US Presidential Election Poll

[Praxius]

I think a guy with a white cane would have spotted her pregnancy at 250 meters......if they were trying to hide it, they were doing a very poor job....

I don't think there was any deceit at all going on, I mean they could have just not included her, and anyone sensible knows her pregnancy is going to become more and more visible......it was going to be found out, why would they hide it? And they didn't hide it.

As for her carrying her baby brother....I thought that was only sensible.....on the job training, as it were.

Funny, if they were DEms, and it was discovered their little honey had an abortion, and it was publicized, everyone would be up in arms about invasion of privacy, etc.

I would respectfully disagree on the privacy issue.... if it was a democrat or a republican in question, their own personal lives do have a factor in their principles they bring to office..... as I see it (Generally Speaking) if they say one thing, but do or live a totally different thing in their own lives, then what level of trust can be applied in their beliefs of their own principles?

If a democrat running did have an abortion, it would be just as much fair game as this situation, personally speaking.

 

[Colpy]

And her daughter ins't getting married by her own choice, and if it is by her own choice, it's misinformed and a short-sighted perspective. Coming from a family which was created through a forced marriage by the parents, which in the end failed, I know directly that getting married, just because there is a pregnancy isn't the answer, nor is it a sure fired way of making sure the child will have a good life.

On the contrary, it usually ends up with more fighting, more division and more resentment within the houshold, due to the decisions being made for them, not by them.

Why? Because it helps make the parents of the pregnant couple feel that they didn't screw up in their parenting, and passes the buck off to the minors/teenagers, who wern't given the proper education to protect themselves from their own actions in the first place.

And it wasn't just my own direct experiences, but also those through my uncles, aunts, cousins, friends and many other examples of many families ending up in divorce due to being created out of a forced marriage.... frankly, that type of system just doesn't work.

It's a balance of costs...... a cost of that child's happiness and well being at the expense of the couple's parents forcing their morals to save their own face as being good parents.

There's already a plague in the US with teen pregnancies and STD's.... and she is certainly not going to be a solution to this problem if she's brought into office.

First of all, I've got to take you to task on the "forced" bit........you can't force a marriage. I should add not now, anyway.

Secondly, every 17 year old understands how pregnancy happens, they just proceed anyway. Hormones are a powerful thing, as are an adolescent's ability to ignore possible consequences of their actions.

Other than that, I basically agree with you. Were she my child, I would be discouraging marriage.

 

[Kreskin]

I think a guy with a white cane would have spotted her pregnancy at 250 meters......if they were trying to hide it, they were doing a very poor job....

I don't think there was any deceit at all going on, I mean they could have just not included her, and anyone sensible knows her pregnancy is going to become more and more visible......it was going to be found out, why would they hide it? And they didn't hide it.

As for her carrying her baby brother....I thought that was only sensible.....on the job training, as it were.

Funny, if they were DEms, and it was discovered their little honey had an abortion, and it was publicized, everyone would be up in arms about invasion of privacy, etc.

That's right because the Republicans would be politicizing it to the end because of course they are the family values people and need to sell that to the evangelicals. But when these things happen to them it's off limits. Perhaps if they stopped trying to run other peoples personal lives in the first place it wouldn't be an issue, but they're the ones who invite the discussions and preach from the position of self-proclaimed owners of the highest morals and ethics.

 

[Praxius]

Explain something to me: How does one force a 17 year old to marry in the USA? To say nothing of the act of forcing her future husband......the entire idea of "force" is silly. The immense attention to this "issue" is stupid. Obama was perfectly correct when he discounted the entire thing as unworthy of attention.

Well logically for him it makes sense to not make something out of it, as he was the first to suggest to McCain to not bother with petty arguments in details, but focus on the important issues which affect US citizens'..... for him to focus attention on this directly, would contradict his own request to McCain.

But in regards to the whole "Force" issue in marriage, it isn't as difficult as you may think it is. Both parents of my mother and father sat down together and told them this was the "Right" thing to do, and that they had to do it. They were not only strong in their own religious beliefs, but being the late 70's, it was the thing to do at the time.

Now jump to the present day and present situation: The US is more devout to their religious beliefs more then ever before in recent times for many reasons, which I imagine both you and I can agree apon. Most in the US believe in abstinence over sexual education..... which links directly up to the sky-rocketing numbers of teen pregnancies within the US. With abstinence and pro-life, comes the same belief of getting married when you get pregnant, so that that child will have "Both a loving mother and a loving father within the houshold." ~ That's the concept, but the concept isn't absolute, and thus, many of these forced marriages usually end up in divorce. And the divorce, along with the number of years of fighting that lead up to it, are certainly not anymore healthier for the child to be brought up in, then it is for the parents to think what's best for their child and themselves, by their own decisions (Not forced on them)

And how does one force a marriage on a young couple? Well for one thing, the simple threat of disowning them and kicking them out of the family, removing of all support from the family, and casting them out of the community is a very common threat, and for a young couple who don't have many other options available to them.... losing the support of their family can be a great influence in their decisions.

And it's not that hard for a family in the spotlight and into politics to be able to influence the other family to push the guy into the marriage as well...... for one thing, lawsuits and child support threats come to play against the guy and his family..... quite simply, it is very easy to force marriages, even in todays world.... if not by physical force, certainly by hurting them in the pocket book and villianizing them in the public's eye.

Now, here is something to get your teeth into: Palin is accused in an ethics investigation. It is alledged that she fired the director of Public Safety in Alaska because he refused to fire a certain State Trooper......who had divorced Palin's sister. Now THAT deserves some attention, but is lost in the belly debate.

Idiocy!

I've heard about that as well, just a few days ago.... it certainly shows and also proves my stance on her ability to force her morals and position to get what she wants..... and to me, that's a major risk of having in presidential power.... even if that is only vice presidential power at present.

As for the Canadian election.....I see no connection......Harper thinks this is an advantageous time to go, and has stomped all over his own "principles', and the will of Parliament as expressed in law, to do so. And I'm a Conservative Party member. I'm pissed.

Fair enough.

But I'll vote CPC. There simply is no other sane choice.

The Communist Party of Canada? Hmmm.... you might be onto something there, however their chances are very slim at present. I feel the "Logical" step right now for me, is that I don't want the liberals or conservatives to have a majority at all.... and to at least balance the power a bit for all sides, is to vote in other parties which can take more thunder out of their clouds.... which would either be Green or NDP.

But I'm certainly not voting Green, and although the NDP are not all that aligned with much of what I believe (Not 100% that is) they still sound a lot better then the Green, Liberals or the Conservatives.

Perhaps once I see more of what the CPC have to offer and that they have a fighting chance, I may vote for them someday.

BTW, Harper is probably correct, the Globe and Mail today quotes polls that put him within touching distance of a majority gov't.

Damn it, I hope he gets a majority.

(sigh)

He might, but not with my vote.

All I gotta say is that if Dion get's the power..... get ready for the jokes to be flying our way from all over the globe..... more so.

 

[Praxius]

First of all, I've got to take you to task on the "forced" bit........you can't force a marriage. I should add not now, anyway.

You would be suprised. If strong faithed Muslims can do it in our countries today, without resorting to violence mind you, do you honestly believe that stronged faithed Christians can't as well?

