Jimmy Carter's New Book On Palestine

[KazooSkinsFan]

Ted who?

He is the senator from Massachusetts that got away with murder.

Yes, bought his way out of it. Liberals hate the rich manipulating our legal system with evil money, which is why they are so against him now.

You know, like they are for womens rights, which is why they ignored Clinton for harassing democratic activist Willey and rejected Paula Jones claim out of hand.

They are for black rights, which is why they automatically believed Clarance Thomas was a sexual harasser despite the dearth of evidence and they were OK with the left nuts calling Condie "Aunt Jemima."

They stick to their moral views regardless the cost, you have to give them that.

[ATV]

He is the senator from Massachusetts that got away with murder.

Nobody knows that for certain. Maybe it was an accident. If it wasn't, do you have any evidence to suggest he's indeed a horrible person or someone who doesn't work hard fighting for his representatives and the nation?

One book? How many negative, credible, books about Bush have been published the last four years? A couple hundred? At worst, one murder (not that I believe this)? How does that compare to this.....

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/static. ... mefrom.php

Instead of writing about this, which is going on as I type, you'd rather write about a murder that did or did not happen forty some years ago. This is, of course, because you have an agenda.

Liberals hate the rich manipulating our legal system with evil money

I don't think hardly anybody enjoys seeing the rich manipulate our legal system. Does this mean you enjoy seeing this, or are you liberal?

You know, like they are for womens rights

You aren't for women's rights?

they ignored Clinton for harassing democratic activist Willey and rejected Paula Jones claim out of hand.

Did liberals ignore it or did they simply take it for it was worth?

They are for black rights

You aren't for black rights?

they automatically believed Clarance Thomas was a sexual harasser despite the dearth of evidence

I never followed this closely but I must have missed the dearth.

they were OK with the left nuts calling Condie "Aunt Jemima."

That's the first I've heard of this. Maybe you're the "they" you speak of.

I think Condosleeza Rice is another complete fool, by the way. You're free to disagree.

They stick to their moral views regardless the cost, you have to give them that.

We try.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Nobody knows that (Kennedy got away with murder) for certain.

Actually only liberals don't know he got away with murder "for certain." When it comes to liberals committing crimes, liberals don't know for certain if it's on video tape (LA Riot murder) or they confess (e.g. Sandy Burgler). When it comes to conservatives crimes, guilt by accusation is enough for a liberal.

Maybe it was an accident.

It was an accident, your knowledge of this is like your knowledge of the Fair Tax and libertarians. No one questions the car going off the bridge was an accident. It's that he left and went home to bed. She died of exphixiation, she didn't drown. In other words, she was alive and breathing and ran out of air and it is pretty certain had he gone for help she would have lived. The locals did nothing and no one else stepped in. Something that would have happend there for no one but a Kennedy leveraging their evil money.

If it wasn't, do you have any evidence to suggest he's indeed a horrible person or someone who doesn't work hard fighting for his representatives and the nation?

Exactly the point. Evil rich are evil, but that's overlooked by liberals if they are liberal and fight for liberal causes. Hillary can bilk investors and clients for evil money. Bill Can sell pardons. They can both ransack the White House and take gifts to the American people. It doesn't matter. Or as you say it "work hard fighting for his representatives and the nation." By which you mean "liberal fighting for the Democratic party" because other then that you will NOT overlook it.

One book? How many negative, credible, books about Bush have been published the last four years? A couple hundred? At worst, one murder (not that I believe this)? How does that compare to this.....

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/static. ... mefrom.php

Instead of writing about this, which is going on as I type, you'd rather write about a murder that did or did not happen forty some years ago. This is, of course, because you have an agenda.

Liberal rant. Bush sucks by the way, and if you put up a better candidate then John Frenchie Kerry then he would be out now. But you put up the loser who lost so you go for the criminalization of politics. Yes, impeaching Clinton was overblown, but at least he committed real crimes. Bush's crime is not being a liberal. You are the one with the agenda.

