Tuesday: No more biased than you are about Bush and republicans. I definitely can't be bothered to waste my time searching for the posts where you have stooped below the level that "V" was mentioning in his post that I responded to. I don't care enough, and your opinion doesn't affect me in the slightest bit, as mine doesn't affect you. Get over it.

(V): Um, maybe YOU personally didn't.
"We "libs" (as you call us) did not go to the lengths to disrespect Bush as you do Obama. We had a go at policy, mistakes as you'd expect."

But plenty of "libs" have gone to even greater lengths. Including a few posters on this board. Don't get me wrong, I have JUST AS LITTLE respect for George Bush as I do for Obama.
My point is that your statement is not accurate at all.

Plus, it's all just foolishness anyway. Both sides do the exact same thing. Regardless of if "2 wrongs, don't make a right".
Until the end of time, Dem's will insult republicans, and republicans will insult dem's. It's just silly for either side to whine about the other side doing it. Both sides are just as good at being nasty.

Artful Dodger: Beautifully said!
It is pathetic that so many people feel the need to be "taken care of" by the government. (Which means the rest of us) We need to get back to the times where we pulled ourselves up, and when help was needed, you turn to your family, if they are able. Not complete strangers who are busy taking care of THEMSELVES.

Artful Dodger: Yes, it is renewal time for my "group" insurance plan at work. It is going up 89%!! The agent has done a search for other companies, and they have all gone up significantly as well. When I asked why, I was told it's "in preparation of health care reform". She said we are lucky, the companies that are renewing after Sept 23 will have even higher increases.

We are a very small company. We don't know what we are going to do. They may eliminate my health insurance.

Yeah, thanks Obama

(V): Are you suggesting that "the other side" doesn't "manipulate guts"?

Tuesday: Of course, if the Mayans are right, it won't matter.

Tuesday: Yeah, hopefully we will be able to recover from his horrible year and a half in office. Let's see what more damage he can do by 2012.

Artful Dodger: I watched that exchange on Sunday. I wanted to throw something at Dean. I can't stand that nut. He tripped all over himself trying to get around the fact that he was wrong about that video and Fox News.

Artful Dodger: Beck didn't even talk about it until last night, and he was supportive of her.

(V): Well no, what she was saying is the "extreme environmentalists" being against on shore and shallow water drilling, has pushed the oil companies to need to go to DEEP water drilling, and she is saying that the deep water drilling is much more risky, and more prone to an accident like this, and more prone to not be able to stop a disaster like this.

I'm not fan of hers at all (I will NEVER vote for her), but I would say she may have a little bit of a point.

General Chat or Members only is... that way --------->

Further off topic posts will be deleted

Tuesday: Yes, you have a right to be childish and argumentative, for the sake of being argumentative, I suppose. It's not becoming though. It is time to get back to POLITICS. Thanks.

Tuesday: SO? I will continue to have whatever opinion I want to have, and I don't care if it is agreed upon by the "majority".

The issue is fixed, there is no need to continue complaining about it.

While I PERSONALLY agree that the context DOES matter, and PERSONALLY I see nothing wrong with the way it was used here (as in a quote that what used to make a point in what is supposed to be an intelligent conversation), it IS a word that gets a good majority of people worked up, so it would be best left off of our public boards, for that reason.

Very poor run on sentence, but I'm not changing it!

Tuesday: Strange that they are calling it "Happening Now", yet the time stamps on most of the video was October and November of 2002. Weird.

Artful Dodger: This won't be debated on the board, thanks. People are calling each other stupid. It's not necessary to talk about politics with this sort of thing.

This is not directed at any ONE person, but this needs to be done without getting personal. We ALL already know this.

Thanks in advance.

Artful Dodger: Yes, and "terrorism" is too inflammatory. The term is now "man-caused disaster".

I heard on the news tonight, that the leaders/organizers of Al Queida groups in Yemen are some Guantanamo Bay terrorists who were released to Saudi Arabia and "rehabilitated" and are now back to the same thing. Let's keep releasing these people!! Yeah! Makes a lot of sense.

