Can We Just Get Along

Well I'm glad to hear someone else take up my refrain. In my view, that is the first step towards any reconciliation. However, I'm afraid just hoping for the dialogue to become civilized won't change anything. People on both sides need to step back from the raving rhetoric and simpleminded sophistry to engage in conversation. No one is ever going to agree 100% with anyone else, but that doesn't mean other's views are invalid. So kudos Mike for a first step, but I'm still disappointed that even though you will admit to your own hate speech you still only can point to examples of the other side's hypocricy; but Rome wasn't built in a day.

To those on the other side, the Left's hypocricy is just as glaring. It takes more courage to really examine one's own ideas, taking into account both weaknesses and strengths, than it does to point fingers and cast blame on other's ideas. I've made the comment before here that I try to examine what I believe and why and that there have been several times my opinions have changed with new information. As for those who are in attack mode or refuse to see thier own hypocricy, will any amount of venom spewing or name calling change thier opinion. I don't understand why admitting when you are wrong or that you don't have all the answers is seen as a weakness. I have my opinions and am willing to debate them with any who care to engage in a true debate, but I also don't run around telling people what they should think. I disagree with many of your statements and ideas, but I also agree with many of them too. Free exchange is what is needed not simultaneous yelling matches. By the way, what are you doing posting all hours on a weekday, aren't you supposed to be corrupting the minds of the innocent? ;)

Thank you SWNebr that was the point I was trying to make. We have all these groups that will protest at the drop of a hat and try to "enlighten" on both sides. When if comes to video games, its up to the parents to do the research not some group.

By the way, Steffanie, are you admitting your hatred? Or just pointing out someone else's? For instance you make a point of making sure everyone knows about the unfortunate jokes told on CNN and MSNBC about the teabag party (I call it teabag party not as a joke, but because they were using teabags and in some cases openly referred to it themselves as a teabag party), yet in the same posting you refer to me as Twiggy. I have never called you anything but by the name you go by on here. You on the other hand have called me everything in the book.

I have slung hate at you in an unfortunate way when I made the declaration that by your own words you were supportive of NAMBLA. I know you're not, you have made that readily clear. What I was attempting to do was to show how twisting words can make someone guilty of saying or typing something they haven't. But that point was lost.

Look honestly I thought the whole thing was a joke. By that I am not referring to the people who took it seriously. The whole thing was paid for with big money but the leaders kept saying it was a grass roots organization.

I have no problem what-so-ever with protesting but don't make it out to be something is not.

I did not start referring to the protest as a teabag party until the protesters themselves started referring to it as such.

Some of the protesters also said that it wasn't so much an attack on Obama but an attack on unfair taxes, which is fine. BUT, in a video, a man got up and started going after Bush for his tax record and he was booed off the stage.

SWNebr, this was the point of this blog and I perhaps missed the mark, but I'm not going to belittle people for having different views than myself. If, however, someone belittles my position and calls me every name in the book, all the while saying they don't attack people, I am going to call them on it.

I have enjoyed this open, honest debate with you and I have never once thought you were backing me in any of this. We are worlds apart in our ideals but I do enjoy having a civil discourse without name-calling, so I do thank you for at least going down that road with me.

The reason some of us have been so against this administration is because of their absolute naive stance on every subject. The stakes are real now.

President Bush's #1 priority was the safety of the United States. The American people lost all sight of the fact that we are at war.

The fact that North Korea and Iran are pushing the world toward Nuclear war just 4 months into the new guys term was absolutely predictable to anyone with a brain. Now the "Hope" and "Change" President must change his course.

What kind of War President is he going to be???? If he is good he will go down in history. If he is bad he will go down in history.

I guess Bush wasent concerned about that till after 9 11. Then, after the death of 3000 people it became his #1 priorty.

Rush called the people protesting the war outside the bush ranch ditch people. Where the hell were the "tea parties" when bush was running up the debt?

