It's GOP that has created fearful world

Posted by infidel91 on March 28, 2008 at 12:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You should see a therapist -- all that fear is unhealthy.

Posted by Froward69 on March 28, 2008 at 1:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

try not to be afraid. otherwise the terrorists and their enablers (republikans) Win. first reject fear as a campaign tactic. then talk about your fears to your friends and family. get them registered to vote. the more people who vote against the fear mongers (rethuglicans) the less likely they will be able to sell our freedoms and prosperity to the highest bidder. this will help...

http://coloradodems.org/content/view/...

Posted by clyde on March 28, 2008 at 2:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Global Warming"
"One paycheck from homelessness"
"The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"
"Health care for Illegals"
"English as a second language"
"Peak Oil"

The Dems are the fear mongers. You can't exist without their benevolent assistance in every aspect of your life. You can't make it on your own, without them to help. You, as an individual, are incompetent and powerless, therefore you need a monolithic, one-size-fits-all, bureaucracy to keep you happy, fat and stupid.

Posted by outrider on March 28, 2008 at 5:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's a two Party Gig and were not invited to the Dinner/show.

Look what the two Parties serve up, Curly, Mow, and Hillary.

Posted by Earl on March 28, 2008 at 5:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

steve it really must suck to be you. how do you even get out of bed. were are you at that you are paying 4 bucks for gas? btw you can keep your job is you just start working and stop worrying about all the bs the liberal socialist progressives tell you that they will hand you on a plate. its all bs as they are politicians running for pres and not queen and king.

Posted by Oh_Wise_One on March 28, 2008 at 5:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Feld, you really shouldn't write letters to the editor. "It is better to remain silent than to open one's mouth and confirm your stupidity."
Clyde hit the homerun with the breakdown of your fears. The terrorist's haven't hit the homeland in 7 years but you are afraid the oceans are going rise 18" in 100 years. Sad.

Posted by PartisianLiberal on March 28, 2008 at 6:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Keep on speaking the truth Steve. Just another page of the neo con play book....if they cant counter you with a true counter point or fact they scorn and ridicule you.

Remember this line from the 1960's?
"There you go man....keep as cool as you can....it riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave....keep on thinking free".

Posted by dilligaf on March 28, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Earl:

Except an unemployment check here and there I have never received any assistance in my life. I have a good job and that pays me very well. I'm 58 yrs old and fast approaching retirement. But what I have seen in the last 7 years go on with surpluses wiped out and the debt sky rocket. Gas prices double. Health care premiums going nuts. No attempt to fix our social security crisis. If this is the direction the cons want to keep us headed well it scares the hell out of me too.

Posted by JimmyB on March 28, 2008 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve, if you care to look at history and what they accomplished, JFK and LBJ would be considered good "Republicans" by today's standards.

Remember, it was the Democrats the anit-war protestors went after in 1968.

Posted by bropous on March 28, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

NEVER trust a Democrat with National Security.

Posted by JimmyB on March 28, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

lcdrjisant, quite a rant, but what's your proof in all your accusations? Are you against all draft-dodgers, including Slick-Willie Clinton and all those draft dodgers who cower in Canada, or just Republicans?

Posted by leftside on March 28, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve, of course they will use fear to get votes. That's whats kept them in office for the past 7 years and what may keep them in office for the next four.

It sad that the Republican party has turned into a bunch of scared sheep crying "protect me, protect me", but the fact of the matter is that is what has happened. We need courageous moderates to step up and say that's enough, these guy's aren't protecting us their using fear to take us to the cleaners and vote them out of office.

Posted by rickg19611 on March 28, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve Feld and his ilk have been stoned for the past 45 years, so their fear is chemically induced.

Posted by SASQUATCH on March 28, 2008 at 8:25 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by JimmyB on March 28, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

leftside, I have to agree, we do need courageous "moderates", but who do you consider "moderate"? Considering who's in the lead for both parties, I may write in Collin Powell. At least he had the courage to tell Bush he was wrong in his hanlding of Iraq.

Posted by NotChasB on March 28, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Stevie Field

"You have nothing to fear But Fear itself"! FDR.
It's hard to believe a Democrat said that!
Todays Democrats and liberals are afraid of their own shadows. I wonder if their mommies have to check in the closet for monsters before they go to sleep. The only monster she is going to find in there is probably Hillary "The Monster" Clinton or Obama-Nation's Rev. Wright.

Posted by NotChasB on March 28, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Correction: Stevie "Feld" the chicken-little. Cluck, Cluck!

Posted by Yankee on March 28, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Republicans frighten people while acting like scared sheep?

Look to the courageous moderates. They listen patiently until a consensus forms and then bravely proclaim "Me too."

There's a clever analysis - the nome de plume is certainly apt.

Posted by Froward69 on March 28, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OH JimmyB, Tricky dick Nixon along with republican war mongering habits like draft-dodger deserter , gorge w. at the very least nixon had a shred of honor in so far as he resigned. (to avoid prosecution for his High crimes.)

alluding to your previous post about '68 the cops started the bloodshed. not the war protesters.

Posted by Gene on March 28, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve Feld is emblematic of a modern day DEMO, . . can't put his pants on without help from government. When a DEMO starts accusing someone of something, it is usually a reflection of them. I think back to that great leader, Mr. Bill Clinton, our first "black president." I remember one of his first public statements was to the effect, "this is going to be an honest and clean administration." The implication was, that the past Republican administration was not. I remember thinking at the time, what is he talking about? And of course it turned out to be his weakness & failing.

Posted by Froward69 on March 28, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

just re read SASQUATCH...

he proves just how bullying the rethugs are.
Remember the most scared person in the fight is in fact the bully. Bully's need to intimidate to feel power. just like rove/cheney/bushy/mccain't/romney...

Posted by mark79trans on March 28, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is not the Republicans that created this mess. It is not necessarily the Democrats either. If memory serves, we are facing a recycled problem from the 70s. Mr. Carter and the Democrat controlled congress did nothing to solve the problem. Electing one party over the other will NOT change anything or fix our problems. The problem is special interest politics. That is not some distant issue in the beltway lobby...that is us. Every person who wants something from the government a social policy or raid on the treasury creates a lobby for their issue. For instance, our energy problem is compounded by special interests...both industry and environmentalists are to blame...EQUALLY. Unless both make concessions, we will continue down our current path of destruction.

If people want out of Iraq and the Middle East, then lets put together an energy strategy that works...this is not going to happen with a few windmills and some solar panels although they are part of a long term strategy. The federal government was not designed to educate your child or solve your personal problems. It was however designed to deal with national security. In is insanity that people look to the president as the cause of every problem or the savior. People have absolutely no clue about the mess we are creating with this runaway machine. As always, I am probably wasting my time even talking about it.

Mr. Steve needs to get a grip and balance the equation with each issue. He has absolutely no idea, the extent of our dependency on these "Arabs". ...yes we are at the mercy of a hostile state...pretty darn stupid!!!