Liberals hate the rich manipulating our legal system with evil money

I don't think hardly anybody enjoys seeing the rich manipulate our legal system. Does this mean you enjoy seeing this, or are you liberal?

Wow, complete whiff. Re-read the point, you missed it by a foot.

You know, like they are for womens rights

You aren't for women's rights?

Wow, complete whiff. Re-read the point, you missed it by a foot.

they ignored Clinton for harassing democratic activist Willey and rejected Paula Jones claim out of hand.

Did liberals ignore it or did they simply take it for it was worth?

Nice liberal editing here. I pointed out the hypocrisy liberals believed Anita Hill based on her word versus a conservative and ignored Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones which you describe as "simply take it for what it was worth." Hypocrisy, my friend. Of the three of them the most credible was liberal activist Kathleen Willey on liberal president Bill Clinton. The other two both crossed party lines with their accusation. Of the three, funny, you only believed the liberal accusing the conservative even without a shred of evidence.

They are for black rights

You aren't for black rights?

Wow, complete whiff. Re-read the point, you missed it by a foot.

they automatically believed Clarance Thomas was a sexual harasser despite the dearth of evidence

I never followed this closely but I must have missed the dearth.

Dearth means nothing. So rather than saying what evidence there was you said you missed the nothing? Thanks for that insight. I'll recap for you. She had no witness. She had no one who knew Thomas and either believed he would do it or that he had ever done anything like this before. Here is her "evidence."

Her own friends who had never met Thomas much less witnessed anything.

People who knew them both and said they didn't know what to think becuase they didn't believe he would do that and didn't believe she would lie.

My friend, I was disturbed by the accusation, but I live in a free country where it takes more than the uncorobborated testimony of one person to get me to believe something. She clearly had a chip on her shoulder. It could have been from being harassed, or from his leaving her behind, or something else.

I also was skeptical of Paula Jones. But it is the hypocrisy I am pointing out. As in several before and you don't even process that or respond to it, you keep missing that over and over.

they were OK with the left nuts calling Condie "Aunt Jemima."

That's the first I've heard of this. Maybe you're the "they" you speak of.

Actually this is in the category of the Fair Tax, definition of libertarian and Chappaquiddick, you just did't know. Are you saying that you are in fact offended by the liberals who said that? Keep in mind my point, most liberals did not say it. All ignored those who did. If a Republican had called a Democrat an "Aunt Jemima" the liberal media and you liberals would have had a cow, and rightly so. But when some liberals said it, you "didn't know."

I think Condosleeza Rice is another complete fool, by the way. You're free to disagree.

Yes, a black not owned by the Democratic party, I'm sure you do think she's a fool. She is free, free to be a Democrat. She is a fool if she doesn't make that free choice. Personally I don't have a strong opinion of her, except that she has withstood the barage of liberal racism far better than I could have if I were her.

They stick to their moral views regardless the cost, you have to give them that.

We try.

Not very hard.

[ATV]

No one questions the car going off the bridge was an accident. It's that he left and went home to bed.

Oh, that's right. I remember now. Ted must have been pretty scared. How old was he when this happened?

Hillary can bilk investors and clients for evil money. Bill Can sell pardons. They can both ransack the White House and take gifts to the American people.

I remember hearing about some of this stuff. I remember wondering whether it was true or not. In fact I'm still uncertain, not that I care much. I never voted for Clinton. I'm certain he was a good president, though....at least compared to what we've had recently.

if you put up a better candidate then John Frenchie Kerry then he would be out now

I voted for Clark in the primary. I don't think there's anything wrong with being French, nor anything wrong with being John Kerry. Sure, he's kind of a douche, a politician, but at least he's not a frgn' idiot.

