exploit other human beings, the liberty to lie and misrepresent in their own interests, the liberty of the wild beast... the liberty of imposing fear... the liberty to be a bastard and feel good about it...

[pepperjack]

Dark, I don't see anything "stupid" or "macho" about the current GOP contenders but rather very successful, strong, intelligent men. I find your combining those two words both curious and telling. Do you somehow immediately perceive strong, dominant men as knuckeldraggers?

[csrakate]

Dark, I don't see anything "stupid" or "macho" about the current GOP contenders but rather very successful, strong, intelligent men. I find your combining those two words both curious and telling. Do you somehow immediately perceive strong, dominant men as knuckeldraggers?
And how many men perceive strong, opinionated women as "bitches" or "manhaters"? Please....let's not start the old argument that Darkeyes hates men because she is a lesbian again! If she finds the GOP candidates to be stupid or macho, that is her opinion and probably one that is shared by many in our country. (I personally find Rick Santorum to be one of the most frightening of all the candidates, closely followed by Newt Gingrich....but that is my opinion and my opinion only....and I acknowledge that they are most likely intelligent in their own way and most likely successful and strong....and I still LOVE men!) Such poorly veiled insinuations are nothing but fodder for yet another tirade of the "he-man woman haters club" that loves to attack Darkeyes, her opinions and her sexuality. I think we're all above that, aren't we???

[darkeyes]

Dark, I don't see anything "stupid" or "macho" about the current GOP contenders but rather very successful, strong, intelligent men. I find your combining those two words both curious and telling. Do you somehow immediately perceive strong, dominant men as knuckeldraggers?

No, if I may answer your question.. not all.. not even most.. but some extremely intelligent, strong, dominant men often speak the language of the stupid and the macho for their own purposes and act as knuckledraggers... which to some extent is why they are often very successful especially in the political arena.. and if I may go further, I can think of at least one very successful, strong, intelligent, dominant woman, a former Prime Minister, who was arguably the greatest practitioner of the language of knuckledrag of the last half century... such people encourage knuckledrag.. men are not alone in the practicing of such an art.. an art which I freely admit I find demeaning and offensive and lacking in respect for all but themselves.... so what u see and I do are not in tune Pepper... but then surely u never expected that did u?

[drugstore cowboy]

Rick Santorum is not going to become President of the United States. He's such a loose cannon that the Republican party isn't going to have him run, and instead they'll pick Mitt Romney. I'm not conservative but most conservatives don't even like or support Rick Santorum. I was all for Candidate Obama before he became Presient, but now that he's President and has shown how he is not a "fierce advocate" for LGBT rights even if he and the Obamabots want to pretend that he is I'm not going to support him or vote for him for re-election. He and his administration actually defended DOMA and did their BS "Gawd's in the mix" speech which was a slap in the face to all LGBT people and LGBT youth, and if it wasn't for the Pentagon and top military brass DADT would not have finally been abolished because the non-discrimination clause which was included Patrick Murphy's DADT bill was taken out by the Obama administration and that was the bill that was passed. Obama could have stopped the witch hunts and discharges of gay, bisexual, and lesbian military servicemembers but did nothing, and bisexual, lesbian, and gay male service members of the military were still kicked out. I don't like any of the candidates including Obama.

[pepperjack]

The art & language of knuckeldrag? :bigrin::bigrin:Wasn't aware of it's existence.:cool: FYI, as well as csrakate, I enjoyed an interview this morning featuring a female colonel former pilot vying for former AZ Gifford's position; she impressed me. I like the phrase, "woman was created from the rib of man, not to be beneath him, but beside him."

[darkeyes]

The art & language of knuckeldrag? :bigrin::bigrin:Wasn't aware of it's existence.:cool: Always glad to help with education pepper..it is me job after all...:tong:

[shewolf50]

Rick Santorum;

This is the kind of person who believes that only through the extreme pain of the fire (ie... burning you at the steak) will the satanic demon possessing you be released.

Thus freeing your soul to kneel before God and be judged and may God have mercy on your soul.

This is a very dangerous man!!!

If this man is put in the oval office I may just leave this country.

[swmnkdinthervr]

As pointed out above it's unlikely that the Republican party will allow Santorum to run. What does that tell us, this is proof positive that we don't really have any choice in the electoral process, we are spoon fed candidates like we were toddlers unable to choose on our own. I personally think it's a shame if he can't run for the Oval Office, I'm pretty sure he would fail that test!!!

[Randypan]

I cannot believe this. Are they insane? Why would these people want to "Elect" a potential religious dictator? And what is wrong with the "Liberal" media? They should be pounding this point! He has stated publicly that he favors putting aside the constitution for biblical law. Anyone know what country I might be able to live on $1700 a month?

[Randypan]

So let me get this straight: We the people-that means you. You think you have a right to invade the privacy of those who collect welfare. Well, I got news for you-your police forces, fire fighting forces, military forces, they all make you the benefactor of government aid. Maybe we should drug test you?

Fine, so you don't like that comparison. We should invade their privacy because...they're all on drugs. Nevermind that in Florida, only 2% of the Welfare collectors failed drug tests (versus a 7% rate for the rest of the population), no, you're mad as hell, and you want to scapegoat...well, people you don't like.

Culturally, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights isn't a big deal. When people talk about that in those terms, I think Cult of Personality. Guess what? I'm happy there's no copy of the constitution in my kitchen, like a creepy picture of Kim Il Sung. I'm glad I can watch TV without thinking about the US government. Its not that I dislike the constitution remotely, its that...that's legal, that's government, and there's far more to life than government.

Speaking of NO freebies to: Non-Citizens!, are you aware states like NY take in far more tax revenue for the federal government than it receives? Did you know that's not true about conservative states in the US? Could it be that the real reason that conservative states, the right to work ones with low taxes have better budgets and economies simply because they gamed the federal government and are stealing the tax dollars from wealthier states like New York and California, plunging them deeper into debt?

Why is it that you think people who aren't the same as your situation and beliefs have no right to privacy? Don't you think there is a reasonable right to privacy and live in peace from the government with liberty? Or does liberty only refer to supporters of Ron Paul?

We already get drug tested! If I have to get drug tested to get a job then you have to get drug tested to collect welfare!

[keefer10.7]

I cannot believe this. Are they insane? Why would these people want to "Elect" a potential religious dictator? And what is wrong with the "Liberal" media? They should be pounding this point! He has stated publicly that he favors putting aside the constitution for biblical law. Anyone know what country I might be able to live on $1700 a month?

China has some great retirement villages for you. Let me ask you; where was your "liberal" media when they didn't vet Obama back in '08? Enough said.

[æonpax]

The liberty he talks of, Jim, is the liberty of the selfish, the liberty of the greedy, the liberty of those without compassion for those less well off than themselves.. the liberty to exploit other human beings, the liberty to lie and misrepresent in their own interests, the liberty of the wild beast... the liberty of imposing fear... the liberty to be a bastard and feel good about it...


Liberty is basically the freedom to do as one pleases, so indeed, the liberties you mention are true. In the republic that is America, the expansion of all liberties is a right for all citizens. However, according to constitutional jurisprudence, that liberty is balanced by the "possible harm" it may cause.

Unfortunately, our sometimes "Not-So-Supreme Court" has elevated corporations to "personhood" status, therein lays the extreme danger the "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" decision caused. I don't expect certain educationally deprived or misinformed elements to even hope to grasp this concept but their aim is a "plutocracy" or "oligarchy". One may still have so-called "liberty" but under their definition of the word.




http://i.imgur.com/iz9Q0.jpg

[æonpax]

This is our welfare state in a nutshell.<snipped for updating>



ELECTION 2012 IS COMING


A Nation of Educated People Elects a Government By The People!


Obama: Given the current crop of GOP fools and clowns, he's unfortunately a shoo-in.

Borders: Open to all qualified people of the world.

Language: None official.

Culture: Homogenous.

Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening of ALL government officials.

Voter: The uncontested right for all residents to vote.

Help: to all people regardless of citizenship.

We, the people, are coming....to protect the liberty and rights of people from those whose dysfunctional ideologies would destroy our beloved Constitution

[darkeyes]

China has some great retirement villages for you. Let me ask you; where was your "liberal" media when they didn't vet Obama back in '08? Enough said.
Still on this, hey? I think Obama was vetted by a machine much more able to make sure he was qualified than any media..liberal or other.. after all.. who ran the Government machine prior to his election? Not Obama thats for sure...

[darkeyes]

Still on this, hey? I think Obama was vetted by a machine much more able to make sure he was qualified than any media..liberal or other.. after all.. who ran the Government machine prior to his election? Not Obama thats for sure...
..and let me say place of birth is a discriminatory policy against other American citizens naturalised and born and as such is something that should be removed from whichever statute or regulations are responsible for it.. I realise what the reasoning is behind it but find it something I find reprehensible.. u are a citizen of a country or you are not.. no matter when and in what circumstances you were born.. and as such, no position should be denied on the basis of place of birth alone if u are a citizen...

[keefer10.7]

Still on this, hey? I think Obama was vetted by a machine much more able to make sure he was qualified than any media..liberal or other.. after all.. who ran the Government machine prior to his election? Not Obama thats for sure...

Obama wasn't vetted at all, Fran. His connections to Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, his papers while at Harvard and the boondoggle of them all, his birth certificate, or lack thereof. The latter was not brought up by a republican, but rather Hillary Clinton and for good reason. I should step back and say that he was vetted, but primarily by more of the right side of news orgs. and journalists. Who ultimatly is to be found lacking in all this? Part of the blame goes to the media but the vast majority of the ignorance of these "in your face" charctre flaws of Obama's lays at the feet of the electorate. I'm not saying this as a Republican but as an informed voter. All of this was out there while the Democratic primary was going on and then candidate Clintons camp was shoveling this stuff out for public comsumption. It's our choice to view information published and it's also our choice to ignore anything and everything that is considered an affront to our choices. Put side by side as candidates, to this day I have not a clue as to how Obama won out over Mrs. Clinton. I find her almost as dangerous as Obama, but I will admit that she is an intelligent and shrewd politician and one who actually did attend sessions of the Senate while she represented the good state of N.Y. If it were possible to turn back the clocks and the net result would still be a Democratic President, I would much rather have had Hillary Clinton as President than this rube that occupies the Oval Office today.

[w00ki33]

Here's what I find so amusing about the whole birther thing. Less than a decade ago, when it was considered a legitimate possibility that (yes) Arnold Schwarzenegger was going to run for president, there was a conservative movement to amend the "Naturally Born Citizen" clause. It was even called "Amend For Arnold."

Obama was born in Hawaii. Period.

[darkeyes]

Here's what I find so amusing about the whole birther thing. Less than a decade ago, when it was considered a legitimate possibility that (yes) Arnold Schwarzenegger was going to run for president, there was a conservative movement to amend the "Naturally Born Citizen" clause. It was even called "Amend For Arnold."

Obama was born in Hawaii. Period. It seems daft to me.. the first few Presidents were all born British citizens.. or subjects as they were known in those days...

[keefer10.7]

Here's what I find so amusing about the whole birther thing. Less than a decade ago, when it was considered a legitimate possibility that (yes) Arnold Schwarzenegger was going to run for president, there was a conservative movement to amend the "Naturally Born Citizen" clause. It was even called "Amend For Arnold."

Obama was born in Hawaii. Period.

That's a load of caca and no conservative movement was ever made for Arnold. In fact, conservatives kept a long distance from him for very obvious reasons. Secondly, I defy you to find anyone in Hawaii to produce the birth certificate......not a certificate of live birth, but the actual birth certificate. I am not saying that he wasn't born in the U.S., but I'll be damned if they want to put this issue to rest by producing it. That I find very telling.

