independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Prince fan community site
| Author | Message |
Quick Thought On Liberals I was pondering this weekend this thought that liberals believe it is our "duty" to nurture those who cannot nurture themselves....
| |
Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: I was pondering this weekend this thought that liberals believe it is our "duty" to nurture those who cannot nurture themselves....
Doesn't this philosophy play against your claims of "choice" in regards to the abortion debate? I mean, you claim that it is the mother's "right" to take the life of the child based on the premise that the child is fully dependent on the mother's body for survival... So, by that rationale, why is it not a violation of my "right to choose" when it comes to people who cannot (or more often, WILL not) provide for themselves? Well...you say "child"? I think right there is the problem. The question is really when one thinks a child is "born" or viable. What gets me is that some conservatives fight for the "rights" of the unborn, but when it comes to helping-out those less fortunate like with healthcare, they don't want to do that. Or like with capital punishment.. some conservatives and liberals, too, think it's ok to take person's life for something he/she's done--usually stemming from a problematic background. Oh.. they would have defended that person's right to be born into it in the first place--just to be executed later on. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
This thread makes zero sense. No one is infringing on your right to choose. Maybe if you could explain why conservatives care about the lives already here, we can start this dialog from an honest place. God DAMN there are a lot of dumb motherfuckers walking around! - George Carlin
Stalkerwomen of the world unite in delusion!!!!!  | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
deadmansbones said: seekingtruth said: I was pondering this weekend this thought that liberals believe it is our "duty" to nurture those who cannot nurture themselves....
Doesn't this philosophy play against your claims of "choice" in regards to the abortion debate? I mean, you claim that it is the mother's "right" to take the life of the child based on the premise that the child is fully dependent on the mother's body for survival... So, by that rationale, why is it not a violation of my "right to choose" when it comes to people who cannot (or more often, WILL not) provide for themselves? Well...you say "child"? I think right there is the problem. The question is really when one thinks a child is "born" or viable. What gets me is that some conservatives fight for the "rights" of the unborn, but when it comes to helping-out those less fortunate like with healthcare, they don't want to do that. Or like with capital punishment.. some conservatives and liberals, too, think it's ok to take person's life for something he/she's done--usually stemming from a problematic background. Oh.. they would have defended that person's right to be born into it in the first place--just to be executed later on. I am referring to the core principle.... Is self-sufficiency a requirement for viability? I don't have a problem providing for those who don't have something, but it is my choice. So, the question becomes....Are these violations of personal freedom or not? I agree with you on death penalty....btw | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Vendetta1 said: This thread makes zero sense. No one is infringing on your right to choose. Maybe if you could explain why conservatives care about the lives already here, we can start this dialog from an honest place.
This makes no sense.... I draw a paycheck....when somebody comes in and tells me how I have to spend that money, it is an infringement, no? | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Vendetta1 said: This thread makes zero sense. No one is infringing on your right to choose. Maybe if you could explain why conservatives care about the lives already here, we can start this dialog from an honest place.
 | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: Vendetta1 said: This thread makes zero sense. No one is infringing on your right to choose. Maybe if you could explain why conservatives care about the lives already here, we can start this dialog from an honest place.
This makes no sense.... I draw a paycheck....when somebody comes in and tells me how I have to spend that money, it is an infringement, no? And what is the new point of the statement you just made? If you want taxpayer money going to things you support the flipside is some dollars will go where you don't want them. I still have yet to see what your original point is. [Edited 10/26/09 6:29am] God DAMN there are a lot of dumb motherfuckers walking around! - George Carlin
Stalkerwomen of the world unite in delusion!!!!! | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Vendetta1 said: This thread makes zero sense. No one is infringing on your right to choose. Maybe if you could explain why conservatives care about the lives already here, we can start this dialog from an honest place.