The threat of being completely cut off from your family at a young age, when you're still trying to figure out the world and your spot in it, can be very scary and threatening.... esspecially when you maybe facing a life of taking care of a child with no family helping you, and the chance the guy may take off on you.

It does happen, it still happens, and this will continue to happen. These situations have certainly dropped a lot over the last number of decades here in Canada..... but to say this doesn't still happen, in the US of all places, I would have to disagree with.

Secondly, every 17 year old understands how pregnancy happens, they just proceed anyway. Hormones are a powerful thing, as are an adolescent's ability to ignore possible consequences of their actions.

Most of them might very well understand.... but then when you live with a family, or a community where they don't promote the use of contraceptives and condoms, and rather then educate their children on what to do and perhaps not do, they just tell them not to do it at all, and hope for the best..... it's not suprising that teen pregnancies are so high within the US.

To me, that spells a failed practice and needs to change. I seriously don't believe all these teens actually wanted to have kids. Teenagers will listen and feel their own hormones and needs..... and to them it may seem natural to have sex like everybody else is doing..... but if they're not getting the proper education, and follow everything they see on TV, the movies or the internet, then this is going to happen.

Then their parents get all pissy and angry that their child had sex before marriage as they hoped they wouldn't, and then tell them they're disapointed in them, very angry in fact, and then tell them that they must now accept their responsibilities and get married, or face disowning.... this does still happen, esspecially in the stronger faithed families.

Other than that, I basically agree with you. Were she my child, I would be discouraging marriage.

Agreed.... my sister just had triplets less then a year ago, and is living with her boyfriend now, not married, and it was a very big issue for a short period of time, as the family tried to do the same thing they did to our own parents..... but it was quickly ended once it was thrown in their faces of how not just our parents' marriage failed, but others in our family who's marriage failed due to being forced into marriage of people they wern't actually prepared to be married to.

Another reason why our family is more accepting these days, is that nobody in my or my sister's generation in the family had any children yet. My grandmother on one side passed away, my grandfather on the other passed away, and the remaining grandparents are not getting any healthier, we're all hitting our 30's now...... and quite honestly, they're just happy to know they a new generation is finally coming into the family.

My grandfather (who was one of the ones who forced my parents into marriage when my sister was coming) wasn't impressed by the situation, that's for sure..... but now it seems it doesn't bother him now.... he's got three great grandchildren he can play with and help bring up.... and he seen what we all went through during my parents marriage and divorce..... I believe they learned that forced marriages are not a sure fired way of making sure the child has a happy childhood.

^ Just figured I would explain where I am coming from with my position and why I feel her daughter was forced into the marrying. I'm sure within another 5 years or so, we'll truly find out the details from the daughter in question.

 

[earth_as_one]

First off, don't you ever use the words Hitler and my wife in the same sentence again ... you don't know di*k about American politics (you ain't even American), stay outta my wife's business!

Back to the topic here. They don't call McCain a maverick for nothin. Here's why ...

- in 2000, he called religious leaders "agents of intolerance". Now he's trying to reconcile in an attempt to get their votes.

- in 2005 McCain opposed a Federal Gay marriage ban, contrary to the views of most Americans. Now he's flip flopped pretending to oppose gay marriage.

- In 1999, in the San Francisco Chronicle (8/20/1999), McCain sided with the pro-abortion camp, suggesting that overturning Row vs Wade would lead to illegal abortions. Now he's flipped flopped pretending to be pro-life to try and get the Conservative vote.

- While in congress he passed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, where he poses blatant restrictions on political speech in an attempt to silence Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, two well respected conservative radio talk show hosts.

- His views on immigration are also to the left. Actually, further left than even some liberals. He supports amnesty for illegals most of who committed misindeamor crimes by being in the US illegally, some even committed felony crimes by stealing social security numbers and other personaly ID data from US citizens. Supporting amnesty for criminals ... you can't get no further left unless you fall off the scale.


Because of McCain's past views, there are many Republicans (my wife included) who will sit out this election and simply not vote rather than voting for a Democrat in disguise. Although I do applaud him in his patriotism and his heroic service to his country, no one can take that away from him. Summing up, the Republicans will lose the election and all because they picked a leader who's views are not in tune with American conservatives.

Now I understand your viewpoint. You believe whether a candidate supports an unjustified war of aggression, isn't as important as other issues. I disagree.

Starting an unprovoked war which prematurely ended the lives of more than a million Iraqi men, women and children isn't as big an issue to you as prematurely ending the life of an embryo.

Your right to free speech includes the right of people with money to buy elections, and the right of the pseudo-news infotainment industry to manipulate elections.

You believe that anyone who disagrees with you supports criminal activity.

You disagree with giving all consenting adults (regardless of sexual orientation), the freedom to choose who they love as well as the same rights and benefits. You believe this issue is more important than the issue of starting an unprovoked war which has slaughtered more than a million of innocent people.

A very wise man once said "judge a tree by the fruit that it bears." What fruit has the American government borne over the last 8 years?

The US has grown weaker and its adversaries stronger as a direct result of an unprovoked war of aggression which was originally justified by misinformation, blatant lies and propaganda based on hate and fear. (Found any WMDs in Iraq yet? Did Hussein have any involvement in the events of 9/11? Do most Americans hate and fear Muslims?) Most Americans have grown poorer and many have either lost their homes or a significant value of their homes, meanwhile America's wealthy elite upper class has grown wealthier. At the rate the previous administration was paying off the US debt, it would nearly be gone by now. Instead tax breaks for the extremely wealthy and corporations combined with a senseless war have driven your country to the brink of bankruptcy. Thanks to people like Limbaugh and O'Reilly, millions of Americans are motivated by hate and fear rather than love and compassion. The US government unofficially spies on its citizens without judicial oversight while officially it abducts and tortures people.

How would that wise man judge America's leaders?

I know nothing about you or your wife beyond what you posted. Obviously neither of you think highly of Hitler. But Hitler used to be a popular fellow. Originally he was democratically elected. The propaganda wing of the Nazi party manipulated people by the same type of irrational fear and hate propaganda which caused a slim majority of Americans to vote for Bush. I doubt you or your wife will be any different than the millions of Germans who only saw Hitler clearly for what he was in hindsite.

I hope a majority of Americans will recognize this election as an opportunity to reverse the ongoing slide of their great nation toward a totalitarian state before they vote.

 

[talloola]

I think a guy with a white cane would have spotted her pregnancy at 250 meters......if they were trying to hide it, they were doing a very poor job....

I don't think there was any deceit at all going on, I mean they could have just not included her, and anyone sensible knows her pregnancy is going to become more and more visible......it was going to be found out, why would they hide it? And they didn't hide it.

As for her carrying her baby brother....I thought that was only sensible.....on the job training, as it were.

All of that explaination sounds just fine, if they were 'regular' people like you and I,
but, now they aren't and they have to deal with the media and others.

Funny, if they were DEms, and it was discovered their little honey had an abortion, and it was publicized, everyone would be up in arms about invasion of privacy, etc.

If, what is happening right now, was a dem. there would be holy hell to pay, and
probably the end of the success for Obama, as the right wing religious would play
it up for months, and the rest of the republicans would sit back and smile.

