"Savage Nation"

[anonemouse 1]

But to hate or dispise him for everything is also wrong....

No one here hates or despises him for everything. But we do think he should be held responsible for the things he has done, the decisions he's made, and the results of those.

[Persistance 0]

It's great to see how passionate you guys are when it comes to defending your point of view.

Let me ask you ...will you vote for a candidate that supports gay rights? What about..abortion???

[marjon9 6]

It's great to see how passionate you guys are when it comes to defending your point of view.

Let me ask you ...will you vote for a candidate that supports gay rights? What about..abortion???

I'm confused by your question. Are you suggesting that people who support gay rights and freedom of choice on these forums would really not actually vote for people who support these things because, in our heart of hearts, we know that these positions are too extreme?

Is that what you are suggesting?

That strikes me as so odd. It's like, we are all human beings but I do think we come from different planets.

To answer your question, assuming it is serious, I, personally, would always prefer to vote for someone who supports gay rights and the right to choose. I would be extremely reluctant to vote for someone who did not support those things, and would only do so if they would forward some other agenda item that was even more important to me, like ending the Iraq war.

[anonemouse 1]

To answer your question, assuming it is serious, I, personally, would always prefer to vote for someone who supports gay rights and the right to choose. I would be extremely reluctant to vote for someone who did not support those things, and would only do so if they would forward some other agenda item that was even more important to me, like ending the Iraq war.

Ditto. I could not comprehend voting for someone that was anti-choice or ant-gay rights. Well, like you, I guess I would consider it if there were other, more important issues at stake. But even then, I would have to think long and hard about my beliefs and whether I thought that ending a war was worth the possible erosion of our rights.

There are several types of people that I would never consider voting for, but I think I would start a fight if I said what they were.

[Wheetsin 714]

It's great to see how passionate you guys are when it comes to defending your point of view.

Let me ask you ...will you vote for a candidate that supports gay rights? What about..abortion???

It would depend 100% on the candidate and how their overall positions meshed up against mine. I would not vote - or not vote - for someone just because they did or didn't supported gay rights, or just because they did or didn't support abortion. One single issue, against everything a political candidate has a position on, just can't make or break the deal.

If someone supported gay rights and I agreed with most of their other positions, I would definitely vote for them. If they supported gay rights and nothing else that I was for, then I probably would not vote for them.

Likewise, if someone supported abortion and I agreed with most of their other positions, I would probably vote for them. If they supported abortion and nothing else I was for, then I probably would note vote for them.

I am pro-choice. Generally speaking, I would rather have someone in office who was pro-abortion than anti-abortion, because anti-abortion is going to keep ANYONE from being able to do it, while pro-abortion can't MAKE someone do it, the most they can do is offer up the choice.

And supporting gay rights, you bet. Gays are people who happen to be attracted to the same gender. So what? They're not like a second class or subspecies. There is nothing at all about a gay lifestyle that makes them less deserving of the same civil liberties that someone attracted to the same gender receives. It isn't even a matter of gay rights, it's people rights -- jsut making sure that all people have the SAME rights. No one is saying "special rights for gays", just "equal rights".

[BJean 16]

L8BloomR: In the context of this one thread, I can understand why you thought I over reacted. The same tired argument has been going on for a long time and much has been said by the same people that has either suggested or specifically said that we should support George W. Bush because he is the President. They seem to believe, as some of the very vocal right wing journalists discussed in this thread, that to not support Bush is to be commiting an act of treason. I was at the point when I posted my scarastic remarks, just completely fed up with the ridiculousness of that viewpoint.

[mousecrazy 2]

Surprisingly, probably, I believe bad behavior is bad behavior, left or right. Another big surprise to some might be that I do not have full control over any portion, left or right, of the media. So, I can't say that it is possible for me to control any outrage expressed by the media. I can say that I think it was wrong for someone to call Clinton a pig on the floor of Congress, even if someone felt it was true. I would like more decorum by all our elected officials, but they have not called for my appointment on the "arrangment committee" for those rules.

With that, I seriously would like to know how you guys can just ignore that almost the entire world's leaders knew Hussein had chemical weapons? Even more, have you seen the films he had taken of the dead Kurds, upon whom he tried out his chemical weapons? How you can you see thousands of dead Iraqis, killed by chemical weapons, and then blithely repeat and repeat and repeat, "Hussein did not have WMD"? Have you seen the films of caravans of trucks leaving Iraq before the coalition troops went in? What do you think was in those trucks? Many people believe there could have been weapons or the makings of weapons in them. Have you seen pictures of fighter jets buried in the sand in the desert? I am just wondering if the news ya'll read and see ever shows you these things.

Another question: Is Bill Maher a comedian? Why is he on Bill O'Reilly as a political commentator? I guess I was tricked by Bill into thinking he was a political kind of guy, kinda like Ann.

I don't think anyone who is "on the right" and has posted on this thread as a total support of Bush going on...I believe in different threads, most have pointed out that they have certain and specific disagreements on issues. I for one have never met a person who I agree with 100% of the time. I think you'd have to be kinda crazy to do that.

[BJean 16]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say a "candidate who supports gay rights." If by that you mean a candidate who believes that gays should be allowed to marry, I would imagine he is a candidate who cares enough about people that I would consider voting for him.

If you are saying that a candidate who "supports abortion" is one who doesn't want to overturn Roe v. Wade, I would probably vote for him.

