BJean

Patty, perhaps you were so busy listening to the Republican spin, you missed what was going on with everybody else regarding the decision to declare war on Iraq. All of the upper echelon of the military were absolutely not advising Bush that we should invade Iraq. And the only reason that Congress overwhelmingly voted for giving the president the power to do it was because his administration developed a "convenient truth" about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. If you were paying close attention to what was going on, you would have known how sketchy the whole thing was. Bush originally never said that we were going to drop bombs on Iraq because of 9/11. He couldn't claim that - there was absolutely no proof of it and in fact, there was proof to the contrary. That's why he needed the weapons of mass destruction argument. I can't believe I am actually still explaining this to an American citizen. I thought everyone at this point in time surely understood what when down. Not so? Well as Kartman clearly pointed out, that explains why we need history books to document these things. Barack Obama got a star beside his name in my books when he voted against giving Bush the power to invade Iraq. A golden star that was the beginning of my close look at him. It took me a good long while before I felt I knew enough about him to vote for him. The fact that you keep saying I am infatuated with him is truly laughable. Perhaps there are some people who believe him to be infallible, but I am not one of them. And it's just silly for you to pretend that everyone who supports Obama is "infatuated." Honestly, you really should listen to people who have opposing opinions from yours instead of just listening to the people you agree with in the media. If you would do that, it probably wouldn't change your mind, but at least you would be more savvy about what the opposition thinks so you could come up with arguments that make sense.

Thank you Kartman. I'm impressed.

You know maybe someday our system may change. If there is enough support for it and someone to champion it, perhaps it is not out of the realm of possibility. And I am certainly not opposed to change - we could use a good shaking up I think. I've worked for elected government officials and it is sometimes quite disillusioning to see, up close, how things really get done behind the scenes. But as for politics in the here and now, I stand by my post.

You don't understand about party platform, plain? It'd be good if you read about the different stances that the parties stand for. Sure there are things that the Democratic party has in their platform that I don't necessarily embrace, but I have to always consider the alternative. That being the Republican party platform which I disagree with nearly entirely. (A few exceptions, to be sure.) But I don't really have to go on a rant to explain the wisdom of my position. Your last paragraph pretty much says it all. Keep up the fight to get an Independent party if you believe that is the right thing to do. But don't be surprised if your vote for just the man, winds up electing the person who has poor values and bad judgment and a man whose political party you happen to disagree with vehemently. I have to add that you'd possibly not only be putting the opposition's political party in control of public policies, but also in control of your future.

P.S. Have a good vacation! (Seriously!)

Patty sez: "Dems need to get over the past mistakes that they feel brought us to this point and consider the mistakes that are going on right now that will bring us tremendously farther into ruin. We don't base our opinions on someone by their predicessor. We base them on what they do. So from hence forth, let's stop looking at Bush's (or any other past president's) doings and concentrate on the present. huh? " Huh? First of all we've had it up to our ears in Clinton talk - and that has gone on during the entire last 8 years of the Bush administration. Funny thing though, there was little talk about Clinton's policies - just lots of talk about cigars and blue dresses and lying about innapropriate sexual contact. Why was there little talk about Clinton's policies? Because he left office with the economy doing well, things pretty peachy keen for most Americans. Then comes Bush. First thing out of the chute, we go through 9/11. Then he uses it to further his own personal (and Cheney's) ambitions. The rest is history and we always, always need to learn from past history. That is why it is beneficial for us to continue to examine and discuss exactly what Bush did while in office. Every screw up, every falsehood, every piece of protection of the wealthy's ability to amass obscene fortunes (at the expense of regular Americans), that he put into place. We must never allow another Bush in office and the only way that is going to happen is to continue to talk about his administration and everything that happened during his term. As for the Iraq war, you are once again very wrong. There were lots and lots of us out here who were against bombing Iraq. We were the ones who were the most shocked and awed, when we sat in front of our televisions that fateful night and watched our country drop bombs on Baghdad. Something none of us ever believed our country would do - preemtive strikes on a country that had not attacked us in any way. It went against everything that we thought this country was about. We cried real tears that night. And that was only the beginning. Obscenities were continued to be committed by our country and we watched in shock while it all unfolded. People were rounded up and put into prison in Guantanamo without trial or even the hope of a trial. Claims constantly made that there is no such thing as global warming. Claims that it made sense to give tax breaks to the oil companies, while our gasoline prices rose to ridiculous highs (drill, baby drill.) Public education hitting a new low, environmental protections being slashed, piddling little tax refund checks designed to make us think he was doing something for middle Americans but which didn't fool anybody (or did it?) and the list goes on and on and on. And yes, to answer your question, plain - I probably would have voted for just about anybody to get the incredibly destructive Republicans out of office. And so I did, as did millions of other Americans. I certainly was not alone. But make no mistake about the votes we cast for President Obama - we were thrilled to get someone with a brain and a conscience in that office. The relief you've seen on the faces at his rallies was not "drinking the kool-aide mind-numbing adoration". It was simply relief and a sense of thanking God that at long last maybe we would get someone who cared deeply about this country. We are relieved to have a man at the head of our country who makes a sincere effort to get along with other nations instead of alienating every country across the globe, a man who makes an effort to not be extremist in the plans he puts forth and the policies he endorses, a man who we can be proud of when he opens his mouth, a man who is willing to take responsibility for his actions and those of his country. Which is in stark contrast to what we had for the past 8 years: a man who hid behind his office, a man who embarrassed us when he visited other countries, a man who was willing to bend the truth to get his way, and a man who just wanted to be rich and powerful no matter who it hurt. While you're on your vacation I'd like for you to think about something while you're gone and bring back an answer for all of us. Why exactly do you still think that the Iraq war was a good thing? It is one of the most puzzling things about your posts.