Posted by leftside on March 28, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JimmyB, I like Powell but that won't happen and you'll just waste an very important vote. What you need to ask yourself is do we need a president who as been selling his sole to an incompetent leadership and those who voted that leadership in or can we put up with the liberal agenda, knowing they will have no more luck pushing that agenda than the conservatives had pushing their agenda, in order to get competent leadership in the White House and get this country back on track

Posted by JimmyB on March 28, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Forward69,

Speaking of bullies: I remember coming back from Vietnam and was waiting for my flight home from Seatac airport. Flying "military stand-by", I was required to wear my uniform. As I waited for the flight to board, a "hippie" girl walked up and slapped me in the face, calling me "warmonger" and "baby-killer". I pushed her away and she slapped me again. After my fist met her mouth, she crashed to the floor and her male companion ran over and took a swing at me. He missed. I didn't. He was holding his broken nose, when a couple of police officers, who watched the whole thing came over and arrested them for assault.

I also remember seeing new footage of “protesters” in 1968 taking swings at the police before the police reacted.

I understand there was instigation by some bullying police; and I also understand there was instigation from some bullying protestors, such as those I met in the airport at Seatac.

Now, I see the same bullying in your posts.

So, forward69, what’s your point?

Posted by KW on March 28, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Isn't michael moore the one churning out the propaganda films spreading fear about healthcare and the environment?

I'm pretty sure the party he's deeply affiliated with isn't republican.

Posted by greenleaf on March 28, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We are becoming a nation of whiners ! Conservatives like SASQUATCH whine out their venomous insults, accusing people of being "pathetic" and " cowards" and "typical libdems", whatever the hell that means! Clyde accuses the writer of being a "fear-monger" and "incompetent".

On the otherside we have Froward69 calling his political opponents "Republikans" and " Republithugs ". icgrjxant calls a Supreme Court justice Snotty=Notty, again, whatever that means.

These are mild in comparison to some of the outrageous comments I have read recently.

How does any of this solve our many problems? As an independent, I sit to the conservative side of some issues , the liberal side of others and in the middle of most. I watch Republicans and Democrats in these forums tossing mindless insults at one another that they each think are so clever! I have always felt that those who employ that tactic either lack any concept of good manners, adequate vocabulary to engage in the debate , an argument so weak that they hope it is lost in the static of their insults or, in some cases, all three!

For the common good, we need to realize that we are all Americans, we have problems and we need to solve them. For the common good of the American people, we need an intelligent political debate, not a race to the bottom of the insult bucket!

Posted by O_TRAIN on March 28, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mark79trans - you are not wasting your time, your right on. Special interests are a huge part of the problem - the citizens are being sold-out by the politicians. Both sides are equally guilty.

Anyone who toes their party line with rhetoric and media manufactured "talking points" - regardless of the candidate or issue is nothing but a lazy koolaid drinker, which is exactly what both parties want.

The only thing to fear is ignorance.

Posted by Gandalf on March 28, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

NotChasB...In your hypocritical bs blather in mentioning Rev. Wright/Obama, you forgot to mention Rev. Hagee/McCain. Hagee is just as much of a bigot and a greaseball as Wright, yet we hear no fair and balanced analysis from you and yours. McCain actively sought the endorsement of Hagee. All you Repugnants love to rag on whomever, but can't stand it when your own dirty laundry is aired out for everyone to see. The country is getting over your party's fear-mongering bs and you folks will pay the piper in spades come November.

Posted by fairness on March 28, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

greenleaf,

Well said. Sometimes I get carried away with my words, but try to stick to pointing out the facts as I know them. Unfortunately, I get called names and a liar when I point out something that someone disagrees with. I am more than willing to discuss issues, and if someone proves me wrong, then I can accept that.

It is unfortunate that people cannot simply discuss the ideas and resort to name calling. It certainly does nothing to advance the discussion or help with understanding. I, too, am an independent because I cannot buy into either side completely. I would rather be able to decide based on all the information rather than just one side's arguments.

Keep up the good work, and let's hope for more civil discussions.

Posted by mark79trans on March 28, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

greenleaf

Yes, unfortunately, we are a very polarized and diverse country. Being so diverse in this case is not a good thing. We have socialistic philosophy, individual rights philosophy, and social engineering "moral philosophy" all on a collision course...it is not going to be pretty. This board is extremely reflective of our problems as a nation. Like I have said before, no one person or group, or party is right; we as a people lost the capacity to accept divergent opinions. The government can't be all things for all people. If we continue to use the government as a tool, groups of citizens will be hurt. This will lead to our undoing.

Posted by JSeifert on March 28, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You ever notice how much hate comes out when you talk about the so called hate mongers. It seems to me all that self hate is coming out maybe you need to move to a place more to your liking like China, Cuba,North Korea or maybe Curacus. It were like minded people like yourself find your true calling and your fear will be shared by individuals like you that hate Americans who do not share the one world idea and like being American and what it means.

Posted by Michael on March 28, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The country is getting over your party's fear-mongering bs and you folks will pay the piper in spades come November." - gandalf
Is that a racial slur of some kind?

Posted by temurlan on March 28, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

NotChasB, you stole my thunder with the FDR quote, so here's a little lightning.

Steve, maybe that therapist suggestion is a good idea. Not only is your glass not full but it sounds like might be broken.

Life is tough. There are good times and bad. Ultimately though, I am responsible for my happiness. My job, the environment around me, my future, etc…I choose them all. Maybe I'm just an optimist but I have a positive outlook. Right now I'm in a good place and I got here all by myself.

So get some courage and face the day. Quit waiting for someone to do everything for you.

Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear. You know, like living your life.

Posted by bropous on March 28, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

...and it is the Dhimmicrap Party that has created fearful little pusses who won't stand up to tyrants and winge and moan when a REAL American DOES.

Posted by T1anda on March 28, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Never Fear Steve Feld!!! Obama is here and he will cure ALL that ails the G-damned United States.

I only have expect one thing from Obama if he is elected.

Obama, PUHLEEZE control your wife Michelle!! Especially her MOUTH!!!
If he can do that I am sure all of the other petty problems he will be confronted with will be taken care of by Reverend Wright, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farakkhan, Al Sharpton and the rest of his advisors!

Oh, and Obama should be very careful with the halo the main stream media has givin him. They might just take it back at any givin time!

Posted by bropous on March 28, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

John Stuart Mill

English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

Posted by greenleaf on March 28, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

fairness, mark79trans,

Guys, this is the tone we need! We need more posters who have the patience and courage not to "rise to the bait" when others sling insults at them. Have you ever noticed how foolish they look when the person they attack takes the "high road" and leaves them to wallow in the mud below?

The two of you write well and are powerful voices on the web. That carries a responsibility too! I hope that we three and a few others can "raise the bar" for the common good.

Thanks to both of you for being thoughtful, reasonable posters!

Posted by greenleaf on March 28, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bropous,

I know your posting was meant to insult, after all its nothing but a long string of insults. Anyone, on either side of the legitimate debate should be insulted by your unfortunate choice of words.

This is an insult to the intelligence of the many people reading this forum, conservative, liberal or moderate. Any argument you think you are mounting is totally lost. Your posting is much like a poorly tuned radio station; all static and nothing of consequence.

You can do better and you should do better!

Posted by fairness on March 28, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Anyone who has tried to reason with, or have a civilized discussion with, bropous is wasting their breath. He would rather just insult you and call you names than discuss facts. You give him facts, he calls you a liar. He cannot defend his ideas reasonably. It is too bad. You cannot win a debate by simply raising your voice over others. Maybe this type of discourse appeals to some people. However, it does nothing for me.