[keefer10.7]

It seems daft to me.. the first few Presidents were all born British citizens.. or subjects as they were known in those days...

Really......I mean really, Fran? You're too intelligent to even consider that comment as legitimate.

[darkeyes]

Really......I mean really, Fran? You're too intelligent to even consider that comment as legitimate.

Perfectly legit Keefer but only cos its the truth...

[keefer10.7]

Perfectly legit Keefer but only cos its the truth...

Of course it's true and the reason why the framers made it so that a President must be a natural born citizen. They wanted no connections to European royalty or any connections to blood lines like so many thrones in Europe at the time. Is this an indictment against said thrones? No, not at all, what it is about is American soveriegnity and a disconnect from European style politics. At the time there was much debate in our Congress from those who wanted a monarchy based on the British crown, and those that found even the thought of it to be anathema. It's why we have a Republic.

[darkeyes]

Of course it's true and the reason why the framers made it so that a President must be a natural born citizen. They wanted no connections to European royalty or any connections to blood lines like so many thrones in Europe at the time. Is this an indictment against said thrones? No, not at all, what it is about is American soveriegnity and a disconnect from European style politics. At the time there was much debate in our Congress from those who wanted a monarchy based on the British crown, and those that found even the thought of it to be anathema. It's why we have a Republic.I know the history of it and am very glad that u do have a republic.. if only we could have the same and that the British people would cease the subservient tosh which prevents us from being a truly progressive and modern state.... but I digress and the fact remains.. to prevent any US citizen from being able to stand for the Presidency, even if not born a "natural citizen" whatever that means (and there has always been a lot of debate on just what it does mean)... is an unfair, unjustifiable and in this day and age indefensible discrimination which the US should stand no more..

[w00ki33]

That's a load of caca and no conservative movement was ever made for Arnold. In fact, conservatives kept a long distance from him for very obvious reasons. Secondly, I defy you to find anyone in Hawaii to produce the birth certificate......not a certificate of live birth, but the actual birth certificate. I am not saying that he wasn't born in the U.S., but I'll be damned if they want to put this issue to rest by producing it. That I find very telling.

"No conservative movement was made for Arnold."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/18/SCHWARZENEGGER.TMP&ao=all
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/24/opinion/main579874.shtml

I guess you'll give me a No True Scotsman argument that Orrin Hatch isn't a "real" conservative.

And it's a blatant lie that he hasn't produced the birth certificate.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate


Here's what I don't understand though: are you saying that Barack Obama's mother, at 18 years old, somehow lied about her son's birth in the hopes that he would someday become president? How is that even remotely logical?

[darkeyes]

"No conservative movement was made for Arnold."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/18/SCHWARZENEGGER.TMP&ao=all
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/24/opinion/main579874.shtml

I guess you'll give me a No True Scotsman argument that Orrin Hatch isn't a "real" conservative.

And it's a blatant lie that he hasn't produced the birth certificate.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate


Here's what I don't understand though: are you saying that Barack Obama's mother, at 18 years old, somehow lied about her son's birth in the hopes that he would someday become president? How is that even remotely logical?

What gets me.. and I know Keefer says Obama was never vetted.. but I doubt this to be true.. security services in every country are very busy nebbing into the minutiea of the origins and lives of even the most minor political figures on the off chance that they may become major players.. so it is simply not credible such is the neurosis of the state machine of all countries.. certainly not that the man standing for the most powerful and important elected position on the planet would be free of very scrupulous (and unscrupulous) vetting... and the history of the US political machine is hardly free of neurosis...

[keefer10.7]

Here's what I don't understand though: are you saying that Barack Obama's mother, at 18 years old, somehow lied about her son's birth in the hopes that he would someday become president? How is that even remotely logical?

No, I didn't say that, so I would suppose it doesn't seem remotely logical because you said it.

[w00ki33]

Here's what I don't understand though: are you saying that Barack Obama's mother, at 18 years old, somehow lied about her son's birth in the hopes that he would someday become president? How is that even remotely logical?

No, I didn't say that, so I would suppose it doesn't seem remotely logical because you said it.

If you're going to make a claim like Obama not being born in the U.S., you have to provide a reason for his mother to claim that he was, and a method by which she did so.

If we are to believe that Obama was born in Kenya, then we have to believe that Ann Dunham not only gave birth to Obama in Kenya, somehow managed to forge a birth certificate, got two fake birth announcements placed in Honolulu papers, and had some ulterior motive to do so. How does that make *any* sense?

[12voltman59]

I was at some event the other night and the conversation at the table I was sitting at got on this whole topic about the political stuff---with people having pretty divergent views on things---and even though people had varying views about Obama, the potential Republican nominees, etc--most of those who said they tend to be Republicans with the exception of one guy who likes Santorum--they agree that the field they were offered is a pretty bad one---everyone agreed that the system with all this PAC money flowing into it via this Citizens United ruling is crap and that its corrupting the system and that both the Dems and Repubs are failing as leaders---one person did come up with an idea I had not heard before and it actually kinda sounded good---his suggestion is that for Congress---the members of Congress would be selected something like jury duty, there would be no campaign funding necessary, you would go up to Washington, everyone would have to live in dormitories, be paid a modest amount for your service, get travel pay and such and the lobbying firms would not be allowed to contact you on an "ex parte" basis---everyone who would want to see you would have to make an appointment that is booked by a central booking office.

It might not really be workable---but heck--kinda sounds like it could hardly be worse than the situation we have now---I think that pretty much everyone of every stripe can agree---the way things are in Washington now--it is just purely messed up!!!

[biguy71]

Republicans just kind of suck in general. I'm certainly no cheerleader for the Democrats, but at least they're not Republicans.

[keefer10.7]

If you're going to make a claim like Obama not being born in the U.S., you have to provide a reason for his mother to claim that he was, and a method by which she did so.

If we are to believe that Obama was born in Kenya, then we have to believe that Ann Dunham not only gave birth to Obama in Kenya, somehow managed to forge a birth certificate, got two fake birth announcements placed in Honolulu papers, and had some ulterior motive to do so. How does that make *any* sense?

At what point do you get it? I didn't make no claim as to him not being a citizen. Try coming out of your Obama loving suit and see what I said.

[keefer10.7]

Republicans just kind of suck in general. I'm certainly no cheerleader for the Democrats, but at least they're not Republicans.

Democrats just kind of suck in general. I'm certainly a cheerleader for the Republicans, but at least they're not Democrats.

[DuckiesDarling]

This is really amusing, I love how people in other countries try to tell Americans what we should or shouldn't do as far as voting and politics. It's simple really, we vote, we vote for the lesser of two evils or sometimes lesser of three evils and pray we don't regret it for four years. Santorum will not be President unless every other candidate drops dead on election day, Americans, by and large, have more common sense than to elect someone who can't even quote from the Bible appropriately.. but then again Dan Quayle couldn't spell.

[darkeyes]

At what point do you get it? I didn't make no claim as to him not being a citizen. Try coming out of your Obama loving suit and see what I said.

...on which basis then do u question his right to be President? I suggest that u need to be more assertive and provide tangible reasons instead of casting aspertions u appear not to have the bottle or the knowledge to come out with.. or, like so many who have no evidence of bugger all but follow a party line blindly in order to discredit and cast doubt, are u as so many are, as me mum would say "all mouth and no trousers"!

[w00ki33]

At what point do you get it? I didn't make no claim as to him not being a citizen. Try coming out of your Obama loving suit and see what I said.

Then why say "it's telling" that he hasn't released his birth certificate, which isn't even true? "It's telling" or "isn't it interesting that..." is a classic technique of saying something without actually saying it.

You can't say that "they never found the birth certificate" and talk about the Framers wanting only natural-born-citizens to be president then claim that you mean nothing by this. What was your point in bringing it up?

[elian]

I find the sheer amount of money that is thrown around in these campaigns to be obscene. They were SUPPOSED to have some sort of campaign finance reform - I see that they "reformed" it some more. <shakes head>

[darkeyes]

What was your point in bringing it up?Somehow I get the impression u know as well as I zactly wy he and others in the world at large keep harping on 'bout it...

[keefer10.7]

Somehow I get the impression u know as well as I zactly wy he and others in the world at large keep harping on 'bout it...

As I said earlier, not me, not a Republican but rather Hillary Clinton brought up the issue on Obama's eligability to be President. Of course, this has all been hidden or swept under the rug by the liberal media, but facts are stubborn things. Myself, personally don't know exactly where I stand concerning this issue, but when it comes to issues of the Constitution, Democrats don't take serious the idea of trying to protect its value. Here's something I found on a website I visit often and I am not saying that it is the last word on the subject but more of food for thought on the subject of his eligability:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/128467/

[darkeyes]

This is really amusing, I love how people in other countries try to tell Americans what we should or shouldn't do as far as voting and politics. It's simple really, we vote, we vote for the lesser of two evils or sometimes lesser of three evils and pray we don't regret it for four years. Santorum will not be President unless every other candidate drops dead on election day, Americans, by and large, have more common sense than to elect someone who can't even quote from the Bible appropriately.. but then again Dan Quayle couldn't spell.
What Americans dont seem to entirely understand is just how much their President influences and affects the decisons of the governments of so many other countries..of course to some degree it is a two way street but in the end American wealth, infuence and power invariably wins out...so dont be too surprised that we think we have a right to try an influence American voters to make decisons in accord with what we believe is best for the world.. we cant tell them how to vote, but just as Americans think they have the right to tell the people of the world they are wrong, and they do have that right, we from other nations have the right to express our opinion also... in this day and age..the age of global communications that is only right and just and proper that we do so...

[keefer10.7]

Then why say "it's telling" that he hasn't released his birth certificate, which isn't even true? "It's telling" or "isn't it interesting that..." is a classic technique of saying something without actually saying it.

You can't say that "they never found the birth certificate" and talk about the Framers wanting only natural-born-citizens to be president then claim that you mean nothing by this. What was your point in bringing it up?

I'll be damned! I jsut noticed that you're not even in the United States. Why in the hell am I even bothering with you over this.

[darkeyes]

I'll be damned! I jsut noticed that you're not even in the United States. Why in the hell am I even bothering with you over this.

..and so Keefer? I have no idea whether wooki is American or not, but I have several friends who are American and resident here... so be very careul how contemptuous u are about people from outwith the US....

[darkeyes]

As I said earlier, not me, not a Republican but rather Hillary Clinton brought up the issue on Obama's eligability to be President. Of course, this has all been hidden or swept under the rug by the liberal media, but facts are stubborn things. Myself, personally don't know exactly where I stand concerning this issue, but when it comes to issues of the Constitution, Democrats don't take serious the idea of trying to protect its value. Here's something I found on a website I visit often and I am not saying that it is the last word on the subject but more of food for thought on the subject of his eligability:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/128467/

I am quite sure if u read these forums that many who are democrats accuse republicans of doing just the same and many are neither who accuse both parties of it....


....and who raised the issue of Obamas birth and eligibility are important.. but not as important as who keeps hapring on about it without a shred of evidence...

[keefer10.7]

What Americans dont seem to entirely understand is just how much their President influences and affects the decisons of the governments of so many other countries..of course to some degree it is a two way street but in the end American wealth, infuence and power invariably wins out...so dont be too surprised that we think we have a right to try an influence American voters to make decisons in accord with what we believe is best for the world.. we cant tell them how to vote, but just as Americans think they have the right to tell the people of the world they are wrong, and they do have that right, we from other nations have the right to express our opinion also... in this day and age..the age of global communications that is only right and just and proper that we do so...