It is a mystery to me why some people think that because Obama is a good speaker and not bad to look at, that it in some way affects what we think of his leadership abilities. We like his policies. We like them. We really like them. Why do you think we voted for him? You seem to think it's because it has something to do with his looks, his charisma, his skin color, his wife, what else am I missing? Get over it. We are in suppot of Obama's handling of foreign countries, we like his stance on global warming and education... and I could go on but you get the point... I think.

Who said anything about his charisma? We were so beaten down by the horrible Bush policies, we wouldn't have cared if a man with better policies had two heads and spoke with a lisp. Why didn't we hear you complain about Bush's policies that helped to create this mess? The same mess that had made Obama's actions (and Bush's initially) necessary? I don't recall you ever criticizing Bush for spending BILLIONS every week in Iraq. Don't you think that went a heckofa long way toward bankrupting our budget? Does it mean a thing to you that under your man, government grew even though the man said he was against big government? And what about that dirty, senseless war? How long have we been in Iraq? Was that what the nation bargained for when we elected the likes of George W. Bush and that stinker Dick cheney? Bush was given his turn. It didn't work. Now give Obama a turn. If and when we go belly up, you can be the first to say "I told you so, suckers!" Until then you're just blowing a bunch of hot air. Btw, I'll be all ears (or eyes as the case may be) when you have a well thought-out plan for revitalizing our economy and helping to repair the global economy from the far west to the far east.

And plain, in theory I certainly understand your disdain for people who are willing to stay with one particular party even if they are not crazy about the candidate. But I don't agree that they are singularly wrong for backing a candidate because of his or her party alignment and I certainly don't believe that people who are strong Republicans or Democrats, are necessarily sheep. Since political parties stand for certain issues, you can separate the man/woman from his/her party to some extent, but if what you believe in are Republican values, voting for a Democrat won't further your cause. In fact, it will give the opposition more power. That might not be very important to you, but don't kid yourself, it is important to the big picture.

plain, I agree with you about Sanford. I am especially sorry for what all of this has to be like for his children. They certainly don't deserve this. It almost looks as if he is trying to run his wife off. The fact that she "understands" and may have been willing to stay with him may be just the opposite of what he's wanting to have happen. Maybe the dude is so moonstruck he's willing to do just about anything to dump his wife and hook up full-time with his Argentinian hussy. :-) And obviously one of the reasons people were initially so aghast at his behavior is because he gave the impression that he was such a straight arrow. Speaking of arrows, now he's been "shot through the heart" as Bon Jovi would say. Tsk, tsk. For shame. *she says shaking her good finger at him*

Clinton would never have been impeached, would never have lied, if it weren't for his innapropriate sexual behavior and his need to hide it from his wife. On other matters regarding Bill's life, I doubt if he would have felt the intense need to lie that he obviously felt about his behavior on that score. (pun intended) And given his sexual proclivities, the Republicans wouldn't have had such a golden opportunity to dog him for his entire presidency which, not surprisingly, wound up in an impeachment hearing. You gotta remember that it was a Republican dominated Congress, and they had the votes to impeach. But when it came to physically removing him from office, they didn't have the guts. And rightfully so. If his lie had actually been a highly unlawful offense, they would have given him the boot. Everybody (practically) lies about infidelity. Republicans like to say the lie is why he was impeached, but even if he hadn't lied, they would have found a way to do it. They'd been working on it for over 7 years and were bound to come up with something. Few people can live under the scrutiny that Clinton had over him. I'm not making any excuses. I wasn't a big Bill Clinton fan, that's for sure. But I am remembering quite well how the whole thing went down.

