Dr Guy


"Col, how many times are you going to say the same thing over and over. We have already showed you how you can't back this up. Dan Rather couldn't prove it, neither can you. Bush served, get over it."

You have done nothing of the sort.

The former speaker of the Texas House has admitted he got Bush into the Texas Air National Guard. The unit Bush was in contained many young men with connections and at that time National Guard units were NOT sent to Vietnam.

Bush told his economics professor at Harvard that his father’s friends got him both into the Guard and the early Honorable discharge. I personally communicated with this professor.

The military Records Bush released that he got from DoD contained a copy of the order that GROUNDED Bush for not taking the REQUIRED Physical.

Thus I have PROVEN what I have said about the Bush Guard service and no matter how many times you refuse to accept these facts that is what happened.

RW and ID. Here is how to debate. *shrugs*. Meh. *nods*. Wonder where laugh and myrth are. Oh wait! Happy and liberal are oxymorons!

Col, Bush served, he was honorably discharged.  We have showed you this many times regardless of your Dan Rather "facts".  End of story.

Amazing how you care and are so obsessed with a man that does not have anything to do with your life.  Get over it.

Just for the fun of it. 

Sept. 17, 2004  The man cited in media reports as having allegedly pressured others in the Texas Air National Guard to help George W. Bush is speaking out, telling ABC News in an exclusive interview that he never sought special treatment for Bush. Retired Col. Walter Staudt, who was brigadier general of Bush's unit in Texas, interviewed Bush for the Guard position and retired in March 1972. He was mentioned in one of the memos allegedly written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian as having pressured Killian to assist Bush, though Bush supposedly was not meeting Guard standards. "I never pressured anybody about George Bush because I had no reason to," Staudt told ABC News in his first interview since the documents were made public. The memo stated that "Staudt is pushing to sugar coat" a review of Bush's performance. Staudt said he decided to come forward because he saw erroneous reports on television. CBS News first reported on the memos, which have come under scrutiny by document experts who question whether they are authentic. Killian, the purported author of the documents, died in 1984. Staudt insisted Bush did not use connections to avoid being sent to Vietnam. "He didn't use political influence to get into the Air National Guard," Staudt said, adding, "I don't know how they would know that, because I was the one who did it and I was the one who was there and I didn't talk to any of them." ‘Highly Qualified’ During his time in charge of the unit, Staudt decided whether to accept those who applied for pilot training. He recalled Bush as a standout candidate. "He was highly qualified," he said. "He passed all the scrutiny and tests he was given." Staudt said he never tried to influence Killian or other Guardsmen, and added that he never came under any pressure himself to accept Bush. "No one called me about taking George Bush into the Air National Guard," he said. "It was my decision. I swore him in. I never heard anything from anybody."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/story?id=123458&page=1

Just for the fun of it. Sept. 17, 2004 The man cited in media reports as having allegedly pressured others in the Texas Air National Guard to help George W. Bush is speaking out, telling ABC News in an exclusive interview that he never sought special treatment for Bush.

So then as usual klink once again gets proven wrong!

I'm sure if some people have their say, it'd be us nuking them first

---Lucas

We should wait until they use their nukes on us or an ally? When you see the storm coming, you take steps to prevent yourself from getting wet. Of course, when the storm comes and we DO get "wet", those who protested for so long that we should just talk and try to work things out will take no responsibility at all. They'll simply blame the Bush Adminstration for not taking action sooner.

Yes, though, if I had my way, Iran would, at the very least, have already been subject to such severe conventional bombing that nothing would be left to use in building nukes.
What we fail to grasp is that these people respond only to force. Shock and Awe isn't enough. You have to follow it up with brutal war of attrition in which you give no quarter and kill as many of them as you can. This they will respect. Negotiation and working at winning all the hearts and minds is viewed as weakness. They laugh at us for our foolishness.

When Iran test fires their first nuke, we should hit them with at least the biggest
conventional bomb we have. It's just a little less in explosive power than the Hiroshima bomb, and even looks like a nuke when it goes off. Drop it out in the desert ten or twelve miles from Tehran.
Let them know that next comes the Real Thing. Tell them if they don't back off, we'll turn the whole damn country to radioactive green glass.
They'll be holding firecrackers compared to what we have, and they'll know it.

Thank you, I admit that that is a first.

--Lucas

Now....no it isn't....we've had some nice conversations in the past, in between telling each other how right we are and how wrong the other is.

You see, this is where you mess up. You are blinded by your narrow view of what a liberal is. You just paint us all with a broad brush and be done with it, shame on you.