 

[earth_as_one]

Tell me you are joking.

By conservative estimates Saddam murdered at least 300,000 of his own people.

No I'm not joking. Most of Hussein's atrocities had been committed during the 1980s and early 1990s. At the time of the invasion, Iraq was more or less peaceful even if Iraqis were oppressed. My source is the US State department. They don't even attribute any deaths to Hussein from 2002 until the start of the war in 2003.

Here is the US State Department's fact sheet

Fact Sheet
Office of the White House Press Secretary
Washington, DC
April 4, 2003


Life Under Saddam Hussein: Past Repression and Atrocities by Saddam Hussein's Regime


For over 20 years, the greatest threat to Iraqis has been Saddam Hussein's regime -- he has killed, tortured, raped, and terrorized the Iraqi people and his neighbors for over two decades.

When Iraq is free, past crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against Iraqis, will be accounted for, in a post-conflict Iraqi-led process. The United States, members of the coalition, and the international community will work with the Iraqi people to build a strong and credible judicial process to address these abuses.

Under Saddam's regime many hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of his actions, the vast majority of them Muslims. According to a 2001 Amnesty International report, "victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings, and electric shocks ... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."

Saddam has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered. Allegations of prostitution are used to intimidate opponents of the regime and have been used by the regime to justify the barbaric beheading of women. There have been documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulting in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

Iraq's 13 million Shi'a Muslims, the majority of Iraq's population of approximately 22 million, face severe restrictions on their religious practice, including a ban on communal Friday prayer, and restriction on funeral processions.

According to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south." Refugees International reports that:

"Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis, primarily Kurds who have fled to the north to escape Saddam Hussein's Arabization campaigns (which involve forcing Kurds to renounce their Kurdish identity or lose their property) and Marsh Arabs, who fled the government's campaign to dry up the southern marshes for agricultural use. More than 200,000 Iraqis continue to live as refugees in Iran."

In 2002, the U.S. Committee for Refugees estimated that nearly 100,000 Kurds, Assyrians, and Turkomans had previously been expelled, by the regime, from the "central-government-controlled Kirkuk and surrounding districts in the oil-rich region bordering the Kurdish controlled north."

"Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 27, 2003) Under the oil-for-food program, the international community sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine, but the regime blocked sufficient access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies. Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces.

The Iraqi regime has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors. From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the UN Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq. The UN Special Rapporteur's September 2001, report criticized the regime for "the sheer number of executions," the number of "extrajudicial executions on political grounds," and "the absence of a due process of the law."

Saddam Hussein's regime has carried out frequent summary executions, including:

4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984;

3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998;

2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign;"

122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000;

23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001; and

At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001.


http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm

Colpy, your misperception of what was going on in Iraq before the US led invasion is a result of pro-war hate and fear propaganda, not accurate information. Your perceptions have been manipulated.

During the decade preceding the US led invasion, the biggest problem in Iraq was death by disease and malntrition caused by crippling economic sanctions. The point of the economic sanctions which caused all these deaths was to force Iraq to give up its WMDs. The economic sanctions were supposed to be lifted when Iraq no longer posed a WMD threat. We know that at the time the US invaded Iraq, Iraq no longer possessed WMDs. The US and its allies on the UN Security Council refused to lift the sanctions long after it was well known tthat Iraq no longer posed a significant WMD threat. Every time Iraq came close to meeting the conditions for lifting the sanctions, the US would add new conditions. In the end the US required Iraq prove the non-existance of its WMDs programs before it would allow the sanctions to be lifted. Proving the non-existance of anything is a logical impossibility. By 1998, UNSCOM more or less knew Iraq was no longer a significant WMD threat.. But UNSCOM couldn't say they knew for certain they had found everything, despite Iraq's cooperation. By 1998, Iraq realized the US would veto any UNSC motion to lift the sanctions regardless of how much they cooperated, and that UNSCOM had stopped looking for WMDs and had become a front for US spy operations on Iraq's legal defense systems.

Here is a direct quote by the UNSCOM chief Richard Butler

August 6, 1998
On Monday, Iraq declared that it would no longer allow U.N. arms inspectors to conduct searches for weapons of mass destruction.

TARIQ AZIZ, Deputy Prime Minister, Iraq: UNSCOM is back to its old games, to its old tricks, games of confusing the major issues and the minor issues, since this is the wish of the American administration to perpetuate the situation, to prolong the current situation, to keep the sanctions on the people of Iraq. As long as this is the American wish, you are serving the American policy.

AMBASSADOR RICHARD BUTLER: It's a slightly weird thing, because, as I said, we're doing quite well in missile and chemical. I mean, we were getting there. If this was a five-lap race, you know, we were halfway into the fifth lap. Why stop the race when you're getting towards the finishing line? I don't know.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/butler_8-6a.html

The reason why Iraq stopped cooperating is that the race had no finish line. As soon as Iraq got close to a finish line the US would move the finish line and threaten to veto any attempt to lift the sanctions. By 1998 Iraq realized that UNSCOM had stopped looking for WMDs and had become a front for spying operations on Iraq's legal defense systems.

BBC
Tuesday, March 23, 1999 Published at 03:18 GMT

World: Middle East
Unscom 'infiltrated by spies'
UN inspectors at work in Iraq in March last year
Unscom, the now-defunct UN weapons inspection programme in Iraq, was "infiltrated and fatally compromised" by the American and British intelligence agencies - according to a report by the BBC's Panorama programme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/301168.stm

Since the invasion, Iraq has become a far more dangerous place. Sure Hussein was a tyrant who executed anyone who opposed him, including relatives. Hussein approved torture and summary executions. But the invasion and occupation changed nothing except perhaps scale. People are still arrested without warrants, held in torture facilities where they are subjected to water boarding, sleep deprivation, mind altering drugs, shackled in painful positions... We've all seen pictures of detainees being attacked by dogs, sexually humiliated and beaten to death. I doubt that has stopped.

The chemical attacks committed by the Hussein regime occurred back in the 1980's when the US supported Iraq. All nations knew the Hussein regime was using chemical weapons in its war with Iran and to crush civil revolts. Most of the civilized world stopped doing business Iraq. The US response to Iraq's use of chemical weapons was to increase aid and support in order to compensate for the loss of support from other countries. Initially the US tried to blame Iran for chemical warfare attacks on Iraqi civilians. During the time Iraq used chemical weapons, the US provided Iraq intel and battle planning assistance which helped Iraq use chemical weapons more effectively.

New York Times

Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas

By Patrick E. Tyler, New York Times, 18 August 2002
WASHINGTON, Aug. 17—A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program...
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/220.html

also Common Dreams
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0818-02.htm

Iraq never even tossed out UNSCOM. The US warned them to leave before they bombed Iraq in 1998 using intel about Iraq legal defense system gathered by UNSCOM. Understandably, Iraq just refused to allow them to come back and abuse their mandate.

The Bush regime claimed Hussein murdered hundreds of thousands of people because he started unprovoked wars and crushed civil revolts mercilessly. By that same definition of murder, the Bush regime has murdered over a million Iraqis.