We do understand that America is the greatest influence on the geo-political landscape and most of us do enjoy listening to opinions outside of our borders. I've literally been around the world and have heard just about everything, from the most disgusting insult, joyously given to me about my country as it concerns politics, to being offered an Iranian woman for marriage, by her mother, just so she could enter the United States and be free from the horrors of living under Islamic law. What we don't take kindly to, and what I believe DD was alluding to, is being insulted by foreigners as to our process, our beloved documents of Republican governance and the finger in our face sarcasm just because of us being American. Just know, and I can only speak for myself, I take great pride in being an American and with that I feel it encumbant that the values we hold, which were given to us by our English cousins, should be valued to the point that we protect and defend the rights of free humanity all over the globe when those rights are being trampled on by thugs and dictators. Do mistakes get made, are some decisions on where we fight for the rights get muddied in politics and selfish American interests at times? I would be damned as a liar if I told you that America is perfect and always does the next right thing, but as long as America is great, we as a nation will continue to do great things for those who are not citizens of these United States.

[w00ki33]

As I said earlier, not me, not a Republican but rather Hillary Clinton brought up the issue on Obama's eligability to be President. Of course, this has all been hidden or swept under the rug by the liberal media, but facts are stubborn things. Myself, personally don't know exactly where I stand concerning this issue, but when it comes to issues of the Constitution, Democrats don't take serious the idea of trying to protect its value. Here's something I found on a website I visit often and I am not saying that it is the last word on the subject but more of food for thought on the subject of his eligability:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/128467/

That is incredibly disingenuous. Again, you're dodging responsibility by saying "I'm not saying, but I'm saying..." in other words implying without actually taking the responsibility for saying. The WND article is nonsense. There is no definition of "natural born citizen" in the Constitution, but most scholars say that if you were born in the US, you're a natural born citizen. Period.

[ohbimale]

Obama had a democratic congree for the first two years of his term. He could not get a budget passed! This country has not had a budget since the Bush era and have been operating on continuing resolutions. If he (Obama) can not get a budget passed with a democratic controlled congress that tells me he is a poor leader!

Santoru/m as president is just as frightening. He is a true believer with rabbies threatening to drag us into a theocracy.

My cat would be a better choice!

May the Gods help us!

[elian]

As I said earlier, not me, not a Republican but rather Hillary Clinton brought up the issue on Obama's eligability to be President. Of course, this has all been hidden or swept under the rug by the liberal media, but facts are stubborn things. Myself, personally don't know exactly where I stand concerning this issue, but when it comes to issues of the Constitution, Democrats don't take serious the idea of trying to protect its value. Here's something I found on a website I visit often and I am not saying that it is the last word on the subject but more of food for thought on the subject of his eligibility:

Keefer, she said that because she was losing the race and needed some way to cast doubt on her opponent. When you've spent many millions of dollars, time and effort on a political bid things can get pretty desperate if you aren't gaining any new ground.

He has the actual pieces of paper that people would otherwise call a birth certificate, that issue is in the past in my mind. I now want to know what, if anything any of these "leaders" can do to make the lives of average American citizens so that they don't have to choose between HEAT and FOOD.. This doesn't necessarily mean a handout. Obama apparently has an idea to close some of the tax loopholes that companies who go overseas enjoy, while simultaneously lowering the business tax rate in the US.. Will it work? Who knows, it's an election year.

What I find striking is that it seems all over the world there is a great amount of political unrest right now..

[æonpax]

Here's what I find so amusing about the whole birther thing. Less than a decade ago, when it was considered a legitimate possibility that (yes) Arnold Schwarzenegger was going to run for president, there was a conservative movement to amend the "Naturally Born Citizen" clause. It was even called "Amend For Arnold." Obama was born in Hawaii. Period.


I thought this issue was dead but Orly Taitz and her conspiratorial band of nuts will forever cling to their misbegotten, many times referred to as loony, beliefs.




4339

[darkeyes]

What we don't take kindly to, and what I believe DD was alluding to, is being insulted by foreigners as to our process, our beloved documents of Republican governance and the finger in our face sarcasm just because of us being American......
.
....we as a nation will continue to do great things for those who are not citizens of these United States.What u do or dont do is immaterial... nothing I do or say is simply because you lot are American.. its because thats the way debates in these forums happen mostly.. and like most I have a view about much of it... take it as slight if u will but maybe u have too thin a skin if u dont like outsiders commenting upon ur political and social landscape... and occasionally when it is justified there will be things said which you will take as insult.. that I'm afraid is life... live with it..

.. and very often what u see as great things u do for the world? Do not be suprised if occasionally those u do these "great things" for take a huff and would rather you hadnt... a "great thing", Keefer, to one is quite another thing to another....

[keefer10.7]

[QUOTE=darkeyes;223372]What u do or dont do is immaterial... nothing I do or say is simply because you lot are American.. its because thats the way debates in these forums happen mostly.. and like most I have a view about much of it... take it as slight if u will but maybe u have too thin a skin if u dont like outsiders commenting upon ur political and social landscape... and occasionally when it is justified there will be things said which you will take as insult.. that I'm afraid is life... live with it..

.. and very often what u see as great things u do for the world? Do not be suprised if occasionally those u do these "great things" for take a huff and would rather you hadnt... a "great thing", Keefer, to one is quite another thing to another....[/QUOTE

I have to wonder if anything ever gets through that wall you have intellectually and by proxy, emotionally put up. On the one hand you appear to appreciate open and honest dialogue but with the other hand, you slap the same face that engages in that dialogue. I think if you read what I said where it concerns opinions that us Americans get, I wasn't just ascribing it to the ones that are given here. As for having skin that is thin, I believe you've accused me of being so callous as to have no emotions at all. I enjoy, for the most part, engaging in debate here, as long as the topic is maintained and a civil discourse is kept. While I am at it, would you please put back up the flag of Greater Britian on your profile, it is such a wonderful country and you slight her by not identifying with her.

[12voltman59]

Keef--get off that stupid "Birther" stuff, it is one of those things that, in the great words of the late Ann Richards, "A Dog That Won't Hunt" meaning its something that you just aren't going to be able to do anything about----this birther thing for righties is sorta like the way that libs felt about Bush and the 2000 election---for them--it was a focal point of their dislike to hatred of Bush depending upon the individual----because once Bush was in office--it really didn't matter how he got there--he was president and that was that!!--same with the birther thing---EVEN if Obama really wasn't born in America he is in the office--

It is actually very clear that Obama was born in the US because the Hawaiian officials actually have on several occasions provided all of the documentation of Obama's birth in that state so its pretty clear he was born there--numerous reports even have shown the birth announcement of Obama's birth in the Honolulu newspaper---pretty hard to go back and fake a newspaper from the early 1960s when they pulled copies from several newspaper "morgues" that include the paper's own collection and that of the public library system and several Hawaiian colleges and universities---if that is some kind of conspiracy--they sure were well funded and covered all the bases. They found copies both of the actual papers and on microfiche rolls---something I don't even think they make anymore so that would be hard to fake.

You may hate Obama---and there are reasons to not like him----but get off that birther crap----that is an issue that has been dealt with and its "water over the dam." It is not worth anyone's time and its well past time to move on and deal with other issues.

Obama is president for now and unless he can be beaten this fall--he is going to stay there.

With the craziness of the Republicans----while not a total shoe in thanks to some events beyond his control when it comes to world events or the economy that might come up---Barack Obama is more than likely to get a second term--the one thing good about that---the righties can see what it feels like to have a president that you pretty well loath and think is "gonna destroy American as we know it" when those of us who didn't care for Bush felt that way about him!!!

[keefer10.7]

You're another one that needs to read what I said concerning the birth certificate.

[Brian]

...his birth certificate, or lack thereof. There are two groups of people I have zero respect for on account of their lack of respect for facts and thoughtful reasoning. One is fucking Troofers, aka 9/11 Truthers. The other is fucking Birthers.

I'm starting to think you are just a baiting troll, drudging up Fox News propaganda lines, one after another, for shits and giggles. Maybe I need to go back and find out why I banned you once before... was it because of this kind of mindless crap?

- Drew :paw:

[darkeyes]

[QUOTE=darkeyes;223372]What u do or dont do is immaterial... nothing I do or say is simply because you lot are American.. its because thats the way debates in these forums happen mostly.. and like most I have a view about much of it... take it as slight if u will but maybe u have too thin a skin if u dont like outsiders commenting upon ur political and social landscape... and occasionally when it is justified there will be things said which you will take as insult.. that I'm afraid is life... live with it..

.. and very often what u see as great things u do for the world? Do not be suprised if occasionally those u do these "great things" for take a huff and would rather you hadnt... a "great thing", Keefer, to one is quite another thing to another....[/QUOTE

I have to wonder if anything ever gets through that wall you have intellectually and by proxy, emotionally put up. On the one hand you appear to appreciate open and honest dialogue but with the other hand, you slap the same face that engages in that dialogue. I think if you read what I said where it concerns opinions that us Americans get, I wasn't just ascribing it to the ones that are given here. As for having skin that is thin, I believe you've accused me of being so callous as to have no emotions at all. I enjoy, for the most part, engaging in debate here, as long as the topic is maintained and a civil discourse is kept. While I am at it, would you please put back up the flag of Greater Britian on your profile, it is such a wonderful country and you slight her by not identifying with her.

It is my country to slight if I so wish.. I am not a nationalist, neither British or Scottish, and do not have any time for the waving of flags.. that I love the country in which I live, dont doubt it, but I have no great pride in it.. wonderful though it is, I know far too much about it to respect it..at least the nations which make up the state or the state itself.. the land and the life within it however are a completely different thing.. the flag of nations or state are not the flags of life..the rulers of nations or state have never shown that much respect for its people so you shouldnt be that surpised when at least some of us slight it and try and do something about it...

.. and that people the world over act as some of us do in forums and arent too happy about many of the great things that the US has done, dont doubt it.. but dont take it as a slap in the face.. at least not always and certainly not from me... dialogue is about debating with others how they see the world.. that sometimes people have to criticise and speak sharply to another isn't a slap in the face but a reasonable thing to do when they see or hear something with which they disagree... this is especially important between friends.. we see things differently and feel about things differently... thats why we have dialogue...

[void()]

There are two groups of people I have zero respect for on account of their lack of respect for facts and thoughtful reasoning. One is fucking Troofers, aka 9/11 Truthers.

Ouch. I am not exactly guano insane to disbelieve the 'official' line regarding 9/11.
Believe I have rational and factual arguments for not buying it. Think we may
desire scrutinizing their line a bit more.

Okay, I'm all done. You don't have to agree. If you disagree please don't ban or insult.
Yes, I know that I suffer mental issues. No, I do not think mental issues are at issue
in disbelief of their line.

[Brian]

We'll agree to disagree void_dweller. :)

My words were a bit harsh perhaps, but... nope, let's just agree to disagree. :bigrin:

- Drew :paw:

[void()]

Actually think I may do a write in vote for Ninja of Die Antwoord as POTUS. He is gansta number one, and got def zeff style kicking with D.J. High Tech and Yo-landi after all. He represents S.O.S and is U.F.O. Unidentifiable F----ing Opponent

[void()]

*chuckles* That's fine by me, Drew. People can disagree and still respect one another. Still respect you. Am sure you have equally valid reasons for your belief. Maybe I am just a devil's advocate. Of course, if one is lied to by officials it taints future perceptions of them. Might be a reason in itself. At any given peace to you bud. Glad you disagree, keeps things honest. :)

[darkeyes]

We'll agree to disagree void_dweller. :)

My words were a bit harsh perhaps, but... nope, let's just agree to disagree. :bigrin:

- Drew :paw:

Harsh.. a bit.. but not too harsh Droosy Woosy.. sometimes harsh is somewhat of a necessity and all too well deserved...:bigrin:

Do wish tho' that ya wudnt talk banning stuff... its summat I dont like much an' ne ways rather keep them that wud do for me wer me can c 'em... an they dont haff gimme a laff at times wiv ther nonsense...

