<strong>Hey there's nothing wrong with being young ( after all I was there once ) but, When I hear crap like what I hear coming from some of these guys it's like deja vous.
By the way I think it's great that there are young people like yourself who can still question. It gives me hope. But, as for the rest hasn't the human race learned anything from the past?
It's really quite disheartening to hear the same closeminded garbage that I heard when I was a boy. I mean one would hope for some progress instead of going backwards. But I guess these bad apples are always around.
What I question is the likes of YOU. I question liberals who accuse people like me of doing the very thing they THEMSELVES are guilty of, namely telling anyone who disagrees with them that they are just "young, naive, or close-minded".
I suppose when I grow up I'll learn to be more like you. If you'll excuse me I have to go buy my peace flower now.
[quote]You wouldn't consider Cheney's comments the epitome of democracy now would you? <hr></blockquote>
I wouldn't consider them non-democratic either.
[quote]Yet, that is irrelavent to my point. Cheney criticized that very right to criticize the President during a time of "war." <hr></blockquote>
No, he questioned its wisdom and its appropriateness. And you obviously have no real understanding of what it means to go to war. But that is a point for later.
[quote]Democrats could enjoy politcal gain regardless of motive. To say that politics is not a part of true beliefs to polititians reflects a poor understanding of the political process. <hr></blockquote>
I suppose you and your college ass have a better understanding than I? Right. OK. And I think it wasn't smart for the democrats to criticize the President on this issue.....I didn't think it would work......and it, for the most part, didn't.
[quote]I should have clarified my statement to convey that when political pressure intensifies, Bush is willing to sacrifice some long and dearly held democratic principles. Like what? Dick Cheney's criticism of the First Amendment (which, ironically, is protected by the first amendment itself) Jeopardizing separation of Church and State- aka some "Faith Based Initiatives." <hr></blockquote>
1) I disagree that Bush drops his principles. In fact, I think he "sticks to his guns" more than any President in recent memory.
2) I am not aware of any criticism of the 1st Amend. by Vice President Cheney.
3) Your last point shows YOUR poor understanding of our laws. The separation of church and state concept was added added to the constitution to prevent the government from establishing an official religion of the state. It was NOT intended to remove religion from all public institutions. That is a common misconception. I fully support the faith-based iniatives. That program in NO WAY violates the constitution, IMO.
It's really quite disheartening to hear the same closeminded garbage that I heard when I was a boy. I mean one would hope for some progress instead of going backwards...</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't make good arguments. It's just that simple. A person who disagrees with isn't by definition close-minded. You called me a knucklewalker. I'm not all that impressed with extent to which your mind is open to what others say.
You don't make good arguments. It's just that simple. A person who disagrees with isn't by definition close-minded. You called me a knucklewalker. I'm not all that impressed with extent to which your mind is open to what others say.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed. It is interesting that conservatives get the brunt of the "closeminded" accusations, when in fact liberals often call conservatives facists when they don't support their liberal agendas.
Like I said before there is no point in arguing with someone who ether bends the facts or wants to selectively omit them so they fit their world view.
This : " I have gone through more in my life than many people your age. " and this: " I would even venture to say that the majority of people in your age group are MORE conservative than you are " just shows how little you know and how out of touch you must be with my age group. Of course you probably only associate with indviduals who are in tune with your viewpoint.
This is what I find really disturbing and just proves how polarized you are : " You, like most liberals, automatically assume that a women has the right to choose. Many conservatives (but not all, as you must know) say that women don't have this right "
" I suppose when I grow up I'll learn to be more like you. " No, I just hope you grow up.
One thing you learn as you get older is that having a lot of experiences in a short period of time is not the same thing ( and can be a negative thing ). Just like anything else it takes time to put it all together.
You did get one thing right however : EDIT: " You should know I question our government ALL THE TIME. I just question different things than you do. But I forgot, that's why I'm wrong ".
Yes, people do tend to become more consevative as they get older. This mostly comes from raising a family, providing for retirement, and less willingness to take chances. That doesn't mean they give up their ideals. The hippies become the yuppies and drive BMWs. But, at heart what they believe in is still there. Being a rebel ( like being a rockstar ) is mostly a young persons game.