Hussein brutal assaults on his people did create massive refugee problems in Iraq in the 1980s and early 1990s. By 2002 most of those people had either returned home or resettled elsewhere. Today, the Iraqi refugee situation is far bigger than the all the ones created by Hussein combined. As many as 1 in 5 Iraqis or about 5 million have been made refugees since the US led invasion.

Hussein was a tyrant and I have no sympthy for him. But unlike Americans, I've been against Hussein since he first took power and murdered his opponents. But I was against starting a war to remove Hussein because I felt it wouldn't be worth the inevitable cost in human life and misery.

By nearly every measure, the Bush regime has perpetrated worse atrocities on the Iraqi people than Hussein. I have no problem with the US state department's definition of murder. If a leader starts an unprovoked war of agression, they are responsible for all resulting deaths. Hussein's reasons for starting wars with Iran and Kuwait weren't that different Bush's reason for starting a war with Iraq. They both started unprovoked wars of aggression. As a result both leaders are personally responsible for the resulting carnage.

Back on topic: McCain has supported every atrocity committed by the Bush regime except torture. I have no doubt that if McCain is elected, the US will continue to be a rogue nation above international law.

 

[earth_as_one]

What a lot of cheap shots against McCain's VP pick. Everyone has personal problems. She can't be held responsible for the actions of her daughter. Her action was to unconditionally love her daughter and support her pregnancy. She has stayed true to her beliefs. People may disagree with Palin's viewpoint, but she's no hypocrite.

 

[Kreskin]

What a lot of cheap shots against McCain's VP pick. Everyone has personal problems. She can't be held responsible for the actions of her daughter. Her action was to unconditionally love her daughter and support her pregnancy. She has stayed true to her beliefs. People may disagree with Palin's viewpoint, but she's no hypocrite.

I'll give them the opportunity to not parade family values around this convention. If they don't I'll stay quiet. It's not like Republicans are the only ones not to have abortions or give birth to down syndrome kids. If they use her personal situation for political brownie points I'll be back to take swings from the cheap seats.

 

[Praxius]

What a lot of cheap shots against McCain's VP pick. Everyone has personal problems. She can't be held responsible for the actions of her daughter.

What are you silly? She's her mother, she's only 17, which means she is still legally responsible for the safety, education and well being of her daughter..... if she was a decent mother who taught her children properly, then this situation wouldn't be an issue, because this situation wouldn't exist in the first place.

Cheap Shots? That's our right, moreso the right of Americans, but as it goes for freedom of speech, we have the right too.

Everyone has personal problems? Yeah, Clinton got hasseled over getting a blowjob, he got hasseled over possibly smoking weed when he was younger..... Bush got hasseled over his Cocaine habbit...... when you are running for leader of a country, it's all fair play and open season.

Her action was to unconditionally love her daughter and support her pregnancy.

By forcing her daughter to marry to better serve her political agenda? And don't tell me that her daughter jumped at the idea of getting married at the age of 17, let alone getting pregnant, while her mom was all hunky-dorey about it. Based on her beliefs, her daughter shouldn't be marrying so young.... at the same time, she shouldn't be having sex until she is married...... at the same time, she believes one shouldn't raise a child unless within a married relationship.... now that she's pregnant..... you're gonna tell me that a 17 year old (Even by Canadian Standards) would be ready to jump on the idea of getting married? You're going to tell me straight out that she had nothing to do with influencing her decision to get married?

Tell me the logical reasons why a 17 year old girl would simply jump at the idea of getting married at such a young age, except to meet some religious obligation already placed on her by her parents and surrounding community, and to help support her mother's own selfish objectives of getting into the White House without contradicting her beliefs to her actions?

She has stayed true to her beliefs. People may disagree with Palin's viewpoint, but she's no hypocrite.

We'll see soon enough.

 

[thomaska]

If Palin's daughter having a baby is the biggest gun the Dems can pull, they oughta just go home now and write this election off.

What a bunch of clowns.

 

[thomaska]

What are you silly? She's her mother, she's only 17, which means she is still legally responsible for the safety, education and well being of her daughter..... if she was a decent mother who taught her children properly, then this situation wouldn't be an issue, because this situation wouldn't exist in the first place.

Cheap Shots? That's our right, moreso the right of Americans, but as it goes for freedom of speech, we have the right too.

Everyone has personal problems? Yeah, Clinton got hasseled over getting a blowjob, he got hasseled over possibly smoking weed when he was younger..... Bush got hasseled over his Cocaine habbit...... when you are running for leader of a country, it's all fair play and open season.



By forcing her daughter to marry to better serve her political agenda? And don't tell me that her daughter jumped at the idea of getting married at the age of 17, let alone getting pregnant, while her mom was all hunky-dorey about it. Based on her beliefs, her daughter shouldn't be marrying so young.... at the same time, she shouldn't be having sex until she is married...... at the same time, she believes one shouldn't raise a child unless within a married relationship.... now that she's pregnant..... you're gonna tell me that a 17 year old (Even by Canadian Standards) would be ready to jump on the idea of getting married? You're going to tell me straight out that she had nothing to do with influencing her decision to get married?

Tell me the logical reasons why a 17 year old girl would simply jump at the idea of getting married at such a young age, except to meet some religious obligation already placed on her by her parents and surrounding community, and to help support her mother's own selfish objectives of getting into the White House without contradicting her beliefs to her actions?



We'll see soon enough.

And what happens when the two stay married to each other for 50 years?

Expect any apologies to come from the left?

Don't hold your breath.

I just don't get the left...they'll fight tooth and nail for someone to be able to marry their aardvark, (because there nothing wrong with that at all:roll...but breeders getting married just drives them batty...

 

[lone wolf]

If Palin's daughter having a baby is the biggest gun the Dems can pull, they oughta just go home now and write this election off.

What a bunch of clowns.

Do you read? The press dug up the pregnancy thing. Obama said it's a family matter. That's about as Dem as it gets....

 

[Scott Free]

I don't even see what the issue is... so she's pregnant? What does that have to do with anything? I would think the bigger issue is that McCain is obviously going senile and may even be in the early stages of Parkinson disease.

I'm afraid this is one of those grey areas where I don't understand American culture. I suspect Americans react to these stories "moral" dilemmas as a reaction from their puritan past where finger pointing was all the rage (that and burning witches).

 

[Praxius]

And what happens when the two stay married to each other for 50 years?

Based on previously existing statistics of young marriages, that's a very long stretch.... but I suppose anything can be possible.

Expect any apologies to come from the left?

Don't hold your breath.

Who needs to apologize over what? Pointing out potiential hypocracy and someone who's a control freak? What about that prime example of her back in Alaska trying to fire that trooper?

Here's a bit of info on that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

"....On July 11, 2008 Palin dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, citing performance-related issues. She instead offered him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he turned down. Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, an Alaska State Trooper whom the Palin family claimed to have made a death threat against Palin's father, among other alleged misconduct and family disagreements. A dispute arose over whether contacts made by Palin's staff and family constituted inappropriate pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten.

Initially, Palin denied that there had been any pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten, either from her or from anyone else in her administration. Then, after she had her Attorney General's office conduct an internal investigation, Palin stated that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff about two dozen times regarding Wooten, including many contacts from her chief of staff, and Palin also stated that most of those calls were made without her knowledge."