[darkeyes]

For all you feminists who urge women to enjoin their male counterparts in combat, I find you no different than the Jihadist who straps a bomb vest on some dupe but he himself will not wear the same.


Actually in a sense, and this will probably be a bit of a shock to Keefer, he isnt far off the mark from my own point of view... the Jihadist quip is a bit strong to put it mildly, but I have said it before.. I have always considered national militaries as terror organisations.. I have never shared the oft stated belief that militaries are for national defence.. they serve another quite different and much more sinister purpose as I think history shows...as an aboslute pacifist and a believer in non violence for any reason I can do no other and will never encourage any woman (or man for that matter) to enlist as a military person.. indeed would do all I can to prevent them..

...but I do understand that I am in a bit of a minority even among feminists.. and as long as we have a military machine it is right that gender equality exists within that machine.. I dont like it, the machine that is, and live to have it dismantled across the globe as I do to end the horrific terror groups that proliferate in support of cause.. it is a conflict within me which I have terrible difficulty with, but must accept that others do not think as I do and have their own beliefs and principles.. and so long as militaries are in existence, it is a conflict I will never be able to resolve...

[12voltman59]

An interesting article that came to my attention on the 'net: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120221/republicans-santorum-romney-gingrich-climate-scientists-scientific-consensus-skeptics-kerry-emanuel

Also this on the "climategate" story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/gleick-apology-heartland-leak-ethics-debate

[darkeyes]

Found this an interesting take on Santorum should he win the Republican nomination... all elections are referenda of sorts so would an Obama and Santorum fight be anything special? And just what would a win for either settle? Not very much I suspect, except one or others career demise as a politican..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/22/santorum-v-obama-americas-clash-of-civilisations

[elian]

I have been to NYC, when I was there all that was left of the two towers was a subway station and a construction zone..the buildings really were gone. I have to admit I am guilty of living in the past as well, dwelling on memories. The decisions that were made will forever alter our history, just as they always do..but the focus needs to be on the present, with a look toward the future. As painful as that may seem.

An effective leader doesn't spend all of their time bickering amongst themselves about how things will get done - they actually lead. I don't spend enough time on Capitol Hill to tell which - if any congresspeople do that anymore.

[DuckiesDarling]

Actually in a sense, and this will probably be a bit of a shock to Keefer, he isnt far off the mark from my own point of view... the Jihadist quip is a bit strong to put it mildly, but I have said it before.. I have always considered national militaries as terror organisations.. I have never shared the oft stated belief that militaries are for national defence.. they serve another quite different and much more sinister purpose as I think history shows...as an aboslute pacifist and a believer in non violence for any reason I can do no other and will never encourage any woman (or man for that matter) to enlist as a military person.. indeed would do all I can to prevent them..

...but I do understand that I am in a bit of a minority even among feminists.. and as long as we have a military machine it is right that gender equality exists within that machine.. I dont like it, the machine that is, and live to have it dismantled across the globe as I do to end the horrific terror groups that proliferate in support of cause.. it is a conflict within me which I have terrible difficulty with, but must accept that others do not think as I do and have their own beliefs and principles.. and so long as militaries are in existence, it is a conflict I will never be able to resolve...

Fran, I don't agree with Keefer on his jihadist remark, but I take great offense to your continued use of the word "terrorist" in reference to military men and women. You sleep safe at night because someone somewhere holds the line and keeps you safe from attack. Do not tell me you didn't ask for it, your country asked it of your servicemen and women. You are offensive as hell to the military people on this board with remarks like that and I think you owe them an apology.

[darkeyes]

As a pacifist who believes that there is never any reason for violent conduct by nations, institutions or individuals, I hold to my belief.. it was not meant as an insult to any individual least of all those who often risk life and limb in defence of what they believe in.. that I do not share those beliefs is self evident.. my gripe is not with those who enlist and serve but with the institution itself and what I see as its purpose... which is not quite the same thing as I think you do.. to expect me to apologise for a deeply held belief in peace, non violence and pacifism, and that consequently the military is an instution which offends against everything I believe in is in itself an offence against my sensibilities.. I could easily demand apologies from all those who believe otherwise.. that I do not is because I understand why they believe in the things they do even if I cannot share their values and in a so called free society to do so goes against the values I hold dear... criticise me all you like, that I can accept...but I do not expect you or anyone else to apologise to me for the things you believe and would be glad if I was afforded the same courtesy..

[Realist]

I can't help but wonder your actions, if you lived during Germany's attempt to beat the Briitish Isles into submission. Or, if you'd been a Jew, born into the terrible times that took place in Germany and the other occupied European countries, during WWII? I agree with many of your thoughts of not being involved in other countries struggles, but if you are endangered by those, who intended to make you a slave of the conquerors, would you remain a pacifist, then?

There are times when pacifism is just not a viable choice. When you, your family, your children, or country are in danger, how would you conduct yourself, then?

[æonpax]

Rick Santorum - obama - gengrich - romney - all the same, vote for any or all and you will have the same crap. big govt....{snipped for brevity}

I agree with you on most all your statements, unless otherwise noted.

1 - Our US Constitution has been abused and corrupted by both parties and with the complicit help of a Supreme Court that has allowed political and religious ideology to replace jurisprudence.

2 - I would vote for a "mainline libertarian" myself but Paul, in my opinion, is out of step with that and holds to the paleolibertarianism school of thought, echoed by "Lord Action" when he said,


"Liberty is the highest political end of man, and that all forms of government intervention – economic, cultural, social, international – amount to an attack on prosperity, morals, and bourgeois civilization itself, and thus must be opposed at all levels and without compromise."

I just object to the concept of "property rights" usurping "human rights" and in a democratic republic like we have now, compromise, however unsatisfying as it is, nonetheless is still part of the process.

3 - I absolutely agree with you in the concepts of law, justice and allowing an inept and corrupt government to infringe upon our rights in the name of this so-called "national security."

4 - I do believe that our government has a constitutional "compelling interest" in maintaining and expanding liberty but that must be balanced against any possible harm it can and will do.

Santorum brings another dimension into this and that is religion which him and the evangelical right are using to justify their attack on our constitution and rights.

[darkeyes]

I can't help but wonder your actions, if you lived during Germany's attempt to beat the Briitish Isles into submission. Or, if you'd been a Jew, born into the terrible times that took place in Germany and the other occupied European countries, during WWII? I agree with many of your thoughts of not being involved in other countries struggles, but if you are endangered by those, who intended to make you a slave of the conquerors, would you remain a pacifist, then?

There are times when pacifism is just not a viable choice. When you, your family, your children, or country are in danger, how would you conduct yourself, then?

No one knows how they will react in any given situation.. so I cant answer the first part of ur question with any certainty but hope I would still remain true to them should we ever face a repeat.. pacifism is about much more than simply being principled about being anti war and nin violent on a personal level.. it is about trying to find ways where the peoples of the world of all nations can live together and in peace and avoid the tragedy and futility of conflict.. WW2 could have been avoided and indeed Hitler prevented from ever coming to power had the nations of the world acted diferently in the aftermath of WW1.. why is it so impossible for human beings to discard conflict between nations and peoples? It is always better to talk than war.. to resolve differences without the need to spend untold billions in slaughter and devastation? In the west within our societies we have eschewed the need for violence internally more or less and devised systems of representative democracy to avoid internal warfare as far as possible.. yes it is imperfect and violence occurs, but we rarely have civil wars... we strive within a system which is devised to achive peaceful resolution... internationally I see no reason why in principle at least one cannot be devised which will do likewise or international disputes.. that they do not is due to the wishes of the elites of nations to defend their power both internally and externally in the case of larger, richer and more powerful nations...

There is no justification for war.. ever.. I have articulated my views on this for some yyears onn this site and my views as to why we war.. and it has nothing to do with defending our way of life.. somebody's way of life... but not that of the vast majority of ordinary people within any society.. the military exists for their defence.. not the defense of our rights and freedoms but the defence of the rights and freedoms of those who rule over us..

Would I be slave of conqueror? No I dont think so.. I would oppose in the way I know and bellive in.. non violently and through acts of civil disobedience as I do against the society I live in now when necessary.. there are different ways of opposing than shooting and killing..

..were my family immediately threatened? I would lay my life down for them.. but I will not be responsible for the taking of the life of another.. by doing so merely perpetuates something I abhor.. and makes me as bad as they.. short of that I hope any acts I take in their defence are non violent and in accord with the pacifist and non violent code I believe in.. they know how I feel.. my partner has a different view but that is her right..

Being a pacifist is not an easy thing.. in my life I have had hints, even more than hints, of how I may act in the kind of circumstances you outline... and since I was a child and began to grow and really think about the world I have never yet raised a hand to another human being sometimes in the face of serious provocation and even threats and violence against me.. those little indications tell me that if and when I am faced with the kind of challenges that you outline I may be able to live up to the things I believe in.. I hope so... but only time will tell should the worst come to the worst..

[imway2wild4you]

Obama had a Democratic controlled house and senate and did nothing with it. He is the worse president in history.

[darkeyes]

Obama had a Democratic controlled house and senate and did nothing with it. He is the worse president in history.

Worse than his immediate predecessor? Not from where I sit...

[pepperjack]

Dark, in response to your being a pacifist....I agree with Realist's point of view. One of my all-time favorite films is Braveheart, the story of your own William Wallace. Knowing Hollywood for it's tendency to embellish, I wonder how historically accurate it is. Nevertheless, I love the story, his character. He appeared to me to be a tolerant, peaceful man who just wanted to live & love his woman, but fate had a different plan and catapulted him into the role of freedom fighter through his grief. I like the concept of the "peaceful warrior," the philosophy which is the foundation of the marital arts. While I agree with you somewhat, I think your viewpoint is too unrealistic. It has always been a violent world & man's government will never be able to change that.

[DuckiesDarling]

Fran, your being a pacifist does not excuse you labeling servicemen and women as terrorists. They are doing their job, they are keeping people safe. I have noticed you also have no respect for police and yet they do an even more important job of keeping you and everyone else safe. Is there abuse with any system? Yeah, but so are the so called pacifists. Like the people going after the Japanese whalers throwing rancid butter in their faces. Rancid butter is extremely caustic and could blind someone doing a legal job but the protestors don't care, they see it as better the human get blinded than a whale get legally taken. Your stance is your stance but you could be more tactful in the way you express your views on military service and police service. Peaceful protests have their place in this world but there is also time for backing up your stance and that's where the military comes into play. There are slaughters worldwide, widescale genocide in Africa in places like Darfur. There are many things that will only be corrected through real action, not words, not condemnations, not embargoes which you also disagree with. You post eloquently enough but you sidestep the point, calling military service people terrorists is offensive and you are not saying in a joking manner like you say you do when you call men "lesser mortals". You are saying it to get a reaction then you don't like the reaction you get. I am losing respect for you more and more every time you refer to someone doing their job as a terrorist. How would you like it if people started calling teachers "terrorists" and say they are brainwashing the children in school? See how ridiculous that is? I guess not, you will only see what you want to see and until you take your rose colored glasses off you will never understand how hurtful words on a forum can be to people that would lay their lives down in an instant to save someone else and consider it their duty to do so.

[falcondfw]

Drew, you seriously need to stop worrying about the politics and start worrying about the functionality of your new site. Although forums seem to be ok, Chat seems to be a disaster. I could have saved you some of the issues. It is what I do for a living. I believe in this site and i would have helped you for free. I know you did not know. But chat is ... problematic.

