Quoted from "Signet"
But, to the conservative posters reading this thread, I wouldn't worry about what is being said here. As I predicted, the losing side is in denial and trying to come up with "reasons" why they lost - ie why the other side was too stupid to vote for their AWESOME candidate :roll: It's more than a river in Egypt. But they know they have a choice, and that is between keeping the "red part" of this nation in its place and being smug about it, or winning future elections.

Wow. You post as if the Republicans would be saints if the situation were reversed. And we all know that's just laughable.

Quoted from "Signet"
Exactly. For every statistic about conservatives and republiucans not being as smart, I could throw out a stat about violent crime being twice (or more) higher in the democratic areas. Does that mean democrats are a bunch of violent criminals? By his logic, yes. :dunno: The republican party has a strong base in the rural poor. The democratic party has a strong base in the inner-city poor. As a sad fact of economics, the poor are going to have a lot more problems (including education and crime) that manifest themselves a little differently Maybe if, rather than calling country folk a bunch of dumb hicks, democrats would put a tenth the effort into revitalizing our countryside as they do our cities (after all, it is your party who believes the government can effecitively do this) they would get more votes from this type of voter. Clinton did, twice. Learn to care about Americans who don't live in the Northeast or the West Coast and you'll get the votes of Americans who don't live in those places.

And see, I actually think you make a good point here. Maybe that's why your other paragraph shocked me so much.

Quoted from "arcecat"

Quoted from "SwingKitten"
II hope you're praying that MY CITY doesn't get attacked due to YOUR VOTE.

Do you really think that America has a larger chance of a terrorist attack with Bush in power rather than Kerry?

Crap. I had a nice answer for that all typed in and my browser crashed.

Oh yes, there is a MUCH greater chance for us to get attacked with that yahoo in office sending our troops willy nilly all over the Middle East and pissing off a lot of people who are very, very angry at us to begin with.

You, my dear, are naive if you think that this administration is actually going to PROTECT us from being attacked. Oh wait, you're naive anyway. And what does it matter, you're not the one getting attacked out there in Bumf ck, Kansas.

Quoted from "SwingKitten"

Quoted from "arcecat"

Quoted from "SwingKitten"
II hope you're praying that MY CITY doesn't get attacked due to YOUR VOTE.

Do you really think that America has a larger chance of a terrorist attack with Bush in power rather than Kerry?

Crap. I had a nice answer for that all typed in and my browser crashed. Oh yes, there is a MUCH greater chance for us to get attacked with that yahoo in office sending our troops willy nilly all over the Middle East and pissing off a lot of people who are very, very angry at us to begin with. You, my dear, are naive if you think that this administration is actually going to PROTECT us from being attacked. Oh wait, you're naive anyway. And what does it matter, you're not the one getting attacked out there in Bumf ck, Kansas.

The problem is this. Can the president stop a terrorist attack. Yes. But the measures he would have to take to do it would not be acceptable to the majority of the people in this country. And that would have been the same case had Kerry won the election. We've already seen that with the uproar with the Patriot Act (which is mild in comparison to some things that could be done). The demands of security and liberty are a tightrope that requires give and take. If you want to be secure, then you have to give up some liberties and vice versa.

Are troops in the Middle East causing more terrorist attacks? Yes, but not here. The terrorists have shifted their targets to more permissive areas (like Iraq) than to areas where it is much harder to operate. And let's remember that 9/11 happened when the majority of our soldiers were at home stations. Yet we haven't had one since then when up to 75 of our combat strength is actively fighting overseas.

Would I like to see a change in policy towards the middle-east. In broad terms yes. I think we need to actively engage them to start policing themselves a bit better. I think we need to start working towards shifting their monarchys towards more democratic processes. But in regards to terrorists, it's either you or them and I'd rather it be them.

Can't you go find it yourself?

Thank you Marcelo. You are indeed a smartypants. In that oh so good way.

Quoted from "nurseboy"
Can the president stop a terrorist attack. Yes.

No. No he can't. You've fallen prey to the central lie of this entire administration's orange-alert waving shenanigans.