It's easier that way. Are you saying most--okay, most TRUE--liberals don't see us conservatives in the same way? Painted with the same broad brush?
We're all just stodgy, warmongering Capitalists; God-and-gun-loving crazies, anchored to the past, who want to exploit, oppress and silence the Little Guy (I myself know many, many "Little Guys, however, who are conservatives), all the while building our empire of greed and death on his back?

Do you deny that elements on the Left are constantly working to undermine the morals and twist or sublimate the traditional faiths, perspectives and opinions of the nation?
It's all over the place, Lucas, and has been for years and years....all you have to do is open your eyes.
There's a book I want you to think about picking up sometime soon. I's called "Hoodwinked---How Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture"; it's by Jack Cashill. Look it up, please.

It's a very good read. It details the way the cultural Left, starting in the 1920s and even earlier, and under the guidance of the Soviets, infiltrated American cultural institutions and continued on into the other levels of our society, and how it continues to this very day.
Most of it was built on smear tactics (something, I might add, which they decried loudly was employed against them in the McCarthy Era), outright lies and conscious misrepresentation or blatant ignoring of established facts.
Not surprisingly, one of the main branches they started with way back then was the shallow, self-loathing, egotisitcal---and useful---idiots in Hollywood. It's like they never left.

Tell me, how do i miss the point? I don't find the US evil. I love the US, it's my birth nation. I do however, think it has, and can be (because we are the most powerful nation in the world, and have been for a while) arrogant, etc... Does that mean i think we should "be brought down," no. I think we should just step back, and take a second, third, fourth (or even more) looks at how we handle things, as well as why we handle them.

Maybe you don't miss it; I don't know. You can say you love the US and don't want to see it "brought down". Okay. Sorry to have offended you. This would make you a "moderate", I suppose, even though, with the Left having gone so far to the left, a "moderate" could be considered a conservative. The political "middle" is now on the Right.

But too many of those on your general side are NOT moderates, and DO want to see the US brought low. They work diligently, in many different ways, at whittling away our governmental system, our resolve and our ideals.
Then, when We The People do raise a stink, they skillfully go on the defensive, and claim it's us that's doing it. They purposely make us question ourselves in a time when we, as a people, can't afford that luxury...and they realize this fact. They exploit it.
And by not standing against them, Lucas, you support them. Just like the "Moderate" Muslims you referred to somewhere above. By not coming out in the streets and demonstrating against the nutcase, violent zealots in their faith, they help them. They embolden them. Yeah...one or two Imams might come out and say "This shouldn't be happening....it's an abomination to Allah and the Islamic faith." But there you have the vast majority of Islamics, just standing by and letting it happen. Silence gives assent.

i.e. Instead of invading Iraq....(and i've heard little about this) why couldn't we have done something different, like perhaps wage a propaganda war? Or the like. I don't think the Bush administration used war as a last means.

---Lucas

I do agree with this; how many years did Voice of America and Radio Free Europe broadcast into the Iron Curtain countries? I don't like the idea of the use of blatant propaganda, though; we did it, and do it, but too much of it is based in complete fabrication and lies. Leave that to the enemies of democracy.
Thing is, there comes a time when action is called for. Words only go so far; rebels and spies have to be recruited and supplied...arms have to be smuggled in to them. Violent and destructive ation has to be employed, or at least implied.
As I say, VOA and RFE did their thing for years, but in the end it took direct economic manipulation and subtle military action to finally bring down the USSR and its satellites.

Maybe you don't miss it; I don't know. You can say you love the US and don't want to see it "brought down". Okay. Sorry to have offended you. This would make you a "moderate", I suppose, even though, with the Left having gone so far to the left, a "moderate" could be considered a conservative. The political "middle" is now on the Right. But too many of those on your general side are NOT moderates, and DO want to see the US brought low. They work diligently, in many different ways, at whittling away our governmental system, our resolve and our ideals. Then, when We The People do raise a stink, they skillfully go on the defensive, and claim it's us that's doing it. They purposely make us question ourselves in a time when we, as a people, can't afford that luxury...and they realize this fact. They exploit it. And by not standing against them, Lucas, you support them. Just like the "Moderate" Muslims you referred to somewhere above. By not coming out in the streets and demonstrating against the nutcase, violent zealots in their faith, they help them. They embolden them. Yeah...one or two Imams might come out and say "This shouldn't be happening....it's an abomination to Allah and the Islamic faith." But there you have the vast majority of Islamics, just standing by and letting it happen. Silence gives assent.

No worries, just becareful who you paint what. Not everyone is as you think; get to know them, and then decide who/what they are.

Yes, a moderate left winger/liberal, etc... The reason i call myself liberal, is becuase...definition wise, i am, for "progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs," and "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible," etc... I don't follow modern liberalism, i know that. I'm still reading up, and forming my stances...then i will know what type of liberal i am. i.e. whether i follow classic liberalism, or what not.