[darkeyes]

Dark, in response to your being a pacifist....I agree with Realist's point of view. One of my all-time favorite films is Braveheart, the story of your own William Wallace. Knowing Hollywood for it's tendency to embellish, I wonder how historically accurate it is. Nevertheless, I love the story, his character. He appeared to me to be a tolerant, peaceful man who just wanted to live & love his woman, but fate had a different plan and catapulted him into the role of freedom fighter through his grief. I like the concept of the "peaceful warrior," the philosophy which is the foundation of the marital arts. While I agree with you somewhat, I think your viewpoint is too unrealistic. It has always been a violent world & man's government will never be able to change that.
I am all too aware that the world is not ready for pacifism.. it is not ready for many things.. but I live my life as best I can as if it was.. unrealistic and foolish maybe.. but I believe in what I preach and live my life accordingly... it is what I feel inside because I care far too deeply for my world and all that lives within it to do other... if no one believes in the idea then it is not an idea which will ever find favour.. I believe in it body and soul...and do what I can to get others to believe in it.. and some day I believe humanity will itself believe in and practice it.. generations down the line maybe but it will happen.. that it is not yet is something I will live with because I have no option, but every fibre of my being tells me this one thing.. harm no other... and in pursuit of cause or ambition or anything else in life and no matter the provocation, that is what I will do as best I am able...

And Wallace btw was no peaceful warrior...he was anything but.. and Marion Braidfoot is a fictional character invented a century after his death... no one knows what part any woman played in his life... that he was outlaw before he was hero is known... as is that he was brutal and his military skills questionable... the film is not accurate except that it conveyed the spisrit of the myth of William Wallace.. he was a man of his time.. he was not Braveheart by the way.. Braveheart was the man who took up the cause of Scottish independence after Wallace died.. Robert Bruce .. another man of his time and equally brutal..

[Long Duck Dong]

correction fran..... from the records of scotland, births, deaths and marriages



1.
Marion Braidfoot , Heiress of Lamington (http://awt.ancestrylibrary.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=fletcht2001&id=I23066&ti=5542). She married Sir William Wallace , Guardian of the Realm (http://awt.ancestrylibrary.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=fletcht2001&id=I23065&ti=5542) in "The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland" 457, son of Malcolm Wallace , Of Ayrshire. He was born ABT. 1276 in Guadian of the Realm 1296-1306, and died 1305.







Child of Marion Braidfoot , Heiress of Lamington and Sir William Wallace , Guardian of the Realm is:


+
2
i.
Marion Wallace (http://awt.ancestrylibrary.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=fletcht2001&id=I23064&ti=5542) was born in daughter of Sir William Wallace, and died in daughter-in-law was niece of Robert I The Bruce.





Descendant Register, Generation No. 2

2.
Marion Wallace (http://awt.ancestrylibrary.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=fletcht2001&id=I23064&ti=5542) (Marion Braidfoot , Heiress of Lamington1) was born in daughter of Sir William Wallace, and died in daughter-in-law was niece of Robert I The Bruce. She married Sir William de Baillie , of Hoprig (http://awt.ancestrylibrary.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=fletcht2001&id=I23063&ti=5542) in "The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland" 457, son of Sir William de Ballieul , of Covers.







Child of Marion Wallace and Sir William de Baillie , of Hoprig is:


+
3
i.
Sir William Baillie , of Hoprig (http://awt.ancestrylibrary.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=fletcht2001&id=I23062&ti=5542) was born in taken prisoner with David II at Neville's Cross in 1346, and died in grandson of Sir William Wallace.





Descendant Register, Generation No. 3

3.
Sir William Baillie , of Hoprig (http://awt.ancestrylibrary.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=fletcht2001&id=I23062&ti=5542) (Marion Wallace2, Marion Braidfoot , Heiress of Lamington1) was born in taken prisoner with David II at Neville's Cross in 1346, and died in grandson of Sir William Wallace. He married Isobel Sinclair (http://awt.ancestrylibrary.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=fletcht2001&id=I23061&ti=5542), daughter of Sir Christopher Sinclair and Christian de Bruce. She was born in niece of Robert I The Bruce.







Child of Sir William Baillie , of Hoprig and Isobel Sinclair is:


+
4
i.
Sir William Baillie (http://awt.ancestrylibrary.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=fletcht2001&id=I25808&ti=5542) was born in Baron of Lamington, Hoprig, Penston & Carnbrae, and died in great grandson of Sir William Wallace.





Descendant Register, Generation No. 4

4.
Sir William Baillie (http://awt.ancestrylibrary.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=fletcht2001&id=I25808&ti=5542) (Sir William Baillie , of Hoprig3, Marion Wallace2, Marion Braidfoot , Heiress of Lamington1) was born in Baron of Lamington, Hoprig, Penston & Carnbrae, and died in great grandson of Sir William Wallace.







Child of Sir William Baillie is:


+
5
i.
Sir William Baillie (http://awt.ancestrylibrary.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=fletcht2001&id=I25809&ti=5542) was born in Baron of Lamington, Hoprig, Penston & Carnbrae, and died in descendant of Sir William Wallace.





Descendant Register, Generation No. 5

5.
Sir William Baillie (http://awt.ancestrylibrary.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=fletcht2001&id=I25809&ti=5542) (Sir William Baillie4, Sir William Baillie , of Hoprig3, Marion Wallace2, Marion Braidfoot , Heiress of Lamington1) was born in Baron of Lamington, Hoprig, Penston & Carnbrae, and died in descendant of Sir William Wallace.







Child of Sir William Baillie is:


+
6
i.
Sir William Baillie , 1st Laird of Lamington (http://awt.ancestrylibrary.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=fletcht2001&id=I25810&ti=5542) was born in descendant of Sir William Wallace.





Descendant Register, Generation No. 6

6.
Sir William Baillie , 1st Laird of Lamington (http://awt.ancestrylibrary.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=fletcht2001&id=I25810&ti=5542) (Sir William Baillie5, Sir William Baillie4, Sir William Baillie , of Hoprig3, Marion Wallace2, Marion Braidfoot , Heiress of Lamington1) was born in descendant of Sir William Wallace. He married Marion of Seton (http://awt.ancestrylibrary.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=fletcht2001&id=I25811&ti=5542), daughter of Sir John Seton of Seton and Catherine Sinclair. She was born BEF. 1434.







Child of Sir William Baillie , 1st Laird of Lamington and Marion of Seton is:


+
7
i.
Sir William Baillie , 2nd Laird of Lamington (http://awt.ancestrylibrary.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=fletcht2001&id=I25815&ti=5542) was born in descendant of Sir William Wallace.

[darkeyes]

There is no record of William Wallace ever having been married, far less of his wife being named Marion, Braidfoot or anything else and there are no known heirs... her name appeared first in connection with William Wallace well over a century after Wallace died.. it is part of the legend of Wallace, not fact.. the Records of Scotland have very little information on Wallace, not even who his father was... his name was not Malcolm btw but is believed to be Alan a little known fact which was gleaned from Wallace's Guardian seal... a Sir Alan Wallace signed the Ragman Roll and it is he they believe was Wallace's father...

..and interesting tho it is it hasnt got owt 2 do with the thread...

[JP1986UM]

There are two groups of people I have zero respect for on account of their lack of respect for facts and thoughtful reasoning. One is fucking Troofers, aka 9/11 Truthers. The other is fucking Birthers.

I'm starting to think you are just a baiting troll, drudging up Fox News propaganda lines, one after another, for shits and giggles. Maybe I need to go back and find out why I banned you once before... was it because of this kind of mindless crap?

- Drew :paw:
Drew, don't you have better things to do that regurgitate propaganda lines from MSNBC? See how that works?

What? The NYTimes blast fax on WH spin lines didn't make it today to your inbox?

The SF Chronicle didn't tell you what to think?

Last time I checked, Orly Tait was a Democrat. You would do well to learn who started this and leave FNC out of it. They may have covered it extraordinarily long, but they weren't the only one's.

[darkeyes]

Fran, your being a pacifist does not excuse you labeling servicemen and women as terrorists. They are doing their job, they are keeping people safe. I have noticed you also have no respect for police and yet they do an even more important job of keeping you and everyone else safe. Is there abuse with any system? Yeah, but so are the so called pacifists. Like the people going after the Japanese whalers throwing rancid butter in their faces. Rancid butter is extremely caustic and could blind someone doing a legal job but the protestors don't care, they see it as better the human get blinded than a whale get legally taken. Your stance is your stance but you could be more tactful in the way you express your views on military service and police service. Peaceful protests have their place in this world but there is also time for backing up your stance and that's where the military comes into play. There are slaughters worldwide, widescale genocide in Africa in places like Darfur. There are many things that will only be corrected through real action, not words, not condemnations, not embargoes which you also disagree with. You post eloquently enough but you sidestep the point, calling military service people terrorists is offensive and you are not saying in a joking manner like you say you do when you call men "lesser mortals". You are saying it to get a reaction then you don't like the reaction you get. I am losing respect for you more and more every time you refer to someone doing their job as a terrorist. How would you like it if people started calling teachers "terrorists" and say they are brainwashing the children in school? See how ridiculous that is? I guess not, you will only see what you want to see and until you take your rose colored glasses off you will never understand how hurtful words on a forum can be to people that would lay their lives down in an instant to save someone else and consider it their duty to do so.

Darlin' darlin.. I do not expect or wish to be excused any of my words.... I try to express myself as carefully as I can but sometimes the issue is such that no amount of care can make what we say any more palatable to those with whom we wish to communicate what we believe.. my pacifism, and my views on the military, and my views on violence are such issues... I know of no other way of expressing myself... I debate as best I can by conveying what I believe... to expect me not to say all that I believe is to tie my hands and I would not do that to you or anyone else..

I sometimes wonder what people think debate is... as far as we can we try not to offend against the sensibilities of others and to tread as respectfully as we can by recognising that they too have opinions which are very much at variance with our own... but sometimes we will offend those sensibilities.. there are times it is unavoidable in debate. I know what I have said about the military is unpopular and my views on pacifism laughed at by many.. but they are what I believe and not you or anyone else will tell me what I cannot say and how to express them..

.. and Conservationists are not pacifists as such... there are pacifists among their number but those who badger and harangue Japanese Whalers are not adopting a policy which can remotely be described as pacifist. I have much less respect for the police than many.. not no respect, but that is from observation and experience of what they do.. I recognise that they are essential to our society but am critical of many areas of how they operate and believe racism, homophobia and corruption are endemic within the police service.. these are issues which governments and societies should address with much more seriousness and conviction than they do.

I say nothing for the hell of it or to get a reaction.. I say things because I believe them.. I neither like or dislike adverse reaction if I may correct u... very often I expect adverse reaction but I post not for the sake of posting or for any reaction, I post to try and get people to think and see that there are other viewpoints than theirs out there.. opinions and beliefs which are very much different from their own... what am I to do? Not say what I believe? Am I deprived that right? I don't like offending people but sometimes it is unavoidable... some things are simply too much for us to let pass...

I know there is a great deal of shit out there in the world... what I say is that there are other ways of dealing with them short of warring and invading countries, of throwing bombs at people and hijacking airliners to fly into buildings.. talking is always better than warring because by warring, whether by national military or causal freedom group or guerilla army we make things worse and delay the struggle for a proper solution.. and we create long term resentments which all too often blow up into yet more conflict.... just take the Palestinian situtation as one which has created so many tensions and wars over the last 1000 years... and still we are no nearer peace..

Tell me... what is the difference between a national army and a freedom group such as Hamas? Both do much the same thing.. both kill and maim and terrorise.. both in fact for cause of one kind or other.. the cause of national interest or the cause of a people's freedom.. we may not like one or either cause, but both do the same thing in the end... I can admire anyone who believes in his country and equally who believes in his cause with a passion and risks his or her life for that cause... on both sides are many such brave men and women, from my point of view duped by powerful (principally) men into risking their lives for nation or cause when in fact they are endangering themselves and others for the cause of the wellbeing of those (principally) powerful men.. in my opinion both sets of brave men and women are wrong, and by warring as they do in whichever way they do they create mayhem and slaughter very often indiscriminately and perpetuate the politics of hate and mistrust.. I can admire their courage, devotion to cause or country, but not how they perform that devotion and use that courage...