I am going to assume this broken english is asserting that conservatives do not care about those who are already alive....(open to correction) That is fundamentally false. I care very much about taking care of those who need it, and have given enough money to various causes to back that up... The difference is, I don't believe in a government, that can't run anything to begin with, FORCING people to give to charity. Again, I do; it is a very core conviction of mine, but I don't feel right telling people: A. How much money they can and cannot make. B. What they HAVE to do with that money. For liberals, who claim to be all about personal freedom, to come in and require people to do give to charity is intellectually dishonest. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: deadmansbones said: Well...you say "child"? I think right there is the problem. The question is really when one thinks a child is "born" or viable. What gets me is that some conservatives fight for the "rights" of the unborn, but when it comes to helping-out those less fortunate like with healthcare, they don't want to do that. Or like with capital punishment.. some conservatives and liberals, too, think it's ok to take person's life for something he/she's done--usually stemming from a problematic background. Oh.. they would have defended that person's right to be born into it in the first place--just to be executed later on. I am referring to the core principle.... Is self-sufficiency a requirement for viability? I don't have a problem providing for those who don't have something, but it is my choice. So, the question becomes....Are these violations of personal freedom or not? I agree with you on death penalty....btw Do you agree with me about healthcare? I mean, if you are so concerned with the "rights" of the unborn, then why don't you make it easier for those who are born to be taken care of? And I guess when a child becomes an adult, he's on his own. Bad on him if life has dealt him an insurmountable hand. Getting back to the core principle, I believe in the legal sense, viability is when the unborn is no longer dependent upon his/her mother to survive, right? When he/she develops to the point of viability, then the child is actually sort of society's correct? In other words, isn't murder a crime against the state? Before viability, it's the mother's sole perogative to do what is best for her and her unborn "child" is part of her, not society. As far as it being my duty to protect the unborn well if I personally could provide for every single child born in this world, then I would say it's my duty, but I can't. And apparently, neither can society. So a mother should be able to a choice as per her circumstances. To me, abortion exists because SOCIETY is unwilling to assume responsibility. If a mother would be convinced her child would have at least a fair shot--or a certain standard of life, then maybe there would be fewer abortions. But that's not the case. So it's society's FAILURE. It's our collective failure... YOURS and MINE both. [Edited 10/26/09 6:54am] | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: Vendetta1 said: This thread makes zero sense. No one is infringing on your right to choose. Maybe if you could explain why conservatives care about the lives already here, we can start this dialog from an honest place.
I am going to assume this broken english is asserting that conservatives do not care about those who are already alive....(open to correction) That is fundamentally false. I care very much about taking care of those who need it, and have given enough money to various causes to back that up... The difference is, I don't believe in a government, that can't run anything to begin with, FORCING people to give to charity. Again, I do; it is a very core conviction of mine, but I don't feel right telling people: A. How much money they can and cannot make. B. What they HAVE to do with that money. For liberals, who claim to be all about personal freedom, to come in and require people to do give to charity is intellectually dishonest. While I do not believe in abortion, I will never tell someone to bring a child in this world they don't want. Particularly when the help needed to help with that child is thought of as infringing on someone's rights.  God DAMN there are a lot of dumb motherfuckers walking around! - George Carlin
Stalkerwomen of the world unite in delusion!!!!! | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
And thanks for staying true to form by mentioning my broken English. God DAMN there are a lot of dumb motherfuckers walking around! - George Carlin
Stalkerwomen of the world unite in delusion!!!!! | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: I was pondering this weekend this thought that liberals believe it is our "duty" to nurture those who cannot nurture themselves....
Doesn't this philosophy play against your claims of "choice" in regards to the abortion debate? I mean, you claim that it is the mother's "right" to take the life of the child based on the premise that the child is fully dependent on the mother's body for survival... So, by that rationale, why is it not a violation of my "right to choose" when it comes to people who cannot (or more often, WILL not) provide for themselves? It's not a violation of your "right to choose". I'm quite sure there are no "Liberals" standing around your home or place of business with signs and pictures of homeless people, trying to guilt you into looking in that dark place you call a heart and finding some semblance of compassion, are there? What baffles me is that you really think there are some people that actually WANT to be poor and not able to help themselves and you actually thought that it was a good thing to use as a catalyst for an abortion discussion. How sad you really are! 