I imagine you only question things when they involve going against the " conservative agenda ". It's about time you got that retoric back in your face.
I'm not going to get into the abortion thing with you as I'm sure you know exactly when the fetus stops being a piece of tissue and becomes a human being. Or maybe your'e one of those " it's always potential " idiots.
We also won't talk about the other side : unwanted children and the tragic circumstances of their up bringing. Some say we in part are growing our future disfunctional members of society that way.
Oh and Spaceman this makes two of us : " I'm not all that impressed with extent to which your mind is open to what others say ".
I have to say i love this, "anyway one chooses" i believe that the point was the Time not the Way that they did it. You can take it out of context all you want but it was a defense against unethical political grand standing.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Rehashing points I refuted gets you nowhere.
[quote]Originally posted by Ruhx:
<strong>
He was speaking against the criticism because it had already happened. He took an Ethical stand against it. I completely agree with it, they should not have tried to sway votes when standing by the current leader was more important. Ethics.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Irrelevant. Once again, they could have political gain regardless of motive.
[quote]Originally posted by Ruhx:
<strong>
Last please stop speaking of open mindedness as if you have some handle on it. The fact that you discount things like ethics, and politicians using trying times to get elected shows you to be more closeminded in this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Naive. Everything is political.
<strong>2. Regarding the abortion point: You, like most liberals, automatically assume that a women has the right to choose. Many conservatives (but not all, as you must know) say that women don't have this right, because it is taking the life away of sentient being. They call it murder. It isn't "taking away a woman's right to choose" to them, its preventing murder. This is the part of your post that disturbs me most, because you won't even acknowledge the debate, which is quite intense. To you, it is just "the republicans taking away a woman's right to choose".......as if we all agree that this right is inherent in nature, which not everyone does. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> The Supreme Court has given us the "right to choose." Until they rule otherwise, we have that right.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
The abortion argument is complicated, and I'm not going to get into my views on it right now, but it seems obvious you can see your side, and ONLY your side.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Poor Sport. I see your side fine. If it is so obvious then show us.
It starts off as a "Statement" to various nations (INCREDIBLY arrogant, but at least acknowledging there ARE nations outside the US) and ends up as American in-fighting. Who sez the US is self-absorbed?
I'm hoping you didn't misunderstand that I was agreeing with you. This agenda thing is really stupid. Conservatives or liberals can be correct or not at any time. We are really talking about people. A person has an equal potential to be right or wrong at any time. Even myself.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> You sly bastard. The comment itself was undemocratic. The circumstances in which he said it were democratic.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
And you obviously have no real understanding of what it means to go to war.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Irrelevant.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
I suppose you and your college ass have a better understanding than I? Right. OK.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Age is irrelevant, to a point. I do not believe that point is after college.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
And I think it wasn't smart for the democrats to criticize the President on this issue.....I didn't think it would work......and it, for the most part, didn't.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair enough.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
1) I disagree that Bush drops his principles. In fact, I think he "sticks to his guns" more than any President in recent memory.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
He seems to have reversed more campaign pledges than can be counted on one hand.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
2) I am not aware of any criticism of the 1st Amend. by Vice President Cheney.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, the criticism was indirect.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
3) Your last point shows YOUR poor understanding of our laws. The separation of church and state concept was added added to the constitution to prevent the government from establishing an official religion of the state. It was NOT intended to remove religion from all public institutions. That is a common misconception. I fully support the faith-based iniatives. That program in NO WAY violates the constitution, IMO.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
In your opinion? It either violates the Constitution or does not.
It starts off as a "Statement" to various nations (INCREDIBLY arrogant, but at least acknowledging there ARE nations outside the US) and ends up as American in-fighting. Who sez the US is self-absorbed?
[quote]...just shows how little you know and how out of touch you must be with my age group. Of course you probably only associate with indviduals who are in tune with your viewpoint. <hr></blockquote>
No, I just happen to know many people your age that have opinions contrary to yours. You make it sound as if when I get older, or when ONE gets older, he/she will come around to your way of thinking. Bullshit. Complete bullshit.