Some things are much too important to be nice about.. and I make no apology if I am not nice about believing what I do pacifism and dealing with it the only way I know how...

We know the world is a mess..that violence and conflict exists all over the globe... we recognise that it is wrong, yet allow ourselves to be sucked into conflicts at the behest of our governments or the leaders of our cause and cause the slaughter of, very often.. all too often... untold numbers of innocent people... I do not believe that any of it is necessary but because so many millions perish in conflict unnecessarily in my view, every year.. I do believe that we can do better, and that by learning to trust one another and properly listening to and understanding each others cares and concerns, or at least trying to, we can make great strides towards making a much more peaceful prosperous and happy world..

Quite a deviation from the thread.. but if Santorum or ne 1 like him is elected, I do have the oddest feeling that my pacifism and love of peace wll be needed more than ever...

[DuckiesDarling]

Took you two days to come up with that response, Fran? Sad... Btw the difference between a national army and Hamas is that Hamas sent the Fatahs it conquered back to their families sliced into steaks. Major difference there, I'd say. For the rest of it? I give up. you will only see what you want to see and you will never admit that you can cross the line between opinion and being insulting.

[darkeyes]

Took you two days to come up with that response, Fran? Sad... Btw the difference between a national army and Hamas is that Hamas sent the Fatahs it conquered back to their families sliced into steaks. Major difference there, I'd say. For the rest of it? I give up. you will only see what you want to see and you will never admit that you can cross the line between opinion and being insulting.

No hun I have been busy... I could have answered within an hour or two.. I wasnt going to reply as it happens... and if u think that I am being insulting I suggest that u look to your own cheek...

[_Joe_]

Neither side looks good for the Presidential election but at least Obama did better for LGBT than any of the Republican candidates. What is frustrating is so many of them signed the Marriage Pledge to try and push for a constitutional amendment to say that marriage is between a woman and a man.

I'm surprised they haven't tried to keep atheist from marrying at this point...maybe that's next?

[Long Duck Dong]

There is no record of William Wallace ever having been married, far less of his wife being named Marion, Braidfoot or anything else and there are no known heirs... her name appeared first in connection with William Wallace well over a century after Wallace died.. it is part of the legend of Wallace, not fact.. the Records of Scotland have very little information on Wallace, not even who his father was... his name was not Malcolm btw but is believed to be Alan a little known fact which was gleaned from Wallace's Guardian seal... a Sir Alan Wallace signed the Ragman Roll and it is he they believe was Wallace's father...

..and interesting tho it is it hasnt got owt 2 do with the thread...

the trouble is that a lot of the records were hidden cos the english tried to wipe out the history of scotland..... but so much of scotlands history was secreted away... and it still exists.... you just have to know where to look

IE william wallace is said to have been born in ayrshire.. but all the information they have, point towards the fact that he was in fact born in renfrewshire, the place where I was born and also the place where my ancestors helped smuggle a lot of history and other stuff out of scotland

[darkeyes]

the trouble is that a lot of the records were hidden cos the english tried to wipe out the history of scotland..... but so much of scotlands history was secreted away... and it still exists.... you just have to know where to look

IE william wallace is said to have been born in ayrshire.. but all the information they have, point towards the fact that he was in fact born in renfrewshire, the place where I was born and also the place where my ancestors helped smuggle a lot of history and other stuff out of scotland Sooooooo.. its the Duckie clan's fault that most of Scotland's records of the time were spirited and secreted away down south by Edward I.... agents of the enemy huh Duckie???:tong:

..and most historians agree that he was born in Renfrewshire.. not all.. but most... Im sure if any historian interested in the period reads ur post he or she will be delighted to get in touch through .com to see what if anything u have spirited away down there in that little Scotland of the southern ocean if just to confirm that...

.. my ancestors too were smugglers of a kind... border reivers... nasty lot and unpleasant...an didnt smuggle documents... quite a few prob hung for it an all...

...wonder wot Santorum's ancestry is??? Hope its not linked in ne way 2 mine.. ratha have the cattle rustlers, blackmailers an murders that the reivers wer 2 mesel tyvm...

[Long Duck Dong]

king alexender the first of scotland, not edward..... ... do a lil research on Taine Ruaridh Mhor, exiled to NZ for 7 generations around the first quarter of 1100 AD and yes, remains have been found in NZ of celtic buildings dating back to that time.... they were said to have returned to the UK in the 12th century and there were reports of nz maori in the UK, brought by ship around that time ( royal court reports ) ( james cook never found NZ for another 500 odd years ) .... apparently taines descendants returned to NZ again in the 13th century, after fighting along side william wallace, robert the bruce, etc etc.......

some of the *maori * heads returned to NZ from the UK, over the last few years, are the heads of caucasian red haired males..... maori are not red haired.. but some celtic people were....

not that it really matters, but it makes interesting reading.....

[pepperjack]

I can give you a small portion of Scottish history. Recently discovered my community's founding fathers were Scottish immigrants & I live less than a mile from its first building. Fate, Fran.;) Ain't history grand?

[darkeyes]

king alexender the first of scotland, not edward..... ... do a lil research on Taine Ruaridh Mhor, exiled to NZ for 7 generations around the first quarter of 1100 AD and yes, remains have been found in NZ of celtic buildings dating back to that time.... they were said to have returned to the UK in the 12th century and there were reports of nz maori in the UK, brought by ship around that time ( royal court reports ) ( james cook never found NZ for another 500 odd years ) .... apparently taines descendants returned to NZ again in the 13th century, after fighting along side william wallace, robert the bruce, etc etc.......

some of the *maori * heads returned to NZ from the UK, over the last few years, are the heads of caucasian red haired males..... maori are not red haired.. but some celtic people were....

not that it really matters, but it makes interesting reading.....

As Pepper says history is grand.. history not speculative von dannekenism... myth, legend.. things which we as yet have not yet explained and do not entirely understand.. I am not saying that some gaels did not end up in New Zealand in the 12th century.. there is a claim by some nob over here that his ancestor sailed to America around the same time (Henry St Clair by name ( also with connections to the building of Rosslyn Chapel), his descendant something Sinclair still waffles on about it ) and there is some evidence to support it... but some evidence is not proof... and there are certainly no court records of Maoris in Scotland at that time... whether there are some of dark skinned people from far away across the sea I have no idea.. there are red haired people whose skeletons have been found in asia.. and in the Americas... there is evidence that Europeans discovered America long before the asiatic migration across the bering straits.. and there is St Brendan who sailed to America (maybe) in the 9th? century...

I do not entirely dismiss such tales.. but neither do I take them on say so either... but have an open mind because human beings have been around a long time and our history is full of wonderful things and not so wonderful we have long since forgotten or long since never knew.. dont give me "history" as if it is fact Duckie... cos as yet it is not... it may be a may be.. but it is not yet fact... keep saying "were said to"... and believe it if u want to... I would love to know that confirmation was found for all that u say and that the stories were true because it is further confirmation of just how adventurous and amazing our species can be... but none of it can as yet be confirmed so be a little more cautious about it willya? I am as romantic as anyone about such stuff... but equally am also a realist as well as an idealist.. btu some such tales I long or them to be true.. but because legend tells us something sadly does not make it so...

...and Scandinavians of the period were more likely to be red haired than Celts even although in the modern era the Scots and Irish are more likely to carry the red haired gene... but I will do as u suggest and do a lil reading up...

My previous post was meant as a little injection of humour.. didnt it just fall on stoney ground??? Dunno why I bother sometimes...:rolleyes: and it still has nowt to do with the thread... although peeps like Santorum do have a habit of dealing in speculation, myth and legend an all....

[æonpax]

Rick Santorum is going over the edge. His latest bit of lunacy is criticizing a speech John F. Kennedy made in 1960 about separation of church and state. Here's what Kennedy said;


"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all...."




Santorum's reply;


"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is antithetical to the objectives and the vision of our country.



This is the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment says the free exercise of religion. That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square. Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, "No, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate." Go on and read the speech. "I will have nothing to do with faith. I won't consult with people of faith." It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960. And I went down to Houston, Texas, 50 years almost to the day, and gave a speech and talked about how important it is for everybody to feel welcome in the public square. People of faith, people of no faith, and be able to bring their ideas, to bring their passions into the public square and have it out." - http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/02/separating-church-and-state-kennedy-and-santorum.html


This clown not only can't read he took Kennedy's quote way out of context. He's a dangerous man.

[darkeyes]

Quite Æon... make fact supposed words.. as dangerous as making fact out of myth and supposed history..

[BiDesire]

I saw Obama as scary during 2008 campaign; used to refer to him as " a silver-tongued-devil." I feel so tempted to play the " I told you so," card.

With the election of Obama in 08 I learned...never underestimate the power of stupit people. There are a lot of us that feel we could play the "I told you so card".

I think Rick Santorum would be a GREAT President.

But then Donald Duck would be a better president than Obama.

[Chromehorn]

Rick Santorum is a zealous religious person who is almost good at being a politician. Mitt Romney is a zealous politician (firmly believes he wants to be president. Whatever else he actually believes is anyones guess.) who also has a strong religious faith. Mr. Santorum doesn't seem to want to filter his comments appropriately and that has seemed to draw the Republicans who want more "red meat" from their candidate and are not getting it from Romney.

Mr. Santorum seems to want separation of church and state when it's convenient, when he found the Obama birth control EO objectionable, but feels it is not an infringement when he wears his Catholicism on his sleeve and makes deprecating remarks abour President Obama and his "theology." Mr. Santorum wants a separation of church and state but not a separation of religion and state, preferably Christianity, and Catholicism to be exact.

There are many reasons why such a person would not make a good president and the conditions now in the Middle East with the possible military confrontation between Israel and Iran is a good example.
I do not see Mr. Santorum as a rational and pragmatic enough person to effectively handle a situation like this. A part of me sees him being emotionally tied to his version of God so much so that a terrible situation could ensue. This would be a classic example of him seeing Israel as God's chosen people and supporting an attack on Iran if not engaging in it ourselves. The economic and diplomatic issues this would generate ae obvious to anyone.

Pepsi came out with a soft drink some years ago called Pepsi Free. Its attributes were that it had no calories and no caffeine. The late George Carlin made the comment that it's called Pepsi Free because there is no Pepsi in it. As a take on that I think Mr. Santorum would be more effective if he himself were "religously free."

[void()]

I'm surprised they haven't tried to keep atheist from marrying at this point...maybe that's next?

LOL That would be funny to see.

[void()]

Rick Santorum is going over the edge. His latest bit of lunacy is criticizing a speech John F. Kennedy made in 1960 about separation of church and state. <snip> This clown not only can't read he took Kennedy's quote way out of context. He's a dangerous man.

Agree with you. Also want to express a minor point which has stuck with me a while. I like to read a lot about history, sociology and such. With the inter webs I have managed a good bit of reading and continue so. In this reading someone was making a case of Christianity being the stanchion upon agricultural and later industrial growth. The rational being Christianity indoctrinates people into thinking of themselves as sheep. These people choose captains of industry or rather let God's will choose their bosses, and follow blindly out of God's will.

Well, it's now 2012. We have machines that can produce over twenty tons of bread an hour. Bread production is all fairly automated. They have a few employees for quality control purposes and to fill in for George Jettson, push a button to make it go. We have corn that grows in enough surplus to put Mexican farmers out of farming, wheat and soy beans too. Eventually rice will take off in the U.S., it will then put Asian farmers out of farming. The point being we've got so much excess and surplus, demand cannot keep up the pace. Yet transportation and distribution causes prices of products to sky rocket.