. [Edited 10/26/09 6:54am] Of course, I'm a Liberal! I'm an American, damn it!
This country was founded on the premise of Liberty and Justice for ALL...remember? My wallet is STILL on hiatus!  | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Thank you HH.
God DAMN there are a lot of dumb motherfuckers walking around! - George Carlin
Stalkerwomen of the world unite in delusion!!!!! | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
HatrinaHaterwitz said: seekingtruth said: I was pondering this weekend this thought that liberals believe it is our "duty" to nurture those who cannot nurture themselves....
Doesn't this philosophy play against your claims of "choice" in regards to the abortion debate? I mean, you claim that it is the mother's "right" to take the life of the child based on the premise that the child is fully dependent on the mother's body for survival... So, by that rationale, why is it not a violation of my "right to choose" when it comes to people who cannot (or more often, WILL not) provide for themselves? It's not a violation of your "right to choose". I'm quite sure there are no "Liberals" standing around your home or place of business with signs and pictures of homeless people, trying to guilt you into looking in that dark place you call a heart and finding some semblance of compassion, are there? What baffles me is that you really think there are some people that actually WANT to be poor and not able to help themselves and you actually thought that it was a good thing to use as a catalyst for an abortion discussion. How sad you really are!
. [Edited 10/26/09 6:54am] I agree with HH, Vendetta, and deadmanbones. “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist.” Brazilian bishop Dom Hélder Câmara | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Vendetta1 said: seekingtruth said: This makes no sense.... I draw a paycheck....when somebody comes in and tells me how I have to spend that money, it is an infringement, no? And what is the new point of the statement you just made? If you want taxpayer money going to things you support the flipside is some dollars will go where you don't want them. I still have yet to see what your original point is. [Edited 10/26/09 6:29am] The point is personal freedom. I do care about human life and about those who lack something they need; that is why I donate to those causes (time, money, etc)... I do, however, believe that charity is not something that should be mandated as it is in our country....the point of the thread is the contradiction of the liberal mind; there should only be freedom and liberty where a liberal wants it. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
deadmansbones said: seekingtruth said: I am referring to the core principle.... Is self-sufficiency a requirement for viability? I don't have a problem providing for those who don't have something, but it is my choice. So, the question becomes....Are these violations of personal freedom or not? I agree with you on death penalty....btw Do you agree with me about healthcare? I mean, if you are so concerned with the "rights" of the unborn, then why don't you make it easier for those who are born to be taken care of? And I guess when a child becomes an adult, he's on his own. Bad on him if life has dealt him an insurmountable hand. Getting back to the core principle, I believe in the legal sense, viability is when the unborn is no longer dependent upon his/her mother to survive, right? When he/she develops to the point of viability, then the child is actually sort of society's correct? In other words, isn't murder a crime against the state? Before viability, it's the mother's sole perogative to do what is best for her and her unborn "child" is part of her, not society. As far as it being my duty to protect the unborn well if I personally could provide for every single child born in this world, then I would say it's my duty, but I can't. And apparently, neither can society. So a mother should be able to a choice as per her circumstances. To me, abortion exists because SOCIETY is unwilling to assume responsibility. If a mother would be convinced her child would have at least a fair shot--or a certain standard of life, then maybe there would be fewer abortions. But that's not the case. So it's society's FAILURE. It's our collective failure... YOURS and MINE both. [Edited 10/26/09 6:54am] I want everybody to have healthcare when and how they need it. Unfortunately, the bills currently being discussed are not going to do that. We have history, and current analysis that tells these bills have no positive effect on cost; that is the issue. If you are truely concerned about all people getting healthcare when/how they need it, do something for cost. Not patch work that looks pretty, but does not solve anything. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: Vendetta1 said: I left the word "don't" as in you guys don't care about the life once it gets here. For those of you screaming christian and family values, you sure go the hell out of your way to hurt those who are alive that can't care for themselves.
