Predictions for Bush second term

Hmmm you seem to be attacking Bush, but without any reason or logic. Do you believe in Democracy? Do you understand most countries are envious of the freedoms and opportunities we are priviledged to have? You make a broad slanderous statement and fail to support it in even the slightest way. Seems like rubbish to me.

 

And what was their message?

At the Radio City Music Hall rally for Kerry some month's ago, one entertainer after another, engaged in profanities and disgusting name calling of the President. Whoppi Goldberg made references to the President's last name and female genitalia and also made sexual remarks regarding the Vice President's first name.

Videos of the events showed Kerry and Edwards nearly falling down in their laughter. After the event ended Kerry said what people saw that night was "the heart and soul of America."

That's why the exit polls show values won this election!

 

Well, sure, if you want to make up your own definitions then you will always be right.

Most reasonable people would call someone who influences policy "influential."

Most reasonable people would call someone who is well known "prominent."

Those are the accepted definitions. If you can change the definition of any word to mean something that is not the generally accepted definition, then you will always be right. Which, apparently, you are.

So, let me understand this:

People who are NOT prominent conservatives:

Rush Limbaugh
Ann Coulter
Bill O'Reilly
Sean Hannity

People who ARE prominent conservaties:

Wayne LaPierre
Tom Donohue
Jack Faris


Under that definition (which makes absolutely no sense), I would agree that Savage is not a prominent conservative. I would still say that Tommy Franks is, though.

 

No kidding!

I was so disappointed with this aspect of the Kerry campaign.

To unseat an incumbent, you must provide a new vision for the country.

Reagan did it. Clinton did it. Kerry didn't even try.

 

You continue to evade my question and ignore the point of my argument.

Please, we'd all like to know which prominent conservatives are endorsing concentration camps? You said it, now back it up!

 

As a democrat, I am frustrated with the opinion that I must not have values because I don't like George Bush or I am not a Republican.

Frankly, I am just not into what I deem as the thinly veiled semi-fascist beliefs of this administration.
But I digress...

 

Exactly my point! They don't have one.

 

Hmmm, I have never heard that stated. Maybe you could be more specific in what you mean so we could understand?

 

Since the initial statements I posted were attributed, I assumed you could read them.

Let me summarize the next 10 posts:

I say that the statements were clearly attributed to Michael Savage and Tommy Franks.

You'll say that they are not prominent conservatives.

At some point you will say that Savage is not "prominent" because you define "prominent" as influencing policy.

I will point out that this is not the accepted definition of "prominent", and would be better described as "influential."

At this point, you will ask again who the prominent conservatives are who are saying these things, and it will strat all over.

The bottom line is that I simply posted some statements made by some people who, by any reasonable definition, are prominent conservatives.

I'm not saying you believe this. I'm not saying it's the policy of the Republican party. I'm just repeating what these people said.

 

Thank you!

 

And let's not forget Thomas Sowell and Armstrong Williams.

 

I certainly hope you don't think this is accurate. No genuine Republican would ever accuse the rank and file in the Democratic Party of having no values. I have a congregation that is about 50-50 Dems and GOP. Many of the Dems in my congregation have strong morals, ethics, and values.

I can name a number of Dems in state and federal offices that are strong on values. The Democratic Party has been, however, hijacked by those who seem to have no values. The Hollywood crowd were huge contributors to Kerry and their language and behaviors were very vulgar and beyond the pale.

No, don't get me wrong. There are many in the GOP that are rude, crude, and vulgar. But, they have not hijacked the Party.

 

Perhaps not, but the religious right certainly have hijacked the party.

 

Then have blacks and gays hijacked the Democrat party?

Don't assume that because someone has high moral standards and conservative values that he or she is necessarily a religious zealot. I'm one of the most conservative people you'll ever meet. I was raised in a Republican household and I am raising my children as Republicans. I've haven't been to church since I was six.

Noone has hijacked my party. Contrary to popular belief, conservatives are capable of thinking for themselves. The left still can't figure that out, and untill they do they will keep losing elections.

 

Well, y'all must be known as the "fun bunch" then.....