So, we have rotting excesses and starving people. It's clear industry has played its hand out. We can and do produce enough for all. Our production and manufacturing are all but fully automated. Not much meed of sheep to fill the employee ranks for agriculture and industry now. We are in 2012, welcome to the future. We do need to be brave. Because now there are no sheep or farms. We have to start living at one with nature or nature is going to put us over a barrel. She has already started, look at Katrina, the Tsunami and earthquake that tore Japan apart. These are just opening moves.

We keep knocking nature out of whack, she'll knock us on our back. Lets work with the machines, automate and share with all. As much as it's a sin to not be Christian, it's a sin food rots while others starve.

[darkeyes]

I'm surprised they haven't tried to keep atheist from marrying at this point...maybe that's next?If u care to do a lil research in forums there are quite a number of peeps on this site who think that way too, and that no one has a right to marry outside of a church... nowt so queer as folk hey?

[scotter75019]

You're from Canada so why don't you worry about your own country!!

[curious married m]

Well, it's now 2012. We have machines that can produce over twenty tons of bread an hour. Bread production is all fairly automated. They have a few employees for quality control purposes and to fill in for George Jettson, push a button to make it go. We have corn that grows in enough surplus to put Mexican farmers out of farming, wheat and soy beans too. Eventually rice will take off in the U.S., it will then put Asian farmers out of farming. The point being we've got so much excess and surplus, demand cannot keep up the pace. Yet transportation and distribution causes prices of products to sky rocket.




In the year 5555
Your arms are hanging limp at your sides
Your legs got nothing to do
Some machine is doing that for you

Google the year 2525 on youtube music and listen to the entire song

VERY SCARY how it seems to be prophetic for the year 1969

[swmnkdinthervr]

You're from Canada so why don't you worry about your own country!!
WOW...good answer! Have many friends???

Other than the fact that what happens here/there affects both countries good discussion, ideas and intelligence isn't limited to the "good 'ole USA" or is it...your answer makes a case for NOT!

[12voltman59]

A week or so ago, I had posted up about what one conservative columnist/commentator had to say about what he thought a Rick Santorum presidential nomination would mean from his perspective---he was not favorable. Well, it seems that he is not alone among his fellow conservatives in feeling that if Santorum would emerge as the Republican nominee--it would not be a good thing for Republican prospects in defeating Barack Obama---here is a link to a recent column by Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post writers group. She has several such columns that make it clear, while she may like some things about Santorum, she would prefer he not be the Republican's nominee for president in 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-dream-to-run-against-santorum/2012/02/24/gIQAD9VfYR_story.html

When it comes to those running for the chance to be the Republican nominee in 2012--to the non-crazy Republicans, which is actually most of them contrary to appearances----the thought of Romney being the nominee-gives 'em a bit of indigestion and maybe some bad gas---having either Newt or Santorum emerge as the nominee, makes them have to get up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, then head for the bathroom, hanging their heads over the toilet, ready to puke their guts out.

[void()]

In the year 5555
Your arms are hanging limp at your sides
Your legs got nothing to do
Some machine is doing that for you

Google the year 2525 on youtube music and listen to the entire song

VERY SCARY how it seems to be prophetic for the year 1969

Quite scary

[Craydon]

Santorum would be beyond scary. It would plunge the country back 50 years. He would try and erase all the freedoms and rights we have worked so hard to achieve. I think Obama has done a great job, given the condition of the country left by Bush

[DuckiesDarling]

Actually, I kinda hope Santorum does win the Republican nomination, it will be the biggest landslide victory since Reagan beat Dukakis.

[ErosUrge]

1) You are correct. Obama actually had a supermajority which the Democrats squandered away because of their disorganization and what I see as cowardice.

2) History does no such thing. Such a pronouncement is not only false but some unprovable GOP talking point. Reagan actually raised taxes on the rich which only the most stubborn Republicans will refuse to admit.
~ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/02/cantor-refuses-to-admit-reagan-raised-taxes/ ~
& ~ http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm ~
and there was never any flood of wealthy leaving this country…even when Democrats did it. That’s just fear mongering.

3) I am an unabashed liberal, but much to the chagrin of a few other liberals, I will not be voting for Obama (or any of the GOP clowns for that matter) nor am I a Democrat. Both parties to me have become so similar that any difference between them is only window dressing. They both feed out of the same corporate money trough and are beholden to them.

My objections to Barack Obama are based on rationality and events I have witnessed and documented, not because of any of the pap laden political spew I’ve seen. The idea of voting for Obama just to prevent a Republican from getting in office, is one I reject. I most likely will be writing in “Elizabeth Warren”. In essence, Obama is a corporate tool as most corporately bought and paid for politicians are becoming. Neither party holds the moral upper ground and both owe their allegiance to their corporate contributors.


http://i.imgur.com/q5vo7.jpg


This is EXACTLY how I have felt for years. And Ralph Nader has been telling it like it is for years. Thanks for taking the time to post as it saves me the time doing it which I would have done had you not; thank you! thank you!

[DuckiesDarling]

Actually, George H.W.Bush beat Dukakis. Raegans biggest landslide victory was over Walter Mondale, even taking Mondales home state of MN. I am one to believe, that Obama will be beat, not by political brilliance by either Santorum or Romney, but by the fact that Americans are just fed up with 3 years of Obama. That's just how I see things happening. For the record, I'm an independant.

Sighs, yep, you are right, I was typing that and listening to sirens. That was the last election before I got to start voting and I'm sitting here going why the hell did I type Reagan? But yes, Reagan beat Mondale and would have been a shoe in if he could have run again but still the point remains that the polls clearly show that no matter who wins the Republican nomination they are not enough to beat Obama. Who, in my opinion, has done a very good job given the way the country was left and I would like to see what he could do with another four years and a COOPERATIVE congress.

[darkeyes]

Sighs, yep, you are right, I was typing that and listening to sirens. That was the last election before I got to start voting and I'm sitting here going why the hell did I type Reagan? But yes, Reagan beat Mondale and would have been a shoe in if he could have run again but still the point remains that the polls clearly show that no matter who wins the Republican nomination they are not enough to beat Obama. Who, in my opinion, has done a very good job given the way the country was left and I would like to see what he could do with another four years and a COOPERATIVE congress.

Only one poll matters... and POPs have been upset on many an occasion around the world... never count the chicks wile they r still in the shell, darlin darlin...

[pepperjack]

With the election of Obama in 08 I learned...never underestimate the power of stupit people. There are a lot of us that feel we could play the "I told you so card".

I think Rick Santorum would be a GREAT President.

But then Donald Duck would be a better president than Obama.

I'm still amazed at the number of supposedly intelligent people who fell for his hypocritical rhetoric. His real test is NOW! Is he finally going to get tough with Iran as he threatens or is he going to continue to be the wishy-washy commander in chief he has been?

[darkeyes]

I'm still amazed at the number of supposedly intelligent people who fell for his hypocritical rhetoric. His real test is NOW! Is he finally going to get tough with Iran as he threatens or is he going to continue to be the wishy-washy commander in chief he has been?

I do like a man duped by his own propaganda.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/01/islamism-ignorance-cold-war

[DuckiesDarling]

First, it's an American issue with the vote for President, I am not denying who our President is will affect the rest of the world. Obama did everything he said he was going to do, despite a Congress that opposed him at every turn, even some of the Democrats. Iran is a very real threat and the confrontation between Israel and Iran is heating up. I believe the Iranian people have a right to nuclear power but I do not believe they have the right to nuclear weapons. There is a clear difference between bringing a third world country up to par and having the means to wipe out a nation. And Fran, posting links bashing America from a UK newspaper does nothing to change my view on anything that American does or has done in the past and will do in the future.

[Brian]

DD; Obama did have a Democratic HOR and Senate in his first 3 years, only in Nov did the Repubs take the HOR. What he accomplished is on the table for "US" to consider come Nov. 6. God be willing, and God be great, that America will thrive. I don't think that is entirely accurate and fair. First the "November" you are referring was November 2010 - so Obama had 21 months before the Congress went from "Do Nothing" to "Do Less Than Nothing". Twenty-one months is not "3 years" - especially when that is the first 21 months of a first term. Also during that time "The Part of Hell No" was effectively in control of the Senate because of the fillibuster and other practicalities of the way Washington works (K-Street). The Party of No still hasn't approved some of his basic and non-controversial cabinet appointments yet.

In short, the implication that Obama could have helped the economy more than he did if he really wanted is just flat out false. The guy tried repeatedly to end the disastrous Bush tax cuts, implement financial reform, and fix out-of-control job-killing health costs but was foiled by the "Party Of No" at every step. Give Republicans the credit they deserve and have earned. They wanted no end to the Bush tax cuts, no meaningful Wall Street/Finacial Regulation reform (to prevent 2008 all over again) and no national solution the health care costs problem - and they succeeded - as a result the US economy is still on a knife-edge.

And of course, all indications are that there are no gods.

- Drew :paw:

[Brian]

... Wait a minute... that Fox Propaganda barf in lieu of thoughtful reasoning sounds familiar... It's you... You came back again. You must love us lots.

- Drew :paw:

[DuckiesDarling]

I don't think that is entirely accurate and fair. First the "November" you are referring was November 2010 - so Obama had 21 months before the Congress went from "Do Nothing" to "Do Less Than Nothing". Twenty-one months is not "3 years" - especially when that is the first 21 months of a first term. Also during that time "The Part of Hell No" was effectively in control of the Senate because of the fillibuster and other practicalities of the way Washington works (K-Street). The Party of No still hasn't approved some of his basic and non-controversial cabinet appointments yet.

In short, the implication that Obama could have helped the economy more than he did if he really wanted is just flat out false. The guy tried repeatedly to end the disastrous Bush tax cuts, implement financial reform, and fix out-of-control job-killing health costs but was foiled by the "Party Of No" at every step. Give Republicans the credit they deserve and have earned. They wanted no end to the Bush tax cuts, no meaningful Wall Street/Finacial Regulation reform (to prevent 2008 all over again) and no national solution the health care costs problem - and they succeeded - as a result the US economy is still on a knife-edge.

And of course, all indications are that there are no gods.

- Drew :paw:

Thank you, Drew, I'm glad to see that at least one neighbor to the North has a freaking clue about what goes on in the US.

[darkeyes]

First, it's an American issue with the vote for President, I am not denying who our President is will affect the rest of the world. Obama did everything he said he was going to do, despite a Congress that opposed him at every turn, even some of the Democrats. Iran is a very real threat and the confrontation between Israel and Iran is heating up. I believe the Iranian people have a right to nuclear power but I do not believe they have the right to nuclear weapons. There is a clear difference between bringing a third world country up to par and having the means to wipe out a nation. And Fran, posting links bashing America from a UK newspaper does nothing to change my view on anything that American does or has done in the past and will do in the future.

An alternative view Darlin darlin should always be considered... if u believe it is America bashing fine, but then compared to what some have in mind for Iran it is rather small beer.. now that is real bashing and who knows how many lives will be lost as a result and what damage will be done to our world..

..we agree as it happens that Iran should not have nuclear weapons.. but then neither should Israel, India , Pakistan, North Korea, China, Russia, France, the US or my own little group of islands.. it does seem that we have learned nothing from Iraq where we found masses of WMDs did we not and were lied to from the start??? And we look at the cost of that little adventure.. this will be a far greater and more serious undertaking and will be a far more difficult place to put down and hold down... I do wish that people would question what they are told by their leaders a little more often and act with more scepticism about what they are told. Even if they glean something of what they are told from an external source...