Oh, and STUFFany, could you please read this post and let me know of any errors, in spelling or puncutation, thanks.

wallismarsh, you are so ready to blame Obama for anything that you are seriously going to blame him for what's going on in North Korea? They tested a bomb during Bush's administration. I'm not however going to blame Bush for that. Kim Jung Il is a very unstable person who thumbs his nose at anyone. But to suggest that we should go to war with him because he has a nuke is very dangerous thinking. We don't have to go to war with everyone who has the bomb, otherwise we'd be at war with India and Pakistan right now.

"We are worlds apart in our ideals"

Our ideals may not be so far apart as you would like them to be, merely our methods, and I guess that is my point. There should be room for discourse and consensus in most areas. However, people generally seem to go about looking for all the things that separate us not that which brings us together. I had hoped you might use this blog as a way to try to reach out to the other side, and I understand it takes two to tango, but it seems to have become another way to entrench already stale ideas. To paraphrase Obama, you seem to be reaching out with a clenched fist.

For the record I DO blame the Obama administration for the issues with North Korea et al. Just as I blame the Bush administration, Clinton administration...etc. However I blame the North Koreans for thier actions, I merely blame our government for its pitiful responses.

You know, I do have some agreement with this statement..."These are the people that denegrade anyone who believes in choice for women as babykillers and then turn right around and defend torture because it's been done in the past. Also, these are the same people that have changed torture to enhanced interrogation techniques, as if, by changing the name, the process isn't as bad."

There really is NO comparison between the tactics used by the US to gain information and the torture supported by the term "choice."

Imagine the reaction if we'd used tools and suction to rip these "tortured" men apart!!

Imagine the reaction if we'd provided them a steady supply of air, then lowered them into a tank of saline water and allowed them to slowly burn to death!!

Imagine the reaction if we'd injected digoxin into their hearts and caused the heart muscles to contract with such force that their hearts exploded!!

No, there is no rational comparison between scaring men to obtain information...and the torture supported by the term "choice."

What pitiful response are you talking about SWNebr. Frankly, I say let them play with their little weapons. If North Korea actually tried to shoot a nuclear weapon at someone they'd probably hit their own people.

I don't really understand all the huff and puff with North Korea. The Soviet Union had far better and powerful weapons and we never went to war. North Korea supposedly tested an underground nuclear weapon and tested short range missiles. Big deal, we've been doing that for over 50 years.

Now if they actually go through and attack ships that stop their ships, then we have an issue. Until then, let's just all calm down. If there is a WWIII, I seriously doubt it starts in North Korea.

"Frankly, I say let them play with their little weapons."

Nuclear weapons are far from "little" or perhaps you would like to ask the descendant of a survivor of Hiroshima or Nagasaki to ask them just how "little" nuclear weapons are.

"If North Korea actually tried to shoot a nuclear weapon at someone they'd probably hit their own people."

North Korean missiles can reach South Korea, Japan and China right now with what they have. Given that fact, your comment seems heartless and even racist in nature. I don't know why this "am I my brother's keeper" mindset is so prevalent. We may not be our brothers' keeper but we are all brothers (sisters too if you want to be PC). The missile they are trying to perfect could easily hit Russia and even go as far as the edge of Alaska. After that, I'm sure they'll be working on an advanced ICBM that could reach much farther than that. I suppose we can wait to worry until they perfect their missile program so they can target my friends all over the country but I'd rather address the problem as though they already can so that we can never be targeted.

If N. Korea didn't have a whack job coming to the end of his life then I wouldn't worry as much about N. Korea using nuclear weapons. Hopefully, he doesn't want to ruin things for his son and that will bring some degree of sane thought to his twisted mind.

If it was WWIII, the sides would be N. Korea vs. The World. No country would tolerate the use of nuclear weapons on any country. Besides that, you would have South Korea, China, Japan, Russia, India and the USA all under direct threat of the long range missile N. Korea is developing and would likely use and everyone would bring in their allies which would basically be everyone else of importance for all intents and purposes pertaining to a world war. Do you think anyone saw WWI starting the way it did? Just some food for thought. I don't foresee WWIII but it most definitely, not an impossibility.