Artful Dodger: Amazing? My word is DISGUSTING

Artful Dodger: I was listening to something yesterday, and the guy was saying that the Dems understand they are going to lose seats, but to get this through (since most of it is impossible to get rid of once it's started) is worth the risk.

Artful Dodger: Unfortunately, their strategy seems to be, "Let's just get this through, we can unruffle feathers later"

ustica tnp: Little early for that. Still has to go through the House. There could be some miracle still to keep this awful thing from happening.

And your other comments are inappropriate, and will not be tolerated. (Which ever group you choose to put in)

Starsky: "as bad as the cops in the US"

THAT'S messed up. A couple bad eggs does not define the group. What do YOU do for a living?. I'm sure we can make silly generalizations about that, as well.

Artful Dodger: Yes, unfortunately, I don't think a lot of people actually research who they are voting for. Many people go with a name just because they've heard of it. (All those people waving signs at intersections right around election days). Or they know their friend/mom/uncle/boss is voting for someone, so they go the same way.

Or with incumbents, people won't actually find out what their voting record is, and ask themselves if that is the way they want the person representing them to vote.

Or people get "stuck" in their party. I imagine there are a lot of moderate republicans, or moderate democrats who might actually find there is someone in the "opposite" party who would actually be a good match. (I'm not a big fan of the 2 party system)

In other words, there just aren't enough responsible voters.

Plus, let's face it, the majority isn't always "correct".. They just have the numbers.

Czuch:
"Also, just because one drug is "better" than some other legal one, is not a good argument for it to be legal as well, IMHO."

If a legal drug is "worse" than an illegal one, should it be illegal? Seems kind of logical to me. But of course I see the opposite as logical as well.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as marijuana is illegal, booze should be as well.

Let the drunks get prescriptions for booze I guess.

In actuality, I fully support legalization of marijuana. With the same restrictions as alcohol. Unfortunately, as far as I know, there isn't a test to tell if you are CURRENTLY under the influence of marijuana. I believe the only tests are if you have recently smoked it. (Which could be a week ago!)

Übergeek 바둑이: I only recently started listening to Glen Beck. I don't know if I have heard the same things that you have heard, but the times that I personally heard him calling Obama a racist, he was only making a point.
When I heard him doing it, it was in response to Carter's ridiculous statements. It was in response to Democrats frequently playing this sort of card, to make opponents not able to disagree without some sort of label. Unfortunately, these tactics kind of work! No one wants to be labeled a racist!

When I heard him calling Obama a racist, it was to make a point by doing the same thing that Carter did. I didn't get the impression that he really felt Obama was a racist.

You may be talking about a different incident of course.

(V): I think most civil wars have a lot of foreign involvement though. There are always going to be "outside forces" that have some interest in how a civil war turns out in the end. There was foreign involvement in the American Civil War, and it is still considered a civil war.

I suppose calling the British "foreign" in the Ireland issue is a bit of a stretch though.

Artful Dodger: Is there a way for my concern to be addressed though? I don't even understand why health insurance became so tied into one's employment.

Artful Dodger: The ONLY thing I like about the current plan, is the ability to not have to get insurance through my employer. The way things currently are, it is just TOO expensive to buy health insurance on your own. (Of course I have NO idea what this "government plan" would cost either.) I changed jobs a couple years ago, and I had to go 90 days without insurance. (There was no way I could afford the COBRA payments through my former employer). Luckily I am still young and healthy, so it didn't end up mattering.

And I have no idea how "pre-existing conditions" factor in to that either. Luckily I have none.

Czuch: I am not a proponent of socialized medicine, but my cost for health insurance definitely goes up higher each year. (Many years, at a higher rate than my income goes up) I work for a very small company, and I'm afraid they will not continue to consider contributing more towards the increased cost.

I really wish health insurance was not connected to my employer. It makes it pretty bad when you change employers

Czuch: Personally, I would support it.

Hmmm.... not very Libertarian of me either!

Guess I'm not in that box either. Darn it. That's the box I didn't mind too much!

(V):
You say: Are you saying that only the rich should have babies? Are you proposing a somewhat big brother approach to having families where only approved parents can have children and any poor people who have babies are to be prosecuted and jailed?