Granted, one could...but then there comes choice. Then, "what has happened" becomes defunct, because a person could easily say they are liberal, for one reason or another. It might not fit, or make sense...but, when are humans sensical?

Fine, but I'm not one of them.

Why can't we afford to question ourselves?

Those muslims i speak of, want to live life. They don't want to speak out, and in the end, get killed. They are like every other human being.



Remember, conservatives..."traditionalists"...all thought the world was flat, and the earth was the center of the universe.

It's easier that way. Are you saying most--okay, most TRUE--liberals don't see us conservatives in the same way? Painted with the same broad brush? We're all just stodgy, warmongering Capitalists; God-and-gun-loving crazies, anchored to the past, who want to exploit, oppress and silence the Little Guy (I myself know many, many "Little Guys, however, who are conservatives), all the while building our empire of greed and death on his back? Do you deny that elements on the Left are constantly working to undermine the morals and twist or sublimate the traditional faiths, perspectives and opinions of the nation? It's all over the place, Lucas, and has been for years and years....all you have to do is open your eyes. There's a book I want you to think about picking up sometime soon. I's called "Hoodwinked---How Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture"; it's by Jack Cashill. Look it up, please. It's a very good read. It details the way the cultural Left, starting in the 1920s and even earlier, and under the guidance of the Soviets, infiltrated American cultural institutions and continued on into the other levels of our society, and how it continues to this very day. Most of it was built on smear tactics (something, I might add, which they decried loudly was employed against them in the McCarthy Era), outright lies and conscious misrepresentation or blatant ignoring of established facts. Not surprisingly, one of the main branches they started with way back then was the shallow, self-loathing, egotisitcal---and useful---idiots in Hollywood. It's like they never left.

I admit, that there is a so called "war" between your kind, and your counterparts on the left. I admit that I have stepped back, and looked at this...farce, and shaken my head, because...it will, in the end, destroy us. We are unable to tolerate each other, and are either naturally ignorant, or willfully ignorant that we are a nation of diversity...and hence that, there are different morals, traditions, faiths, perspectives, etc...

Until we --i'm sorry--...YOU, those who are "at war" against those "evil lefties," and your counterparts who are "at war" against "those evil righties," pull your heads out of your asses...and stop perpetuating things,there will be no peace, no..."united we stand."

In fact, "United we stand," is the biggest irony/paradox/misunderstanding in history. We are not united, we are most certainly devided.

Yes, I will check out that book, as will i check out one just as equally biased. (Yes, biased...if it is one thing i have learned in my history classes, is that EVERYONE has bias.) I will read them both, and make my decision then.

Now....no it isn't....we've had some nice conversations in the past, in between telling each other how right we are and how wrong the other is.

Hmm, I don't remember those times, my apologies.

*Laughs his ass off*

You know, your comment, "starting in the 1920s and even earlier, and under the guidance of the Soviets, infiltrated American cultural institutions and continued on into the other levels of our society, and how it continues to this very day.
Most of it was built on smear tactics (something, I might add, which they decried loudly was employed against them in the McCarthy Era), outright lies and conscious misrepresentation or blatant ignoring of established facts," sounds just like those whom some of you decry as "loony lefties," when they say "it's a government conspiracy." That sounds awfully "conspiracy theorist" like.


What I find funny...is that liberalism, "an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value," is, as you say "your enemy/rival" etc... why so?

Why is it so wrong, to question things, to limit corporations so that people are treated fairly, to demand equal rights for all, etc...?

THAT, is what being liberal is all about. That is what I abscribe to.

We should wait until they use their nukes on us or an ally? When you see the storm coming, you take steps to prevent yourself from getting wet. Of course, when the storm comes and we DO get "wet", those who protested for so long that we should just talk and try to work things out will take no responsibility at all. They'll simply blame the Bush Adminstration for not taking action sooner. Yes, though, if I had my way, Iran would, at the very least, have already been subject to such severe conventional bombing that nothing would be left to use in building nukes. What we fail to grasp is that these people respond only to force. Shock and Awe isn't enough. You have to follow it up with brutal war of attrition in which you give no quarter and kill as many of them as you can. This they will respect. Negotiation and working at winning all the hearts and minds is viewed as weakness. They laugh at us for our foolishness. When Iran test fires their first nuke, we should hit them with at least the biggest conventional bomb we have. It's just a little less in explosive power than the Hiroshima bomb, and even looks like a nuke when it goes off. Drop it out in the desert ten or twelve miles from Tehran. Let them know that next comes the Real Thing. Tell them if they don't back off, we'll turn the whole damn country to radioactive green glass. They'll be holding firecrackers compared to what we have, and they'll know it.

