BJean

You use sarcasm and innuendo like your Republican candidates. We all know I wasn't talking about the baby... I was talking about your sweet disposition. :sad_smile:

gadget on the one hand you do something wonderful and on the other, you're incredibly sarcastic and spiteful. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.

Steve I appreciate your observations on this. You certainly make a lot of sense. I am reminded of the involuntary sterilization of black girls in the south many years ago.

I forgot to tell you that I have missed you, TommyO!

The rights that you're talking about include your right to believe what you believe and for me to believe what I believe. Your rights should not trump mine on this issue. It is your belief that once a sperm has penetrated an egg, that it is a process that should come with legally written insurance that it will always be permitted to develop into a fully viable human being. I do not believe that or agree with you. I believe that it is a very, very complicated biological process and that nature intervenes and that human beings intervene to prevent development of that tissue into a fully viable human being and that the reasons that those interventions occur are not cut and dried or black and white. There are millions of reasons why those interventions occur. Some may not be good reasons. Some may be live-saving reasons. Some may be a matter of a very delicate balance of biology and genetics. The problem with your cut and dried, black and white, approach to this question of women's rights, is that you believe you have a right to control those biological functions in all women based upon your beliefs. That's where your beliefs and mine conflict and why your beliefs abridge mine if you prevent me from having my own beliefs and ability to have my beliefs be as legal as yours are. You keep throwing out the fact that you believe that a fertilized egg is a life and that every life has the right to exist. I believe that a fertilized egg is comprised of living tissue, but it is not totally within God's will or within the government's promise that each and every fertilized egg is guaranteed the same rights as a fully developed person. It just doesn't work that way and just because you believe it is that way, doesn't mean that everyone else believes it or should live by your beliefs above all others.

I do not believe for one minute that Rev. Wright's usual sermons contained those hurt-filled, angry sound bytes. If they did, you can be sure that the successful people in Chicago, like Senator Obama would not have sat through them very often. That would have been politically stupid. The one thing that we know for sure is that Obama is not stupid. I say to the Republicans, bring it on. Say anything you wish about the Rev. Wright/Obama relationship. The polls tell us that most Americans know that Obama and the other people in Chicago that attended that church are not Rev. Wright and he is not them. He speaks only for himself. They speak for themselves.

You're probably right. This campaign has gone on so long and it seems like just about every possible avenue has been explored. But I tend to believe what one of the candidates said about the possibility of something horrendous being pulled out of the hat at the last minute. It is in character for the party that has become the underdog to stop at nothing. I will probably never forgive the men who brought us the John Kerry Swift Boat campaign that ran ads and wrote letters filled with lies. A man who was a true patriot, a man who served our country in battle, a man who chose to be open and straightforward during his campaign about his desire to make big changes, was the man who was charged with being the liar. He did not deserve that kind of nasty, dishonest, smear tactic. No one does. And Americans should not put up with it. We need to go to the polls and let our votes be our voices. I guess that's why we keep trying to point out the reasons why we are for or against someone. We want to ensure that others understand the information that we think have been lies and a misinterpretation of the facts before, as in John Kerry's case, it is too late.

Sorry Susan. I didn't see yours before I posted mine. Thanks for keeping it open. I usually don't address my posts to anyone unless they address me specifically, but did get off track yesterday. I apologize.

I'm glad that some people who disagree with me just bypass my posts and do not read them. Otherwise, we might get into some kind of healthy debate. Or is healthy debate completely out of the question on such a passionate subject I must add that just because some people have decided that the Supreme Court has incorrectly interpreted the Constitution, doesn't mean that they are correct in their judgement of the Surpeme Court. The most important thing about the Surpeme Court is that they are appointed and confirmed by the president and congress. We elect both the president and congress and we expect them to be non-partisan when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. However, people are people, with all the human frailties that brings.

Wait, wait wait! Don't close it yet. The election isn't over yet and this is an important discussion. Jack, I think your stats are something that are helpful. And I have a question for you: Which party has spent the most in the past several presidential elections? Also, do you want to cite where generally the campaign contributions have come from on both sides and generally in what amounts? Sorry if I sounded "too edgy" yesterday. Seriously. I stayed online way too long and when I do that, it usually winds up getting harsh on both sides. But just because someone provokes another, doesn't mean that the whole debate, or discussion, is worthless and should be thrown out. I am curious too about this negative campaign issue. Of course there are negative sides to every issue. Especially when both sides push the limits of how the other plan is to be interpreted. What I'd like to know, and what the news commentators do not seem to be making an issue of when they're counting up the numbers of negative ads is: What constitutes a negative ad? Is a rebuttal a negative ad? Is an explanation of the other side's plan, a negative ad? Is a personal insult a negative ad? Is an untrue accusation that is repeated over and over, to be considered negative one time or all the numbers of times it is run? If someone intentionally incites negative and heated responses from the crowd at a rally, is that considered negative or just politics as usual? Now I'm not being testy or on the edge with these questions. I am sincerely wondering what constitutes negativism in this campaign. I keep hearing questions about who's running the most negative campaign in the media lately. I just don't know how they define the term "negative".

