at100plus

Tom what is your point?

I read your first post twice. The best argument you tried to make is that Hannity is not fair and balanced.

You supported your argument with this weak quote -

"He said - on his radio show and on Hannity & Colmes - "We need this Counter Clinton Library. It must be done because we have to stop Hillary from becoming President."

The only problem with your argument is that it is brief and out of context. Hannity spends most of his day explaining why "we have to stop Hillary from becoming President". He has reasons for this, he doesn't just say it over and over again without supporting his premise (like democrats tend to do). How can you not see that the Clinton's are a disgrace. They are proven self righteous liars. As it has been said in this thread many times, Clinton spent more time in office defending himself legally than leading our nation PERIOD. IT'S A FACT. Tom, I think you and Catmando are outnumbered on that argument if you look back at the thread. You might have to go to one of those communist marches and find some peace marches to join OSO to help you out on this board. If you'd like me to support my calling the marchers communist, I will: The demonstration on Jan 18 in Wash. D.C. was organized by the Workers World Party, a communist party with roots in N. Korea. Ramsey Clark, a lawyer for Slovina Milosavich, Sheik Omar Abdal Rahman (who has flown to Iran, Iraq, Panama, N. Korea and Libia to denounce the United States saying that we are guilty of war crimes. Every speaker at the protest attacked the US as an imperialist power. These are the "americans" that are in favor of peace. It seems to me the organizers of this function are more in favor of Sadaam Hussein. Maybe alot of the people came just because this agenda is under the cloak of the word and propaganda of "PEACE", I don't know. I certainly hope that it is peacenick ignorance and not communist supporters that rallied by the half million the other day.

I went to your Chimp website - which by the way is nothing but a bunch of name calling, propaganda and unsupported arguments with front and center requests for $MONEY$ to "keep the website going".

When republicans present their opposition to Clinton we don't draw silly pictures, we look to his atrocious criminal and perjurous background.

Anyway, I found this excerpt in a front page article on Tom's Chimp website:

"More immediately, he is signaling U.S. allies that he is prepared to go to war with Iraq without their approval."

NEWSFLASH TOM- Bush does not need (he wants but doesn't need) the support of allies to go to war with Iraq. The United States fought the war in Iraq, not France.

Iraq agreed to the terms of the Gulf War Treaty (a war in which 200 american soldiers died for the cause). Any breach of that treaty gives the United States (victor and imposer of the treaty) the right and obligation to use forceful means to remove the leader that breached the agreement. Sadaam has clearly breached the terms of the treaty for nearly a decade.

"France, which has threatened to veto a second United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing a war with Iraq"


THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS - HOW MANY RESOLUTIONS DO YOU WANT?: THE USA DIDN'T NEED A FIRST "United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing a war with Iraq" (wanted it but didn't need it) NEVERMIND A SECOND RESOLUTION!

Sadaam didn't abide by the Gulf War Treaty, he did not come clean and cooperate with the UN Resolution, he is in breach of BOTH and since Clinton is not longer in office, HE WILL BE REMOVED. There will be no second UN Resolution, how many chances do you want to give him? We have troops in place and ready to enforce the international laws that Sadaam has continued to break. It is important to go in before the summer heat. The only way we can pull back now is if Sadaam agrees to end this himself by cooperating and standing down. His term as dictator of Iraq, (the killer of 1/2 million of his own people) is over and his end is LONG OVERDUE.

As for your mile long book on whether or not the media is right or left. I'll be honest with you, I read half of it and couldn't stay awake any longer. It just goes on an on, and quite frankly, it's not all that important which side the media falls on. What's important is that the voting public UNDERSTANDS what is going on in this world. What is amazing to me is that 3037 murdered innocent working American civilians are forgotten. If you think we are no safer post Sadaam, think again. We are never safe. The world has never been peaceful. But when we know who the enemy is, we have a moral obligation not to ignore him. To support him is just outrageous.

As for O'Reilly and Hannity, I'm not denying that they are from right, neither are they. What they are saying is - come debate with us, we will give you a fair share of air time, sometimes we'll even give you the last word, but we are going to bury you with real research and our fact based knowlege. They don't just reiterate catch phrase propaganda hollow politically correct garbage.

One last thing. I saw your link. I dismissed it as a mistake. The only reason I'm even spending the time debating with you is because I'm out from work with the flu. I see the point you are trying to make. Your saying that no one bothers to read your entire post because they are too one sided to be objective and hear your argument.