This is something I've wondered....would they really use them? In fact, are they really trying to obtain nuclear weapons? (Don't give me propagandic/biased rhetoric, just links/facts)

If they truly, as they say, are aiming to obtain energy for demographic use, (electricity, etc...) then so be it. Numerous other countries do so.

It's easier that way. Are you saying most--okay, most TRUE--liberals don't see us conservatives in the same way? Painted with the same broad brush?

I can think of several liberals I know who do not, i myself don't. Face it, not all do, and to group us together, when clearly not one person is the same....is unethical, and wrong.

I am certainly not happy that we are losing the war. I'm not happy that we were there in the first place. Despite continued claims from Dick Cheney, this war never had anything to do with the war on terror. A bipartisan commitee appointed by a Republican led congress has debunked every reason given for going to war, from non-existent weapons of mass destruction, to tenuous at best relation to terror.

Once we were there results were predictable. We went to Iraq trying to occupy a country with a third of the troops used in the first Gulf War. Looting and lawlessness went unchecked by a military that was built to win the battles but not control the territory afterwards. Don Rumsfeld sat at the Pentagon threatening to fire anyone who said we needed a means to win the peace. Of course everyone is going to step in line and say we have enough troops to do the job.

We stopped the war on terror in Afghanistan for this? The biggest culprits of terror are still out there with no means for us to get at them. Bush claims we are winning the war on terror because there have been no attacks on American soil in the five years since 9/11. Guess what, there were no attacks on American soil in the eight years prior to that. Terrorism is on the rise world wide and American citizens in the form of our soldiers are dying every day. Was this failed attempt at democracy worth it? Are the dozens of Iraquis dying every day thinking that America has brought them something better? Our actions there were like building a library in a town of illiterates and expecting them to gain benefit without the luxery of reading lessons.

You can argue that we brought democracy to dictatorships in Japan and Germany, but the alternative for them was to be brought under the heel of communism. For many in Iraq we are still the evil alternative contrary to their religion. We offered them little security in the days after the defeat of Saddam. Why should they feel that what we have to offer is better for them? We brought down the barriers that stopped them from warring amongst each other. Their society is fragmented now to the point of civil war. In Germany there was an insurgency that was brought down by the people who were tired of being led by a mad dictator into annihilation. In Iraq they are still worried that we are taking away their religion. Surely even Saddam was preferable to that. And now we have NATO floundering after letting the Taliban rise back from the ashes. Europe has more to gain than we do from stopping terrorism because their countries are the most likely targets. Yet they show indifference to sacrificing for the cause because we have not shown them that there is an attainable goal.

The reason i call myself liberal, is becuase...definition wise, i am, for "progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs,"

---Lucas

Fine; you're a moderate liberal. But let's not forget that one of the things many liberals attempt to undermine is religious---mainly Judeo-Christian---faith. The ACLU works actively at it. Your "Spiritism" is fine by them, as, it seems, are all other faiths; Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, even Vampirism....so it wouldn't affect you very much.
If indeed you disagree with this view, this erasing of all specific, Judeo-Christian symbols and ideals from public, government-funded view, fine.....but you need to take a vocal stand against those zealots on your side who work at it.

Why can't we afford to question ourselves?

---Lucas

Well....questioning ourselves is almost always good; it keeps us true to ourselves....except when being faced with an obvious threat. In wartime, you have to act, and act decisively; a nation of people can't afford to question itself. That's for peacetime, when such luxuries are permissable. You have time then.

Those muslims i speak of, want to live life. They don't want to speak out, and in the end, get killed. They are like every other human being.

---Lucas

So self-sacrifice in the name of a god, or even of a people being wronged, isn't acceptable? Nope....I guess you're really not a Christian. For sure. Maybe you're not even a liberal.
As to the Muslims;
The "brave, noble" Islamic "Martyrs" and "Freedom Fighters" do it every day. Yet those "moderates" whose "peaceful" faith is being smeared by their actions can't find the courage in their hearts to oppose them? Even vocally? Why is that?

Remember, conservatives..."traditionalists"...all thought the world was flat, and the earth was the center of the universe

---Lucas

You mean IT'S NOT?  
Yes, this is true....but then, we allowed ourselves to accept the truth. Read that book I told you about....you'll see what I mean here. So much of what liberals look upon as dogma is based in the misdirection and misrepresentation, and even the outright fabrication, of essential facts.
I know...conservatives do tell lies, too.....the main difference is that, when a liberal is caught in a lie, the forces in his corner---including the media---will very often go to bat and cover for him/her. When a conservative is caught, his reputation is destroyed or marred for life. For example:

Witness the smearing of conservative author Bill Bennet; he wrote a conservative tome called "The Book of Virtues". It was soon "discovered" that he had a penchant for gambling. He wasn't actually "caught" in a "lie", but rather what some considered to be a conflict of views. He was widely and publicly pounded in the media and liberal literary circles.
On the other hand, we have uber-liberal Ward Churchill, whose entire life, literally, has been an intricate series of fabrications, misrepresentations and general spin. His lies have been exposed many times, but he's still considered a liberal icon.