Yeah, BS..... I hear a lot of this crap of "Oh, my entire office and administration did this, but I wasn't involved in anyway, nor did I have any knowlege." ~ Nice scape goat if you ask me. I'm pretty sure her staff wasn't in the mood to be taking all these actions on their own whom have no direct connection or relation to the situation in question unless they were ordered to.

Smells a lot like an administration many in the world are already sick of.... which has no concept of accepting responsibilty of their own actions. And if she has the gull to flex her authority like this in her job, I can almost asure that she'd be doing the same thing in her personal life.

Public image is the important thing don't forget..... if you can control your public image, then you control the opinions towards you. And if you screw up and people see you attempting to control your image, then that makes you look like a corrupt, two-faced liar if you ask me.... and since they already had 8 years of that in the US, wtf, if they have any brains, would they allow themselves to go through that again?

Just because she can dress up all pretty and shoot a gun? Sorry, but you need better reasons then that.... geez, I already lost trust in her before she even started..... and I always give someone at least one chance to make an impression.

I just don't get the left...they'll fight tooth and nail for someone to be able to marry their aardvark, (because there nothing wrong with that at all:roll...but breeders getting married just drives them batty...

1st, nobody said anything in regards to aardvarks or any other animal..... and 2nd, you're talking about minors getting married, for what I can see, as political reasons to support her mother's career.

She wouldn't have a shot in hell if her daughter went to the media and said "I don't know wtf she's smoking, but I ain't getting married yet." ~ Her mothers position in the public as being a good mother would be thrown right out the window.

The only teenagers I have ever heard speak about wanting to get married are the ones who are completely ignorant on the responsibilities of marriage, and think it'll all be some pricess magical land of fun-believe, who then end up divorced months later.

How many times has Britney been married? How long did each of those last? True, she was older in her examples, but just about as dimwitted.

There's way too many children doing way too many dumb things in their lives, and lack of education and resources to help them make the right decisions are what I see as the problem..... if she gets into office, I see it getting even worse. Bush already has ruined the education of young americans, completely ruined the funding towards sexual education, and has forced his own religious beliefs onto everybody in the country, Christian and non..... it'll just be more of the same with her in office, the statistics will rise in teen pregnancies, the resources still won't be there for them, and their education will still be toast......

.... oh, and her adding creationism to the school's daily lessons sure as hell ain't gonna help this problem.

Then again, maybe that's their solution to filling in the Baby Boom gap..... make your children dumb, make them into "Breeders" as you put it, and they can fill in those extra holes in employment, all the while they continue to be paid less and less, sent into poverty, and so long as people like her remain rich and there's lower and middle-class monkies doing all the hard work, who cares what happens to their children? So long as they get to be put on high pedistals of sucess at the hands of their children's future.... who cares right?

It's all about their "Legacy" don't forget.

 

[no color]

Now I understand your viewpoint. You believe whether a candidate supports an unjustified war of aggression, isn't as important as other issues. I disagree.

First off there is no unjustified war of aggression. The issue here is supporting our brave troops who sacrifice their lives so we may have our freedom. We are also not at war against the Iraqi people, we are at war against terrorists. We are also winning the war in Iraq. The Iraqi people appreciate us ridding their country of a ruthless dictator and now we have the upper hand on the terrorists thanks to the recent surge by the US forces.

Starting an unprovoked war which prematurely ended the lives of more than a million Iraqi men, women and children isn't as big an issue to you as prematurely ending the life of an embryo.

This so called unprovoked war of yours has enabled us to capture and/or kill thousands of Al Qaeda terrorists operating in Iraq, resulting in us getting the upper hand. In regards to your comments about the life of the unborn, the unborn cannot defend itself and is therefore the most vunerable and innocent in our society. We need to do all we can to protect it's rights.

Your right to free speech includes the right of people with money to buy elections, and the right of the pseudo-news infotainment industry to manipulate elections.

I've never indicated supporting any election buying scheme of any kind in any of my posts.

You believe that anyone who disagrees with you supports criminal activity.

Unlike yourself, I believe that the laws are there to be respected by everyone, and that includes the illegals who are living within the US. The mere fact that they are there illegally makes them criminals, it's not just my views, but simply the law. Those who also commit felony related crimes such as identity theft (ie stealing personal information like social security numbers) should be sent to prison and serve hard time.

You disagree with giving all consenting adults (regardless of sexual orientation), the freedom to choose who they love as well as the same rights and benefits. You believe this issue is more important than the issue of starting an unprovoked war which has slaughtered more than a million of innocent people.

I believe in the traditional definition of marriage which is a union between a man and a woman. If we want to marginalize marriage as a second class institution, then by all means why don't we also legalize polygamy. Why is gay marriage ok and not polygamy? Many folks in Utah would be glad to legally practice polygamy.

A very wise man once said "judge a tree by the fruit that it bears." What fruit has the American government borne over the last 8 years?

After 9/11, it has further protected the American people, and prevented any additional attacks on US soil by going after the terrorists who started the war as well as initiating major changes in national security policies. The Republican government has also initiated a missile defense program that will help protect the United States and its allies from potential attacks by terrorists and rogue nations. The government has also lowered taxes for American people. It initiated three major tax cuts, including the largest in the past two decades.

The US has grown weaker and its adversaries stronger as a direct result of an unprovoked war of aggression which was originally justified by misinformation, blatant lies and propaganda based on hate and fear. (Found any WMDs in Iraq yet? Did Hussein have any involvement in the events of 9/11? Do most Americans hate and fear Muslims?) Most Americans have grown poorer and many have either lost their homes or a significant value of their homes, meanwhile America's wealthy elite upper class has grown wealthier. At the rate the previous administration was paying off the US debt, it would nearly be gone by now. Instead tax breaks for the extremely wealthy and corporations combined with a senseless war have driven your country to the brink of bankruptcy. Thanks to people like Limbaugh and O'Reilly, millions of Americans are motivated by hate and fear rather than love and compassion. The US government unofficially spies on its citizens without judicial oversight while officially it abducts and tortures people.

Recessions occur. They did in the past (early 1990's) and will surely again in the future.

How would that wise man judge America's leaders?

As the most powerful leaders in the world.

I know nothing about you or your wife beyond what you posted. Obviously neither of you think highly of Hitler. But Hitler used to be a popular fellow. Originally he was democratically elected. The propaganda wing of the Nazi party manipulated people by the same type of irrational fear and hate propaganda which caused a slim majority of Americans to vote for Bush. I doubt you or your wife will be any different than the millions of Germans who only saw Hitler clearly for what he was in hindsite.

Folks who vote Republican do so for the same reason as folks in Canada vote for the CPC, shared values. Nothing to do with the silly propaganda you've stated above.

I hope a majority of Americans will recognize this election as an opportunity to reverse the ongoing slide of their great nation toward a totalitarian state before they vote.

Americans are free to vote as they please. Living in a free country entiles you to vote for any party you wish.