Nuclear weapons work best when they're never used. They are too powerful to be directed at only military targets. The only thing they've been good at is scaring countries away from going to war. I would like to see every one destroyed and every country prevented from building them after that but the trouble lies in accurate inventory reporting and simultaneous destruction. Many of our weapons are degraded to the point that they are going to need to be destroyed anyway.

"Everytime in our past when we have supported a regime change it has come back to bit us in the ass. Just to use two example, Saddamn Hussein and Osama bin Laden."

Yeah, we've had some bad ones but we've had some good changes too. Just to use two examples of regimes we've changed, King George III and Hitler. We didn't get involved in the regime change in China and now we have to waste our time arguing with them over basic human rights every time we sit down to talk with them. France got Napolean and people are still debating whether that was a benefit or not.

My point is not that our involvement would mean everything would go ok but I don't believe it makes things worse either. I think the outcome would depend more on the country and its people than a foreign country's support of their regime change.

"McCook, how do you get that my comment was racist? That's almost as odd as calling Judge Sotomayor a racist because she believe's she'd be better in judging issues close to a hispanic woman than a white man."

I'm sorry but the way it sounded was as though it wouldn't matter if they fired a weapon because it would just hit their own people. Consider it cleared up.

Why is a judge using race and gender to reach a legal decision? I would say that would make her reach a worse decision if she's relating herself to a person's case that she has to hear. A judge is not supposed to try relating to one person or another for the same reason they are not supposed to advocate for one side or another. That is what the lawyers are for, not the judges. If she wants to relate to hispanic women and help them in the courtroom it should be done as a lawyer not a judge.

What would happen if Justice Roberts had said something similiar? What would happen if he said, he believed he could make a better decision in judging issues close to a white man than a hispanic woman could? I'm sure he would have been called racist too. A judge should be color blind and rule on the law not their biases.

Judges are supposed to maintain neutrality in their approach to a case. How can you maintain neutrality when you've admitted that you think you can make better decisions important to a hispanic woman than a white man simply because you're a hispanic woman if you're not employing a personal bias?

I am not completely opposed to a multinational barricade to N. Korea but I also realize that doing so is going to cause hardship on the innocent citizens of N. Korea too. They already struggle to just to stay fed with a majority of the government's revenue going to their military and neglecting the need to develop trade and expand their economy.

What we will be doing is making life even more difficult on the N. Korean people who are already struggling so that they will put pressure on their government. I don't like the thought of that but it is a necessary evil which we easily forget sometimes.

It has worked to a small degree in the past with N. Korea but the problem is once he does what we want, he goes back to what he was doing before and then we sanction him again and the pattern continues to repeat itself. It's a neverending dance. I doubt it will come peacefully though. I hope it does but it's doubtful. It will either be from N. Korea's hostilities against another nation or a revolution started by N. Korea's own people. Either way it won't come easy and it won't be done without other countries participating, if it's to be successful.

McCook1, I would accept your point, but Samuel Alito, a Bush appointee, said something very similar in his remarks about his Irish background when he was being confirmed by the Senate.

Why was it okay for Alito to say that then, but now some of the same senators who voted yes for him are now crying out racism by Sotomayor.

The fact is, they have very little to gripe about with her (it's so bad that Karl Rove is questioning her intelligence, let's say that her credentials start with finishing 2nd in her class at Yale (or Harvard I forget which) and go up from there.

It's a red herring argument.

I do oppose the sanctions against Cuba. At one time (in the 60s) they were useful against the Soviet Union. But now it is just an isolated country that gets poorer by the second.

The sanctions, in my opinion, should be lifted against Cuba.

My Grandfather owned property in Cuba in the 1950's. If we lift the sanctions does he get that back?

The current regime stole a lot of land and murdered a lot of people.

That is the reason I have avoided a few international deals.