That, Lucas, is one of the main differences between the two.

I admit, that there is a so called "war" between your kind, and your counterparts on the left. I admit that I have stepped back, and looked at this...farce, and shaken my head, because...it will, in the end, destroy us. We are unable to tolerate each other, and are either naturally ignorant, or willfully ignorant that we are a nation of diversity...and hence that, there are different morals, traditions, faiths, perspectives, etc...

---Lucas

"Diversity.....different morals, traditions....etc." We're all different, right?....there is no absolute "Truth"...no absolute "morality". Moral Relativism. That's what's destroying us. We're no longer allowed to have "Definite" views or standards of anything. Too bad our enemies in Islamic Fundamentalism don't see it the same way. We could maybe fight this whole thing out by hitting each other with Nerf bats, so no one gets hurt. First one that bends a bat is out.

Yours is the view that has been propagated since the Leftist revoltuion of the 1960s and 70s; it completely ignores the fact that our nation, with its "traditionalist" views of Diversity, Truth and Morality, grew and prospered quite well, from a small band of colonies into a major world power, for 190 years prior. IN LESS THAN 190 years, I might add. This just has to change, right?
Conservatives can, and do, co-exist with the liberals. We do it quite well, if a little sarcastically. It's the liberals who cannot abide us and our opinions.
We, for example, are not the ones freely using the Judicial branch to manipulate or bypass the Legislative and Executive, or to impose our views and ideals on the general society at large. That priviledge seems to be reserved, overall, for the Left.

What I find funny...is that liberalism, "an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value," is, as you say "your enemy/rival" etc... why so?

----Lucas

Mainly because this dictionary definition of a political philosophy is so very far removed from the reality. Liberals claim freedom of speech as one of their main tenets, except when it's a conservative voice or opinion being raised. Then they want to shout it down or somehow discredit it.
They vocally espouse personal freedoms, but will simultaneously champion the Gestapo tactics of the PC ideal. They also call for more and more laws restricting personal behavior---"hate crime" laws, for example; gun control laws, for another. But, by the same token, when laws or actions are called for by the "other side" that may somehow restrict "personal freedoms" --i.e. the Patriot Act, the NSA wiretapping....that's a no-no.
They'll protest prisoner executions one day, and attend a pro-abortion rally the next. There's a name for it: Hypocrisy.

Why is it so wrong, to question things, to limit corporations so that people are treated fairly, to demand equal rights for all, etc...?

---Lucas

As I said, it's not wrong to question.....and working toward fairness for everyone is fine. The thing is, see.....the Left, in its quest to legislate and/or adjudicate fairness and prosperity in life and society, instead creates less of each. I can't really explain it properly, any more than I already have.

"Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent."---Quinn's First Law.

That about sums it up.

This is something I've wondered....would they really use them? In fact, are they really trying to obtain nuclear weapons? (Don't give me propagandic/biased rhetoric, just links/facts)

---Lucas

Look....do you honestly think a people who would support, indeed PAY, sucide bombers to do what they do....would support, and cheer for, the flying of hijacked jets full of innocents into skyscrapers full of same, would heistate to use a nuclear weapon if they had one? I don't....and don't think this should be a "wait and see" moment, either.
You, yourself, have pointed out the "diversity" in thought, morals, etc., of differing peoples, yet, like others of your view, you seemingly refuse to assign this same ideal to our Muslim enemies. You treat them as if they're just like us. They're not.
They don't think like us, Lucas. Sometimes, it seems, they don't even bother to think. They just hate and rage. Lying and deception is a virtue, especially when dealing with infidels like us. They're different.
And yes, enough intelligence sources from around th world have found enough evidence that yes, they are trying to obtain nuclear material/weapons. Once again, should we wait and see? Nope.

If they truly, as they say, are aiming to obtain energy for demographic use, (electricity, etc...) then so be it. Numerous other countries do so.

---Lucas

They sit on an ocean of oil. Gas there costs maybe 1/10th of what it does here. Do the math.

Mainly because this dictionary definition of a political philosophy is so very far removed from the reality. Liberals claim freedom of speech as one of their main tenets, except when it's a conservative voice or opinion being raised. Then they want to shout it down or somehow discredit it. They vocally espouse personal freedoms, but will simultaneously champion the Gestapo tactics of the PC ideal. They also call for more and more laws restricting personal behavior---"hate crime" laws, for example; gun control laws, for another. But, by the same token, when laws or actions are called for by the "other side" that may somehow restrict "personal freedoms" --i.e. the Patriot Act, the NSA wiretapping....that's a no-no. They'll protest prisoner executions one day, and attend a pro-abortion rally the next. There's a name for it: Hypocrisy.