Wow, complete whiff. Re-read the point, you missed it by a foot. (x3)

I didn't miss anything. You also didn't answer anything.

liberals believed Anita Hill based on her word versus a conservative and ignored Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones which you describe as "simply take it for what it was worth." Hypocrisy, my friend.

You're quick to throw out generalizations - Liberals did this, liberals did that. Well, I'm a liberal and I didn't do a damn thing. I was in college at the time. Also, why aren't you writing "Conservatives believed Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones based on their words and ignored Anita Hill". Look, I don't know enough about any of this to make a sound judgement and I suspect neither do you. It works both ways, though. The parties have always been desperate to gain the upper hand. Does this surprise you?

Concerning the whole Anita Hill thing:

You point out she had no credible witnesses, etc. Well, the last I checked Thomas was a member of the Supreme Court. According to your logic justice was served. Ted Kennedy is a member of the Senate. According to your logic justice was not served? Look, neither of us will ever know the truth. These things go both ways. You mention hypocrisy. Are you suggesting Republicans aren't hypocritcal when they do the same thing? If so, then I'd say that's pretty hypocritcal.

Are you saying that you are in fact offended by the liberals who said that (about Condoleeza Rice)?

Am I offended? Not really. Why should I be? This was the first I've heard of it but it doesn't surprise me.

Keep in mind my point, most liberals did not say it. All ignored those who did.

It's hard to ignore something when you never hear it to begin with.

If a Republican had called a Democrat an "Aunt Jemima" the liberal media and you liberals would have had a cow, and rightly so.

I agree.

But when some liberals said it, you "didn't know."

I disagree. Remember Cynthia McKinney? The media picked up on that and she was voted out of office, rightly so.

She (condoleeza Rice) is free, free to be a Democrat. She is a fool if she doesn't make that free choice.

No, she's a fool because I think she's a fool. There are Republicans in offices and positions that I respect. I don't think anyone who is a Republican is a fool.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Good questions

Endless Democratic Committee Talking points

You so clearly demonstrate what's so funny about liberals. Your endless double standards.

You criticize rightly the right for blindly taking instruction from their church. Look in the mirror, you never deviate once from DNC talking points. Same thing.

When I say anything about what liberals overwelmingly say all the time you cry about being labeled and since you may know one liberal who differs on one view we can't say anything about what "liberals" think. Yet you generalize Repubilcan views at the drop of a hat for things they didn't say but you twisted.

Also, we learned in this conversation you didn't know about the Fair Tax, libertarians, Chapequiddick or the Clarance Thomas hearings. But this conversation bores you becuase you already have your DNC instructions and expanding your base of knoweldge doesn't interest you.

Your posts, my friend, could be written by those who you hate, a mindless automoton simply taking instructions from their party. I agree with your views of Republicans, I just invite you to look in the mirror and see a Republican looking back at you.

[ATV]

You criticize rightly the right for blindly taking instruction from their church.

Who, me? The Right has their own church now?

Yet you generalize Repubilcan views at the drop of a hat for things they didn't say but you twisted.

I do? Maybe you're over-generalizing. For instance, provide me some examples.

we learned in this conversation you didn't know about the Fair Tax,

We also learned that I don't care to learn about the "Fair Tax".

libertarians

Huh. I must have missed that.

Chapequiddick

You did refresh my memory some of those events at least. I should have remembered that Ted Kennedy may have driven home after the accident instead of diving in the water. It's so embarassing when you forget pertinent current events like that.

or the Clarance Thomas hearings.

Yea, I better study up on that. Knowing the ins-and-outs of Long Dong Silver should make me a better person.

I agree with your views of Republicans

I doubt it (my friend).

My take - You're exceedingly gifted in overgeneralization, putting words in other people's mouths, not backing you argument with substantial facts or examples, and writing the same thing over and over again.

That's all I should write for now.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I'll address the ones that are coherent and not already answered.

libertarians

Huh. I must have missed that.

