It is interesting to be sure. Holy S***, we agreed on something. OK, easy now dragoness, let's not let that get out of hand :)

-Drew

Wow, imagine, a moronic lawsuit--because we've never had one of those before. Come on Dragoness, this is just wrong. Who cares what a person does with a vote. Do you really care if a bunch of people pretended to like Hillary to keep her in the race? I mean, who's to say it won't backfire?

And surely you are not using what you find wrong with the way Republicans have handled voter issues to justify what is happening now? I mean, that would be using bad behavior to justify still more bad behavior.

-Drew

I think that the topic-train here has been derailed.

Surely the same right that allows a person to choose what to do with a pregnancy extends to what a person chooses to do with their vote.


A suit in this case would go down as a truly special kind of stupid.

-Drew

I don't know! I guess you'd have to ask them. And while we are on the subject of rights--what gives the guy who picks up my trash the right to hurl my trash can lid sixty feet away from the can when he is done? Now, let's get to the bottom of THAT one.

:)

Drew

Honestly, I don't know, Fanta, but it is a real pic of someone who actually did that!!! Not staged. Sometimes you have to just shake your head and say, wow!

The debate of ideas is never personal to me. I may have personal feelings about it but that is not why I post. And yeah the majority of what I write is a dry humor of sorts.

Oh, and one for you as well.

And I'll throw in my best wishes as well. None of this is personal....good debate is just too much fun to pass up.

Best,
Drew

Sorry Fanta, I don't have the time to put together a slide show for you to illustrate the point.

Drew

Truly valid point. Isn't amazing how those who bash GWB can't seem to make up their minds? On one hand he's the dumbest most moronic man ever to draw breath but on the other he's so clever that he alone has wrecked the nation, orchestrated the housing market collapse (no no, really, it wasn't the people who signed papers on ARMs they couldn't afford--wasn't their fault) fixed gas prices, on and on and on.

Funny to me how seem to want it both ways.

Good point man.

Drew

If there is no cost, what's the victory worth? And that is asked with a great deal of respect to those who have served.

The 16th Amendment, Tobias

Drew

People are sort of funny about the "greedy corporations" argument in that in order to be here they have to all but support one. Here's a question. How many people who subscribe to that notion have a computer with a Microsoft OS running in the background? I know some don't (personally, I own a Mac) but a number of people do. So it would seem that the greedy corporations are all of those that "other" people use not the ones we use.

-Drew

I'm awake and know at least this much. We are a people (as a rule) that is both saddened by the loss of life at the wedding party (as it was a mistake) and outraged by the actions of soldiers who commit crimes in violation of the law. But therein is where the difference is found. Never in the history of the world has a military as strong as ours used as much restraint as ours. We could have ended all of this in a month if wedding parties and mosques didn't matter. But they do. Their mosques matter more to our fighter pilots than they ever mattered to Saddam and we avoided as much of that as we could. Did mistakes happen? Yes. Did crimes occur? Yes. But as yellowrose points out, those crimes will be prosecuted and with any luck those who committed them will be jailed.

Your attempt to equate the two not only misses the point but compares the exception (us) to the rule (Saddam's regime).

Let's see. Healthcare: Well, President Clinton couldn't get through national (socialized) medicine (lord knows how his wife did try) so why is that a failure you attribute to President Bush? Furthermore, please point out for me the part of our Constitution that promises health care? Under which Article is that "right" found? And why stop there? Why not houses for everyone, paid for by the government? Oh, and cars as well?

The war: Good people can disagree on this one but almost every Democrat voted to authorize force in Iraq and it is Congress that approves funding (which they could have cut off at any time) so I'm not sure why again you single out GWB on this one.

The economy: Well, we should revisit that one after universal govt. sponsored health care is created. Taxes will be fun then.

Gas Prices: Everybody's favorite grab. President's don't set oil prices. They never have and they never will. Proof of that will be pretty evident once the next Democrat is in office and prices stay the same.

Katrina: Do this. Go out and dig a small hole in your yard. Wait for it to rain. Report back. For YEARS officials in New Orleans were told to divert massive amounts of money to fix and protect the city from a Cat5 Hurricane. For years they ignored those recommendations. I won't argue that the Federal Response was slow and weak but less of a response would have been needed if state and local officials had spent a bit more time taking care of what really mattered.

9-11: Right--that one is Bush's fault too. No no, not the guys who slashed the throats of the flight attendants and aimed the planes into buildings that held host to a number of people of varying religions (some Muslim) and ethnicities...it was Bush's fault.

Finally, you are right about one thing. Bashing President Bush is not hard. I've written in other posts here that it is almost sport anymore and while some seem content to just copy and post articles written by other people (again, it's not like that takes a lot of effort) I never felt like doing the same under Clinton. One more thing--I did not vote for GWB and I'm not a radical right-wing anything. I just find that my yawn reflex gets used a great deal when I read how everything from Katrina to Oil, health care is the fault of one person. Please!

-Drew

My interest in his (Obama's) comments can be found in what is not said. He talks about his grandmother with an odd sort of disconnect--how much she loved him how much she sacrificed for him--but he doesn't affirm his own feelings towards here except for one word: "cringe." His white grandmother used racial slurs that made him cringe--and they should have. But it is an odd analogy he creates by comparing his inability to disown either his white grandmother or his black pastor. First, his grandmother is presumably someone he could not simply walk away from in that by his own admission, she helped raise him. His pastor on the other hand....

I can recall exiting a church I once belonged to, a church I had made good friends in and become very active in because of a racist view from my pastor that came to light as I began to know him better. There was no discussion, no explanations were asked for. I simply told him what I thought and left. I never once went back.

I was 19 at the time of my experience and pretty dumb. But smart enough to know I could not be comfortable with even the subtle form of racism I had experienced. Barak Obama is a much better than average mind. He should have known better. And once he was asked about it he ignores the Rev. Wright's comments and focuses instead on his white grandmother being scared of passing black men on the street??

I am not entirely sure what sort of credibility his comments are supposed to spotlight but it seems to me that he would have been smarter to drop the word "disown" (again, an odd word in itself when dealing with questions of race) and instead hold responsible those people with whom he disagrees.

No one with half a mind thinks that just because a pastor of a church says something that the entire congregation believes it. And that doesn't change simply because one of the members of the congregation is running for president. But if you are going to swim in controversial waters as a candidate for the High Office be ready to be questioned and challenged. And when you are, perhaps a better stratagem, something more worthy than comparing a pastor's words today with a grandmother's words from many years ago would be worth considering.

-Drew

By average Iraqi, do you mean the ones that were not beaten for losing a soccer game for the Iraqi National Team? Or are you referring here to the ones whose wives weren't raped on their wedding night by a member of the "Guard?" Or did you just mean the average Iraqi who could never have spoken out about what he/she did not like or wanted changed? You can take issue with GWB until your fingers get tired of typing. It's great sport these days and doesn't require much effort. You just don't think the average Iraqi deserves the same. I mean after all, they were better off under Saddam. I never lived the life of an average Iraqi so I'm not able to make such a statement. I take it you have though....right?

As for supporting him through the worst of his treatment of the average Iraqi...well, then we had an obligation to take him out of power for having put him there in the first place.

-Drew

Well, of coarse that's the only viable comparison you see--it's the only one you are looking for. Five years? And they were under his thumb for how long? That and I asked about the German people, not Poland. Do you think that the German people were better off with or without Hitler on the throne? What about Italy under Mussolini? Pol Pot, Mao, Aidid, Tojo, Enver?.....name for me if you would a dictator that the people of the world were better served by than the alternative, long range. And if the replacement was worse does that mean we should just stop giving a damn?