In all honesty, if a candidate was completely against a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, I could never vote for him or her. In fact, I am sure you would find me volunteering at the campaign headquarters of the candidate running against a candidate who is against women's rights. That person is probably also against gay's marrying, and that would also make me want to campaign against him.

My candidate would probably also be for doing all we can to extract our troops from Iraq. He or she would also stop cutting budget for the VET hospitals and all of the veteran's benefits.

My candidate would be the kind of person who believes in working with other countries, if at all possible, to bring peace to the world. I know many Republicans believe that is an impossible task and that we just need to go whip the ass of as many bad people as we can make bullets for. But lets fact it, that isn't working too well for Bush, now is it?

[mousecrazy 2]

When did appeasement, or diplomacy, actually work? Do I need to define "work"?

What countries, disregarding entirely the USA(just so we don't get bogged down in that tired old discussion), want peace? Define peace.

This sounds a little smarty-alecky, but indeed these are all legitimate questions.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

When did appeasement, or diplomacy, actually work? Do I need to define "work"?

What countries, disregarding entirely the USA(just so we don't get bogged down in that tired old discussion), want peace? Define peace.

This sounds a little smarty-alecky, but indeed these are all legitimate questions.

Are you saying that the USA should not be involved in diplomacy, lest it be seen as appeasement, on the one hand, while asserting that countries that do not appease the USA's agenda get what they deserve (from the USA's military machine) on the other hand?

'cause that's what it sounded like to me.

[mousecrazy 2]

No.

I asked two questions, looking for an explanation as to why there is the hope that diplomacy would actually lead to a peaceful solution.

If I was saying anything at all, I might have been using a Socratic questioning technique encouraging us to examine what we hold as a "truth"...i.e., diplomacy is preferable and would indeed be effective. Is it? When has it worked?

What other countries are engaged in bringing about peace in the world? How are they doing so?

[BJean 16]

Yup. Same old argument. Diplomacy has worked often over the years. When we weren't in war, doncha know. The times we've gone to war stand out much more than the times that we've used negotiations to solve problems. But if you don't want to count them, I can understand that.

There are many countries who don't believe in war as an answer. If you don't know that, you just don't want to know it. I can understand why you don't want to acknowledge them and their successful way of life.

I think you're wanting to challenge the whole idea of diplomacy because it sounds like you've been listening to, and believing, some of your favorite pundits. Those are buzz words you're using that people who want to justify our aggression use.

If we don't want diplomacy to work, it sure won't. This administration never gave it a chance. These are not diplomatic folks that are in power now. They are the people who know the monetary value of war and they are very intent on getting the results that they want by taking our country into war. They are people who believe that if a leader of another country doesn't do what we tell them to, then we have every right to drop our bombs and shock and awe the hell out of them. Shock and awe, buzz words fed to us by crazed people. Kill the hell out of them, massacre the hell out of them, are the words that are much more appropriate and accurate.

You tell me... how has this war helped the United States? Why are you so supportive of an action that is so horrendous? What exactly has been gained? How many lives were lost on 9/11? How many lives have been lost as a result of our aggression in the Middle East? Is the Middle East more peaceful as a result of our aggression? Is Iraq really better off? In what way?

I say way, not ways, because ridding them of Hussein is one way that some Iraqi people might be better off. I'm not sure there can possibly be other ways that Iraq has benefitted and I'm not even sure that many people would agree today that getting rid of him has been better for most of the Iraqi people. It seems that those people who believe that ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein by bombing Iraq are people who not only believe in war, but who believe that war is the BEST answer.

This discussion or debate is going nowhere. You believe in war. You believe that the United States is justified in killing to accomplish certain goals. I believe in war if we are threatened or attacked by a country. Neither of those components were present the night we went into Baghdad.

I can imagine many of you who are pro-war sitting in front of your TVs that night, happy, even smiling, in the thought that we were showing that S.O.B. who's boss. I was in front of my TV aghast and appalled that my country would do such a thing. I couldn't help but cry for us that night. Unfortunately, everything I feared could happen has happened, and worse.

I can't believe that there are people who are still defending the actions that Bush committed this country to that night. Even George W. Bush admits that it is a mess and that it was probably not the right thing to have done. But does he want to bring home our troops? No he does not. Do you know why? I don't mean what is the spin they've put out to make us believe it is okay to continue to subject our military and our nation to this hideous atrocity. I mean why are we still so totally involved there even after the admission and the public knowledge of how wrong this thing has gone? The truth? Please for the love of God, the truth!

[BJean 16]

To those of you who are sick to death of my ranting and raving on this topic, just imagine how sick to death the families are of the men and women who have lost their lives or whose lives have been changed by the physical or mental handicaps they sustained while serving their country.

They are the people I owe it to not to back down. They are the ones who deserve every bit of civil disobedience we can muster to buck this system that is in place. They deserve a hellofa lot more than a few rants and raves from the likes of me, but I won't shut up about it. So if you are tired of reading what I have to say, don't bring it up.

[BJean 16]

Yeah Jack, 1441 makes me want to vomit.

The crime of a war of aggression is listed in Article 5.1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (RSICC) as one of the four most serious crimes of concern to the international community, and that it falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It was addressed earlier by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg following World War II, which called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."[1

[BJean 16]

Personally I am interested in reading people's opinions here. If I want to go to places that support my arguments and post them, that can be done, but I just don't see why I should. All of us have access to a computer.