Liberal Media?

Rachael - posted on 07/13/2009

Quoting Dawn:

See Evelyn you are just a sad person full of hate. I have every right to be here as anyone. There are times I agree and times I don't. I post once in a while on things and I keep it polite and try to be informing on my info. All that I ever see from you is full of hate for anyone that might post something you disagree with. You need to take a look at all this hate that you have and work it out. There is a diffrence on disagreeing with a person and being hatefull.

Although you do have a "right" to be here--it is predicated on your ability to follow the community guidelines, primarily being respectful of others and their opinions.  Whether or not someone agrees with another's opinion is not an issue, but rather how one deals with it.

Let this be a warning to everyone--please keep the discussions civil.  Rudeness and blatant disrespect shall not be tolerated.  Thank you.

ME - posted on 07/12/2009

Very ironic...perhaps we should agree as a group to ignore the garbage posts by women who are obviously here to start problems. That might solve the problem, because if they stop getting a rise out of us, perhaps they will go back where they belong...the debating group or the conservative group! I have no problem ignoring them here...if I want a fight...I know where the appropriate place to go is!

Evelyn - posted on 07/10/2009

Thanks Joy, I know I'm not a hateful person lol...what they say doesn't affect me at all because I just consider the source. I'm just stating the obvious....that this is a group of like minded people who want to discuss the issues and debate amongst fellow supporters...I just find it incredibly funny to be called hateful by a republican...historically the most intolerant, judgemental people out there. Ironic isn't it?

JL - posted on 07/10/2009

Evelyn....I don't think you come off at all hateful I just think that you like the rest of are at this point getting increasingly tired of people who purposely come over into this community which is called the OBAMA MAMAS to start arguements.



This is clearly a forum for people who are supporters of Obama and there is another community called the DEBATING MOMS which is for people who want ot discuss and debate opposing opinons of the issues with those who come from different political perspectives. I mean how many of us troll over to the conservative womens forums and jump in on thier conversations bringing up things that will obviously start arguements.....HONESTLY, if you are coming over here to post your opposition to what we are discussing and you are coming off completlely confrontational then the reality is that most of us are no longer going to engage in a conversation with you, because AT THIS POINT WE ARE TIRED OF REPEATING OURSELVES.

Dawn - posted on 07/09/2009

See Evelyn you are just a sad person full of hate. I have every right to be here as anyone. There are times I agree and times I don't. I post once in a while on things and I keep it polite and try to be informing on my info. All that I ever see from you is full of hate for anyone that might post something you disagree with. You need to take a look at all this hate that you have and work it out. There is a diffrence on disagreeing with a person and being hatefull.

Evelyn - posted on 07/09/2009

No one is telling you to "shut up" per se....we've just implied (til we're practically blue in the face) that this group is for SUPPORTERS of our president and if you don't support him then you really should not be a part of this group. There are other groups specifically created for debating the issues so take it on over there. We just don't care to hear what you have to say in this forum, if we are so inclined...we'll take a gander over at the debating groups.

Dawn - posted on 07/09/2009

I hear ya Vanessa, I'm glad that we have free speech but some folks have the attitued that if you don't agree with them then you are wrong and need to shut up. If someone doesn't like an oppion then fine but to try and bully that person is wrong.

Vanessa - posted on 07/09/2009

Dawn, I don't think you or anyone is a racist if you did not vote for Pres. Obama. I feel it is equally wrong for someone to vote for him simply because he is African-American just as it is wrong to not vote for him for that reason. No one is going to agree with everything this president or any president does. I thought the purpose of this group was to be able to come and discuss those issues in a friendly atmosphere among fellow supporters. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so because of the negativity that is displayed at times.

Dawn - posted on 07/09/2009

Quick thing on all this racest crap. I first of Did not vote for either Obama or McCain. But I did vote. But because I didn't voted for Obama (didn't like his politics still not impressed) I have been called a racist. Just for not voting for him. So tell me, who is more racist? The one who votes for her/his own political views or for the color of skin?

Cause this is the only site that has a lot of racist comments on it.