Yup, I couldn't agree more, Kartman, on every count you mention. At first I was a little put off by his measured moves to be bipartisan and moderate. My heart was wanting him to come in and kick some serious behind. But intellectually, I think he is what this country needs and I hope he can be a sterling example of how our country can be run so that neither extreme is running rough shod over everyone else. His openness and his willingness to expose himself to criticism - while leading this country through these bad times - is just what we need. No more manipulating everything behind the scenes and having a president who is, for all intents and purposes, out of the public eye every day except for very orchestrated and scripted events.

Clinton's problem was that he was a Democrat - primarly. And don't say it wasn't his adultry that got him into trouble - that was his achillies heel and it also goes to the question of whether our elected officials should be doing it - like I said about one's vulnerability to blackmail, earlier.

Some of the British papers prove how entertaining they find their royalty and political figures' personal lives to be. Guess we are the same way, but we get morally outraged instead of just realizing that it is interesting and sometimes amusing.

patty's: " Get real. He had everyhing to do with them. I don't want to 'ignore' anything from any past presidents. But what's been done in the past is not any excuse for what is done NOW. Dems love to blame Bush for the decisions Obama is making NOW. Was Clinton to blame for the things Bush did in office?" Oh but you obviously DO want to ignore what's been done in the past. Democrats and other mainstream Americans do not blame Bush for anything but what he is guilty of. And if his rotten legacy didn't live on through the results of his administration's deeds, we wouldn't still be carping about him. And Republicans have blamed Clinton for everything from 9/11 to Cuban cigar making. Puuuuleeese~

I agree with your first sentence. Then you rant on with a bunch of drivel that negates any good intent that you had in making your post. It's filled with a very narrow, biased and a single-minded approach to what President Obama is trying to do. Furthermore I take issue with your statement that President Obama is not what the people wanted or expected. You have no right to speak for all the people who voted for him. And btw, did you vote for him? If you did and you are surprised at what Obama is working for, then you're free to tell us how misled you believe you were. But as for me and every other individual who voted for Obama, you cannot speak for us.

Yeah, if this Argentinean woman could just act and then die of an "overdose", then they could have their very own Jack Kennedy. My argument with infidelity by a public official isn't with me wanting to impose my moral values on everyone else. It's with the fact that it sets them up for blackmail. Having an affair is not against the law. It also doesn't necessarily compromise one's ability to do one's job. Although in the case of Sanford, it cetainly did. Most politicians affairs are not even known to the public until years later after their deaths when someone decides to write a book and interview hundreds of people. If affairs always caused people to be unable to do their jobs well, America would be in worse shape than we're in and we wouldn't have been able to become the strong nation that we are. Think of Jefferson. Think of Wahington. And no doubt many others of our original constitution framers and officials. How do you check a person's morals when you look at their resume and do an interview? You don't. Unless they have been so indiscreet that it has become a problem, you'd never know if you hired a philanderer. If people lie to their spouses, they'll certainly lie to their potential boss. You can't legislate morality. You can't make everyone take a lie detector test. Even if you made that a requirement, dishonest people can beat lie detector tests anyway. It's beginning to look like the people who protesteth too much are the ones we need to take a harder look at, morality-wise. And that's not just true of our public officials. Take a look around you. What do you see? Do you happen to know of anyone who has been unfaithful? My guess is, yes.

I don't blame you for wanting to ignore George W. Bush's policies that led us into the incredibly unhealthy state of the union. Within a month after Obama took office, Republicans were already blaming him for things that he had absolutely nothing to do with. It's so crazy in fact, the Republicans are looking like frightened mice scurrying around trying to find a hole to crawl in to. And yet they keep taunting the cat (us). It's very weird.

I believe what was said was that changes can be made to fix programs that don't work. Throwing up our hands and saying that a program that isn't working can't be fixed and so we need to get rid of all government programs is flat out ridiculous. Thank God that Obama changed the policy about late term abortion. How dare the government come between a woman and the best medical advice! Her situation is horrendous enough without having to deal with some outrageous government intervention telling her that no matter what her circumstances or her baby's circumstances, she and her baby must just allow nature to take its' unhealthy course. At that point nature has already gone wrong. Women don't just ask for late term abortions - they are advised to for medical reasons.