You're right clusk. He definitely was considered a top-notch dignitary and consultant in the Republican party. And he is still just as important as they thought he was. I expect nothing better from Rush Limbaugh. If all the racist remarks intended to incite negative actions from stupid folks doesn't stop, they should be held accountable when it happens.

Sorry gadget, you just didn't understand what you read. I didn't say that the guy in the video was using diversionary tactics. I was messing with Jack because he posted it right after a long post that I made that I thought might provoke some conversation on those issues. Rather than discuss those things, Jack posted something else that didn't relate to what I had brought up. I was referring to Jack using a diversionary tactic - not referring to what the context of his post was. I just don't have time to read all the stuff - all the links and stuff - that other people post. Nothing compells me to and so I don't. You don't have to read everything everyone else posts either - you choose to.

The one thing that Republicans have learned is that personal attacks work well for them. It is a diversionary tactic. It takes the attention away from their miserable plans for running the government. They want us to believe that they can run the government without taxation of any kind. Who is dumb enough to believe that? Well, it seems that people like Joe the Plumber have bought into it. Fortunately people like Warren Buffett and Colin Powell know better and are willing to stand up and tell it like it is. But clusk, I don't think they're into denial so much as that they are focused on their own agenda. They continue to divert attention from their real goals by insulting their opponents. Fortunately people like you and me are no longer sucked in by this tactic. Unfortunately they are willing to do anything to reach their goals. That's simply what we have to deal with - it is our Cross to bear. I am thrilled that we have a man in Senator Obama who is intelligent enough and a good enough person to handle the task. Now if the other folks see this post as being hateful or whatever they call hate mongering, you are correct in noticing that they have a double standard at work here.

gadget what are you talking about? I was speaking to an issue that Jack and I were trying to come to terms on. How does your post relate in any way, except to be negative and accuse me of interpreting something incorrectly? You must not have read both of our posts very well. I must say that I understand why you would be uncomfortable with a discussion about diversionary tactics in politics though. Cluck you continue to amaze me. It is very meaningful to know that someone understands what's going on.

Oh come on, girls. Play nice. Just because you don't like the message doesn't mean it is at all filled with, what did you say... HATE SPEAK? Haven't heard that one before but I get the point. I only started posting those kinds of long posts because of all the one-sided pronouncements and viewpoints I was reading. If you think I expect everyone to embrace my beliefs or even read what I post, you're mistaken. I may not be the most intelligent poster here, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. Clusk: my sincere gratitude goes out to you for your post! Thanks! Right back atcha. :tongue2:

Thanks, green. Good to hear from you! Your very insightful opinions have been sorely missed here. I used the term wing-nut because sometimes I think people have a screw loose. I am sorry if I offended anyone by its' usage. However, I have been offended clearly as much as anyone here has and sometimes I feel driven to go on the offensive more than may be necessary. Frankly I did not want Carrie to feel overwhelmed and under appreciated.

Btw Jack, I disagree that diversions are only diversions because they differ from your own viewpoints. Diversions can be lies or misrepresentations wholly put out to divert attention away from the honest issues that one side or the other doesn't want people to discuss openly.

Jack I didn't listen, but the real reason is because I suspect it is not the genuine article. Too much garbage has been generated by this campaign and I'm out of patience. But I certainly do agree with you that listening to people with differing viewpoints is enlightening. I always read your posts thoroughly (or at least I try to be thorough and fair when I'm trying to understand your point of view.) The only reason I've posted any of the political garbage is because I think I'm one of the few with an opposing view here. Somebody had to give the other side equal time, doncha know.

Nope. Didn't have time. Too busy posting diatribes. :tongue2:

Sure, ignore me. It makes sense to ignore anyone with an opposing opinion. :tongue2:

I commend your diversionary tactic, Jack. Not enough to listen to those guys, but I appreciate the attempt nonetheless. :tongue2:

Why do you think I'm calling YOU a wing-nut? So you don't think I have a logical discourse in me, gadget? I rest my case.

