Hoya, that's the first thing that's made me laugh all day. Thank you. :)

Grasshopper you made me laugh--in a good way

Open mind--- doesn't that mean you are open to what other people have to say and will not force your ideas on them? It does not mean that you are not allowed to have your own ideas.

Quoted from "arcecat"
Grasshopper you made me laugh--in a good way Open mind--- doesn't that mean you are open to what other people have to say and will not force your ideas on them? It does not mean that you are not allowed to have your own ideas.

Sigh. No one listens to me. Sweetie. I like chocolate. You like Vanilla. if the law says you can have either, everybody can 'have their own ideas" and eat whatever ice cream they want. But if you make a law saying that only Vanilla can be served, then what do I do about my desire to eat chocolate?

That's the point. We shouldn't make laws that FORCE our beliefs and ideas on other people unless it's absolutely necessary for society to function properly.

Why oh why oh why did I not stay in bed today?

Maybe instead of automatically being annoyed (which I can understand), you could look inward and wonder whether the people telling you this have a point.

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?

Yes.

Quoted from "arcecat"

Quoted from "Marcelo"
The Republicans have been calling gay people sinners and liberals America-haters for the last 20 years. And they should - they should let their views be known.

I want the names of specific Republicans who have done that.

You, Dan and PMO.

Quoted from "arcecat"
Of course everyone is a sinner

I respectfully disagree.

and I'm pretty sure she was answering the sentence above that one, arcecat.

I just got this sent to me...I think it's fairly insightful.

Simple but Effective Why you keep losing to this idiot. By William Saletan Updated Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2004, at 12:05 AM PT

12:01 a.m. PT: Sigh. I really didn't want to have to write this.

George W. Bush is going to win re-election. Yeah, the lawyers will haggle about Ohio. But this time, Democrats don't have the popular vote on their side. Bush does.

If you're a Bush supporter, this is no surprise. You love him, so why shouldn't everybody else?

But if you're dissatisfied with Bush, or if, like me, you think he's been the worst president in memory, you have a lot of explaining to do. Why don't a majority of voters agree with us? How has Bush pulled it off?

I think this is the answer: Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity.

Bush is a very simple man. You may think that makes him a bad president, as I do, but lots of people don't, and there are more of them than there are of us. If you don't believe me, take a look at those numbers on your TV screen.

Think about the simplicity of everything Bush says and does. He gives the same speech every time. His sentences are short and clear. "Government must do a few things and do them well," he says. True to his word, he has spent his political capital on a few big ideas: tax cuts, terrorism, Iraq. Even his electoral strategy tonight was powerfully simple: Win Florida, win Ohio, and nothing else matters. All those lesser states? Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire don't matter if Bush reels in the big ones.

This is what so many people like about Bush's approach to terrorism. They forgive his marginal and not-so-marginal screw-ups, because they can see that fundamentally, he "gets it." They forgive his mismanagement of Iraq, because they see that his heart and will are in the right place. And while they may be unhappy about their economic circumstances, they don't hold that against him. What you and I see as unreflectiveness, they see as transparency. They trust him.

Now look at your candidate, John Kerry. What quality has he most lacked? Not courage - he proved that in Vietnam. Not will - he proved that in Iowa. Not brains - he proved that in the debates. What Kerry lacked was simplicity. Bush had one message; Kerry had dozens. Bush had one issue; Kerry had scores. Bush ended his sentences when you expected him to say more; Kerry went on and on, adding one prepositional phrase after another, until nobody could remember what he was talking about. Now Bush has two big states that mean everything, and Kerry has a bunch of little ones that add up to nothing.

If you're a Democrat, here's my advice. Do what the Republicans did in 1998. Get simple. Find a compelling salesman and get him ready to run for president in 2008. Put aside your quibbles about preparation, stature, expertise, nuance, and all that other hyper-sophisticated garbage that caused you to nominate Kerry. You already have legions of people with preparation, stature, expertise, and nuance ready to staff the executive branch of the federal government. You don't need one of them to be president. You just need somebody to win the White House and appoint them to his administration. And that will require all the simplicity, salesmanship, and easygoing humanity they don't have.

The good news is, that person is already available. His name is John Edwards. If you have any doubt about his electability, just read the exit polls from the 2004 Democratic primaries. If you don't think he's ready to be president- if you don't think he has the right credentials, the right gravitas, the right subtlety of thought- ask yourself whether these are the same things you find wanting in George W. Bush. Because evidently a majority of the voting population of the United States doesn't share your concern. They seem to be attracted to a candidate with a simple message, a clear focus, and a human touch. You might want to consider their views, since they're the ones who will decide whether you're sitting here again four years from now, wondering what went wrong.

In 1998 and 1999, Republicans cleared the field for George W. Bush. Members of Congress and other major officeholders threw their weight behind him to make sure he got the nomination. They united because their previous presidential nominee, a clumsy veteran senator, had gone down to defeat. They were facing eight years out of power, and they were hungry.

Do what they did. Give Edwards a job that will position him to run for president again in a couple of years. Clear the field of Hillary Clinton and any other well-meaning liberal who can't connect with people outside those islands of blue on your electoral map. Because you're going to get a simple president again next time, whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that president will be from your party or the other one.

Quoted from "nurseboy"

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.

It's understood perfectly by those on the Coast. So, I guess you're calling the middle states ingnorant.

Rather condescending of you, Nurseboy.

Quoted from "deadkytty9"

Quoted from "RubyMae"

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?

Yes.

I second (or possibly third) that one.

Absolutely. 9/11 happened on his watch after he had warning - duh. He went after Saddam instead of Bin Laden who is still out there making videos - duh.

I hope the next time the terrorist hit a red state so they know how it feels to be 'protected'.

:-?

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.

On the homeland security platform, this sums up why it is rational for a conservative to vote for Kerry.

Quoted from "RubyMae
It's understood perfectly by those on the Coast. So, I guess you're calling the middle states ingnorant. Rather condescending of you, Nurseboy.

Maybe in NY it is.......

And I'm calling America in general igonorant. I'm an equal opportunity patronizer......... :wink:

Ok deadkitty then another way of looking at it is "is anyone perfect". Is there someone who has never hurt the feelings of another person?

But you might be one who doesn't see anything as ever being wrong then yes you would disagree with me on this issure.

Quoted from "arcecat"
Ok deadkitty then another way of looking at it is "is anyone perfect". Is there someone who has never hurt the feelings of another person? But you might be one who doesn't see anything as ever being wrong then yes you would disagree with me on this issure.

My qualm was with your choice of religious language, not with your conclusions. Of course no one's perfect, I just get pissed off when religious people tell me I'm not right with 'God.'

Quoted from "RubyMae"
I really hope the Yehoodistrators create a special award for arcecat next year. It would be entitled, "Single handed train wreck" (or maybe calamity Jane). This award would be given to the Yehoodite who is responsible for derailing more threads than all the other Yehoodites put together. Congratulations.

hehehehe. that would rock.