I agree with you to some extent, just as I'm sure you are not reading everything. But you have to keep in mind, it would take hours to read and digest everthing in this thread for one, and secondly, reading arguments that have no factual basis does get boring much faster than reading logical fact based information.

Tom

"Democrats: Operate on rehtoric, opinion, half truths and falsehoods. Cannot justify their statements with facts.

Republicans: Operate on facts, proven methods and reality, can justify their statments with facts."

Not how do they operate, what are their basic beliefs?

Like I've said before: I find myself somewhat a centrist with liberal attitudes on social issues and conservative attitudes on fiscal issues. If I lived in Utah I would vote for Hatch because I highly respect his opinion even when on occasion I do not agree with him. If I lived in Arizona I would vote for John McCain. I live in California and for governer what's the point.

My point all along is that we all need to look at issues from all sides before just trusting one source and basing our reality on it alone. As Regards Fox news; Although I don't particularly care for Hannity's obsession with Clinton because there are more important things than to waste so much time on it. "Hannity spends most of his day explaining why "we have to stop Hillary from becoming President". O'Reilly on the other hand is very interesting and does try to temper his views with an open mind. O'Reilly is a very intelligent person who presents very good arguments. A Liberal who does not at least consider their arguments is as foolish as a conservative who does not make the effort to understand the liberal viewpoint.

While it may seem "true" for many of you that all people who have different beliefs than your own are wrong, immoral, evil, etc., the real "truth" according to Jesus Christ is that we should love our neighbors as ourselves and forgive them of their failings. I'll admit that my heroes are Christ, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Saint Francis, and others who thought love and peace could prevail in standing up to an enemy bent on killing them. I also admit to wanting to nuke the bastards just like everybody else. Deep down inside I know it to be wrong both morally and practically. It is not possible to wipe out a billion people as a means to stop terrorism. It also seems impossible to win them over with love and compassion, but my heros all proved it possible at least to some degree. I'm pretty sure they would all be labelled "Liberal" too. Christ was even hated for some of the same reasons stated on this thread.

at100plus

Tom - I just found something that you said that I agree with.

That is why church and state are separate in this country. I particularly agree that "extremism is the real problem and most of it seems religion based, greed based, or political"

That sums up the reason peace has never exhisted in the history of this world.

Democrasy, a system of checks and balances, and you are right, right - freedom of speech - seems the best answer.

Tom

There are historical claims that peace did reign for hundreds of years in ancient India in between pretty bloody periods as well as in Spain before the Inquisition. I have to hope that humans can some day grow past our hatred and find a way to live in peace and harmony. Now there IS a fantasy right out of Star Trek.

Tom

"The only reason I'm even spending the time debating with you is because I'm out from work with the flu."

Me too! Doctors say it is some kind of viral infection.

I'm not so worried about Nukes; its the chemical stuff that scares me. Who needs a lead lined 100,000 pound refrigerator carrying a nuke when a microscopic toxin will kill us all.

at100plus

I agree with you on the fear of biological attack too.

I was riding my ATV through the woods a few weeks ago. We rode right up to a resevoir. Nobody watching out there, and that was in the woods of the highly populated northern NJ. It would just be too easy to poison our water, our food, our mail etc.

I believe it is sad that Sadaam wasn't taken care of sooner. I blame Clinton largely for that.

I almost feel it is too late now, but I have some sort of faith that right from wrong will prevail.

The terrorists will continue to attack whether we go in after Sadaam or not, so I just can't see passing on yet another opportunity to take things one step at a time and to go get him.

"The choice between war and piece will not be made in Washington D.C., it will not even be made in the United Nations, It will be made in Bagdad"

D. Rumsfeld

Steve 1

Someone said Nukes?
Try China-Gate No one in the history of this country has given an enemy such help as the Democrats/Clinton/algore regime.

Not forgeting the Sellout of the American Industral base,Along with the sales of primary energy sources/supplies to Foreign individuals.

As far as Foreign Aid goes while our forefathers were breaking their backs building this Great Country those in the third world were sitting on their ass watching the woman work in the fields.

Donzi38ZX

I'll give it a try although I'm certain I will get blasted. Bear in mind though I typically agree with republican views, there are several I disagree with.

Here goes.

religion -

liberal - takes separation of church and state to mean no government funded institution can participate in any religious dealings aka no prayer in school and wanting to remove "under god" along with some trying to remove "In god we trust" from currency.

conserv - embraces the founding of this country under god and believes freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. That being said, no effort is made to force religious beliefs on any citizen as in if you don't want to participate in prayer or say "under god" don't, it is your freedom just as it is the individuals freedom to participate.