I believe this is the right thread for this letter to McCain. The Moment Monday 13 October 2008 by: John Cory, t r u t h o u t | Perspective Arizona Senator John McCain. (Photo: Gunby / AP) Senator McCain. Was this the moment? The epiphany? The realization that stoking the flames of bigotry and fear had come home to roost? As I watched your town hall gathering, I wondered what was going through your mind when you came face to face with the incendiary results of your campaign tactics. What did you see and feel when that elderly woman said Obama was an Arab? Or the man who said he feared an Obama presidency? And all the others? I saw your face. I watched your body language as you took the microphone and quickly distanced yourself from that one. At that moment, did you see your reflection in the mirror of her eyes? A reflection, not of a maverick, but a pariah? Did you see the decades of American scar tissue? Birmingham? Burning crosses? The noose? Did you see that awful year in American history when Dr. King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated, cut down in the prime of their dreams for a better America? Did you hear the echo of Dr. King's words about being "judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character," and suddenly realize that it was not your opponent's character in question - but yours? Perhaps you heard the whisper of Langston Hughes when he asked, "What happens to a dream deferred ...? Maybe it just sags like a heavy load. Or does it explode?" Did you suddenly smell the rot and fetid acrid aroma of fear and hate, the carcass of mendacious political tactics decaying at your feet? Or did you sniff the flop-sweat of your own campaign standing in a puddle of decimating poll numbers? I watched your mouth dry up and wondered if you could taste the bitter words like "Arab," "terrorist," "treason," "kill him," - all served up on the plate of red meat politics by your campaign. Did it make you choke and want to spit out the rancid flavor of ignorance and violence? Or did you want to savor the success of the politics of personal destruction? Did you feel the cold chill of defeat? Did your heart pound with the all-encompassing realization that you would never be president? Could you sense that the America you appeal to is stale and dying out and being replaced by the freshness of hope and tolerance and a rainbow of change? No doubt, the media will genuflect before your image and be pushed by your campaign spinners to reanoint you as a maverick and honorable man in rising to the defense of your opponent. But your ads still sully the airwaves. Your surrogates still spew their venom. After all, this is just politics. People need to understand that. Nothing personal - it is just politics. But here was this moment. And you know it, regardless of whether or not you were reading from cue cards or just looking down to avoid having to face the ugliness before you - you know. And when the crowd booed as you struggled to use words about decency and honorable character to defuse the situation you created, you must have recalled the words from Proverbs, "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind ..." This is not a moment for you to be proud of in this campaign. Garnering credit for coming to the defense of Senator Obama is like an arsonist claiming heroism for saving lives after having set fire to the building in the first place. It does not matter how the media or your advisers and consultants spin this moment because it can only reflect badly on you. If it is tossed off as politics as usual, your campaign appears shallow and less interested in what's best for America than what is best for John McCain. If it is said that there is no room for this kind of rhetoric in a presidential campaign, then you look weak and unable to control your own staff that continue to push these messages. If it is about leadership and going against the flow, then we see that a McCain presidencywill be divisive and reinforce the meme of "two Americas." We have already had eight years of a divided country from the man who ran as a "Uniter not a divider." This was a defining moment. And you, sir, lost. John Cory is a Vietnam veteran. He received the Purple Heart and Bronze Star with V device, 1969 - 1970.

All this arguing about the winking, the hairstyle, the accent, and the flirting of Sarah Palin making her an unacceptable candidate for being chosen to be the Republican nomination for Vice President is not getting us anywhere. Most of us know why she was chosen. And even General Colin Powell, former Secretary of Defense, and all-around brilliant man, made the most important point about her selection. I won't quote him or provide a bunch of links, although you're all welcome to do that. I'll just tell you in my own words what I heard him say: the extremists in the Republican party had not thoroughly embraced John McCain because McCain had not shown himself to be right wing enough for them. McCain doesn't believe in abortion, but (until recently) he didn't believe that women's right to choose should be taken away. There are other issues that were troublesome to the extremists, but that was what they said was a "deal breaker". Consequently when John McCain realized that there was no way he could win the election without the support of the right wing extremists, he had to do something to prove to them that he would be open to abolishing abortion. That's why he chose Sarah Palin. She embodies everything the extremists believe is right, good, patriotic and American. Even Palin has softened her stance - in order to be more electable - by saying in the debates, and elsewhere, that she believes that the question of women having the right to choose should be left up to the states. (And btw, how ridiculous is that? It's similar to alcohol prohibition by state - people just cross the state line to get what is illegal in their own state.) I'm gonna call bull-pucky on it. She wants all women's right to choose taken away in each and every case, with one exception and that is when the woman's life is endangered. Of course she'd be glad to be the one who decides when a woman's life is considered to be endangered. The choice of Sarah Palin is a huge mistake on the part of McCain. Her appointment did appease the extremists, but what he didn't count on was the number of regular voters it would turn completely off. He didn't count on the number of important newspapers that would find it so unacceptible that they would endorse his opponent, Senator Obama. He didn't count on someone like Colin Powell, a very important and brilliant man who could have won the presidency if he had wanted it, to endorse Senator Obama. He didn't count on the numbers of prominent people who have, from McCain's own party, decried the nomination of Sarah Palin. They do not oppose Sarah Palin because she winks, or because she's a woman, or because she takes off her boots and puts on her gloves or because she compares herself to red-neck men. They do not oppose Sarah Palin because she's been made fun of by Tina Fey. They oppose Sarah Palin for lots and lots of reasons, but not for those mentioned in the previous paragraph. Intelligent people, people who are not driven by extreme viewpoints, oppose Sarah Palin because of her radical beliefs and because she has made it known that she intends to impose those extremist beliefs upon the entire population of the United States. People oppose Governor Palin because she is not smart enough to take on a few news commentators, when the president and vice presidents of the United States should be able to be smart enough to preside over not only our own Congress and military, but also preside over meetings with heads of state from around the world. In the past we might not have realized how very important that is. But after having George W. Bush be unable to effectively represent our country and use intelligence to influence people, we know how very important it is to not allow someone like Sarah Palin be first in line for the presidency. All of this is not just IMHO - it is lots of people's opinion.

BBKitty: When did Carlene post that?? I would love to know that Carlene is really back. She always brought some keen insight to the threads.