Come on folks. If you cannot defend your positions on their merits, then they are probably not true. If you just get your information from Limbaugh, Coulter, Rosen, "Gunny" Bob, Caplis, and all the other talking heads, you are getting OPINION, not facts. Try balancing your radio time with some Randi Rhodes, Jay Marvin, Ed Schultz, and that side as well.

When I listen to Limbaugh, most times he doesn't tell me where he gets the information he is using to attack Hillary or Obama. I'm just expected to take it as gospel. When he DOES site a reference, it most likely is a group like the Heritage Foundation. That surely isn't a balanced viewpoint.

When I listen to Randi Rhodes, she tells me to not believe her! To go look it up for myself. Then she tells me where she found the information. What a concept! Someone who is definitely "on the left" who wants me to think for myself, find out if what she is telling me is true! No, you'll never hear THAT from Limbaugh.

Posted by bropous on March 28, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Correct, greenleaf, the intent was to insult the anti-Freedom fascists. Do you honestly think that anyone is going to change anyone else's opinion on the war? However, even jests have grounding in reality, and the simple fact is that the Democrats have been hell-bent on emasculting the US overseas and turning foreign policy of the US into a mewling puppet of the latest popularity poll.

Dang right it's insulting, but so are so many things said by the hateful Leftists about this President, his reasoning to go to war, and the prosecution of the war on terrorists.

So, no, I won't apologize for being abrasive, and as for any "insult to the intelligence of many people reading this forum", that's a laugh. NotChasB and Old Grouch and fairness [sic] have intelligence that can be insulted?

Fact is, greenleaf, the Leftists can't tkae the fact that someone tells the TRUTH about the War, why we declared war, how the war has been prosecuted, and how the baseless lies spewed by the DNC/Mass Media cabal have provided aid and comfort to the enemies of the US. But we, who believe in this war and that it has increased our security, are to sit passively while the President and his motives are slandered, or if we do return fire, that we have to play nice while the Leftist fascists are held to no argumentative standards?

It's fighting fire with fire, greenleaf, and for all you may have found what I have said offensive, I also have found offensive the bleatings of the mindless left who won't research a dang thing for themselves, but will spew the Michael Moore/Code Stinque conspiracy theories like they are facts. I refuse to play nice with human detritus.

Posted by greenleaf on March 28, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bropous,

There may be hope for you yet! You just showed me something I haven't seen before in your posts: you write well and in a reasonable tone when you want to. You are still using a few insults but they are considerably milder and your voice is not so harsh and angry!

I might not agree with everything you have said, but I can respect what you say when you take the tone of your recent posting. I think you will find more listeners to what you are saying if you continue in this "voice". Thank you!

Posted by fairness on March 28, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bropous,

"I also have found offensive the bleatings of the mindless left who won't research a dang thing for themselves, but will spew the Michael Moore/Code Stinque conspiracy theories like they are facts."

Coming from you, that is funny! Do you remember this little conversation from just yesterday?

"bropous,

If I want to get these same old tired excuses, I'll listen to Limbaugh. You need to get some grounding in fact. Don't take my word for any of that, do your own research rather than just believing whatever you are told. It is all out there. Even the Bush administration has publicly stated that Iraq had no connection with al Queda. Look it up!

The CIA told Bush BEFORE the State of the Union address where he claimed that Iraq was trying to buy uranium that it wasn't true. Again, look it up! During congressional hearing on the Wilson/Plame affair her bosses in the CIA ADMITTED that she was an undercover agent, not a "desk jockey". LOOK IT UP!"

Do you remember your reply???

"fairness, you and your buddy Chassie Bee hate George W Bush more than you hate the enemies of the United States.

Wait! You don't HATE the enemies of the United States, you LOVE the enemies of the United States, you just HATE the elgitimately elected President of the United States of America, George W Bush."

I told YOU to look something up, and all you could do is insult me in return. I gave you FACTS that are on the congressional record, and you just called them lies.

So if you want others to look things up, I suggest you follow your own suggestion! If you want to have your viewpoint supported, then you only go to the sites that support it. If you want to be challenged to think for yourself, then you would go to some sites that give you a different perspective, THEN decide what the "truth" is. The truth doesn't come spoon-fed to you. You have to go FIND it.

Posted by GWM on March 28, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bropous, you spew LOUD acrimony in all your posts regardless of the topic or thread. Jez man/wowman, take a breath. Can't you say anything at all without hate and venom?

Posted by NotChasB on March 28, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gandalf

Why you little scared whinny baby. I loved your frightened irrational response. Calm down, call mommie and tell her I made you wet your bed with and scared you with the truth. These Dumocrats can't make rational comparisions if their lives depended on it. Now let's talk about your dirty laundry. Now mommie is going to have to wash your sheets and get that yellow stain out of your mattress but she can't do anything about that leftwing yellow streak down your back.

Posted by mark79trans on March 28, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve's fears,

"Fear that I won't have a job." Steve, the world is uncertain. I guess if I was alone I would be a afraid too. However, your mind, your skills, and your body are yours. Personally, when I was faced with hardship, I obtained a masters degree in a different field and increased my pay three fold...you can do the same. Having a job is not a right, but an opportunity based on what we do to earn them. how are your actions the fault of the GOP

"Fear that I won't have health care." My nice is a Nurse Practitioner and her husband is a Surgeon. The surgeon works for free more often then not because the hospital is required to treat those who can't pay driving up the cots for those that can. My niece works with a clinic that specializes in indigent care. If you have health insurance, you subsidize those that don't which means you have access to these people. If they are not paid in some way, you won't have them. The surgeon would not have paid for 8 years of school and went through 5 years of residency for nothing or a minimal salary. There is no silver bullet to make quality health care affordable. If you can balance the personnel, compensation, and supply + quality + research = affordability, let me know. how is health care scarcity the fault of the GOP

"Fear that the environment will continue to be destroyed. " How is the environment being destroyed? Do you use lights, your TV, appliances, do you use lights at work, drive a car? Do you eat food that was brought to your grocery by a diesel truck, or do you grow your own? how are your actions the fault of the GOP

"Fear that the $4 I am paying for a gallon of gas is going straight into the pockets of wealthy Arabs who subsidize terrorist organizations. " Do you support ANWAR, restrictions on off-shore drilling, or domestic exploration? If so, you will be buying your petroleum products from the terror dealers and dictators of the world. How are the oil policy decisions since the conclusion of WWII the fault of the GOP?

Posted by mark79trans on March 28, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve’s fears continued…

"Fear that greedy corporations are sucking the life out of America." I imagine that you require payment for your job...some sort of compensation...I doubt that you perform your job out of the goodness of your heart. Well, the investors in corporate America invest based on receiving a return...as you, they don't invest out of the goodness of their heart. Besides, your standard of living is based on goods delivered by the evil Corporate America. How is the general supply and demand for compensation rule the fault of the GOP?