Fiscal -

liberal - believes the government is best suited to make decisions on how to spend money in forms of social programs. Also tries to level income with the rich bearing the weight for the poor. Tries to fix economic problems by giving handouts to people.

conserv - believes those who earn it should decide how to spend it. Tries to equal taxes paid amongst groups. I know I'll get flamed for that one. tries to fix economic problems by improving economy by encouraging companies to provide jobs and create a self sustaining long term fix.

Military -

liberal - although feel it is necessary, only want to fund to a minimum level.

conserv - believe this is a crucial deterrent to conflict. Wish to maintain strong presence to be prepared for any threat. Also one of the few original items provided by government.

unions

liberal - support to gain electorate. Structured to keep all employees of a given level at equal pay regardless of effort. Socialistic in nature.

conserv - believes pay should be driven by market pressure and rewarded for merit. Also believes employees as well as corporations be help responsible for their actions. As in if you screw up you're fired.

the two obvious issues that get tossed often are abortion and capital punishment.

lib - abortion fine under any circumstance, killing as penalty of crime never OK.

conserv - abortion never OK, killing for criminal punishment fine.

I personally cross lines on these issues as I believe many do. While I do not advocate abortion, I feel it is a right of an individual to treat their body how they choose. Without exception, there is no more basic of a freedom. And as far as capital punishment, not used nearly enough. Violent rape, attempted - murder, murder and several other heinous crimes should carry the death penalty.

Well there is certainly much more but this should provide enough to get bashed on for a while.

Risk Taker

It's taken me almost a month to read this thread, or I would have responed earlier.......Here is my contribution to the Conservative/Liberal argument......

The Difference Between The Liberal and Conservative "Debate" Over The War On Terrorism:

Question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a .357 Magnum and you
are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Liberal Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me?

If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.

Conservative Answer:

Shoot the son of a b i t c h! Then take your family to a baseball game, eat some hot dogs with apple pie, sing the national anthem, and give thanks for one more day of freedom.....

Tom

Donzi38ZX,
Great post. Thanks for creating a basis for a sound discussion.

America:
liberal - loves country and wants the best for it.
conservative - loves country and wants the best for it.

Saddam:
liberal - wants problem solved
conservative - wants problem solved

Terrorists:
liberal - frightened, nervous, worried, upset, in despair about what to do.
conservative - frightened, nervous, worried, upset, in despair about what to do.
terrorists: frightened, nervous, worried, upset, in despair about what to do.
everybody else - frightened, nervous, worried, upset, in despair about what to do.

Poverty:
liberal - not sure what to do and have tried and failed so many times, but can't just sit back and watch them suffer.

conservative - it is all their own fault, let them die a horrible death.

Corprations:
liberal - have to keep them from abusing their power like Enron and others have done going all the way back to before the great depression.

Conservatives - keep the government out of the way and let the market forces take care of them. We trust them completely.

Citizens rights:
liberal - let them do whatever they want as long as no harm is done. try to educate them as to the consequences. judge yourself, yet forgive others. Best example is Amsterdam.

conservative - control with more and bigger government intervention. spy on everyone, lock people up for smoking pot or having consensual sex in the privacy of their own homes, impose their own morals as if they were "true". judge others, yet forgive yourself.

guns:
liberal - track guns and try as best as possible to keep criminals from buying them via background checks. Why do they want to track what books I take out of the library, yet pay no attention to what guns I collect?

conservative - guns don't kill people, people kill people. keep the government out of our lives, unless of course you are having consensual sex we don't approve of.

drugs:
conservatives - pot leads to murder, lock them all up.
Liberals - mellow out. If you tried it you might find out it is really not so bad. legalizing it and taxing it would be the most fiscally conservative thing to do.
cocaine: bad drug
Bush family - Keep out of our family business while we lock up the pot smokers from your family.
Clinton - I didn't enhale
Tom - I smoke pot (good pot too, California's finest crop), about a quarter ounce a year, don't care for alcohol, and am opposed to other drugs.

sex:
liberals - enjoy, don't hurt anyone. if you tried it you might find out it is really very fun.
conservatives - look at that evil woman showing her breasts.
boaters - show us your tits., hey pervert, keep that penis in your pants.

entertainment industry:
liberals - police your own kids.
conservatives - ban that movie, that evil woman showed her breasts. murder, mayhem, hatred, graphic violence, etc. - all fine.