That's where i am, i am pretty much, for the most part a dictionary version of a liberal. (As far as i have read) I'm for rights, all rights, and will push for progressivism without hurting others.

Witness the smearing of conservative author Bill Bennet; he wrote a conservative tome called "The Book of Virtues". It was soon "discovered" that he had a penchant for gambling. He wasn't actually "caught" in a "lie", but rather what some considered to be a conflict of views. He was widely and publicly pounded in the media and liberal literary circles. On the other hand, we have uber-liberal Ward Churchill, whose entire life, literally, has been an intricate series of fabrications, misrepresentations and general spin. His lies have been exposed many times, but he's still considered a liberal icon.

Oh, really? I haven't heard about that (the con. author). Pardon my francais, but that is bullshit. If you did something wrong, you did something wrong. It's not right to blame others - to persecute/crucify them, then raise another high, claiming they are...good, fair, etc... It's...BS.

Fine; you're a moderate liberal. But let's not forget that one of the things many liberals attempt to undermine is religious---mainly Judeo-Christian---faith. The ACLU works actively at it. Your "Spiritism" is fine by them, as, it seems, are all other faiths; Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, even Vampirism....so it wouldn't affect you very much. If indeed you disagree with this view, this erasing of all specific, Judeo-Christian symbols and ideals from public, government-funded view, fine.....but you need to take a vocal stand against those zealots on your side who work at it.

I'm not like that, I treat every religion (no matter how mind boggling it may be) as equal. I'm not out to wipe anything out. I.e. Live and let live.

Change/progressive is a good thing, but not when it intrudes upon others. That is where modern liberals have lost their way.


NOTE: Im now on my way home, so i will finish this in due time.

. But let's not forget that one of the things many liberals attempt to undermine is religious---mainly Judeo-Christian---faith.

nonsense! not wanting to dangerously mix religion and governemnt is not undermining the faith. despite what bill oreilly, john gibson and all the other talking heads claim.

nonsense! not wanting to dangerously mix religion and governemnt is not undermining the faith. despite what bill oreilly, john gibson and all the other talking heads claim.

Displaying Christmas Trees in public is not a "dangerous" mix of religion and government.  Every year we list many examples of liberal organizations that attempt to attack any form of Christianity. 

Displaying Christmas Trees in public is not a "dangerous" mix of religion and government. Every year we list many examples of liberal organizations that attempt to attack any form of Christianity.

since when is a christmas tree a religious symbol? x-mas trees are a secular representation of christmas like santa and rudolph.

nativity scenes, crucifixes and the like are what those folk have protested.

personally, my problem with chritmas trees is that they are a waste of tax dollars (which i am sure other libertarians like gideon agree with), but i have no religious beef with them, as they are not a religious symbol inherently.

tell me where x-mas trees are in the bible?

nativity scenes, crucifixes and the like are what those folk have protested.

Not entirely.  Any symbols of Christmas have been attacked by left wing groups. 

tell me where x-mas trees are in the bible?

Don't know.  Really doesn't matter.  If they are not in the bible then why is there such a problem with them?

personally, my problem with chritmas trees is that they are a waste of tax dollars (which i am sure other libertarians like gideon agree with), but i have no religious beef with them, as they are not a religious symbol inherently.

Well thats a point, but a useless one at best.  Governments local, state and federal spend countless dollars on things such as painting and decorations for buildings.  Why is the one that is aimed at Christmas so special to pick out?

These liberal groups are not attacking symbols of Christmas because of their cost, they are picking them out because it's a symbol of Christianity and it might offend someone.

http://islanddog.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=137601

Displaying Christmas Trees in public is not a "dangerous" mix of religion and government. Every year we list many examples of liberal organizations that attempt to attack any form of Christianity. since when is a christmas tree a religious symbol? x-mas trees are a secular representation of christmas like santa and rudolph. nativity scenes, crucifixes and the like are what those folk have protested. personally, my problem with chritmas trees is that they are a waste of tax dollars (which i am sure other libertarians like gideon agree with), but i have no religious beef with them, as they are not a religious symbol inherently. tell me where x-mas trees are in the bible?

No, YOU tell me "why" they were banned at all? Or "why" this?

HOLIDAY BLUES Christmas carols banned, but Hanukkah songs OK District axes 'dogmatic religious statements,' yet suggesting Jewish themes more

Link


Now are you ging to tell me that "Jingle Bells" is a religous song?
Or how about this?