 

[talloola]

This so called unprovoked war of yours has enabled us to capture and/or kill thousands of Al Qaeda terrorists operating in Iraq, resulting in us getting the upper hand. In regards to your comments about the life of the unborn, the unborn cannot defend itself and is therefore the most vunerable and innocent in our society. We need to do all we can to protect it's rights.
There was NO al Quaeda terrorists in Iraq when the u.s. attacked that country.











I believe in the traditional definition of marriage which is a union between a man and a woman. If we want to marginalize marriage as a second class institution, then by all means why don't we also legalize polygamy. Why is gay marriage ok and not polygamy? Many folks in Utah would be glad to legally practice polygamy.
You just stated above that definition of marriage is a union between A man and A woman, not men and women.




After 9/11, it has further protected the American people, and prevented any additional attacks on US soil by going after the terrorists who started the war as well as initiating major changes in national security policies. The Republican government has also initiated a missile defense program that will help protect the United States and its allies from potential attacks by terrorists and rogue nations. The government has also lowered taxes for American people. It initiated three major tax cuts, including the largest in the past two decades.
Obama will not raise taxes on the middle class, only on the wealthy, who can afford to
help out a little more, for the sake of everyone else.














Folks who vote Republican do so for the same reason as folks in Canada vote for the CPC, shared values. Nothing to do with the silly propaganda you've stated above.

Shared values my 'foot'.

 

[earth_as_one]

First off there is no unjustified war of aggression. The issue here is supporting our brave troops who sacrifice their lives so we may have our freedom. We are also not at war against the Iraqi people, we are at war against terrorists. We are also winning the war in Iraq. The Iraqi people appreciate us ridding their country of a ruthless dictator and now we have the upper hand on the terrorists thanks to the recent surge by the US forces.

eao: Unless you can prove Iraq attacked or threatened to the US, the US led invasion/occupation was an unprovoked war of agression.

In case you forgot, the justifications the Bush administration gave for invading and occupying Iraq have been thoroughly discredited. Iraq did not possess WMDs in 2003. Iraq had nothing to do with the events of 9/11. Even the post invasion justifications are complete fabrications. The Iraqi people are not safer as a result of the invasion. A clear majority of Iraqis view the US troops in Iraq as occupiers, rather than liberators. That's why a majority of them support attacks against Americans. What you label as terrorism, a majority of Iraqis call justified insurgent resistance to foreign occupation.

I'm sure most Iraqis are happy to see Hussein gone, but they support the presence of US forces to the same degree that the French supported Nazi occupation. With the exception of the Kurds, most Iraqis never wanted the US to invade and occupy their country and they would like the US to leave. Even the ones who support the US staying in the short term, do so not because they like the US. They are being pragmatic. If the US left, the power vacuum would lead to same anarchy which followed the US defeat of Hussein.

2004 Iraqi public opinion poll:

More Iraq Hawk Myths Bite the Dust

by Ted Galen Carpenter

Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy. He is also the author or editor of 15 books on international affairs.

This article appeared on cato.org on May 18, 2004.

A new, extensive survey of Iraqi public opinion conducted by Gallup and other groups discredits numerous cherished beliefs that hawks have held about Iraq. For months, the Bush administration and its supporters have argued that there is a silent majority of Iraqis who regard coalition forces as liberators, want those forces to stay for a prolonged period, oppose insurgent attacks on coalition troops, and are enthusiastic about creating a Western-style democracy for their country. The poll results contradict every one of those assumptions.

Take the question of whether Iraqis regard U.S. and allied forces as liberators or occupiers. Only 19 percent of respondents consider them liberators. The results are even more dismal when sentiment in the Kurdish region is excluded. Ninety-seven percent of Kurds view those forces as liberators. In the Sunni and Shiite regions that sentiment is 10 percent and 7 percent, respectively.

The belief that U.S. troops are occupiers rather than liberators has grown steadily, but it is not a new phenomenon. When asked how they had viewed coalition troops at the time of the invasion, 43 percent indicated that they had seen them as occupiers-the same percentage that regarded them as liberators. That result debunks the myth that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis welcomed the invasion. Even at the earliest stage of the mission, Iraqi opinion was sharply divided about the desirability of the U.S.-led intervention.

The poll results also belie the notion that a majority of Iraqis want U.S. and British troops to stay on for an extended period. Instead, 57 percent want those troops to leave "immediately." Again, the contrast between the opinion of Kurds and Arabs is striking. Only 3 percent of Kurds want the forces to depart immediately. In the Shiite areas, the sentiment is 61 percent and in the Sunni areas it is 65 percent. (And in Baghdad it is a stunning 75 percent).

Even more discouraging, support for armed attacks on coalition forces is not confined to a tiny minority of extremists as the Bush administration has insisted. Twenty-two percent of respondents stated that attacks were justified "sometimes," and another 29 percent endorsed attacks without any qualification.

Nor is there any indication of a vast reservoir of support for democracy. Only 40 percent advocate the creation of a multiparty parliamentary democracy for Iraq. The rest advocate systems ranging from the traditional "Islamic concept of mutual consultation," to a conservative Islamic kingdom like Saudi Arabia, to an Islamic theocracy like Iran. Once again, strong support for democracy in the Kurdish north contrasts with anemic support in the Sunni and Shiite regions (31 percent and 27 percent respectively.)

Finally, overall attitudes toward the United States and the Coalition Provisional Authority are extremely negative. Only 27 percent have a favorable opinion of the CPA, and just 23 percent have a favorable opinion of the United States.

It is evident that U.S. policy in Iraq has been based on faulty assumptions about Iraqi attitudes. There is no silent majority of pro-American Iraqis. Instead, most Iraqis regard the U.S.-led mission as an occupation, not a liberation, and they want that occupation to end immediately. A majority of Iraqis endorse attacks on coalition forces, at least under some circumstances, and they do not want a Western-style democracy for their country....

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2655

Americans are seldom informed about the results of Iraqi opinion polls. When they are, its usually selective bits of misinformation for the purpose of creating the misperceptions like yours. But Americans have a right to know how Iraqis percieve them:

January 5 / 6, 2008

What Would a Withdrawal Mean?
The US Occupation and Popular Opinion in Iraq
By KEVIN YOUNG

...Iraqi public opinion polls, when they even make it into the newspapers, are accorded astoundingly little weight. Instead, most US politicians and analysts repeat vague slogans about how "Iraqis need us" and how "we'll leave when they ask us to."

A brief look at Iraqi attitudes toward the occupation reveals why mainstream commentators in this country opt for such ambiguity rather than dealing with the polls themselves: Iraqis have consistently stated that the occupation is a destabilizing force in their country, that the situation would improve after a US withdrawal, and that the US has ulterior motives for staying in Iraq.

Over the last four years, and in polls from a wide range of sources, Iraqis have been especially unequivocal on one point: that the US military occupation of their country produces more violence than it prevents. A May 2004 poll sponsored by the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority found that roughly 80 percent of Iraqis had "no confidence" in US-led forces to improve security and that most "would feel safer if Coalition forces left immediately."...

...Iraqis overwhelming believe that the continued occupation is an impediment to peace, and indeed, that it continues to create violence rather than quelling it. Among Iraqis the most generous view of the US presence is that it continually fails to improve security in Iraq-even after nearly a year of the much-vaunted "surge."