And what is the new point of the statement you just made? If you want taxpayer money going to things you support the flipside is some dollars will go where you don't want them. I still have yet to see what your original point is. [Edited 10/26/09 6:29am] The point is personal freedom. I do care about human life and about those who lack something they need; that is why I donate to those causes (time, money, etc)... I do, however, believe that charity is not something that should be mandated as it is in our country....the point of the thread is the contradiction of the liberal mind; there should only be freedom and liberty where a liberal wants it. How is it not contradictory to speak of personal freedoms and have no problem with the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind? You lump all of us together. You name call. You don't answer questions posed. Do you really want to debate this or not? [Edited 10/26/09 10:50am] God DAMN there are a lot of dumb motherfuckers walking around! - George Carlin
Stalkerwomen of the world unite in delusion!!!!! | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The health care reform mess is an example of Obama trying taking our right to choose heath coverage by taking away all but HIS choice for us. We all KNOW that the main element in this bill is the public option which if it is not in now it will be added before it goes to a vote. The only question is will Obama break another promise and have the bill posted for 72 hours with the Public Option included or not?
| |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Conservatives supposedly want the government out of everybody's business and yet they want to be in our bedrooms and our wombs, telling us who we can marry and what to do with our bodies. Pot, kettle, blah blah blah. |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CarrieMpls said: Conservatives supposedly want the government out of everybody's business and yet they want to be in our bedrooms and our wombs, telling us who we can marry and what to do with our bodies. Pot, kettle, blah blah blah. THANK YOU!!! And the sad part is they are succeeding with part of this. We in no way to force to the right to be charitable.God DAMN there are a lot of dumb motherfuckers walking around! - George Carlin
Stalkerwomen of the world unite in delusion!!!!! | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CarrieMpls said: Conservatives supposedly want the government out of everybody's business and yet they want to be in our bedrooms and our wombs, telling us who we can marry and what to do with our bodies. Pot, kettle, blah blah blah.
I agree with the bed room thing, let adults do what they wanna. But the abortion issue, that has more to do with how a person defines a human life. I say it is sometime between the cigarette and the cigar. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
HatrinaHaterwitz said: seekingtruth said: I was pondering this weekend this thought that liberals believe it is our "duty" to nurture those who cannot nurture themselves....
Doesn't this philosophy play against your claims of "choice" in regards to the abortion debate? I mean, you claim that it is the mother's "right" to take the life of the child based on the premise that the child is fully dependent on the mother's body for survival... So, by that rationale, why is it not a violation of my "right to choose" when it comes to people who cannot (or more often, WILL not) provide for themselves? It's not a violation of your "right to choose". I'm quite sure there are no "Liberals" standing around your home or place of business with signs and pictures of homeless people, trying to guilt you into looking in that dark place you call a heart and finding some semblance of compassion, are there? What baffles me is that you really think there are some people that actually WANT to be poor and not able to help themselves and you actually thought that it was a good thing to use as a catalyst for an abortion discussion. How sad you really are!
. [Edited 10/26/09 6:54am] AGAIN.... CORE PRINCIPLE Do individuals have the right to their property/person, or do they not? I was being generous in even using the abortion topic as there additional debate involved there... If a viability of a child depends on self-sufficiency, and that child's existence is at the good graces of the one who provides for it, then would mother not have a CHOICE to take the life until about 7 years of age? | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Vendetta1 said: seekingtruth said: The point is personal freedom. I do care about human life and about those who lack something they need; that is why I donate to those causes (time, money, etc)... I do, however, believe that charity is not something that should be mandated as it is in our country....the point of the thread is the contradiction of the liberal mind; there should only be freedom and liberty where a liberal wants it. Dems are contradictory? How is it not a contradiction to believe in God and have no problem with the bombing of innocent people? To love God and support the death penalty? To feel pissed off because the government takes a nickel out of every paycheck to feed people? How is it not contradictory to speak of personal freedoms and have no problem with the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind? You lump all of us together. You name call. You don't answer questions posed. Do you really want to debate this or not? [Edited 10/26/09 10:50am] I believe it is wrong to bomb innocent people. I don't support the death penalty I do, however, it is an infringement on personal freedom for the government to mandate charity.... Is it a moral obligation to be charitable? If you subscribe to a moral law (another debate right there), then yes. I give to charitable causes because I believe it is something I should do...and I enjoy it. I don't however believe in telling my neigbor that they have to... | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CarrieMpls said: Conservatives supposedly want the government out of everybody's business and yet they want to be in our bedrooms and our wombs, telling us who we can marry and what to do with our bodies. Pot, kettle, blah blah blah.