"Fear that the $3 trillion the war in Iraq is costing us will overwhelmingly burden my children and grandchildren." The cost of the "war" reconstruction effort will be absorbed as time moves on. However, establishing a democracy in Iraq is about as futile as training a cat to sing Dixie. This has not worked in Africa, South America, and certainly not in the Middle East. The correct course of action would have been arming the Kurds and letting factions fight for power over 10 years. We don't need democracy, just a balance of power. The problem is foreign policy based on human rights (our reconstruction effort), which almost always fails. Foreign policy should be based on strategic interests. After destroying the governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, we needed to pull out leaving the message that a new terrorist regime would meet the same fate. Now, we are stuck in an occupation...not a good move. I agree that our foreign policy was lacking on this issue.

Posted by mytwosense on March 28, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have a question for any oldtimers out there.

Did Americans always hate each other this much?

Posted by alcambell_9 on March 28, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ALL DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS SUCK, it is only when the independents take over that we will get rid of all this pointing of fingers at the each other for the problems we have instead of offering solutions for the problems we have. Both sides created this mess and to trust them to correct it is insane, because they insist on doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

They haven't a clue what the common people's problems are, nor do they care. They sit in their ivory towers of congress knowing they have a lucrative lifetime retirement and the best health plan our money can buy them and are blind to the consequences of the actions they take, alledgedly for our best interests, but which really impose a economic burden on We the People.

I've had enough of democrats and republicans arguing over who is to blame while the working people in this country are suffering losing their homes, paying outrageous prices for gasoline and food and are having to drop their health care insurance because those greedy SOB's want even greater profits. Do you wonder why this absurdity exists? If you do, your blind, deaf, dumb and ignorant. It's the politicians stupid, and until you understand that nothing will change for the better treatment of the taxpayer by the government of greedy people we have so far insisted they get elected.

Posted by bropous on March 28, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"fairness" [sic], the reason I call you a liar is because you tell lies.

Valerie Plame was in NO way a covert operative, and her presence at the CIA was in no way covered by the statute proscribing the identification of covert operatives. I did not have to "look it up", child, I was paying attention as it was going on, read a heck of a lot about it, and in no part of the coverage did "her bosses" in any legally defensible way state that Valerie Plame was a covert operative. That is a fact. You say they said she was. That makes you a liar.

Joe Wilson lied when he stated that Iraqi agents were not shopping for uranium in Nigeria. The Iraqi intel agents were there when Joe boy was sipping mint juleps by the pool in Lagos.

I label you a liar, fairness [sic] because you support your argument, not with facts, but with lies perpetrated by Leftists who hate George W Bush, and who have stooped to the most base of accusations to attack him personally, and attack this war which has freed tens of millions of innocent people. I don't have to go and look this up or that up because I've already SEEN it. Arguments on BOTH sides of the issue, and frankly, I have seen the Leftist arguments against this President and this war as a baseless pack of abject lies.

greenleaf, fine, glad you liked the tone change, I'm not sure I can keep the invective out of my postings on this subject since the facts clearly show that the arguments for going into Iraq were justified, and since the actions of George W Bush have led to freedom for tens of millions who were living under a brutal dictator whose political party (Ba'athist) was modeled on the Nationalist Socialist Party of Germany. I stand for freedom, not just for myself but for ALL people, and find the slander against a good man who has done his best to protect this nation and prosecute a war on its enemies completely, and unmitigatedly, unjustified.

Posted by Jack_Bauer on March 28, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mark79trans,
I wonder if steve fears the economical ramifications of the great global warming sham? or the excessive taxation of the US citizens and corporations (the opposite of excessive profits as the Democraps like to put it), the looming failure of Social Security tht is ignored by both parties, or government intrusion into your freedoms, just look at what is becoming a large snowball here in Boulder - private property rights are being systematically eliminated.
Steve - do you have an IRA, 401k or a Pension? I'll bet you have at least one of those and I can guarantee that they are invested in these same greedy and evil corporations you seem to so despise. These are the same corporations whom Hillary and Barack want to tax even more on those "excessive profits" which are in essence taxing YOU STEVE. (just who determines what is an excessive profit anyway - those two?)
You see steve the corporations don't pay the taxes - the stockholders (that would BE YOU via your IRA/401k) pay the taxes.
You are a blithering idiot steve by wanting the government to correct your own socialistic stupidity by controlling all aspects of your life via regulations, taxes and making sure you are looked after wether you are lazy or as I've already stated - just plain stupid.
That is not what this country was built upon but it is what Democrats want to revert us to - pure socialism, transfer of wealth for those who achieve to those who are lazy or unmotivated or unlucky because it makes them feel good and garners them more votes.
This country will sour quickly under this type of system as there will be no motivation to succeed since you will be punished (via ever higher taxes / transfer of your wealth to the goverment) for that success and then called greedy for striving to and becoming better in life. All the while it will give us reason to be lazy or a failure because if you are not greedy (read: successful) the governement will provide for you at the expense of the successful, er, I mean greedy.
Steve you are a joke

Posted by mark79trans on March 28, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

alcambell_9

I agree with some of what you said: it is a power game among the Republicans and Democrats. Although, the underlying problem goes much deeper. There are so many groups that want their way, and are trying to use the government to make it law. Our government was originally created with boundaries...these boundaries were fractured by the use of the Commerce Clause. If you removed both parties, the result would be two new coalitions of special interests with different names. The federal government should be dealing with commerce regulation and strategic policy. They should balance the rights of all Americans when making these policies. If you go back and spend some time reading revolutionary papers, essays, and constitutional convention debates, the problems we face today really start to make sense. It is sad; we were warned, but choose to not listen.

Posted by Tbone on March 28, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bropous-

That's news to me. The director of the CIA himself said Plame was undercover.

Why is this so hard to understand for righties?

For someone accusing someone else of lying, you don't seem to be doing much better.

I'm sure it comes as news to the wingers, but reality does NOT have a liberal bias. Those damn facts, huh?

Posted by KW on March 28, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No mts. This type of rude behavior used be reserved for the highways. Only when comfortably unplugged from common decency by the shield of an automobile did people resort to such behavior.

Now with the advent of the Internet and blogs, this inane lashing out isn't just confined to the obscure driver on the highways anymore.

Posted by NotChasB on March 28, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mytwosense

Back in the good old days before the late 1960's and early 70's the pinkos,leftwing radical and immoral hippies, atheists perverts and of all types hated us and our mainsteam American values.
I guess you can say the left brought on themselves what you call hate. We call it setting the record straight and being hated for it.
You forgot the other smoke screen word the left uses "Intolerant".

Posted by fairness on March 28, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bropous,

I'll ask you again - look it up. If you can prove to me that I am a liar, then fine. But you can't. You refuse to look these things up because to have bought into the Bush apologists' propaganda. I am a reasonable person, and I can concede when I am wrong - IF you can prove it.

So, give me proof. That is all I ask. If I have lied about any of that, give me proof. You see, I paid attention while it was going on as well, and if you take the time to look it up, you'll find I am right. If you cannot handle the truth because it doesn't fit with your blind faith in Bush, then that is your prerogative. That doesn't make it a fact.

So prove me wrong if you can. But you cannot use a biased site, such as a Limbaugh program, or the Heritage Foundation, for proof. Either find a neutral site, news reports, etc.

I'll wait.

Posted by JimmyB on March 28, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mytwosense

"I have a question for any oldtimers out there.

Did Americans always hate each other this much?"

Unfortunatly, yes. We just didn't have the intenet, or today's news media available to us, where we could trash each other so "openly".