[quote]No, I just hope you grow up. <hr></blockquote>
The implication you make that I am immature is based on nothing but the fact that we disagree. This comment has no reason to be made.
[quote]One thing you learn as you get older is that having a lot of experiences in a short period of time is not the same thing ( and can be a negative thing ). Just like anything else it takes time to put it all together. <hr></blockquote>
Agreed, though you don't really know what I am talking about speciffically, and you also don't know my age to begin with. Basing the whole argument on age is ludicrous for those two reasons.
[quote]I imagine you only question things when they involve going against the " conservative agenda ". It's about time you got that retoric back in your face. <hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> No, I question many things. The above statement is patently false. What is the conservative agenda, in your opinion? I'm sure you would say it has something to do with "taking away our rights" or "paying back big oil" or "war mongering".
[quote]Or maybe your'e one of those " it's always potential " idiots. <hr></blockquote>
Well, you are the one who brought up the abortion thing...not me. And, it was me who said that I wouldn't get into it WITH YOU. So, saying "I'm not going to get into it with you" in your next post is a fairly deceptive comment. In any case, if I was one of the people that believed that life begins at the moment of conception (and I have already said I won't divuldge my beliefs on this issue) it wouldn't make me an "idiot", it would just mean that I DISAGREE with you. Or, is that not allowed?
[quote] Conservatives or liberals can be correct or not at any time.<hr></blockquote>
Agreed, but people still have agendas and positions.
Now, Harald writes:
[quote]INCREDIBLY arrogant, but at least acknowledging there ARE nations outside the US <hr></blockquote>
My statement is not arrogant at all. You mean you disagree that certain nations hate us for our money and power? Really? I would be very surpised if that was the case. I didn't say they all did.....just SOME. If you honestly think your opinion through and still disagree, I can live with that. As far as the "at least he acknowledged other nations exist" comment.....that is just stupid. Of course I understand that we are not the only nation in the world. But, I also know that we are the most developed economically and militarily.
And, sjpsu writes:
[quote]He seems to have reversed more campaign pledges than can be counted on one hand. <hr></blockquote>
:eek: :eek: :eek:
What? Which ones? He lowered taxes, increased military spending and allocations for housing, passed education reform.....the list goes on. What promises has he broken? Do you consider a compromise a "reversal'? I don't. Remember, you said CAMPAIGN PROMISES....not "items you agree with". I can't think of one campaign promise he has broken. Please name ONE! The fact is you don't know what to do with a President that actually DOES what he SAID HE WOULD DO. Remember, Clinton said he would LOWER taxes when he got eledcted in '92.....and then passed the biggest tax increase in history. (Don't even TRY to argue that......it is a DOCUMENTED FACT).
[quote]True, the criticism was indirect. <hr></blockquote>
No, this is how YOU interpreted it. To say Cheney is "criticizing the 1st Amend. " is a bit extreme. He said he thought criticizing the President on war issues was unwise. I agree.
[quote]In your opinion? It either violates the Constitution or does not. <hr></blockquote>
What are we expressing here? Aren't we expressing our opinions? At least I haven't bought into the "get religion out" crowd's propoganda about separation of church and state. EVERYONE here is expressing an opinion....you included. And in MY OPINION the faith based iniatives are a wonderful program that DO NOT, IN ANY WAY, violate the separation of church and state.
I won't be around until tomorrow morning after I post this, so defending myself against three people at once will have to wait until then. scott_h_phd, want to join the fun?
"Do not personally attack him. If his arguments are weak, then attack them ".
It sounds like you might just make a good attorney. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Why are you addressing this to me? Jimmac was the one who called me a knucklewalker. He wasn't countering any arguments. He was just attacking me. And I was prepared to let it slide but then he started whining about close-mindedness of others. It's more than a little too much.
Comments
<strong>Hey there's nothing wrong with being young ( after all I was there once ) but, When I hear crap like what I hear coming from some of these guys it's like deja vous.