Link

quote]No, YOU tell me "why" they were banned at all?

tell me when they were banned...

from the USA Today article "A Fictional War on Christmas"...

For example, this year in Boston — the same city where Puritans once prohibited the pagan-inspired "Christmas tree" — the new Puritans now demand that the city call its evergreen spruce a "Christmas tree," and they threatened a lawsuit if the city didn't comply.

Another group charges that there is a "campaign of fear, intimidation, and disinformation" against seasonal symbols in Raleigh, N.C. — and they offer to provide a defense for the city against any threatened lawsuit. Yet they give no evidence that anyone is threatening a lawsuit. Before accusing others of engaging in "disinformation," perhaps these Christmas warriors should first take a look in the mirror.

Why this desire to manufacture controversy — about Christmas?

and how does Faux news report about the ACLU and xmas?

Last December, a group called Public Advocate for the United States (which claims to defend America's traditional family values) sent some Christmas carolers over to sing in front of the ACLU offices in Washington.
Carrying signs reading "Merry Christmas" and "Please Don't Sue Us!" — they also seem to have carried with them some rather strange imaginings about an assault on Christmas. (Related: Law doesn't mandate a secular Christmas | The year's dust-ups)

I don't know what the carolers thought might happen.

To tell the truth, the ACLU is not often serenaded by Christmas carolers. So it was with some excitement that the staff went outside and joined in the singing. They brought with them cookies and warm drinks to share. One staff member, who is an ordained Baptist minister, did a little witnessing about his faith to some astonished proponents of family values.

Fox News did broadcast the event (as a part of its "war against Christmas" campaign). Although the visiting singers were shown, the cameras failed to include any footage showing that everyone had participated in the caroling. Rather than reporting the facts, the anchor preferred the propaganda: "We believe the ACLU heard the message loud and clear, but they don't care."

stop this nonsense.

Or "why" this?

dude,,,you really have no idea what my position is, do you? i have written on it before...but if i need to repeat myself, fine...i think some have gotten way out of hand with their problems with xmas. in my mind, xmas doesn't offend anyone inherently. yes, i am against overt religious symbols such as a nativity scene on goverment property, funded by tax dollars. but singing a song doesn't cost anything. i think the district is wrong.

but these "xmas tree lawsuits by the ACLU" are ficticious. that's the point.

but i guess you'd rather argue about this since all of the radical right wing's war arguments have turned to sand, pardon the pun...

stop this nonsense.

Stop what nonsense? Did you bother to even "read" the 2 links I posted? Care to try again?

Airport's trees stoking "war on Christmas" By Stuart Eskenazi Seattle Times staff reporter Related Sunday's story | Airport puts away holiday trees rather than risk being "exclusive" What do you think about Sea-Tac Airport's decision to take down its holiday trees? The departure of Christmas tree displays at main passageways at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport — the Port of Seattle's response to a local rabbi's insistence that an electric menorah also be put up — is accelerating into an international spectacle in the so-called "war on Christmas."

Link

De-Christmasing Christmas By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | November 30, 2005 WHEN A commotion erupted over the fact that the 48-foot white spruce installed on the Boston Common -- an annual gift from the people of Nova Scotia -- is identified on Boston's official website as a ''holiday tree," the city's commissioner of parks and recreation sided firmly with the critics. ''This is a Christmas tree," Antonia Pollak declared. "It's definitely a Christmas tree." At least that's what she told the Boston press. According to CBC News, on the other hand, she took a rather different line with the Canadian press: ''A lot of people celebrate various religious holidays but also enjoy the lights, and we're trying to be inclusive."

Link

No, YOU tell me "why" they were banned at all?

tell me when they were banned...

from the USA Today article "A Fictional War on Christmas"...

For example, this year in Boston — the same city where Puritans once prohibited the pagan-inspired "Christmas tree" — the new Puritans now demand that the city call its evergreen spruce a "Christmas tree," and they threatened a lawsuit if the city didn't comply.

Another group charges that there is a "campaign of fear, intimidation, and disinformation" against seasonal symbols in Raleigh, N.C. — and they offer to provide a defense for the city against any threatened lawsuit. Yet they give no evidence that anyone is threatening a lawsuit. Before accusing others of engaging in "disinformation," perhaps these Christmas warriors should first take a look in the mirror.

Why this desire to manufacture controversy — about Christmas?

and how does Faux news report about the ACLU and xmas?

Last December, a group called Public Advocate for the United States (which claims to defend America's traditional family values) sent some Christmas carolers over to sing in front of the ACLU offices in Washington.
Carrying signs reading "Merry Christmas" and "Please Don't Sue Us!" — they also seem to have carried with them some rather strange imaginings about an assault on Christmas. (Related: Law doesn't mandate a secular Christmas | The year's dust-ups)

I don't know what the carolers thought might happen.