A good friend of mine just had 6 drilling rigs stolen by Chavez.

What does Chavez have to do with Cuba?

Sanctioning a country that is openly threatening us? Yes. Sanctioning a country that doesn't even have a true leader as of the moment, that has nothing to threaten us with, other than words? No

I didn't say they were a threat SWNebr, I said they were openly threatening us. Threatening and being a threat are two different things. I know you are trying to get me to contradict myself, but I don't believe I am.

North Korea, in my opinion is not a threat to us, but they are threatening us, and they do (supposedly) have a nuclear (not nuclir) weapon, so we need to hit them where it hurts most and that's economic sanctions.

Cuba, on the other hand, has no real military to speak of (at least not of the caliber from the Bay of Pigs day). They are broke and the current time they have no leadership to speak of. I see no reason to keep economic sanctions against them.

If we can drop economic sanctions against Vietnam, surely we can against Cuba.

And I'm still not clear what Chavez stealing oil rigs has to do with Cuba, wallismarsh.

What would you have us do SWNebr? You keep asking me all these questions? What would you do?

No, I am not fully convinced that they have a nuclear weapon. All the have offered (and the Russians as well) is a seismic even that occurred in North Korea. I haven't said they aren't working on gaining nuclear weapons. I'm just not convinced they actually tested one.

I just don't understand, I guess, what is so bad about lifting economic sanctions against Cuba.

Look to be honest, right now this whole thing with North Korea sounds very familiar to the Cuban Missile Crisis. It's going to be solved with words not bullets.

Also your comparisons don't hold water, since you label all liberals wimps yet Kennedy was a liberal and you pretty much gave him credit for "showing their MIGHT".

If you read any history at all you would know what you just said about the Cuban Missile Crisis was complete bubkis. Both sides were talking behind the scenes throughout the whole ordeal. It had nothing to do with our might or the Soviets might.

The Soviet Union thought they could use Cuba the same way we were using Turkey, but after Kennedy and Kruschev got things ironed out, the Soviets took the missiles out.

I'd wager that both North Korea and Iran have been working on nuclear programs since before Bush. Did you mean Bush 41 or 43?

I love it steffanie ... that is one of the oldest and most tired arguments of the far right. Kennedy was really a conservative. Yeah okay.

And so we devolve into juvenile name calling, how droll.

I thought you were kidding all those times you asked why Steffanie called you Twiggy. Political parties evolve and change over time and it doesn't really work to try to claim that one plank defines the whole party. Your mention of Lincoln makes me wonder what Jefferson would think of the modern Democratic Party. The evolution of parties has often made me think the more appropriate names would have been Liberal and Conservative Parties.

McCook1:

While I agree that ideas change over time, and had stated that in my previous post, I believe it is impossible to judge people by any but thier own time and culture. It's easy to look at people and ideas from different eras and judge them by our standards. When judging parties from within thier own time, I think one would find that one is more liberal and the other more conservative.

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?...

More Antarctic ice today than in 1980. How does that make sense in this era of global warming?

My apologies Steffanie I misread what you had typed. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

But while we are at it, when did I accuse you of twisting religion?

wallismarsh of course what you didn't mention was that one of the largest chunks of ice in the Antarctic is about to break off into the ocean because of extreme temperatures. That would hurt your argument. Not to mention that in the Arctic for the first time in recorded history ships are able to ship through that region because the ice has melted away. But, I've said it before I'll say it again global warming isn't simply (as you want to paint it) about temperatures, it is about the extremeness of weather.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

http://hypsithermal.wordpress.com/2008/0...

http://www.spaceweather.com/

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/...

http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/spo...

You Man created global warming guys really need to read and attempt to understand the stuff that I just posted. That tells the story yet Mike will argue.

Mike will argue that the Sun is not responsible for global warming and global cooling. Mike will argue that Man is.

Remember in the old days if you threw a virgin in a volcano it wouldn't errupt.

If you killed animals you could make it rain.