Posted by fairness on March 28, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bropous,

In their own words:

Bush: ' We've Had No Evidence' of link to 9-11
Sep. 17, 2003
George W. Bush

Q: Mr. President, Dr. Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld both said yesterday that they have seen no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with September 11th.

THE PRESIDENT: We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th.

White House: No Indication Iraq Connected to 9|11. We Sever Said That.
Sep. 17, 2003
Scott McClellan, Press Secretary to President Bush

Q: Earlier today you said that the President made no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. You said that there was no indication that there was a linkage at all.
MR. McCLELLAN: You're right, if you're talking specifically about the September 11th attacks, we never made that claim.

Q: Can you rule out at this point that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, with the attacks on this country on September 11th?
MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I think I made it very clear that we have never made that claim and I'm not saying that now.

Rumsfeld backtracks on al-Qaida, Iraq links
Oct. 5, 2004, by AP, MSN, NBC
Rumsfeld said that he knew of no clear link between the al-Qaida terror network and Saddam Hussein. Then he took it back. Then he said in public “To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.”

You obviously cannot back up your claim. Here is my proof, taken from the very people who you claim did not say these things.

So, how was I lying?

Posted by Gene on March 28, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mytwosense;
Not an old-timer, but old-enough, regarding your inquiry into hate. I don’t hate anybody, but being a conservative Republican, I am normally accused of it. If I don’t agree with the gay agenda, they say I am a hater. I was against all the Clinton illegal / immoral stuff, but I didn’t hate anyone, and I don’t believe Ken Starr hated anyone. Just accused of it by the Clintons. I realize you are on their side, but I believe the Clintons and Democrats during that time are the origin of this current hate environment. After Gore lost, the Democrats seemed to go absolutely looney with hate. I think it was the loss of power after so many years. How could George W. Bush and crew engender so much hate? It is not logical. Now having said that, I understand your alignment with the Clintons and the Democrats, and I respect that. It is just not my cup of tea. Speaking of, after talk of a Coke, I was out of town and not able to respond. But . . .

Posted by me2 on March 28, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mark79, like your posts very much, also greenleaf and mytwosense and all those who can post insult free.

My conservative friends are all gloomy people these days, but since Bush and his administration has 7 years at our throats, they can`t blame them for our current problems, and they know they can`t blame liberals who have been out of power. They seem to fear an economic collapse, but they can`t bring themselves to blame the housing debacle or the war spending.

My liberal friends are more cheerful, but they, and I, fear this Iraq war has opened a whole new box of problems in the Middle East, and we fear the Republicans theory of which families to value. We fear a return to more laws dictated by ideology and not reason.

I usually say moderates rule, since they are likely left to pick up the pieces and make the best legislation they can after the fighting ends in the House and Senate, but Yankee has informed me that the moderates are pretty much worthless.

I do believe all our problems go back to some special interest groups that have the legislators ear and the corporations, for all the good they do, will leave this country in a heartbeat if it is to their advantage.

Posted by mark79trans on March 28, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To the question directed toward the old-timers...

Ask this question of my father a WWII vet, you will receive a much different answer. Even though he grew up in the depression, I long to live as he did...a far more courageous time with far more solidarity. Although, the winds of change were blowing. Socialism that took root throughout the world during this time banged on the door of the United States and the door cracked. The founding fathers erected a construct to defend against it, but the armor was pierced. There is hatred for it, but the downhill machine cannot be stopped. My father, now in his 80s, can't believe what we are facing in this country. You can't have Herbert Marcuse philosophy in a John Locke inspired government. If you want to know why people are intolerant of each other, this is the reason. Those with socialistic interests are breaking down the social contract that was signed on September 17, 1787. The Schechter decision of 1935 was overturned with the Constitutional Revolution of 1937 (with some major manipulation of the court). Now, the two sides are on a collision course.

Posted by fairness on March 28, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bropous,

Here is something on Valerie Plame:

Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak
Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment

WASHINGTON - An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.

Again, how did I lie?

Posted by me2 on March 28, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some good news for all of you. read Geotimes December 2006 page 34. To sum up the article, both houses of Congress passed bills to allow drilling offshore. They are not able to agree on specifics. That article referred to 2005 so where are the new wells? If I can sell petroleum at $100.00 a barrel, would I rush to the expense of new wells and more production so I would be able to sell it at $80.00 a barrel? Not if I had a brain.

Then on page 35 is the heading Biggest U.S. oilfield discovered in decades, in the Gulf.

Both sides and those worthless moderates need to read some trade journals and economic magazines.

Posted by mark79trans on March 28, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

------------
"Posted by me2 on March 28, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some good news for all of you. read Geotimes December 2006 page 34. To sum up the article, both houses of Congress passed bills to allow drilling offshore. They are not able to agree on specifics. That article referred to 2005 so where are the new wells? If I can sell petroleum at $100.00 a barrel, would I rush to the expense of new wells and more production so I would be able to sell it at $80.00 a barrel? Not if I had a brain.

Then on page 35 is the heading Biggest U.S. oilfield discovered in decades, in the Gulf.

Both sides and those worthless moderates need to read some trade journals and economic magazines."
--------------

There is a lot of exploration and drilling in the Gulf. Katrina created some huge problems and setbacks. The technology is also pushing deeper water exploration. The hard core environmentalists are not at all please by this. If you are interested, look into the costs of off-shore drilling rigs. Much of the "evil profits" are going into rigs, regulatory mitigation, and R&D.

Posted by ecniv on March 28, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where has Bropous gone?

Probably hard to spew more venom when you're choking on facts.....

Keep it going, Fairness.

Posted by fairness on March 28, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Unfortunately, when I have presented facts to bropous, he usually disappears, or calls me a liar, rather than disputes them. Wnat one more?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
11 July 2003

STATEMENT BY GEORGE J. TENET
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE

Legitimate questions have arisen about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the President’s State of the Union speech. Let me be clear about several things right up front. First, CIA approved the President’s State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my Agency. And third, the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.

The "16 words" that "should not have been included" were the ones dealing with the alleged Iraqi attempt to purchase of yellow-cake uranium from Niger. Bush was told prior to his SOTU address, and was forced to take those same words out of other speeches before that, so he definitely knew that there were questions about its authenticity.

Posted by me2 on March 28, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mark79, my geology degree was partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, so I am pro industry. However, I know some foot dragging on rebuilding the refineries and drilling in very expensive areas has been blamed on environmentalists, when I could see that the industry was not moving fast enough.

As for ANWAR, I can`t wait to see the strat columns from the drill holes. That is a very interesting area with enough geology to keep us busy for years. But the perma frost is a huge problem and where to house the workers in another. The API once published their opinion that the field might be overrated. Sorry I can`t remember when or where, I read too much over the years to remember them all.

love your posts Sharon B.

Posted by mark79trans on March 28, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

me2

I had a good friend who worked the rigs in the Gulf...interesting stories! I know the industry isn't clean...they are taking what they can before it hits the fan.

Did you read this column today? http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...

Posted by LuckyMe on March 28, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good work fairness. I have been following these postings since this morning and I am glad to see you have once again put bropous in his place. He lacks the maturity to debate. His "My way or the highway" mentality is annoying at best. He can only argue (and not very well at that) like a spoiled little brat pitchin a fit cause mommy finally said NO. Keep up the good work, can't wait to see what that moron says next.