With similar consistency, Iraqis have voiced strong opposition to the presence of occupation forces. In August 2005, 82 percent were "strongly opposed" to the occupation; in January 2006, 87 percent favored a timeline for withdrawal; a year later, in September 2006, 71 percent wanted a full withdrawal by mid-2007.

Although these figures fluctuate somewhat, the March 2007 poll commissioned by US, British, and German news corporations presents a clearer picture of rising Iraqi opposition to the occupation over time. This poll found that 78 percent of Iraqis "strongly" or "somewhat" opposed the occupation, and then compares this finding to answers to the same question from February 2004 and November 2005. At the start of 2004, nearly one year after the invasion, 51 percent of Iraqis "strongly" or "somewhat" opposed the occupation; 21 months later, that figure had risen to 65 percent; by March 2007, it had climbed again to 78 percent. By August 2007, the percentage "strongly" or "somewhat" opposed to the occupation had stayed more or less the same, increasing slightly to 79 percent.

This progressive rise in popular hostility toward the US-led occupation is confirmed by another crucial statistic: the percentages of Iraqis who approve of insurgent attacks on occupation forces. In January 2006, 47 percent approved of such attacks; by September 2006, the figure had risen to 61 percent; in August 2007, 57 percent continued to approve of such attacks, including 93 percent of Sunnis....

http://www.counterpunch.org/young01052008.html

A majority of Iraqis support the people you label "terrorists", not the US led occupation forces. The majority Iraqi viewpoint is that US led forces which have killed over one million Iraqis are "terrorists".




This so called unprovoked war of yours has enabled us to capture and/or kill thousands of Al Qaeda terrorists operating in Iraq, resulting in us getting the upper hand. In regards to your comments about the life of the unborn, the unborn cannot defend itself and is therefore the most vunerable and innocent in our society. We need to do all we can to protect it's rights.

eao: Most of the people the US has captured/killed in Iraq are Iraqis. Most of the people killing Americans in Iraq are Iraqis. Did you ever consider that your government/news is about as honest about the situation in Iraq now as they were when they claimed Iraq possessed WMDs and links to al Queda? You were lied to then and you are being lied to know.

My point about abortion is that innocent civilians have at least as much right to life as a fetus.


I've never indicated supporting any election buying scheme of any kind in any of my posts.

eao: The point of the law you oppose was to reduce the ability of wealthy people and the psuedo-news infotainment industry to manipulate elections.


Unlike yourself, I believe that the laws are there to be respected by everyone, and that includes the illegals who are living within the US. The mere fact that they are there illegally makes them criminals, it's not just my views, but simply the law. Those who also commit felony related crimes such as identity theft (ie stealing personal information like social security numbers) should be sent to prison and serve hard time.

Unlike me? I have never advocated breaking the law. I advocate changing medieval laws which oppress people and create injustice based on sexualty. These laws, like the ones which oppressed and enslaved people based on race and skin color, have no place in a just and tolerant society. If people don't speak out against oppression and injustice, slavery would still be legal.




I believe in the traditional definition of marriage which is a union between a man and a woman. If we want to marginalize marriage as a second class institution, then by all means why don't we also legalize polygamy. Why is gay marriage ok and not polygamy? Many folks in Utah would be glad to legally practice polygamy.

eao: Good for you. No one is forcing you into a homosexual or polygamous relationship against your will. I defend your right to free choice regarding your sexuality. I fully support the right of consenting adults to choose who they love. I support giving everyone who pays into a pension plan the freedom to determine who gets their survivor benefits. I support the right of parents to have custody of their children, even if they are homosexuals. If consenting adults choose by their own free will to live in polygamous or polyandrous relationships, I consider that to be their business, not mine. Do we truly live in a just society when some people have more rights than others. Viewpoints like yours are oppressive, unjust and medieval.




After 9/11, it has further protected the American people, and prevented any additional attacks on US soil by going after the terrorists who started the war as well as initiating major changes in national security policies. The Republican government has also initiated a missile defense program that will help protect the United States and its allies from potential attacks by terrorists and rogue nations. The government has also lowered taxes for American people. It initiated three major tax cuts, including the largest in the past two decades.

eao: None of the alleged 9/11 hijackers or their supporters came from Iraq. Using the same fear and hate propaganda, the Bush regime could have attacked any country. Even Canada would become a country of terrorists if invaded and occupied by the US the same way the US invaded and occupied Iraq. I doubt killing over a million innocent Iraqis and displacing 5 million more has made the US safer in the long run. More likely its convinced millions of Arabs and Muslims that the US is their enemy. Sooner or later what goes around comes around.


Recessions occur. They did in the past (early 1990's) and will surely again in the future.

The current recession is a result of poor management and bad decisions. I can't help but notice that everytime the Republicans have come to power, the US economy enters a recenssion.


As the most powerful leaders in the world.
He also said "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

America's leaders may be powerful, but they have not demonstrated wisdom or tolerance.




Folks who vote Republican do so for the same reason as folks in Canada vote for the CPC, shared values. Nothing to do with the silly propaganda you've stated above.




Americans are free to vote as they please. Living in a free country entiles you to vote for any party you wish.

The US is not a free country. You define limits to what consenting adults have the freedom to do.

 

[Praxius]

First off there is no unjustified war of aggression.

Yes it is.... they didn't ask for the US's help with Saddam, Iraq and Saddam have been telling us over and over again that they didn't have any WoMD, yet the US went along with it's propaganda with no evidence regardless..... because you know, the only truth in the world comes from the mouths of US Intelligence and the Bush Administration. *pssh*

And what was the US's excuse? "Well we sent in our investigators and they wern't allowed in all the places they requested to investigate..... so they must be hiding something."

^ Yeah..... let's see how open the US would be if we sent in Iraqi or Iranian investigators into the US to check out what they were doing? I bet you 10 bucks that they wouldn't be allowed to go into certain areas for "National Security" ~ Does this mean you guys are also hiding something, and perhaps we should get a bunch of nations to invade the US's sorry ass?

The issue here is supporting our brave troops who sacrifice their lives so we may have our freedom.

What a load of sh*t.... give me a friggin break. You can support your troops by not supporting the war in Iraq, and saving their lives and minds by getting them the hell out of there for starters. I was brought up to thinking that we don't send our troops into harms way unless there is no other choice. You had a choice.... don't invade Iraq.

So they're fighting in Iraq to maintain your "Freedom?" Iraq didn't have any WoMD, had no nukes, didn't have any missiles which would reach your shores, and certainly didn't have a military that could threaten your security within the US. Their War Machine was turned off when you guys bombed the snot out of them...... and there was no evidence linking Saddam to any other terrorist organizatins, most certainly not with Osama.

So explain to me how the Iraq war is keeping your freedom safe? Turns out to me that your war has actually increased the amount of "Evil Doers" then there was before. Maybe you're referring to the US's screwup of invading Iraq in the first place that created these "Evil Doers" so in other words, you guys created your own problem.

Smooth Move Ex-Lax.

We are also not at war against the Iraqi people, we are at war against terrorists.

Those "Terrorists" are Iraqis.... AKA: Iraqi People. Then again, I suppose anybody who doesn't agree to what the US wants, or won't bend over and take it up the arse have to be Terrorists.