I have better things to do with my time than give a crap who you are sleeping with, or who you are marrying. I don't, however, have a problem standing up for the right to live. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Vendetta1 said: CarrieMpls said: Conservatives supposedly want the government out of everybody's business and yet they want to be in our bedrooms and our wombs, telling us who we can marry and what to do with our bodies. Pot, kettle, blah blah blah. THANK YOU!!! And the sad part is they are succeeding with part of this. We in no way to force to the right to be charitable.Of course you do. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: Vendetta1 said: Dems are contradictory? How is it not a contradiction to believe in God and have no problem with the bombing of innocent people? To love God and support the death penalty? To feel pissed off because the government takes a nickel out of every paycheck to feed people? How is it not contradictory to speak of personal freedoms and have no problem with the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind? You lump all of us together. You name call. You don't answer questions posed. Do you really want to debate this or not? [Edited 10/26/09 10:50am] I believe it is wrong to bomb innocent people. I don't support the death penalty I do, however, it is an infringement on personal freedom for the government to mandate charity.... Is it a moral obligation to be charitable? If you subscribe to a moral law (another debate right there), then yes. I give to charitable causes because I believe it is something I should do...and I enjoy it. I don't however believe in telling my neigbor that they have to... Tell you what? Don't tell me what I should do with my life, whether or not I should have a kid, who i should love or be able to marry and I will go to bat for you so you can keep your pennies from your paycheck to your self. Dems are not mandating anything. Taxes go to help the poor under both Dem and Rep administrations. Didn't you support the Iraqi war? God DAMN there are a lot of dumb motherfuckers walking around! - George Carlin
Stalkerwomen of the world unite in delusion!!!!! | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Vendetta1 said: seekingtruth said: I believe it is wrong to bomb innocent people. I don't support the death penalty I do, however, it is an infringement on personal freedom for the government to mandate charity.... Is it a moral obligation to be charitable? If you subscribe to a moral law (another debate right there), then yes. I give to charitable causes because I believe it is something I should do...and I enjoy it. I don't however believe in telling my neigbor that they have to... Tell you what? Don't tell me what I should do with my life, whether or not I should have a kid, who i should love or be able to marry and I will go to bat for you so you can keep your pennies from your paycheck to your self. Dems are not mandating anything. Taxes go to help the poor under both Dem and Rep administrations. Didn't you support the Iraqi war? What is the contradiction? Government is mandating something. Another Liberal Trait: Turn it into partisan debate...I don't like republicans or democrats. I did support the Iraq War as a matter of National Security. How that war was carried out was not my case. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: deadmansbones said: Do you agree with me about healthcare? I mean, if you are so concerned with the "rights" of the unborn, then why don't you make it easier for those who are born to be taken care of? And I guess when a child becomes an adult, he's on his own. Bad on him if life has dealt him an insurmountable hand. Getting back to the core principle, I believe in the legal sense, viability is when the unborn is no longer dependent upon his/her mother to survive, right? When he/she develops to the point of viability, then the child is actually sort of society's correct? In other words, isn't murder a crime against the state? Before viability, it's the mother's sole perogative to do what is best for her and her unborn "child" is part of her, not society. As far as it being my duty to protect the unborn well if I personally could provide for every single child born in this world, then I would say it's my duty, but I can't. And apparently, neither can society. So a mother should be able to a choice as per her circumstances. To me, abortion exists because SOCIETY is unwilling to assume responsibility. If a mother would be convinced her child would have at least a fair shot--or a certain standard of life, then maybe there would be fewer abortions. But that's not the case. So it's society's FAILURE. It's our collective failure... YOURS and MINE both. [Edited 10/26/09 6:54am] I want everybody to have healthcare when and how they need it. Unfortunately, the bills currently being discussed are not going to do that. We have history, and current analysis that tells these bills have no positive effect on cost; that is the issue. If you are truely