Dawn - posted on 07/09/2009

Wow I've must have been busy with the kids. Didn't even know his aunt was deported. Thanks for updating me on that. As for all the press. I think the press should get out of all the nasty news and start doing real news. All I ever hear on the big news stations CNN MSNBC FOX is neg stuff. Would love to have more information that is not hate news. I thinkg that is the main source of Hate Spreading is the media.

ME - posted on 07/09/2009

Even tho this is off the topic of the original post, I just want to say that I don't care if the average person supports gay marriage or other gay rights...I believe that there were a lot of people who didn't support the women's rights movement or the civil rights movement...we now concider those people to have been wrong. People that don't support equal rights for all american people obviously don't understand our constitution, and they are quite simply wrong! I will not argue with them, but I will point out ignorance where I see it. I love my civil liberties, and I want my children to grow up in a country where people are not judged for the way they are born...but "by the content of their character"! I hope that Pres. Obama will accomplish all of things he has promised to the LGBT movement!

ME - posted on 07/09/2009

There is no liberal media...there is only a complicit media. Check out John Stewart on Crossfire a few years back...I only wish the media would listen to him, and stop this inflammatory, fear-mongering, crap! It seems that when they aren't doing fluff pieces on the death of Michael Jackson (whom i love, so don't yell), and ignoring all of the real news, they are simply repeating whatever came out of the latest press conference. I listen to NPR, BBC, and when I can, Amy Goodman, because there are still some real journalists out there...they just don't work for the mainstream American media...



BTW, I also agree with the ladies who are saying that if you aren't a supporter of B.Obama...what are you doing here? It's called Obama Mammas...if you don't support him, then you are probably here for the wrong reasons. As I understand it, there is a page devoted to political debate...I thought this was a page devoted to women with children who want to work to help Obama's administration with all of it's lofty goals. That's why I am here!

Evelyn - posted on 07/03/2009

It's no surprise that I agree w/the two of you. Ugh,.

Shelley - posted on 07/03/2009

Thank you Vanessa. I'll second that. Traci, you are defeating the purpose of this group.

Vanessa - posted on 06/29/2009

when i first joined this group some months ago i was very excited. now I find myself rarely visiting because I almost always read something on hear that offends me. i don't comment either because i have no interest in getting into a heated discussion. I just don't understand if you clearly do not support President Obama then why be a member of this group??? Seriously why???

Joni - posted on 06/22/2009

My 20 year old-in 1 day, is gay and even though I wish he was not, because it is a tough life-style to live in, he is wonderful. I hate to see prejudice against him just because of that. People protesting that it is because of gays that we are at war and that gays should all be dead. My son has lots to give to this country if not the world and it would be a terrible day if he were not here to live in it.

Joni - posted on 06/22/2009

I could not agree more. I did not have my TV on as much as you, but I do remember all the negative press against Obama. I think one of the things that made it seem it was more against the Republican side is the fact that they kept whining about it and Obama played it down and tried harder to stay with the important issues at hand. That is why he is one of the best Presidents this country has had in many years.

Jill - posted on 06/20/2009

I think being "liberal" is just a part of being informed and intelligent. I have tried to stomach watching Fox just to see what the opposition is up to but I can never lastmore than a couple of minutes. I watch MSNBC faithfully and I would say that even though Keith and Rachel support the Obama agenda they will also be the first to point out something that they feel is wrong.

The Palin kerfluffle is more amusement for me than anything else, now that she no linger has the prospect of being a heartbeat away from the presidency. She's a bit like a train wreck in that you can't help but watch her implode every time she opens her mouth. I can't accuse the people of Alaska of being uninformed since they elected her since I live in AZ with the notorious Kyl/McCain mess.

Traci - posted on 06/20/2009

There was a new NYT poll released in the last couple of days that showed that support for gay marriage has DROPPED by 9 points since April...I wonder why that is. I mean, with all this in the news, you'd think people would be becoming more desensitized to it.

Esther - posted on 06/19/2009

A relevant op-ed piece in the Washington Post today:



Gays in the Military: Let the Evidence Speak



By John M. Shalikashvili

Friday, June 19, 2009







The Supreme Court announced last week that it would not review a lawsuit challenging the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy forbidding homosexuals from serving openly. The Obama administration had asked the court not to take the case as the president considers ending the ban.