Here's a little tid bit into their mentality over there, which is pretty well common knowlege to most: Iraq is considdered to many in Islam to be what they call "Holy Land" ~ Forigners and non-believers occupying their Holy Land is a great insult on their faith. The longer you stay, the more pissed they get. The only reason why the US has any remote support in Iraq, is because in doing so, many hope that the US would pull their ass out of there sooner and off their "Holy Land." Meanwhile, those who are blowing themselves up, shooting US troops and those who support them, see this side as prolonging the forign occupying force from leaving.

Both are right, and this is where this whole problem starts from. But so long as Americans keep on their mighty high horses and thinking they're doing what's best (Not lose a war and stay the course) and don't bother to actually listen to what the majority of Iraqis want, you'll forever be stuck there, being blown up, killing your sons and daughters.... all for nothing.

But I suppose that if you "Stay the Course" and keep sending over fresh meat to be minced in explosions, then eventually, someday, some month, some year..... maybe some decade..... you guys might be able to dig out some justification for the invasion, thereby finally being able to say "There.... see.... we did it for the right reasons."

Hell even the government the US forced onto them is trying to find ways of getting US troops out of their country.

We are also winning the war in Iraq.

No you're not.... people are still being blown up, people being kidnapped and killed, mortar attacks, IED's, Car bombs, hell.... nothing has changed except the body counts.

The Iraqi people appreciate us ridding their country of a ruthless dictator and now we have the upper hand on the terrorists thanks to the recent surge by the US forces.

Really? Considdering most I have heard when actually asked, said they prey everynight for the return of Saddam, because even under his ruthlessness, people could still walk down the streets in security and not fear of when they're going to be kidnapped or blown up when they goto the market. They still had their friends and family, and all that Americans have done was bring hell to their lives.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6451841.stm

"...... Since the end of the war in Iraq, thousands of civilians have died in violence on the streets. Support for the coalition forces based in Iraq is low - with 82% expressing a lack of confidence in them and 69% thinking they had made the security situation worse.

.....The belief that the US-led coalition was wrong to have invaded Iraq in 2003 has steadily increased since 2004.

Only 2% of Sunnis questioned believed it was absolutely or somewhat right to have invaded, while 78% said it was absolutely wrong.

........ Security remains a key concern. Asked whether they felt safe in their own neighbourhoods, 40% said yes in 2004, 63% in 2005 but only 26% in 2007."


^ It's been going downhill for you guys in regards to support since the war began.....

Then again I suppose it depends on who you ask..... Iraqis themselves, or the US troops who are ordered to say supportive things about the war.

This so called unprovoked war of yours has enabled us to capture and/or kill thousands of Al Qaeda terrorists operating in Iraq, resulting in us getting the upper hand.

1st off.... this war isn't anybody's except the US's. 2nd, those big evil Al Qaeda terrorists you speak of were never in Iraq to begin with..... not until you guys invaded Iraq and gave them the chance to setup camp..... who's fault is that now?

What? You don't think we have other news and information other then from the US?

In regards to your comments about the life of the unborn, the unborn cannot defend itself and is therefore the most vunerable and innocent in our society.

Wrong, a fetus is not a part of our "Society."

We need to do all we can to protect it's rights.

It has no rights.

I believe in the traditional definition of marriage which is a union between a man and a woman. If we want to marginalize marriage as a second class institution, then by all means why don't we also legalize polygamy. Why is gay marriage ok and not polygamy? Many folks in Utah would be glad to legally practice polygamy.

I imagine they would....... what else is there to do in Utah other then to have sex all the time?

That, and there's a difference between same sex marriages and polygamy..... one being the clear fact that same sex marriages are still between two people, not a barn full of hill billies passing out candy pop rings.

But I'd also like to point out that Marriage has existed long before Christianity was a brain fart.... Marriage has been a part of human life for thousands of years before any paticular religion adopted it. Christianity has no right to dictate to the rest of the world how marriages should be, so in my personal opinion, your "Traditional Definition" means squat.

After 9/11, it has further protected the American people, and prevented any additional attacks on US soil by going after the terrorists who started the war as well as initiating major changes in national security policies. The Republican government has also initiated a missile defense program that will help protect the United States and its allies from potential attacks by terrorists and rogue nations. The government has also lowered taxes for American people. It initiated three major tax cuts, including the largest in the past two decades.

Wow, the propaganda really has bored deep into your mind hasn't it?

You think your Bush government has further protected people in the US? Numerous reports have show that although a load of money has gone into major security measures within the US, the security levels within the US have not improved, and in some areas gotten worse. So that begs the question "Where's the money going?"

Preventing any other additional attacks? Well by those standards, I guess Canada is performing miracles, since we haven't been attacked yet and caught everybody who has planned an attack so far.

Then again, no additional attacks within the US since 9/11... well I guess Bush is doing a great job now isn't he? In fact, i'm doing an awsome job here in Canada preventing terrorist attacks..... you see, I have this brown rock sitting beside me, and so long as I have it near me, I won't be attacked by terrorist.... it's worked so far. :roll:

Major changes in your country's security policies? Yeah... reminds me much of what Nazi Germany did after their "Terrorist Attack" such as requiring passports for everybody leaving and entering the country, racial profiling, people suddenly disappearing at airports and being sent off to other countries to be tortured, etc.

Tell it to Arar.

A missile defense program to protect against rouge nations? Yeah, those same missiles to defend can also be fitted with nuclear warheads to attack.... which has gotten other nations such as Russia all pissed off, and justifiably so..... I mean you guys got all pissy about the Cuban missle crisis (Why else would you call it a crisis?)

Cut taxes three times? No wonder.... people are losing their homes, gas prices skyrocketing, major job loses.... the government needed to do something, and cutting taxes was the cheapest and easiest distraction from these problems...... didn't solve anything did it?

Recessions occur. They did in the past (early 1990's) and will surely again in the future.

Which is why Capitalism needs to go.

As the most powerful leaders in the world.

The US isn't a fk'n leader, it's a friggin joke. Powerful? Yeah wow, you guys got some fancy technology, but few people joining up to use any of it, because the majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq in the first place.

And it's not like that technology is making you guys any better.... as the training in the military must be shot to hell these days, considdering you guys end up killing more civilians then you do "Terrorists" ~ Then again, I supposed that training of how to plant tools and weapons on the bodies of innocent makes all the difference.

The US has pretty well lost all respect from just about every nation in the world, minus Israel, who has to suck arse to the US so they can continue getting away with their own corrput and racist agendas.

Folks who vote Republican do so for the same reason as folks in Canada vote for the CPC, shared values. Nothing to do with the silly propaganda you've stated above.

Did you just relate the Republicans to the Communist Party of Canada?

Silly propaganda has nothing to do with it? You sure spewed plenty of it in this post alone to counter that argument.

Americans are free to vote as they please. Living in a free country entiles you to vote for any party you wish.

Indeed they can..... that doesn't mean those voting machines Bush has promoted so much will actually give accurate final results, or that the voting system in the US is flaw-free in the first place.

The US voting system is much like American Idol..... it's already predetermined before you even vote.... but thanks for the money to keep our show going.