concerned about all people getting healthcare when/how they need it, do something for cost. Not patch work that looks pretty, but does not solve anything. The Obama Administration is trying to address the cost issue by requiring everyone to have insurance. In addition to this requirement, the Obama administration is trying of offer a competitive public option in order to bring prices down as well as offer the option to choose lower cost insurance out of state. So where is it that he is not trying to address cost? He's trying to cut cost by putting all records in electronic files rather than paperbased. The filing system for health care is archaic to say the least. He's trying to decrease the usage of "proactive" medicine, requiring tests that aren't really indicated. With the exception of the "public option, how is that different from the conservative proposals? Conservatives are so afraid of the word "universal" health care or that really scary word "socialist" they can't even see where they might agree on at least part of his strategy. It's the public option getting people all scared--which it really shouldn't at all. It's amazing to me you all don't trust "big government," but you seem to trust "big business" making a huge profit off misery. Well, if big business weren't so corrupt, maybe the government would have to regulate it? If people were paid a friggin living wage, maybe the could actually afford health care. Of course then CEO's wouldn't be quite as wealthy now would they? The government COULD stay out of it if everyone were treated fairly. Why the heck to you think Obama was elected? Do you think most people are happy with the health care industry? There is a silent majority. Those are the people who need Obama's help. Those are the people who got him elected and he is trying to fulfill his obligation to them, but insurance company lobbyists won't let him. Besides, you didn't address the fact society has letdown families in need in a variety of ways. Healthcare is only the tip of the iceberg. Our prisons are full of examples of society's failure. The fact we still have poor living is absolute squalor is another example. I don't see this big outcry, protesting the living conditions of the poor? It's always about abortion. That's always the debate to which there is really no answer. Maybe if you all would spend a little bit more time shedding some light on plight of the poor, then the abortion issue would take care of itself because they would finally get the help they need--or have a better chance of getting help. You know.. rather than beat people over the head, equating abortion to the murder of children and your "core principles," why not focus on how to avoid an unwanted pregnancy? Why not support the use of birth control--including but not limited to abstinence? Why not support education so people make better choices and can have a chance to earn a better living? I think the best defense against abortion is to avoid the situation in the first place. Then maybe women wouldn't be in the position of choosing to abort an unborn child. [Edited 10/26/09 11:26am] | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: Vendetta1 said: And in your last statement, you contradict yourself again.
Tell you what? Don't tell me what I should do with my life, whether or not I should have a kid, who i should love or be able to marry and I will go to bat for you so you can keep your pennies from your paycheck to your self. Dems are not mandating anything. Taxes go to help the poor under both Dem and Rep administrations. Didn't you support the Iraqi war? What is the contradiction? Government is mandating something. Another Liberal Trait: Turn it into partisan debate...I don't like republicans or democrats. I did support the Iraq War as a matter of National Security. How that war was carried out was not my case. And again, you lump all of us together. I don't like reps or dems either. Iraq was not a threat. I at least hope you regret supporting it. God DAMN there are a lot of dumb motherfuckers walking around! - George Carlin
Stalkerwomen of the world unite in delusion!!!!! | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Vendetta1 said: seekingtruth said: What is the contradiction? Government is mandating something. Another Liberal Trait: Turn it into partisan debate...I don't like republicans or democrats. I did support the Iraq War as a matter of National Security. How that war was carried out was not my case. And again, you lump all of us together. I don't like reps or dems either. Iraq was not a threat. I at least hope you regret supporting it. The experts at that time (including those under the Clinton admin) felt that Iraq had to experience regime change for a secure international community, but I am not going to turn this into a war thread...we can start another one on that. I apologize if I lumped you in. That agitates me, so I should not do it to you. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Add a reply to this topic
Create new topic
Printable version
moderator