You miss a lot. You asked me what I (a libertarian) support besides defense and roads since those were the only examples I gave. You also missed the part where I said "things like" and thought those were the only two things libertarians support from government. My re-explaining these things to you because you missed it is getting less frustrating now because I'm getting used to it.

Chapequiddick

You did refresh my memory some of those events at least. I should have remembered that Ted Kennedy may have driven home after the accident instead of diving in the water. It's so embarassing when you forget pertinent current events like that.

First of all his car was in the water with Mary Jo in it so I don't think he drove home.... oh forget it. I can only repeat and re-explain so much to you.

Just checking, so you also thought it was stupid when Democrats went back to Bush's DUI in the late 70s, his military history in the early 70s, his drug and alcohol in the 70s, right? I didn't think so. The 70s are current, murder in the 60s is ancient history, but only when the 70s is a Republican and the 60s murderer is a Democrat..

or the Clarance Thomas hearings.

Yea, I better study up on that. Knowing the ins-and-outs of Long Dong Silver should make me a better person.

Once again you demonstrate my accusations of hypocrisy. With Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones you ignored them as "what they were worth." No evidence for Clarance, but you assume guilt, he's a Republican. And you use a term you would have a cow if it were applied to a Democrat. After agreeing if a Republican had called a Democrat "Aunt Jemima" you would have had a cow but since it was Democrats on a Republican you don't care.

You ask for me to repeat stuff from your own posts you've said on these points to show your views to yourself then demonstrate your views yourself again, like here.

I agree with your views of Republicans

I doubt it (my friend).

OK, actually I agree. So let me rephrase. I agree with your rational views of Republicans, not your liberal demonization of them. Bush sucks is rational. Bush is a criminal is in your liberal mind.

My take - You're exceedingly gifted in overgeneralization, putting words in other people's mouths, not backing you argument with substantial facts or examples, and writing the same thing over and over again.

That's all I should write for now.

I'm good at repeating what you said without the liberal spin so even you see the irrationality of liberalism. Which of course you immediately reject because that is not a DNC talking point. Your characterization of me of course is a DNC talking point. I have an agenda, I didnt' listen to what you said, I spun it. Do you EVER deviate from the DNC? I'm still waiting.

[ATV]

I don't think he drove home

Oh, right, he may have walked.

it was stupid when Democrats went back to Bush's DUI in the late 70s, his military history in the early 70s, his drug and alcohol in the 70s, right? I didn't think so.

Yea, I think trying to determine whether a potential President is an incompetent fool without may brain cells left is a valid excercise. Ted Kennedy, however you may feel about his policies, has already demonstrated for decades that he is competent. So says my common sense. If yours disagrees then fine, whatever.

Kathryn Willey something, Paula Jones something, Clarence Thomas yadda yadda.....zzzzzzzz

Yea, honestly, whatever, I don't care. Clinton is no longer President. Clarence Thomas isn't going to be removed from the Supreme Court.

I agree with your rational views of Republicans, not your liberal demonization of them. Bush sucks is rational. Bush is a criminal is in your liberal mind.

When I write that I respect some Republicans, you find that rational. When I write that Bush is a criminal, you find that I'm simply trying to demonize him. No, I mean to convey that I (or "we" liberals), literally, believe Bush is a criminal (no, I don't want to go into a whole different argument about that).

I'm good at repeating what you said without the liberal spin so even you see the irrationality of liberalism. Which of course you immediately reject because that is not a DNC talking point.

This sort of talk is becoming like Paula Jones stuff to me. I just glaze over at it. I suspect you've largely been trained to share in the whole media paranoia liberals-are-out-to-get-me thing.

[Cappster]

You guys break each other posts down too much. Takes more effort than I like to put into reading it

[Irn-Bru]

You guys

How do you presume to know their gender?

break each other

Now you go accusing them of something that has little evidence, at best. You must be a (fill in the blank -- republican or democrat), because otherwise you'd have a level head and see how bad your error is.

posts

If you don't like it, you don't have to read here.

down too much.