News that the president would change the policy had inspired a group of retired flag officers to argue on this page this spring that service by openly gay individuals would harm morale, discipline, cohesion, recruitment and retention in the U.S. military ["Gays and the Military: A Bad Fit," op-ed, April 15]. They wrote as part of a larger effort by more than 1,000 retired officers to keep the ban in place.



According to the generals and admirals, allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly would make parents less willing to allow their sons and daughters to enlist. The argument assumes that anti-gay sentiment is so fierce and widespread that moving to a policy of equal treatment would drive away thousands and could ultimately "break the All-Volunteer Force." Not only is there no evidence to support these conclusions, but research shows conclusively that openly gay service members would not undermine military readiness.



Tradition is a critical military value, and the armed forces have a long-standing tradition of banning gay men and lesbians. Equally important military traditions, however, are learning and adapting -- and my colleagues made claims as if no new knowledge has been acquired over past decades, during which time Israel and Britain joined more than 20 other nations to allow openly gay individuals to serve without overall problems. In Britain and Canada, polls had indicated that thousands would resign if gays were allowed to serve, but when the bans were lifted, almost no one left. The British Defense Ministry conducted several assessments of the policy change and called it a "solid achievement." The flag officers neglected to acknowledge Britain's experience, instead dismissing the relevance of nations such as "Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada." While it is true that the U.S. armed forces are unique, it is important that we not marginalize the lessons learned in other countries -- particularly those that often conduct joint operations with us.



But it is not just foreign militaries that show service by openly gay individuals works. The U.S. military itself has had successful experiences. Enforcement of the ban was suspended without problems during the Persian Gulf War, and there were no reports of angry departures. A majority of U.S. service members say they know or believe that someone in their unit is gay, according to a 2006 Zogby International poll, and most of those who know of openly gay peers report no detriment to morale or cohesion. A recent study co-authored by Laura Miller of Rand Corp. found no correlation between a unit's readiness and whether known gays serve in it. And last year, four retired flag and general officers studied all available evidence and found that allowing gays to serve posed no risk to force readiness.



While the proper timing of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" remains uncertain, it is evident to me that a policy change is inevitable. More than three-quarters of the public favors the change. Polls show that even a majority of Republicans support allowing openly gay people to serve. Within the military, the climate has changed dramatically since 1993. Conversations I've held with service members make clear that, while the military remains a traditional culture, that tradition no longer requires banning open service by gays. There will undoubtedly be some teething pains, but I have no doubt our leadership can handle it.



Given the inevitability of change, whether via executive order or legislative repeal, it will be important for senior leaders to send clear signals of support to the rank and file. Every general officer knows that mixed signals undermine leadership. Indeed, studies show that when organizations implement controversial change, signals from the top must be clear. For such a large group of retired senior officers to oppose the inevitable could cause the very disruptions they predict.



The officers who oppose lifting the ban argued in The Post that there is "no compelling national security reason" to let openly gay troops serve. They also say, however, that "losses of even a few thousand sergeants, petty officers and experienced mid-grade officers" -- those they believe might bolt -- are unaffordable. Under current policy, we have lost more than 13,000 of those people, such as the Arabic language speaker featured in the new film "Ask Not." In addition, researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles have found that nearly 4,000 people leave voluntarily each year because of the ban, and that more than 40,000 recruits might join if the ban is ended.



President Obama has wisely indicated that he will consult carefully with military leadership before making any change to "don't ask, don't tell." In the same way that military leaders take into account research about what works and what doesn't when contemplating a new strategy or doctrine, it will be important for the conversation about gays and lesbians in the military to be informed by data, not speculation or emotion. That people on all sides of the issue feel strongly about it is more reason, not less, to let the evidence do the talking.



The writer, a retired Army general, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997.

Traci - posted on 06/19/2009

I don't think a majority of military men and women feel that way (my husband was in the first 4 years of our marriage), but I understand that point just the same.



My thing with the whole DADT is that it gives losers who are not cutting it in the military an out. I have a family member who lied and said he was gay because he didn't like being in the AF anymore. That's crap!



What a lovely, civil discussion! Isn't it pleasant when nobody is being rude to eachother??? LOL :)

Esther - posted on 06/19/2009

Traci - I'm glad we can at least come close to full agreement on this issue! There is hope still!