By the way I think it's great that there are young people like yourself who can still question. It gives me hope. But, as for the rest hasn't the human race learned anything from the past?
It's really quite disheartening to hear the same closeminded garbage that I heard when I was a boy. I mean one would hope for some progress instead of going backwards. But I guess these bad apples are always around.
But, here's to you, your kind, and the future.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
What I question is the likes of YOU. I question liberals who accuse people like me of doing the very thing they THEMSELVES are guilty of, namely telling anyone who disagrees with them that they are just "young, naive, or close-minded".
I suppose when I grow up I'll learn to be more like you. If you'll excuse me I have to go buy my peace flower now.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
EDIT: You should know I question our government ALL THE TIME. I just question different things than you do. But I forgot, that's why I'm wrong.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
I wouldn't consider them non-democratic either.
[quote]Yet, that is irrelavent to my point. Cheney criticized that very right to criticize the President during a time of "war." <hr></blockquote>
No, he questioned its wisdom and its appropriateness. And you obviously have no real understanding of what it means to go to war. But that is a point for later.
[quote]Democrats could enjoy politcal gain regardless of motive. To say that politics is not a part of true beliefs to polititians reflects a poor understanding of the political process. <hr></blockquote>
I suppose you and your college ass have a better understanding than I? Right. OK. And I think it wasn't smart for the democrats to criticize the President on this issue.....I didn't think it would work......and it, for the most part, didn't.
[quote]I should have clarified my statement to convey that when political pressure intensifies, Bush is willing to sacrifice some long and dearly held democratic principles. Like what? Dick Cheney's criticism of the First Amendment (which, ironically, is protected by the first amendment itself) Jeopardizing separation of Church and State- aka some "Faith Based Initiatives." <hr></blockquote>
1) I disagree that Bush drops his principles. In fact, I think he "sticks to his guns" more than any President in recent memory.
2) I am not aware of any criticism of the 1st Amend. by Vice President Cheney.
3) Your last point shows YOUR poor understanding of our laws. The separation of church and state concept was added added to the constitution to prevent the government from establishing an official religion of the state. It was NOT intended to remove religion from all public institutions. That is a common misconception. I fully support the faith-based iniatives. That program in NO WAY violates the constitution, IMO.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>
It's really quite disheartening to hear the same closeminded garbage that I heard when I was a boy. I mean one would hope for some progress instead of going backwards...</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't make good arguments. It's just that simple. A person who disagrees with isn't by definition close-minded. You called me a knucklewalker. I'm not all that impressed with extent to which your mind is open to what others say.
<strong>
You don't make good arguments. It's just that simple. A person who disagrees with isn't by definition close-minded. You called me a knucklewalker. I'm not all that impressed with extent to which your mind is open to what others say.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed. It is interesting that conservatives get the brunt of the "closeminded" accusations, when in fact liberals often call conservatives facists when they don't support their liberal agendas.
Like I said before there is no point in arguing with someone who ether bends the facts or wants to selectively omit them so they fit their world view.
This : " I have gone through more in my life than many people your age. " and this: " I would even venture to say that the majority of people in your age group are MORE conservative than you are " just shows how little you know and how out of touch you must be with my age group. Of course you probably only associate with indviduals who are in tune with your viewpoint.
This is what I find really disturbing and just proves how polarized you are : " You, like most liberals, automatically assume that a women has the right to choose. Many conservatives (but not all, as you must know) say that women don't have this right "
" I suppose when I grow up I'll learn to be more like you. " No, I just hope you grow up.
One thing you learn as you get older is that having a lot of experiences in a short period of time is not the same thing ( and can be a negative thing ). Just like anything else it takes time to put it all together.
You did get one thing right however : EDIT: " You should know I question our government ALL THE TIME. I just question different things than you do. But I forgot, that's why I'm wrong ".
Yes, people do tend to become more consevative as they get older. This mostly comes from raising a family, providing for retirement, and less willingness to take chances. That doesn't mean they give up their ideals. The hippies become the yuppies and drive BMWs. But, at heart what they believe in is still there. Being a rebel ( like being a rockstar ) is mostly a young persons game.