To tell the truth, the ACLU is not often serenaded by Christmas carolers. So it was with some excitement that the staff went outside and joined in the singing. They brought with them cookies and warm drinks to share. One staff member, who is an ordained Baptist minister, did a little witnessing about his faith to some astonished proponents of family values.

Fox News did broadcast the event (as a part of its "war against Christmas" campaign). Although the visiting singers were shown, the cameras failed to include any footage showing that everyone had participated in the caroling. Rather than reporting the facts, the anchor preferred the propaganda: "We believe the ACLU heard the message loud and clear, but they don't care."

stop this nonsense.

and how does Faux news report about the ACLU and xmas?

LOL....Faux news.  I suppose you will tell us the MSM is otherwise honest.  What is your funny name for CNN?

No, YOU tell me "why" they were banned at all? tell me when they were banned...

I gave you links. Do your OWN reading. THIS IS WHEN THEY WERE BANNED!

Monday, December 11, 2006 - Page updated at 02:26 PM Airport's trees stoking "war on Christmas" By Stuart Eskenazi Seattle Times staff reporter Sunday's story | Airport puts away holiday trees rather than risk being "exclusive" What do you think about Sea-Tac Airport's decision to take down its holiday trees? The departure of Christmas tree displays at main passageways at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport — the Port of Seattle's response to a local rabbi's insistence that an electric menorah also be put up — is accelerating into an international spectacle in the so-called "war on Christmas."

Now go READ the link I posted!

1st off,,,the seattle situation is unfortunate. but there was no "war on christmas" there. the intention was for a rabbi to get a menorah display. the airport was incapable of accomodating it, and in the interest of fairness, dropped the tree. by the way,,,where was the ACLU in that article?

personally, i feel the airport administration folded too easily and unnecessarily. but there was no "war on christmas there like oreilly wants you to believe. there was no "banning." the airport administration made a choice,,,a bad one in my opinion.

the 2nd article is out of context i suspect. her line to the canadian press doesn't include what question was asked. can you provide a transcript of the actual interview...i honestly looked hard and couldn't find it. but regardless, it's a silly story. i see no conspiracy happening there either. i believe calling things a "holiday tree" or whatever is silly. and the debate over it even sillier. why spew hate over a holiday that is all about love?

and what is so "christian" about the way christmas is celebrated for the most part anyway? most of it is pure capatalism and marketing. and mostof the traditions are borrowed from the pagan holiday, saturnalia anyway.

in each example anyone from the radical right points out, it is always an individual or a few people causing the stir. there is no vast left wing conspiracy. there are no secret meetings in smokey rooms where left wing leaders plot the demise of the christmas holiday. it's all nonsense.

....Faux news. I suppose you will tell us the MSM is otherwise honest. What is your funny name for CNN?

i guess ya mean msnbc. as far as both them and cnn go, their reporters have biases like anyone else. and like i've said before, biases don't make you dishonest. fox is dishonest in it's reporting imho much more than either of the other 2 major cable news networks. but if it's funny names ya want...

CNN...candy news network...if anything, cnn does way too much fluff. i mostly watch their morning show, out of habit. but i do like to check in with conservative wolf blitzer on occasion and "who the hell knows where he stands on the spectrum" lou dobbs as well. anderson cooper is annoying. dr gupta is like having a 2nd mother in law. paula zahn wishes she was katie couric and oprah rolled into one, but instead is just a 2nd rate version of both of them.

MSNBC...mostly serious not boring channel...i think msnbc has some of the best people working for it. i like matthews, olbermann (tho a little too left sometimes, i admire his hutzpah) and the republican scarborough alot. i think dan abrams is doing good work as news director. i think they might have finally found a niche for allison stewart, who is still trying to live down her VJ years. i did notice that fox copied the format with hemmer's fox online show. isn't immitation the sicncerest form of flattery? hey, and anyone who gives pat buchannan an open mike is ok in my book.

You only see Foxnews as dishonest because its bias isn't in line with your bias. CNN and especially MSNBC are pretty far left in much of their reporting as well.

CNN publishes terrorist propaganda film as "news" (video footage provided by terrorists of them killing Amreicans) and that's fine I suppose.

As for the main topic, I don't know why people have a problem with Christmas scenes. It's a federal holiday. But I do think Fox and especially O'Reilly make a lot more of the issue than really exists.

i guess ya mean msnbc. as far as both them and cnn go, their reporters have biases like anyone else. and like i've said before, biases don't make you dishonest. fox is dishonest in it's reporting imho much more than either of the other 2 major cable news networks. but if it's funny names ya want...

No he doesn't mean MSNBC. he said MSM which if I'd have to guess, means you don't know it stands for Main Stream Media.