The first sense you've made in your entire post. Good for you. . .

Takes more effort

That's the first step of politics. They get you in high school when you take the government and politics course. At first it seems like a game and a fun thing to do with friends -- debating, arguing, getting mad over nothing. Then college hits and it's this haven for immature loudmouths who can't control their own arrogance or keep their crazy opinions out of what is supposed to be relevant class material. . .and there are lots of students there, too. . .

than I like to put in

To each his own, I guess. . .

to reading it

"To reading it?" Now you're just not making sense. . .

[UK Skins Fan]

I'm sorry, I think I might have started all this. Of course, I already knew who Ted Kennedy is/was, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

Didn't mean to start anything.

[1niksder]

Didn't mean to start anything.

Sure you didn't Everyone knows Ted will screw up a Jimmy Carter thread everytime.

[Irn-Bru]

Jimmy who?

[UK Skins Fan]

Jimmy who?

Don't get things started all over again.

[Irn-Bru]

[Cappster]

You guys

How do you presume to know their gender?

break each other

Now you go accusing them of something that has little evidence, at best. You must be a (fill in the blank -- republican or democrat), because otherwise you'd have a level head and see how bad your error is.

posts

If you don't like it, you don't have to read here.

down too much.

The first sense you've made in your entire post. Good for you. . .

Takes more effort

That's the first step of politics. They get you in high school when you take the government and politics course. At first it seems like a game and a fun thing to do with friends -- debating, arguing, getting mad over nothing. Then college hits and it's this haven for immature loudmouths who can't control their own arrogance or keep their crazy opinions out of what is supposed to be relevant class material. . .and there are lots of students there, too. . .

than I like to put in

To each his own, I guess. . .

to reading it

"To reading it?" Now you're just not making sense. . .

Funny but I am to lazy to try and decipher the whole thing you sarcastic _________! <---fill in blank

[Irn-Bru]

Good. . .you saved yourself a few brain cells. Me, on the other hand. . .

[KazooSkinsFan]

I don't think he drove home

Oh, right, he may have walked.

it was stupid when Democrats went back to Bush's DUI in the late 70s, his military history in the early 70s, his drug and alcohol in the 70s, right? I didn't think so.

Yea, I think trying to determine whether a potential President is an incompetent fool without may brain cells left is a valid excercise. Ted Kennedy, however you may feel about his policies, has already demonstrated for decades that he is competent. So says my common sense. If yours disagrees then fine, whatever.

Kathryn Willey something, Paula Jones something, Clarence Thomas yadda yadda.....zzzzzzzz

Yea, honestly, whatever, I don't care. Clinton is no longer President. Clarence Thomas isn't going to be removed from the Supreme Court.

I agree with your rational views of Republicans, not your liberal demonization of them. Bush sucks is rational. Bush is a criminal is in your liberal mind.

When I write that I respect some Republicans, you find that rational. When I write that Bush is a criminal, you find that I'm simply trying to demonize him. No, I mean to convey that I (or "we" liberals), literally, believe Bush is a criminal (no, I don't want to go into a whole different argument about that).

I'm good at repeating what you said without the liberal spin so even you see the irrationality of liberalism. Which of course you immediately reject because that is not a DNC talking point.

This sort of talk is becoming like Paula Jones stuff to me. I just glaze over at it. I suspect you've largely been trained to share in the whole media paranoia liberals-are-out-to-get-me thing.

Your posts were all over. Three simple questions:

1) Name some significant positions you deviate from the DNC on. You denied you are a mouthpiece for them. I already asked this, you dodged it.

2) Name some Republicans you think are intelligent. You denied thinking only liberals are intelligent. I already asked this, you dodged it.

3) Name one democratic position that is not belied by an overt hypocritical or contradictory position. Just one. This should be a real soft ball question for you.