People have to have a license to Fish or Hunt in the USA. (Not sure if it is that way over there) Yet anyone can have a baby! I DO think that people should have to prove they can bring up a child properly before having one! Of course, that is absolutely impossible. And who would be the person who makes this decision? And my solution to not allowing babies until after this proof, would be controversial as well. lol. Some sort of mandatory birth control until you DO get a license to have a child. Before you blast me for that, I know that would be a very bad solution. It has it's merits though.

Czuch: Sure, a huge amount of the time there is probably some abuse that brought people to drugs. And many times, people just like it. I just don't agree that drugs cause poverty, and I guess I was really only responding to a blanket statement. It's certainly more complicated than that. Many who experience poverty, and are on drugs, probably are those ones who fall into that abused category

I don't really know what I would say causes poverty. Aren't there probably lots of different causes? A lot of it could definitely be remedied if people wouldn't define themselves as "victims", and would stop whining and do something about it. There comes a time when you have to fight it and get a backbone and figure out what you can do to take care of yourself. There are OF COURSE cases where someone truly IS a victim, so much so that they need help, and I'm all for that! I would prefer that be taken care of locally, rather than federally though.

Czuch: I truly enjoyed your response scoffing at me. Insulting, while trying not to sound insulting. I like that.

You are right, I can definitely have some of my attitudes put into the conservative box, and some put into the liberal box. I don't recall saying that I couldn't. I was simply saying that I am not totally one or the other. I mostly consider myself a Libertarian, but probably mostly lean towards the conservative side of things. (And you may be surprised that actually, I agree with 80% of the things that you type)

I am SO glad I could provide you with such a good chuckle.

I have many convictions Very strong ones, as a matter of fact

It saddens me that you don't approve of me. I hope it's a warm ocean you have me floating around in, like an amoeba. (Even though you know NOTHING about what I stand for)

(V): hmm.. I don't recall saying anything about abused people. A significant number of people who use drugs are not doing it because they are/were abused. Many do it because they like the effects, for whatever reason.

Czuch: Um, I was simply commenting on the blanket statement that drugs are a cause of poverty. There is a bit of a difference between a debate and a discussion.

I don't fall into one of your cute little labeled "liberal", "conservative" boxes.

(V): Right. It's the user who needs to be first blamed, not the drug. I know people who smoke marijuana who are quite responsible and successful. Though really, its a different class of drug.

I think Bwild has a point with some of the harder drugs. It's probably pretty rare that users of those are successful. But I still say it's the person, not the drug.

Czuch: Actually, I read every single post on every public board, so the answer is yes. And I DO follow this board especially closely.

Again, this doesn't need to be debated, it really isn't the subject of the board. It can be continued in PM if you so desire. Not EVERYTHING needs to be debated.

Bwild: I agree with you, which is why this board is watched so closely. The "atmosphere" has been totally acceptable up until today. And I'm not saying it has necessarily gone too far over the line, but it is heading that direction, and I want to stop it before it does.

If people want a "no holds barred" conversation, then I guess it needs to be in a fellowship. On the public boards, there WILL be moderation.

But let's go back to what this board is for.

Let's all just keep this in mind, and go back to the usual topics.

Czuch: I stand by what I said. I don't need to be invited, thank you.

The atmosphere on this board is heading in the wrong direction. It is starting to turn into personal attacks. "Attack" is a bit strong, but that is the direction it appears to be heading, and it needs to not head that way.

Jim Dandy: It seems very vague to me. How can you possibly get into the heads of the people who voted in the poll and know how they interpreted the question? As has been shown in this conversation, there are different ways of taking the question.

Artful Dodger: I, personally, understand that.

For most people, a car is one of their biggest purchases. When foreign cars are already better (in many peoples' eyes), I think a majority of people will say, "Why chance it?" and buy from other companies.

Artful Dodger: I think one problem with the bankruptcy route could be that most people probably don't want to chance buying a car from a "bankrupt" company, and if sales get even worse, there is even less chance of recovering.

I'm against the bailout though, but I do worry about that.