 

The religious right (what does this mean anyway?????) have not hijacked the GOP anymore than the religious left hijacked the Dems in the '60 and '70's (Revs. Martin Luther King, Jr., Ralph Abernathy, James Reeb, William Sloan Coffin, Donald Thompson, Johnny Frazier, Sister Diane Drufenbrock, et. al. when they fought for social and economic justice.

People seem to think Christians should be cast out of the political system. We are Americans too! We have rights too! We vote too!

This is what democracy is all about. People expressing their opinions and choices at the ballot box. One side always comes out on top. That's the way it is.

The Democrats or religious left won't win every time nor will the GOP or the religious right win every time.

We should all be gracious both in victory and in defeat.

When Reagan beat Mondale in '84, I didn't lambast the religious right or the GOP and lay out claims of dirty tricks, cheating, vote tampering, or say the Reaganites preyed on the fears and ignorance of the American people.

I accepted defeat. Wished Reagan well and waited for '88 to voice my opinion via the ballot box again. I lost that year too and in every year until now. But I never ranted and raved; I took defeat graciously.

 

So you think if some violent, terroristic monster beats to death someone who happens to be homosexual or someone else who practices a faith that includes wearing a turban that those deadly beatings are somehow the fault of Michael Savage? I don't think so. I think it would be entirely the fault of the violent, terroristic monster who commited the crime.

Please don't tell me "Yabbut it would be Michael Savage who inspired it!!!" That's similar to a kid who breaks something, then turns to their parent and says "Yabbut it's not MY fault. The devil made me do it." In either example it's not someone else's fault. It's entirely the fault of the person who commited the act. It's called p-e-r-s-o-n-a-l r-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y and in either case the perpetrator should bear the full burden and consequences of their actions. The kid by being grounded and having part of their allowance withheld until it pays for what they broke, and the violent terroristic monster by being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Kit

 

I hope you don't mind my jumping in here. I generally agree with you, Kit. Every person should be responsible for his or her own actions. That's why I don't like the government involved in censorship of the entertainment industry. Parents should control what their children listen to, not the government.

I don't like Savage. He is...well...a savage! He is a hate monger. Freedom of speech also contains a certain element of "p-e-r-s-o-n-a-l r-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y".

Take the KKK for instance. We all know they have one agenda one agenda only, hate and violence.

Although it goes against my strong libertarian streak, they should be outlawed! Savage should be held accountable for his hate mongering.

People and groups that advocate hate coupled with advocating violence should be outlawed. If a person threatens the President, he or she is immediately taken into custody. There is no freedom of speech here. It should be applicable across the board.

 

Absolutely agreed. As a side point (but somewhat related) it's tiring to hear parents whining about TV shows and video games with violent and/or sexual content. My answer is always the same: "So object to their sponsors, and in the meantime quit making such extensive use of electronic babysitters." But that is a side point so I digress....

Agreed, generally. For example you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc. But I'm not in favor of outlawing speech in general, it's too slippery a slope. It's entirely possible to use market forces to hold such individuals or groups responsible. I really think people don't realize their own power in such matters, a barrel of ink and the power of the pen will get you somewhere providing you don't give up. It's certainly more proactive than people sitting around whining "There oughta be a law! Somebody oughta do something!". Why can't that someone be you? (I'm speaking of "you" in the rhetorical and universal sense here, not Jimmy Clifton personally.) Speak out against hate-mongers like Savage, write their sponsors and tell them you won't buy their products, write the media outlets that carry their shows and and voice your objections to the way they are using the public airways.
Follow the money trail and voice your objections to the funding sources.

It's worked before, including against Savage. He once had a show on MSNBC until he told a caller "I hope you get AIDS and die!" People objected, strongly, to MSNBC and the sponsors of Savage's televised talk show. He doesn't have that show anymore.

Kit

 

I was proud to be a part of a party that drew it's inspiration from Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (Although I am not anymore.)

Most Bush voters are proud to be a part of a party that draws it's inspiration from Fred Phelps and his ilk. "God Hates Fags." That's what this election was about.

And now these people want to draw a parallel between their crusade to denigrate homosexuals and MLK's crusade to to stop racism.

That's sick. Not at all surprising, but sick.