Patty: if you don't understand the distinction between what I said and what you said, then no wonder you would misquote me. I have no problem with you dragging what I really said over, but don't put quotes around something I didn't say. And don't say that I said that you were happy that the doctor was killed. I said that you sound like someone who could justify killing someone if they are going against God's will. Meaning that your rant on that subject was sounding scary. I didn't state as fact that you are someone who would kill in the name of God and I didn't insinuate that you would go kill somone. I'd go find it and post it here, but I think everyone who reads this stuff knows what I'm talking about. Patty you keep speaking to your claim that those teenagers were asked to leave by the hospital administrator because they said "Jesus" and you didn't say anything about how the children reacted. Could you please give us some backup data? Everyone always insists that I have back up data. Your turn. Find the book or the newspaper or wherever you read it and show us who reported it and exactly how it was reported and when the event occurred. Please.

Patty all the arguments you make about our BAD government wear thin. You speak as if what we had before Obama was better than what Obama is trying to deliver. Most of us don't see it that way. We have had too many years of our politicians behaving the way you suggest. That's how we know, for sure, that it doesn't work your way. That's how we know that we HAVE to make some drastic changes.

patty: "You can dish it out. But I can't? Patty: "You, at one time, made it clear to me that I was just like the abortion doctor killer because of my strong stand on Christianity and the word of God. Are you going to deny that? Unless it was just the way you led me to feel through a series of conversations with you, and not actually those exact words. Either way, you led me to believe that you felt this way about us christian 'extremists'. If that's not really how you feel, then I apologize." Patty, patty, patty.... you can behave as such a simpleton when you feel it is in your interests to do so. If you want to quote me, then use my words. You know how angry you get when someone characterizes your words to mean something different than you intended. Especially if the spin they put on your words is not really what you said. But I'm upset with you because you put words in quotes that you attribute to me that I never wrote. You are very, very wrong to do that. As for my making it clear to you that you are just like the abortion doctor killer... see your words below, "You, at one time, made it clear to me that I was just like the abortion doctor killer because of my strong stand on Christianity and the word of God. you're not entirely correct. I said that there are people who are right wing extremists who are happy, and in fact they are elated, that the good doctor was killed. They believe that it was God's will. If you choose to identify with that statement, that is certainly your prerrogative. However, I certianly did not say that patty is happy that the doctor was murdered in cold blood in his church. And I do feel that what I said is true about many right wing extremists who call themselves Christians but who do not follow the word of God. They are willing to hurt people who do not agree with their religious beliefs, which they justify because they claim that they are accepted "sinners" by God because they have convinced themselves that they are tools for God's work and furthermore, they do not fear the wrath of God (or the laws of the land) because they are doing God's work and he forgives them because they are "born again" and they will most definitely be going to heaven because that's what it's all about Alfie. *she stops, she takes a breath, whew!* Patty, you are right about me when you said that I am afraid of and detest right wing extremists who take the law into their own hands. You are right about me when you say that I believe separation of church and state is necessary because of crazy fanatics who would force their beliefs on all other Americans because they think they are the only ones who understand the Bible and what God intends for us. But you are quite wrong when you presume that I have made any statement of fact that you are THAT extreme. Your posts make it quite clear to anyone who reads them what kind of person you are. I simply attempt to argue the pros and cons of religious pomposity; of intolerance and hatred and about the more tempered approach to spiritual beliefs. You need make your own arguments without misquoting me. You can debate with me and argue against anything I say, that's fair game. But don't use your anger to try to make me look bad. You can dish it out all you like patty, no one is trying to stop you or even inhibit you from that, but don't misquote me. In fact, don't misquote anyone. It's not fair and there is simply nothing that justifies misquoting someone.

The answer is we CAN fix what is broken. Kartman: " Imagine the unjustness if we decided that police or fire service was an individual responsibility... “Oh sorry Mrs. Jones, we can’t send an officer to your home to get rid of that burglar because you don’t have adequate Police Insurance Coverage.” Perfect analogy, Kartman!

Patty!!!!! Back yourself up and apologize to me!!! You have quoted me as saying things that i have not said. You are way out of line and you need to stop the false arguments and rebuttals that you attribute to me. If you can't read an entire post and understand it then give it up. You are not going to be allowed to quote me incorrectly just to make your points. It is not only unfair, it is gross! Just stop it right now!!!!!

Devana what surprises me is that big business has so many middle and low income fighting their fight for them. And some people will never get it.