Our discussions keep following the path that I say Democratic positions are hypocritical and/or contradictory and give two examples. You totally miss the main point and address the individual positions and demonstrate your views are straight from the DNC and they are in fact hypocritical and/or contradictory. Or you miss both the main point and misunderstand the two contradictory/hypocritical positions and I need to re-explain them.

So, I gave you a pretty easy list of 3 questions here.

[ATV]

1) Name some significant positions you deviate from the DNC on. You denied you are a mouthpiece for them. I already asked this, you dodged it.

Sure. I didn't dodge anything, though. I wrote that I honestly couldn't think of anything where I currently disagree with anything that the Left stands for, or currently stands for. I checked DNC's web site but I wasn't able to find any official detailed, formal, list to defend. Have you found one or is there one that you know of? I'd be glad to take a look at it.

2) Name some Republicans you think are intelligent. You denied thinking only liberals are intelligent. I already asked this, you dodged it.

I never dodged this. This is the first you've asked for specific names.....

I used to respect John McCain until the past year or so. I believe he's done some hypocritical things and has started to really suck up to the Bush administration and the Christofacists. I assume this is in preparation for the 2008 race. I think this is a shame. Anyhow, I still have a small amount of respect for the guy.

Uhh...Colin Powell. Although he blew his credibility to pieces when he spewed all of the Bush administration's lies before the UN assembly, I still think he is an honest, intelligent person. I still respect him.

Uhh...uhh....George Bush I (the legitimate). I never agreed with many of this man's policies, but I never thought he was necessarily a bad president. I've always thought he was an honest, well-intentioned person. He's also not a dolt like his son is. I respect him.

Uhh....Gerald Ford who recently passed. Pretty much the same thing. Although I don't think he should have pardoned Nixon (please, let's not change the subject) the same things could be said about him. I respected him. I guess if you go back to most or all of the older Republican presidents, all the way back to Lincoln, I respect all of them (although this might count since they're dead).....except maybe Nixon. Heck, even though I believe Nixon was a liar, a criminal, I still have a little respect for him. He was at least intelligent and well intentioned. Anyhow, I'm digresing.....

I had plenty of respect for Lincoln Chafee. I believe he was among a small handful of Republicans on the hill who never bought into much of the garbage brought upon us by this latest wave Right Wing zealotry.

I respect congresman Jeff Flake who I saw on 60 minutes, and how he's trying to stand up against pork-barrell spending.

Is this enough, at least for now? I'd have to dive into the internet to refresh my memory of current and former Republicans. I'm certain I could come up with more.

3) Name one democratic position that is not belied by an overt hypocritical or contradictory position. Just one. This should be a real soft ball question for you.

This sounds like a set-up, but I'll shoot - We should put more funding into our schools, including tax credits to support higher level education.

You totally miss the main point and address the individual positions and demonstrate your views are straight from the DNC

If I have to go searching on DNC's web site to find what DNC's current, official views are, that's probably a good sign that I don't sleep with a copy of them by my pillow. I welcome you to obtain them if you can - I wouldn't mind defending them or identifying where I might stray from them.

[KazooSkinsFan]

1) Name some significant positions you deviate from the DNC on. You denied you are a mouthpiece for them. I already asked this, you dodged it.

Sure. I didn't dodge anything, though. I wrote that I honestly couldn't think of anything where I currently disagree with anything that the Left stands for, or currently stands for. I checked DNC's web site but I wasn't able to find any official detailed, formal, list to defend. Have you found one or is there one that you know of? I'd be glad to take a look at it.

2) Name some Republicans you think are intelligent. You denied thinking only liberals are intelligent. I already asked this, you dodged it.

I never dodged this. This is the first you've asked for specific names.....

I used to respect John McCain until the past year or so. I believe he's done some hypocritical things and has started to really suck up to the Bush administration and the Christofacists. I assume this is in preparation for the 2008 race. I think this is a shame. Anyhow, I still have a small amount of respect for the guy.