I imagine you only question things when they involve going against the " conservative agenda ". It's about time you got that retoric back in your face.
I'm not going to get into the abortion thing with you as I'm sure you know exactly when the fetus stops being a piece of tissue and becomes a human being. Or maybe your'e one of those " it's always potential " idiots.
We also won't talk about the other side : unwanted children and the tragic circumstances of their up bringing. Some say we in part are growing our future disfunctional members of society that way.
Oh and Spaceman this makes two of us : " I'm not all that impressed with extent to which your mind is open to what others say ".
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
I have to say i love this, "anyway one chooses" i believe that the point was the Time not the Way that they did it. You can take it out of context all you want but it was a defense against unethical political grand standing.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Rehashing points I refuted gets you nowhere.
[quote]Originally posted by Ruhx:
<strong>
He was speaking against the criticism because it had already happened. He took an Ethical stand against it. I completely agree with it, they should not have tried to sway votes when standing by the current leader was more important. Ethics.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Irrelevant. Once again, they could have political gain regardless of motive.
[quote]Originally posted by Ruhx:
<strong>
Last please stop speaking of open mindedness as if you have some handle on it. The fact that you discount things like ethics, and politicians using trying times to get elected shows you to be more closeminded in this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Naive. Everything is political.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
<strong>2. Regarding the abortion point: You, like most liberals, automatically assume that a women has the right to choose. Many conservatives (but not all, as you must know) say that women don't have this right, because it is taking the life away of sentient being. They call it murder. It isn't "taking away a woman's right to choose" to them, its preventing murder. This is the part of your post that disturbs me most, because you won't even acknowledge the debate, which is quite intense. To you, it is just "the republicans taking away a woman's right to choose".......as if we all agree that this right is inherent in nature, which not everyone does. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> The Supreme Court has given us the "right to choose." Until they rule otherwise, we have that right.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
The abortion argument is complicated, and I'm not going to get into my views on it right now, but it seems obvious you can see your side, and ONLY your side.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Poor Sport. I see your side fine. If it is so obvious then show us.
It starts off as a "Statement" to various nations (INCREDIBLY arrogant, but at least acknowledging there ARE nations outside the US) and ends up as American in-fighting. Who sez the US is self-absorbed?
Yeh, I'm trolling.
I'm hoping you didn't misunderstand that I was agreeing with you. This agenda thing is really stupid. Conservatives or liberals can be correct or not at any time. We are really talking about people. A person has an equal potential to be right or wrong at any time. Even myself.
<strong>
I wouldn't consider them non-democratic either.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> You sly bastard. The comment itself was undemocratic. The circumstances in which he said it were democratic.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
And you obviously have no real understanding of what it means to go to war.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Irrelevant.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
I suppose you and your college ass have a better understanding than I? Right. OK.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Age is irrelevant, to a point. I do not believe that point is after college.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
And I think it wasn't smart for the democrats to criticize the President on this issue.....I didn't think it would work......and it, for the most part, didn't.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair enough.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
1) I disagree that Bush drops his principles. In fact, I think he "sticks to his guns" more than any President in recent memory.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
He seems to have reversed more campaign pledges than can be counted on one hand.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
2) I am not aware of any criticism of the 1st Amend. by Vice President Cheney.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, the criticism was indirect.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
3) Your last point shows YOUR poor understanding of our laws. The separation of church and state concept was added added to the constitution to prevent the government from establishing an official religion of the state. It was NOT intended to remove religion from all public institutions. That is a common misconception. I fully support the faith-based iniatives. That program in NO WAY violates the constitution, IMO.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
In your opinion? It either violates the Constitution or does not.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
<strong>
You don't make good arguments. It's just that simple. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Do not personally attack him. If his arguments are weak, then attack them.
<strong>Heh.
It starts off as a "Statement" to various nations (INCREDIBLY arrogant, but at least acknowledging there ARE nations outside the US) and ends up as American in-fighting. Who sez the US is self-absorbed?
Yeh, I'm trolling.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Stereotype?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
You don't make good arguments. It's just that simple.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
" Do not personally attack him. If his arguments are weak, then attack them ".