Posted by greenleaf on March 28, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

See what happens when I go away for awhile? Everybody calms down! :>)

I have to say I like the direction this forum is going. The rhetoric and insults have gone down and the quality of the conversation has definitely come up. Thanks guys ( my generic term for both men and women)!

I've decided this old independent is going to stay out of the specifics of this argument but I will attempt to answer mytwosense.

mytwosense,

You ask "did Americans always hate each other this much?" I'm 57 is that old enough to be an "old timer"?

When I was young I saw hatred directed against African Americans, Hispanics and native Americans. I also saw hatred directed against communists, socialists and, perhaps even worse, people who were accused of being communist who weren't !

As a young adult, I experienced some hatred and a lot of intolerance from adults who didn't like my long hair and beard. It didn't help, that at the same time I was extremely liberal ( I've mellowed a lot!).

I think what we are seeing on these blogs is something you called " the shield of anonymity" in a recent posting. People who would ordinarily be polite and friendly feel that they can freely vent and insult. Unfortunately just as real violence breeds more violence, so does " verbal violence " breed more of the same.

Hatred has probably always been a part of humanity, but so have love, respect and tolerance. I feel that the latter are strengths and the former a weakness. In order to embrace our strengths, we must first try, try, try to conquer our weaknesses. We are all works in progress.

And so, mytwosense follow this thread from it's beginnings this morning to now and see the improvement. It gives me hope that we can, as Americans push hatred and insult aside and have the discussions that we so desperately need.

Posted by bropous on March 28, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

George Tenet, Bill Clinton's leftover. fairness [sic], I reject the source. Nice try. I don't buy Tenet's BS because he was proved wrong.

The Bus Administration REALLY screwed up letting the CIA analysts slip this crap into the State of the Union Address, and I state unequivocally that later facts showed Tenet to be completely, absolutely and unmitigatedly wrong.

I'll echo Rick Moran here: "What were 500 tons of yellow cake uranium still doing at the nuclear research center of Al—Tuwaitha in Iraq when American tanks rolled into Bagdhad?"

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/0...

Other sources say that Bush may have been incorrect, but that he did not LIE: "After nearly a six-month investigation, a special panel reported to the British Parliament July 14 that British intelligence had indeed concluded back in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium. The review panel was headed by Lord Butler of Brockwell, who had been a cabinet secretary under five different Prime Ministers and who is currently master of University College, Oxford.

The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:

Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.

Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded."

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_wor...

Enjoy.

Posted by LuckyMe on March 28, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Greenleaf, I applaud your efforts to steer this forum in the direction it needs to go. I am and Independent because I see both sides slinging mud at each other. Bropous was a prime example. I would love to see a forum where solutions are discussed versus mud slingin. I think ALL American's would benefit from a compromise from both sides of the fence. Coming together to create solutions instead of problems is good for us all.

Posted by bropous on March 28, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"That's news to me. The director of the CIA himself said Plame was undercover."

You want to source that one? I've sourced refutations on the "16 words" directly above. Was it Tenet? Tenet was gone by the time Valerie Plame and her hubby pulled their little treason.

Posted by mark79trans on March 28, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

fairness and bropous,

I bet you can find contradictory data indefinitely. I also bet that many American's will accept different interpretations of data that supports their own personal views.

Personally, I feel as though there was plenty of miscalculation to go around and a whole lot of CYI happening. However, I do get annoyed when I hear the conspiracy theories. There is a problem that precedes 9/11 by decades...we need to deal with that problem one way or another.

It comes down to this; I disagree with some of the foreign policy and hopefully it is a learning experience. However, we can all go down the road of shoulda, woulda, coulda until we are blue in the face.

Posted by bropous on March 28, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LuckyMe: Awwww, the Lefties get to trash and lie and slander all they want, becasue Bush is the target. Let one man stand to defend the President with only 1/10th of the vitrol spewed by the anti-Freedom, anti-Iraqi Leftists, and all of a sudden, the mores of society are violated and, clutch the pearls, oooo it's rude!

You want to see mud slinging? Track back and take a look at what has been said about the President and his attempts to defend his nation from Islamofascist thugs. (OOOOO! I said something BAD about terrorists! Oh, wait, MILITANTS! OOOOO! Broke the New York Times style page!!!)

As for greenleaf, look back; strong diatribe was in play long before I even posted. I just happened to use the same vitriol the Left spews right back at them. None of us, and I mean none of us, are here to convince anyone else of any argument, we are stating our opinions. I have quite strong opinions that swim against the current of popular opinion. I do, however, think that a FULL read of the entire situation mitigates for Bush not lying nor being immersed in some oil-money cabal as he has been accused of doing.

fairness [sic], this might surprise you, but the understanding of the situation has changed since 2003-2004. If you want to see some of the mass confusion on both sides of the uranium issue, check this link: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/warini...

Now that nearly 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the liberation of Iraq, the connection between Sadam Husayn and terror has become much more clear:
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/...
http://www.cfr.org/publication/15741/
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News...

And one last thing, greenleaf: I stand by my assertions based on the facts, perhaps not the invective. Hope that clears things up slightly.

Posted by bropous on March 28, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mark79, I hear ya. Good points.

Posted by BO on March 28, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sure American Thinker is a non-biased website. With an article titled "the Disgrace of Liberalism" on their "About Us" link, how could it not be?

Posted by fairness on March 28, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bropous,

I like your choice of FactCheck.org. I really enjoy reading it, and I admit that there are still questions about the yellow-cake purchase allegations, which they point out. I merely pointed out that at the time of the SOTU, this was not known, Bush was told to remove the words from his speech, but left them in anyway.

And "TheAmericanThinker" is where you get some of your information? (See below)

American Thinker (AT) is a conservative daily internet publication. According to it website, American Thinker presents a "thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans." [1]

There is ample evidence to support the notion that AT serves as part of the right wing's echo chamber.

A good example of this can be found in a December 5th, 2007 piece on the National Intelligence Estimate report on the state of Iran's Nuclear weapon's program.[1]

Writer Ed Lasky first refers to an Editorial in the New York Sun inferring that the intelligence community is against President Bush.[2] Lasky concludes that "the National Intelligence Estimate was cooked up by bureaucrats eager to embarrass George Bush and transform US policy towards Iran." To substantiate his argument he goes on to quote an editorial from the Wall Street Journal[3] which avers the authors of the NIE study are: "former State Department officials with previous reputations that should lead one to doubt their conclusions. All three are ex-bureaucrats who, as is generally true of State Department types, favor endless rounds of negotiation and "diplomacy" and oppose confrontation. These three officials, according to the Wall Street Journal, have 'reputations as hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials'." This statement "Hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials", restated as fact in the AT article, is quoted and requoted by rightwing blogs and news sources throughout the media.[4][5][6]

Ultimately this type of statement winds up being echoed by mainstream pundits such as Rush Limbaugh.[7]
[edit]

Citing FactCheck.org I can go along with. The American Thinker, I don't think so. Like mark79trans stated, I think we could both find biased sites to back up our viewpoints. Stick with the mainstream, or those that strive for neutrality.

But I like the more civil approach with trying to back up your words with facts. That is much more powerful than insults. And if you present something I cannot refute, then I'll certainly give you your due.