Quoted from "Marcelo"

Quote
If you want to be secure, then you have to give up some liberties and vice versa.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin. You'll pry my civil rights from my cold dead terrorist-bombed hand. I'd rather die a free man than live securely with tape over my mouth.

That's the whole point isn't it? You have folks screaming for security but dont' want to give up liberties. You can't have it both ways. So if you are going to side on liberty, then you will have to accept the risks of decreased security.

Quoted from "hoya01"

Quoted from "nurseboy"

Quoted from "Marcelo"

Quote
If you want to be secure, then you have to give up some liberties and vice versa.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin. You'll pry my civil rights from my cold dead terrorist-bombed hand. I'd rather die a free man than live securely with tape over my mouth.

That's the whole point isn't it? You have folks screaming for security but dont' want to give up liberties. You can't have it both ways. So if you are going to side on liberty, then you will have to accept the risks of decreased security.

My reading comprehension may be a bit off, but doesn't Marcelo indicate both (a) his understanding that he'll have to accept greater risk/decreased security for greater liberty and (b) his choice to do so?

In my roundabout way, yes I was agreeing with Marcelo. But the point he stated is not well understood by many in this country. You will incur risk either way; risk to you liberties or risk to your body. Marcelo has accepted the ramifications of those risks, many Americans have not.

Quoted from "nurseboy"
That's the whole point isn't it? You have folks screaming for security but dont' want to give up liberties. You can't have it both ways. So if you are going to side on liberty, then you will have to accept the risks of decreased security.

FYI, I'm not screaming for security.

That loud, unfounded screeching is coming from the midwest. I'm actually surprised you can hear it over the Celine Deon CD blasting from the soccer moms' minivans!

Thank you, svelte, neither am I. I've NEVER screamed for security. It's quite obvious that we can't seal this country up tight enough to keep the terrorists out, ever.

The FEAR about terrorism is coming from middle-American yokels gullible enough to believe an administration (and a media) that's telling them they should be scared. Very, very scared. Which is ironic considering that they would be the last people to be affected were there actually another attack.

hi

The hell?

Quoted from "hoya01"
The hell?

troll. let it go.

Quoted from "redshoes"
I was speaking generally. I know I saw someplace on Yehoodi where someone was casting aspersions on the general intelligence of Bush supporters, but with so many different threads, I can't find it now. Oh dear - now I don't have to look for a post painting Bush supporters as less smart - it's right here. And grasshopper just posted that "the party as a whole appears to be embracing bigotry and religious oppression" so there's the racism/homophobia aspect, I think. I don't know where she gets the religious oppression from.

Believing the Republican Party is advocating legislation that is bigoted does not imply that the Party, or its members, are ignorant. I don't believe I've ever said Republicans are dumb. Far from. But if I have, please feel free to quote me. I have said that the Party advocates bigoted legislation - gay marriage ban is ONE example. I don't particularly feel like rehashing it now, but that's where that 'comes from.' Further, the 'religious oppression' comes from the HUGE Christian Right support base of the Republican party, our President's assertions that "God is behind him" in his actions and policies in Iraq and elsewhere, and the Republican Party's notion that basing its stance on something on religous morals is adequate... among other things.

There are FAR better reasons to be anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc., But the GOP flaunts Christian values as its primary source. I have a problem with that in a country as religiously diverse as ours, and I have never held back that opinion on this forum or any other.

It's my opinion, and was stated as such. If you disagree, that's fine - but please don't put words in my mouth and tell everyone that I said Republicans are dumb. Thank you.

Quoted from "arcecat"
My beliefs are my beliefs because I don't want to debate my own personal beliefs does not mean I don't have an open mind.

Actually, that's exactly what it does mean.

Quoted from "arcecat"
If someone is pro-choice and is voted into office their morals are imposed on me so then anyone who votes for a pro-choice person isn't moral cause they are voting for someone who will impose their values....at least according to what you said.

Must . . . try . . . to keep . . . multiple inconsistent ideas . . . in head . . . at same time.