It sounds like you might just make a good attorney.
No, I just happen to know many people your age that have opinions contrary to yours. You make it sound as if when I get older, or when ONE gets older, he/she will come around to your way of thinking. Bullshit. Complete bullshit.
[quote]No, I just hope you grow up. <hr></blockquote>
The implication you make that I am immature is based on nothing but the fact that we disagree. This comment has no reason to be made.
[quote]One thing you learn as you get older is that having a lot of experiences in a short period of time is not the same thing ( and can be a negative thing ). Just like anything else it takes time to put it all together. <hr></blockquote>
Agreed, though you don't really know what I am talking about speciffically, and you also don't know my age to begin with. Basing the whole argument on age is ludicrous for those two reasons.
[quote]I imagine you only question things when they involve going against the " conservative agenda ". It's about time you got that retoric back in your face. <hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> No, I question many things. The above statement is patently false. What is the conservative agenda, in your opinion? I'm sure you would say it has something to do with "taking away our rights" or "paying back big oil" or "war mongering".
[quote]Or maybe your'e one of those " it's always potential " idiots. <hr></blockquote>
Well, you are the one who brought up the abortion thing...not me. And, it was me who said that I wouldn't get into it WITH YOU. So, saying "I'm not going to get into it with you" in your next post is a fairly deceptive comment. In any case, if I was one of the people that believed that life begins at the moment of conception (and I have already said I won't divuldge my beliefs on this issue) it wouldn't make me an "idiot", it would just mean that I DISAGREE with you. Or, is that not allowed?
[quote] Conservatives or liberals can be correct or not at any time.<hr></blockquote>
Agreed, but people still have agendas and positions.
Now, Harald writes:
[quote]INCREDIBLY arrogant, but at least acknowledging there ARE nations outside the US <hr></blockquote>
My statement is not arrogant at all. You mean you disagree that certain nations hate us for our money and power? Really? I would be very surpised if that was the case. I didn't say they all did.....just SOME. If you honestly think your opinion through and still disagree, I can live with that. As far as the "at least he acknowledged other nations exist" comment.....that is just stupid. Of course I understand that we are not the only nation in the world. But, I also know that we are the most developed economically and militarily.
And, sjpsu writes:
[quote]He seems to have reversed more campaign pledges than can be counted on one hand. <hr></blockquote>
:eek: :eek: :eek:
What? Which ones? He lowered taxes, increased military spending and allocations for housing, passed education reform.....the list goes on. What promises has he broken? Do you consider a compromise a "reversal'? I don't. Remember, you said CAMPAIGN PROMISES....not "items you agree with". I can't think of one campaign promise he has broken. Please name ONE! The fact is you don't know what to do with a President that actually DOES what he SAID HE WOULD DO. Remember, Clinton said he would LOWER taxes when he got eledcted in '92.....and then passed the biggest tax increase in history. (Don't even TRY to argue that......it is a DOCUMENTED FACT).
[quote]True, the criticism was indirect. <hr></blockquote>
No, this is how YOU interpreted it. To say Cheney is "criticizing the 1st Amend. " is a bit extreme. He said he thought criticizing the President on war issues was unwise. I agree.
[quote]In your opinion? It either violates the Constitution or does not. <hr></blockquote>
What are we expressing here? Aren't we expressing our opinions? At least I haven't bought into the "get religion out" crowd's propoganda about separation of church and state. EVERYONE here is expressing an opinion....you included. And in MY OPINION the faith based iniatives are a wonderful program that DO NOT, IN ANY WAY, violate the separation of church and state.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>
Do not personally attack him. If his arguments are weak, then attack them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Umm........I'm pretty sure that is what he did, since his post was about the arguments being weak.
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>
"Do not personally attack him. If his arguments are weak, then attack them ".
It sounds like you might just make a good attorney.
Why are you addressing this to me? Jimmac was the one who called me a knucklewalker. He wasn't countering any arguments. He was just attacking me. And I was prepared to let it slide but then he started whining about close-mindedness of others. It's more than a little too much.