Posted by LuckyMe on March 28, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bropous, you obviously don't read. You rant and rant and rant and....... Do you ever discuss things? Or is it in your genetic makeup to be so closed minded about practically everything? BREATH. It will do you some good. Try being part of the solution instead of the problem.

Posted by mytwosense on March 28, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bropous, the current director of the CIA, General Hayden, has flat out said Valerie Plame was a covert agent. You can see for yourself where - right on the CIA's website.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/...

Here's the excerpt from the interview he gave, that you can read in full in the link provided above: "The people in our Agency are either not undercover or they are undercover, they are either overt or covert. And then that’s a binary choice for us. And there isn’t a whole lot more to be said once someone has been identified as one or the other category. That is the role the Agency played in this whole national debate, and I’ll let all of the other elements about that…I’ll let other people talk about that. The role of this Agency was simply saying that Ms. Plame’s relationship with this Agency, as a covert CIA officer, was a classified piece of information. "

Posted by fairness on March 28, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So bropous, do you now concede that I am not a liar?

Posted by mytwosense on March 28, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks to all who answered my earlier question about Americans hating each other. I agree the Internet is a shield that lets people basically abandon their manners, and I've been guilty of this myself sometimes.

I wanted to add something to one of the opinions that stated libs have been filled with hate since 2000 when Bush became president. It's true an awful lot of us feel he stole it, or at least prematurely gained it with help from an obviously partisan decision by the Supreme Court. And certainly much of what he's stood for and done in his two terms is against our own political beliefs and personal values.

So yeah, the level of our anger has certainly elevated over the last several years.

However...has everyone forgotten the nineties, and the relentless investigations and hounding of Bill Clinton? And for what? A land deal he lost money on, some files that may/may not have been lost, an official in the travel office who committed suicide, and on and on until finally...finally...they got something on him? A stained dress that essentially became the centerpiece of an investigation that cost the taxpayers over $70 million dollars?

A lot of libs, myself included, remember the daily smutty headlines, the radio talk show pundits' tawdry jokes and accusations, Newt Gingrich waving his Contract on America, er, I mean, Contract with America, on the Congress Steps, the Republicans refusing to budge on any budget bill until the government was forced to shut down, the accusations that Hillary Clinton was a liar, was a murderer, her husband was a rapist...and on and on and on...

And then, we entered the year 2000. In the years ahead, we saw books that called for the death of liberals, for the blowing up of the New York Times, become runaway best sellers. We saw a whole crop of "commentators" make their fortune off tearing down the Clintons. We saw a Vietnam veteran whose military record of two volunteer tours of duty become sullied and tarnished and basically called a coward over and over at the Republican National Convention of 2004. We've heard ourselves described as traitors, as terrorist sympathizers, even to blame for 9/11.

We've heard ourselves called pinko commies and socialists because we want to keep programs that have been a part of the US for almost a century, like Social Security and public education. We've heard ourselves called Godless, and then had to hear that same accuser mock our fellow citizens whose husbands burned to death in the World Trade Center.

It's been pretty ugly for us, too, your fellow Americans.

Posted by greenleaf on March 28, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bropous,

I appreciate, and I'm certain others do as well, your more civil later postings. If you look at my earliest posting today you will see that I upbraided some liberal posters well before you waded in.
My point is that I WANT to hear what you have to say, even IF I disagree with it! You have as much right as anyone to be heard. Speaking as you now are, it has become a much easier process. Thank you for that!

As to no one being in these conversations with the goal of changing people's opinions, I have to disagree. I am definitely engaging in these conversations to influence the debate. It's all hearts and minds! I might not swing you or anyone else my direction today, or on this particular subject, but I'll be back tomorrow and I might do it then. Even if I have no chance of modifying your opinion, I have read that for each courageous writer to these blogs, there are at least 20 others who read without commenting. It's actually them that I play to. Many who post here don't understand that we have a silent audience that we either offend by our writings or influence by our writings.

Believe me, broprous, you write well enough to influence the debate. You serve the arguments you believe in far better with civil discourse than you ever will with insult. Frankly, you can be a worthy opponent and some might say I shouldn't give you advice that will encourage you! I however would like to give you an opportunity to change my mind, because then I might also be able to change yours.

Welcome to the debate my friend!

Posted by greenleaf on March 28, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mytwosense,
I have to say whether people agree or disagree with you, you are a delight to read. I think of all the postings of yours I have read, I appreciate this the most. Excellent writing!

Posted by Grim_Reefer on March 28, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Right on, twocents!

Posted by LuckyMe on March 28, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you mytwocents. I feel the same way. I would like to hear more debate than rantings that would sway me one way or the other. Since I am unhappy with both parties insults, mudslingin, kickin sand in the sandbox, etc.

Posted by John_II on March 28, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"See what happens when I go away for awhile? Everybody calms down! :>)" - greeleaf

You said the same exact thing on another thread just a few weeks ago. And you managed to take credit for the civility on that thread as well.

Do you honestly believe you are changing people's behavior by posting a few scolding messages? Actually, on the other thread, you eventually lost your cool in a spectacular way, not because of any insults, but because of a source you did not approve of.

Insults and acrimony are not the big impediments to debate that some will have us believe. The biggest problem is not insults but intellectual dishonesty.

I would rather be dealt with honestly in the harshest terms than dealt with politely with obfuscation and spurious arguments.

The serious lack of effective argumentative skills is the biggest impediment to debate than anything else. You can call me a moron; you can call me an idiot; you can call me insane; you can call me anything you want as long as you acknowledge my arguments.

Having been on this forum for over a year now, I can say I have been involved in many civil debates. I think it is unfair to pick a thread where the subject is purely partisan and start lecturing folks about their civility. When the topic calls for it, there are plenty of folks here who can rise to the challenge of a civil debate.

So, instead of lecturing folks, greenleaf, I would much rather see you throw your hat in the ring and make some arguments. I do not care for your meaningless labels such as "moderate" or "independent". Take a stand on specific issues and fight!

Posted by Gene on March 28, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mytwosense;
Re; my posting where I laid out the case for Democrats being responsible for current hate climate. Guess you didn’t buy it. But you admit started in 2000 when Bush was elected. Next paragraph; 1990's, Clinton investigated too much. I would say he brought that on. I missed official in travel office who committed suicide. Actually the travel office guy just got fired. Think you mean personal attorney, poor Vince Foster. Again all these charges against the Clintons were not hate. Next paragraph; Newts Contract with America. What was hate about that? It does make my point about Democrats loosing power. Next paragraph; 2000's, you lost me on blowing up N. Y. Times, but sounds like a good idea. And you didn't like Vietnam War Veteran Kerry exposed by Swift Boat guys? Again, just truths, Kerry has never been able to refute. Then, you verge into my friend Ms. Coulter (Godless), and loose it. I thought we were getting on.
Bropous;
Don’t get dragged into the Valerie Plame helpless-covert-lib-argument thing and miss the bigger picture of our intelligence agencies out to get President Bush.
Greenleaf;
I am really trying.

Posted by AshtonExplosion on March 28, 2008 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

i feel so bad for liberals. they're such pansies. are you really that scared to do things all by yourself big boy? yeah let's just let the government do EVERYTHING for us, like COMMUNISM! idiots. it's not fear mongering, it's realizing that we have responsibilities that need to be attended to, and not fake ones like the global warming hoax. i'm glad al gore is gonna get sued for that finally. anyways, those are my thoughts.