Uhh...Colin Powell. Although he blew his credibility to pieces when he spewed all of the Bush administration's lies before the UN assembly, I still think he is an honest, intelligent person. I still respect him.

Uhh...uhh....George Bush I (the legitimate). I never agreed with many of this man's policies, but I never thought he was necessarily a bad president. I've always thought he was an honest, well-intentioned person. He's also not a dolt like his son is. I respect him.

Uhh....Gerald Ford who recently passed. Pretty much the same thing. Although I don't think he should have pardoned Nixon (please, let's not change the subject) the same things could be said about him. I respected him. I guess if you go back to most or all of the older Republican presidents, all the way back to Lincoln, I respect all of them (although this might count since they're dead).....except maybe Nixon. Heck, even though I believe Nixon was a liar, a criminal, I still have a little respect for him. He was at least intelligent and well intentioned. Anyhow, I'm digresing.....

I had plenty of respect for Lincoln Chafee. I believe he was among a small handful of Republicans on the hill who never bought into much of the garbage brought upon us by this latest wave Right Wing zealotry.

I respect congresman Jeff Flake who I saw on 60 minutes, and how he's trying to stand up against pork-barrell spending.

Is this enough, at least for now? I'd have to dive into the internet to refresh my memory of current and former Republicans. I'm certain I could come up with more.

3) Name one democratic position that is not belied by an overt hypocritical or contradictory position. Just one. This should be a real soft ball question for you.

This sounds like a set-up, but I'll shoot - We should put more funding into our schools, including tax credits to support higher level education.

You totally miss the main point and address the individual positions and demonstrate your views are straight from the DNC

If I have to go searching on DNC's web site to find what DNC's current, official views are, that's probably a good sign that I don't sleep with a copy of them by my pillow. I welcome you to obtain them if you can - I wouldn't mind defending them or identifying where I might stray from them.

So basically, you independently arrived at all the exact same positions as the DNC yet had no idea what their views were. I thought you would actually come up with some nit or go to the left of them. But you couldn't even come up with that. If you are a man of reflection and intellect, your answer to this question should scare the hell out of you. You agree with EVERY position of the DNC. That is a complete void of thinking. I have never met a Republican who agreed with every position of the RNC. They are right or left of them fiscally or socially, not dead on every issue.

On Republicans, I actually asked for names the first time I asked the question, but repeating questions and points is the norm, not new with you, so no surprise. I asked for Intelligence, you use terms like respect. And you go to the past and liberal. Liberal of course being my point. So let's analyze this. I say you think anyone not a liberal is dumb. You deny that. I ask who, what Republicans (to you non-liberal) are intelligent. You miss the question, I ask again. You say the LIBERAL ones are not dumb. Wow. Thanks again for making my point for me.

You say democrats are for "education." I say every position is hypocritical or contradictory. It's not a "set up" that's why I let you select the topic. I just have never experienced a true logical liberal position. Liberal positions are collectivist (as liberals are collectivist) and transactionally justified. Collectivist is why you don't disagree with the DNC/collective on anything. You then transactionally justify those views that are arrived at through collectivist negotiation and "justify" them with whatever works for that subject, which is why all your views end up contradicting other views. A couple examples.

Abortion must be legal because a woman has the right to do with her body as she choses. PERIOD. OK, can she supidly chose to "rent" her body for money? No. But you said....

We need to end our foreign dependence on oil! OK, can we drill in frozen tundra or off our shores? Can we build refineries? Can we build nuclear power plants? No, no, no and no. So how do we....

Greenhouse gasses are going to decimate the world!!!!! OK, even liberal environmentalist greenhouse expert Tim Flannery "The Weather Makers" author says the only sufficient zero emission solution is nuclear power, can we build that? No, it scares us. BTW, liberal environmentalists want to drain zero emission dams (and alter the environment) and are split on windmills (kill birds, even though it's a statistically small number). So how do we....