The Pharaoh made the Nile flood.

The sun is responsible for the weather. Not magic gas. If manmade CO2 is responsible for warming why has the earth always had glacial advances and glacial retreats??????

I promise that most of you guys and girls that believe in CO2 global warming has not done a bit of your own due diligence.

Look at pure science and ignore politics.

Let's discuss painting roofs white. That reduces radiational heating. Maybe radiational heating is why temps inched up slightly in the 80's and 90's. Is that CO2 caused or just more concrete and black paint. Chu seems to think it is concrete and black paint.

Mike your facts about ice breaking off in the Antartic are not entirely accurate. The chunk that is going to break isn't melting and it is really insignificant to the entire mass of ice itself. If you are going to site MSNBC you really need to comphrehend that they are biased.

As far as extremes in weather your time frame is very short term. The most active Hurricane season in the gulf over the last 60 years was the 60's. People are really missing the boat when they think that the last 60 years is meaningful in weather norms considering the pyramids in Eqypt were built over 4500 years ago. As a matter of fact, the Valley of the Kings in Eqypt flooded 600 BC. Flooding in the desert???? In the short term anything is possible and has happened.

But my point is the Sun controls temps. To argue otherwise is funny

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fre...

This happened during a solar minimum.

Hey BRO - Sure we can all get along. All I have to do is give up principles, sell them to you liberals for a few kind words.

Hey BRO - You on the left crack me up. You ignore God, bad mouth God, kick God out of everything you can, and then lecture Christians on how they should behave.

Hey BRO - I do not want to get along with you Michael, not as long as you engage in leftist religious philosophy and try and put that leftist philosophy in action in our government and culture, and polute our kids with your lies. I have enough friends.

Hey BRO - I do not want to get along with you extreme religious leftists, I want to defeat you. You need to be defeated for the sanity and well-being of the country, and you need to be defeated because of the untold lives you on the left destroy.

You buy lies and hate, and you want me to buy them too, sorry, that is not going to happen.

Hey BRO - thirty one years old huh? That explains allot. I starting blogging because I read your blogs, and I could not beleive how warped your thinking was.

Hey BRO - You on the left, can go along with the ruthless and cold blooded murder of our own offspring, you have no moral ground. Your moral ground is dung.

And when we call you on your warped view of humanity and life, your whine like little school girls. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

You cry hate, when it is only truth. If you cannot take the heat BRO - then take up knitting or canasta.

Sock it to him Sam. LMAO.

Yet another swing and a miss Steffanie. Yes my blog was entitled Can We Just Get Along, sam decided no that we can't, so I responded to that.

It's called dialog Steffanie. Just shouting someone down and the feeling that you are better than them is not dialog.

Oh that's about how I thought a non-religious person would react to someone being shot down.

I like that you honestly think that abortions are new thing brought on by the scarry liberals of the last 30 years steffanie.

Let's talk about progress for a second. Conservatives have lived and died by trickle economonics since the early 1900s. It was been put in place three times.

In the 1920s, it was first used and spurred on the Great Depression that the Democrats had to fix.

In the 1980s, if was used by gold standard of the modern conservative movement, Ronald Reagen. By the end of his term we had started a recession. After George Bush continued the trickle down economics, it took a good old boy from Arkansas that everyone referred to as Bubba (Bill Clinton) to actually propel this country into its largest era of growth in its history. Then in the 2000s, George W Bush decided he would give it the old college try and bring back and restarted trickle down economics. Not only that but he became the first president EVER to give tax cuts to the rich in the middle of a war, and here we are yet again with another Democrat having to clean up the mess.

The fact that conservatives gave Obama less than a week to clean up the mess it took them eight years to create is a testament to just how progessive they are.

But it goes back to their old motto, keep doing something, no matter how many times it fails, until it finally works and then take credit for it finally working and conveniently forgetting the many, many times it failed in the past.

It's almost as rich as the argument that John F. Kennedy AND Martin Luther King were conservatives.