Posted by me2 on March 28, 2008 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In an antique store, the other day, I read a headline "This Country Has Never Been More Divided." It was written before 1800. Old time politics was a bare knuckle event, newspapers printed stories and ran pictures that would shock us today.

Go visit an antique store and look at some of the old political cartoons and the smear campaigns that went on.

People, remember that some folks had duels over ideas and opinions.

Posted by greenleaf on March 28, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gene,

I know you are, and you are succeeding too! Have you noticed how people are taking you seriously and commenting reasonably to you? Pinus contorta neat at 5:00 buddy?

John_,

You're in it for the debate John, sometimes I am as well. Other times, I'm in it for the discussion and there's the difference. I debated in high school, many ages ago. I enjoyed the competition and I still do sometimes. Unlike those very formal settings, this, by comparison, is the wild west! People hack and slash at each other and lose sight of their own and everybody else's point. With the acrimony of the last 10 years, I feel we need more discussions than debates, which often turn angry and divisive on the web.

That's my opinion, you may disagree and that's fine. I have always felt that there are no absolutes in the world of politics, just opinions,and some are much better supported than others.

I make no apologies for trying to raise the level of the discussion, it often needs it don't you think? I also take pride in trying to accomplish that! Sure, I'll take credit for my part ! I'll also give credit to Gene, mytwosense, fairness, Mark79trans and anyone else who takes some responsibility for the quality of the discussion.

You are an excellent writer and debater, John, but I think you can do more. The question is will you?

Posted by Gene on March 28, 2008 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Greenleaf;
There goes your condescending attitude again. . . "people are taking you seriously and commenting reasonably to you?" Really. I just may be meeting mytwosense for an Ampelopsis brevipedunculata and Coke.

Posted by John_II on March 28, 2008 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First, greenleaf, I would like you to contrast discussion and debate. To me, discussion revolves around polite yet meaningless talk about the weather. Debate, to you, means scoring points. But, I do not see it that way. I am not referring to competitive debate such as you would find in high school. The debate I seek is simply having multiple sides of an argument explain their points while acknowledging other's points.

As I have stated in my previous post, I desire a rise in argumentative skills more than mere civility. For me, I find I usually break my code of civility when a poster avoids valid questions or otherwise makes spurious or dishonest arguments. Insults and profanities phases me not. Folks like jay and me2, who have a documented history of obfuscations and glibness, do far more harm than any sophomoric acrimony. In fact, prolific posters like jay and a few anonymous posters did more to drive me away from RMN for a few months than anything else.

You are right that this is the Wild West. The forum is open to everyone of all ages, maturity levels and education. Trust me, I have been in some forums where I felt like the least knowledgeable poster in there. Those forums can be very stuffy and stifling. The acrimony is much more clever, less profane, but much more biting. In here, the half-brain is king. It is much more visceral rather than cerebral here. In some cases, harshness works; in other cases, a sly sensitivity works better. The challenge is not in avoiding vulgarity but in knowing when and when not to use it.

Posted by mytwosense on March 28, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gene: "Mytwosense;
Re; my posting where I laid out the case for Democrats being responsible for current hate climate. Guess you didn’t buy it."

Well, I acknowledged it. Like I said, being on the other side of the spectrum, I have a different perspective about the history of hatemongering between the two political schools of thought.

I was just getting my perspective off my chest.

Not that it really made me feel any better.

Posted by Uno on March 28, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve Feld, are you bragging or complaining? “Fear that the $4 I am paying for a gallon of gas is going straight into the pockets of wealthy Arabs who subsidize terrorist organizations.” – if you seek out the most expensive gas station in the state (Aspen?) and run on the highest octane, may be you should fear your self.
“Fear that the $3 trillion the war in Iraq is costing us will overwhelmingly burden my children and grandchildren.” – again a grossly inflated number. No wonder your whole life is based on fear.

Posted by IronmanCarmichael on March 28, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Left-wing fear-mongering: Global warming will seriously impact life on this planet.

Right-wing fear-mongering: Same-sex marriage will cause civilized society to crumble.

Which sounds like the more realistic fear to you?

Posted by John_II on March 28, 2008 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That is a good point, Uno. Steve Feld admonishes the Republicans for the use of fear tactics, presumably regarding terrorism, yet, in the next paragraph, he acknowledges his fear of funding terrorism by buying gasoline.

The job of politics is to address the concerns and fears of voters. Steve Feld fears that he is funding Arab terrorists. The Republicans are tough on Arab terrorists. Therefore, the Republicans are addressing your fears, Steve Feld.

Posted by John_II on March 28, 2008 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Which sounds like the more realistic fear to you?" - ironman

Same-sex marriage since recent data shows the earth is cooling, not warming. Besides, more people die from the cold than heat. Global warming would probably save many lives.

Posted by greenleaf on March 28, 2008 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John,

I commend you! This is a fine piece of writing. I consider you and mytwosense to be among the best writers I have encountered in RMN forums.

As you are aware, and as we have discussed previously, how we define our terms determines how our arguments are interpreted by others. To me, discussion is indeed ,polite, otherwise it is argument. I seek to influence, sometimes through what you call " a sly sensitivity". My goal is to subtly bring people more to my opinion and point of view through carefully orchestrated discussion. I am playing not only to those directly participating, but also those who for whatever reason read but don't participate. That more than any other reason is why I believe civil discourse is paramount. Crudity, anger and active assault intimidate the timid and reticent. I'm not sure debate reaches them and I am almost certain argument and anger lose them completely.

I think you are very good at what you do John, I've read what you write many times and it's almost always a good read. I'm saying that as one who differs with you politically and philosophically! You do credit to your beliefs with writing of that quality. Please watch the quality of your links however :>)!

What I see as the difference between us is your desire to win the "gunfight" in the "wild west" and my desire to influence and bring a little "law" to " Dodge City". I kind of like this metaphor, what do you think?

Seriously John, I want you to know that I do respect you! I see us less as competitors and more as equals playing an intellectual game from different angles and with different goals. Fair enough?

Posted by greenleaf on March 28, 2008 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gene,

I'm hurt! mytwosense's gain would be my loss! I guess I would have to drink my contorta neat alone, in the dark! At least I wouldn't have to share!

Actually, I'd rather share with you !:>)!

Later buddy!

Posted by Old_Grouch on March 28, 2008 at 8:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In the March 20th edition of "Westword" - perhaps the only newspaper left on the Front Range - we find the cartoon, "Todays World", by Tom Tommorow. In microscopic print, down at the bottom in the last panel, there is a quotation from Kurt Vonnegut, that might be apropos here: "There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution; and I don't know what can be done about it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be President."

As "Me2" pointed out, back in the 1800's - even into the early part of the 20th Century at times - politics was bloody for real. Anyone remember reading about the murder in Washington, D.C., when a Senator from the Old South took umbrage at something said by an opponent, and beat the man over the head with a metal headed walking stick, fracturing his skull, and killing him? In those days, "insults" required that "honor be defended".

This blog, on the other hand - as with most political argument today - resembles far more a group of puppies snarling, growling, and barking, while quarelling over a squeek toy. Which, to my way of thinking anyway, does show some growth and development over the year