Anyway, you chose well with education. You actually have to understand the issue, which means you wont' get it and will say I accomplished nothing. I do not think liberals are hypocritical on this, but contradictory yes.

- Democrats are not pro-education, they are pro-union and pro-government. They look at our poor scores (all see that) and want them improved (all do) but propose only throwing government money at it (as you do). What the teachers union says goes. The collectivist Democrats have identified the left teachers union as the part of the collective to dictate the collectives view on education. Some of the anti-education things Democrats do

* Insist low IQ students slow down the general classrooms rather then allowing schools to educate them seperately.

* Oppose all measures of teachers except seniority.

* Oppose paying hard to fill roles (math, sciences) more

* Oppose allowing advanced students to go to faster tracks. This has improved somewhat but the left has kicked and screamed the whole way.

* Oppose job training for students who know they are not going to college. Other countries allow students to split time with general eduation and trade training so they can actually get a job if they know they are not going to college. Liberals force all students to the same track where additional math, english and gym classes are not going to get them a job.

* Force poor students to remain in poor schools rather than giving them the opportunity through vouchers to improve their lot in life through effort.

* Oppose market forces through vouchers and your proposed throwing money at higher education then whine about the increased cost and poorer results their policies worsened.

And of course anyone who proposes any other solution is automatically "anti-education" and in typical liberal fashion neither disagreement with the party (DNC)/collective is allowed.

Which is the scariest part of liberalism today. BTW, it wasn't like this before Vietnam when the Democratic party was the one open to discussion, debate and new ideas. Now there is some in the Repbubican side (not enough) and none on the Democratic side at all. Guys like JFK and Truman were nothing like Democrats of today. They supported defense and the economy and didn't label you based on disagreement on one issue like today because then Democrats would not have said the can't think of any issue they disagree with the DNC on.

[ATV]

You agree with EVERY position of the DNC......blah blah blah

Wow.

Part of me was even thinking you might actully come back with some sort of list by the DNC, but no, you'd rather continue to keep putting words in mouth and continue speaking for me. Disappointing, but I can't say I'm surprised.

I'm now done with this conversation.

[KazooSkinsFan]

You agree with EVERY position of the DNC......blah blah blah

Wow.

Part of me was even thinking you might actully come back with some sort of list by the DNC, but no, you'd rather continue to keep putting words in mouth and continue speaking for me. Disappointing, but I can't say I'm surprised.

I'm now done with this conversation.

Don't worry, I was never under any illusion you would ever actually say anything where I couldn't see Howard Dean's lips move. But in all sincerity I enjoyed the debate, my friend. I'm just sorry you take things so seriously.

We live in a great country. We allow Republicans to talk about small government while advocating the government own our bodies. We allow Democrats to advocate giving our freedom back to a ubiquitous government that will incompetently "care" for us. We allow libertarians to advocate liberty but try to deny there is any price to pay for living in a society (I don't like the libertarian party either, though I'm a libertarian ideologist). And the other parties are even nuttier!

But most nuts of all are those who can't enjoy living in the greatest, wealthiest, freeest country in the history of man and use that cherished freedom to discuss, debate and learn and figure out where we should go from here.

[Cappster]

Looks like Jimmy is under fire for omissions and false statements in his new book.

[ATV]

Looks like Jimmy is under fire for omissions and false statements in his new book.

This subject is so last-year.

It seems all of the objecters to this pro-Palestinaian book happen to be jewish - Shocking.

[Cappster]

Looks like Jimmy is under fire for omissions and false statements in his new book.

This subject is so last-year.

It seems all of the objecters to this pro-Palestinaian book happen to be jewish - Shocking.

Nice anti-semitic remark!

The reason I brought this back up is because the "Today show" did a clip of how a lot of people were objecting to what is in the book. Also, not everyone who's speaking out against the book are Jewish