We are not talking of America bashing at all.. we are talking about appraising just wtf history tells us so we can learn from it... people keep saying that we should learn from history to avoid making the same mistakes.. the problem with that is people seem to learn only from histories which accord with their own view of the world and are afraid to peer outside and have a little look that there are others which may make uncomfortable reading but are important and valid... and we end up repeating the mistakes of the past... we are about to do precisely that yet again and it is not only your country that is going to end up fighting any war.. because the government of mine own, slavish and grovelling to end and up the arse of the US as per usual, is sabre rattling at the same time and preparing itself for what it sees as an inevitable and desirable little war.. and a war which, as with Afghanistan and Iraq, will increase the hostility of the Islamic world toward the west and make the world a far less safe and much more dangerous place...

[DuckiesDarling]

Actually, I agree people read into history what they want to see. Something we ALL are guilty of doing, dear Fran. Scottish history is paved with the blood of many a freedom fighter against English tyranny. But having nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran is going to be the end of the world, period. It will set off a chain reaction in the Middle East and it will have far reaching consequences even in the US and UK. There are many prophecies out there regarding the coming of the third Anti Christ that he will arise from the Middle East. Am I saying Armanhijad is the Anti Christ? No, but he very well could turn into what we would call one. When a nation hates quite as much as Iran hates everyone not Arabic then it is just a matter of time before they act on that hate and according to some, they already have in many cases.

The Cold War era was a different time, a different pathos and there was a clash that ended with America standing united and the USSR crumbling into several states. It is still having an effect as we struggle to keep to the treaty and remove missles and such just as our former Soviet counterparts are doing. We are now on friendly terms with them and we are concerned about the world and it's safety. Where there is injustice and help is asked, it will be provided. Where there is a need for force, America will answer, just as we always have because we do believe freedom is worth fighting for everywhere. That's why America is both loved and hated, but we are still the foremost nation called on by the UN to take action when action is needed.

[darkeyes]

Good God woman.. u really have bought into the propaganda... just isten to yourself and think how ridiculous u sound... if life ends on this planet and it has anything to do with Iran it will not be Iran's doing but that of those nations who act so beligerantly against it...

I know my country's history too.. unlike many of my country's people I also know that far far more people died and were butchered by its own people in internal conflict than ever were even during the 300 years where it fought a long was against our southern neighbour.. I also know that the wars we fought against them were not always for the freedom of the country, nor to defend the way of life of its people, but to defend the power of the nobility of this country and its monarch... similarly much of the warfare was fought by English people, poor, illiterate, who eked out miserable lives not for their way of life, but for the power amd majesty and way of life of their own.. war is not noble, and it is not nice, and it is not for you or I and our way of life and what we believe in... it is for the furtherance of the way of life and interests and the power of far more nasty and shitty people than u and I can ever aspire to be..

[DuckiesDarling]

Fran, you believe what you want to believe about your country and I'll believe what I know to be true about my country and we'll just leave it at that, shall we?

[darkeyes]

Fran, you believe what you want to believe about your country and I'll believe what I know to be true about my country and we'll just leave it at that, shall we?I can live with that.. except to say like u knew about the US and Iraq u mean prior to the invasion? What u think u know u mean really dont u?

[æonpax]

This is EXACTLY how I have felt for years. And Ralph Nader has been telling it like it is for years. Thanks for taking the time to post as it saves me the time doing it which I would have done had you not; thank you! thank you!

Off Topic - I belong to a rather liberal news forum called "Newsvine" and I've gone toe-to-toe with people there about Obama and this myth that all liberals must support Obama and the Democratic party. I'm of the thought that some of those liberals are just as intolerant as the conservatives they accuse of being the same thing. Moreover, as the conservatives have been infiltrated by the far-right religious, so too have the liberals been infiltrated by the far-left anti-religious. I absolutely reject both extremist groups.

[void()]

I'm still amazed at the number of supposedly intelligent people who fell for his hypocritical rhetoric. His real test is NOW! Is he finally going to get tough with Iran as he threatens or is he going to continue to be the wishy-washy commander in chief he has been?

Easy. If we do anything concerning Iran, it must be with caution. Frankly, I would rather we didn't do a thing. There are even more frightening giants sleeping whom if awoke by Iran promise ... well, hamburger isn't a polite term in this case.

[elian]

Yeah, since we just got out of Iraq he's probably a little hesitant to start ANOTHER war, what with the one in Afghanistan and all still going on..of course since some people just can't quite "get it", billions of dollars, 10 years of good will building and hard sacrifice THERE just went up in smoke.

What I want to know is, what's the deal with Russia and China supporting the Syrian crackdown? I think void may be on to something..

..just to stay on topic, every time I read the words "President Rick Santorum" I cringe a little bit..I honestly don't think he'll get elected but who knows, "it's an election year" - strange stuff has been known to happen.

[darkeyes]

Yeah, since we just got out of Iraq he's probably a little hesitant to start ANOTHER war, what with the one in Afghanistan and all still going on..of course since some people just can't quite "get it", billions of dollars, 10 years of good will building and hard sacrifice THERE just went up in smoke.

What I want to know is, what's the deal with Russia and China supporting the Syrian crackdown? I think void may be on to something..

..just to stay on topic, every time I read the words "President Rick Santorum" I cringe a little bit..I honestly don't think he'll get elected but who knows, "it's an election year" - strange stuff has been known to happen.

Neither China or Russia has ever been very happy about external interference in the internal affairs of other countries.. except of course when they do it, which they do all the time... they are doing it in Syria now although they would deny it...who do u think is supplying Syria with its hardware for the oppression and helping prop up the regime? If they begin to officially approve external interference in other states willy nilly where will it end? In China and Russia? Got it in one... or two...

Syria is a thorn in the side of the west so dont be too surprised.. and the west's good intentions when they have supported or at least not opposed at the UN have often been shown not to be quite so good or quite so honourable and they have this niggling little habit of taking a mile when a yard will do.. Libya is a case in point.. Iraq too.. and about Afghanistan...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/protests-grow-as-civilian-toll-of-obamas-drone-war-on-terrorism-is-laid-bare-7494409.html

[Godoki]

somehow I can't see Obama loosing these elections. I think that people will simply perceive him as lesser of two evils.

[pepperjack]

I do like a man duped by his own propaganda.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/01/islamism-ignorance-cold-war

Don't know who you consider duped Fran,but it appears to me the writer of this article is doing the duping, promoting the false sense of security the Islamic extremists desire. Near the end he poses the question,"What threat?" re Iran. I watched an interesting interview earlier this week with a former member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard who abandoned the regime & joined our CIA. He was very concerned about the threat, emphatically declaring he knew for a fact of numerous terrorist sleeper cells in place throughout our country, prepared to strike up to 800 sensitive targets. As for Santorum becoming president, I don't see it happening. The man I saw as best for the job in 2008 is currently leading; sometimes I just wish he would display a little more piss&vinegar like Gingrich does. But then again, I understand where he's coming from.

[void()]

Lots of targets, lots of people in cells. Kind of scary to think about. That might cause some to gasp.
Sorry, I won't. On 9/12/2001 I was contacted over instant messenger by someone claiming to be Bin Laden. They told me they wanted to kill me. I replied they should get in line. This seemed to cause them some aggitation, they asked if I thought they were joking. I replied I did not care either way, answer was still the same, take a number.

We got railroaded into the Patriot Act, and a second Patriot Act because of fear mongering. Our soldiers were in a very bad place for a decade because of fear. Yes, peak oil has happened. Yes, we should be concerned. No, we should not allow fear to cause needless death by chickens flopping around without heads. We need to stay calm and trasition into living with nature, grow food locally. You wrap food in plastic and ship it 3,000 miles or more, you waste more resources.

This is the system which has failed. Stop making war over resources you're wasting to have food. That is stupidity at it's height. Why do they hate us? Gee, not too hard to figure out. America wastes resources in the name of gluttony. I'm as guilty as the next at times. But I also try watching and curbing resource use. Every little bit adds up. I would love to see more research into composting solid human waste to use as fertilizer. Flushing water closet type of toilets wastes clean water.

Fear is not the answer. Don't let the government lie to us again and use fear as a weapon. Ask the government to figure out a better system. Get rid of genetically modified foods, seeds. Use organic heritage seeds, plant a garden, share the surplus, swap seeds, save seeds. Keep gardening and have good fresh food. Eliminate petro chemical pesticides, let nature offer solutions. Some bugs eat others. You might find bettles that eat slugs which infest corn for example.

Again, fear is not the answer.

[pepperjack]

Easy. If we do anything concerning Iran, it must be with caution. Frankly, I would rather we didn't do a thing. There are even more frightening giants sleeping whom if awoke by Iran promise ... well, hamburger isn't a polite term in this case.

I think maybe you misunderstood me once again. I wasn't suggesting immediate military action. I just like the recent tough stance Obama took when declaring he "doesn't bluff." I respect him on this, he has been cautious, but maybe to the point where he's perceived as pandering, maybe even groveling before our enemies. And I also agree with you about the "sleeping giants." I see Iran as only a catalyst in this tinder-box and Islam as an evil juggernaut.

[darkeyes]

Don't know who you considere state any more than u, but neither do I think it to be quite the threat that others do.. duped Fran,but it appears to me the writer of this article is doing the duping, promoting the false sense of security the Islamic extremists desire. Near the end he poses the question,"What threat?" re Iran. I watched an interesting interview earlier this week with a former member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard who abandoned the regime & joined our CIA. He was very concerned about the threat, emphatically declaring he knew for a fact of numerous terrorist sleeper cells in place throughout our country, prepared to strike up to 800 sensitive targets. As for Santorum becoming president, I don't see it happening. The man I saw as best for the job in 2008 is currently leading; sometimes I just wish he would display a little more piss&vinegar like Gingrich does. But then again, I understand where he's coming from. We believe what our masters and our telly unquestioningly tells us at our peril..as we do what any of our media tells us.. I dont think Iran is a very nice state any more than u.. but neither do I think it to be quite the danger that many do.. I have no doubt that Iran has people working clandestinely within many countries.. whether they are sleeper cells is open to question.. but it is no different to the many that Britain, the US, France, Israel and other countries will hhave with Iran...

..as for piss and vinegar Gingrich his forte is intimidating and insulting young female students and treating them like nothing, so I wouldnt put too much store in any thing he says or proposes... and if we did then we would all be in the poop...

[pepperjack]

We believe what our masters and our telly unquestioningly tells us at our peril..as we do what any of our media tells us.. I dont think Iran is a very nice state any more than u.. but neither do I think it to be quite the danger that many do.. I have no doubt that Iran has people working clandestinely within many countries.. whether they are sleeper cells is open to question.. but it is no different to the many that Britain, the US, France, Israel and other countries will hhave with Iran...

..as for piss and vinegar Gingrich his forte is intimidating and insulting young female students and treating them like nothing, so I wouldnt put too much store in any thing he says or proposes... and if we did then we would all be in the poop...

Actually, no,I don't blindly believe all the input I receive; speak for yourself. I'm very questioning & discerning. Deception takes many forms and yes, can lead us into peril which it's often intended to do. As for Gingrich, I've watched him in debates & interviews, read about him & listened to commentators on the radio speaking about him & still have not encountered what you referred to; must have been an isolated incident.

[darkeyes]

As for Gingrich, I've watched him in debates & interviews, read about him & listened to commentators on the radio speaking about him & still have not encountered what you referred to; must have been an isolated incident.Musta been a fluke hey????:rolleyes: U do crack me up Pepper...:tong:

[pepperjack]

Musta been a fluke hey????:rolleyes: U do crack me up Pepper...:tong:


Glad I could make you smile, maybe even chortle a little:cool: Other than sex, humor is a great tension reliever;)