Esther - posted on 06/19/2009

Joy - I like your husband!! (and I agree with him)

JL - posted on 06/18/2009

My husband is in the military and is very manly so after reading this conversation I called him and asked how he would feel if he was showering with men whom he knew were gay..his response was that he would not give a well he used an expletitive but I will clean it up,lol, simply he stated he would not care.



I asked why because I am not a man so I wanted a male perspective and he stated well honestly it would not make me uncomfortable because I am sure they would figure out that I am not homosexual and therefore not interested so they may look but they would not pursue anything so there would be no need for me to feel akward, second if I felt akward I would say in a respectful way hey dude not interested and don't appreciate you looking, third honestly all guys whether gay or straight we check eachother out to a degree and compare and sometimes we actually do this openly.. which I found strange, fourth he stated that it would be kind of egotistical of him to assume that just because he is a man that automatically means that all gay men are attracted to him and fifth he stated that because he is comfortable enough with who he is that he feels no need to react negatively to homosexuals openly being in the military.



His biggest point was that we need to respect that homosexuals are intelligent people and realize that they are serving now and that they just don't want to have to lie about who they are and hide their personal relationships by denying them. Heterosexual soldiers do not have to keep their spouses and partners locked away as if they don't exist so they don't get kicked out of the military but a homosexual person must do this and to him that just seems ridiculous.

Traci - posted on 06/18/2009

I don't think that of all gay people. But I know that if a guy was showering amongst a group of women, he'd be checking them out, right? That is not deviant or inappropriate. It's human nature. It's the same as a gay dude showering amongst other men. I didn't mean to insinuate that gay people are sexual deviants or anything, but it's human nature to look around, right? (Except if you are committed, of course!) I didn't mean it in a stereotypical sense. :)

Sara - posted on 06/18/2009

I think that's one problem about the perception of gay people. People perceive them as sexual deviants and therefore sex addicts, child molesters or see them as being inappropriate sexually in situations like a group shower. I think we need to try and let go of that sterotype, because my gay friends are not inappropriate, deviant people...no more than I am anyway!!! :)

Traci - posted on 06/18/2009

I see what you mean...I don't see a gay Marine cat calling and whistling at men in the locker room. That would be one stupid guy if he did, eh? Lol I was just pointing out that just because you don't welcome members of the same sex looking at you in a sexual manner doesn't make you insecure. I think it's just human nature to not welcome that. Well, hetero human nature, anyway! lol

Esther - posted on 06/18/2009

I doubt that any gay service man would be so disrespectful (or reckless) to ogle another service man the way construction workers can ogle women though.

Traci - posted on 06/18/2009

I see what you are saying...I totally understand that part of it. I don't think it's fair to call that an insecurity though. I mean, if a beautiful woman walks past a construction site and is being ogled, would you call her insecure? I wouldn't think so. It's uncomfortable. Like I said, I don't have all the answers, but don't be surprised when unintended consequences go down after this is enacted. We need to be realistic about it I think.

Esther - posted on 06/18/2009

Frankly I think allowing a gay person to have his dignity and be who he is and speak about that if he so chooses (just like I'm sure your husband talks about you at work and things that you and your family may have done over the weekend or something) is a lot more important than a ''testosterone laden" guy's insecurities over being checked out. We ask these people to put their lives on the line for eachother (and us) on a daily basis and to then have a policy in place that treats some of these men and women (who serve with honor) like they are somehow "dirty" and/or second class and shouldn't be allowed to speak openly about who they are is just disgraceful.

Traci - posted on 06/18/2009

Of course Marines are tough, the best of the best. But, if you are ever around a testosterone-laden male you'll also know that they wouldn't be very cool with showering with gay guys. I mean, why would we have seperate male/female locker rooms then? Should we let the gay guys go shower with the chicks and let the lesbians go shower with the guys? It's one thing to not know what someone is thinking but it is a very different thing to definitely know what they are thinking, you know? I'm sure you can see a difference between the two situations.



I'm not so sure if they will get over it quickly and I"m not sure a gay dude is going to feel comfortable showering amongst a bunch of muscle bound guys who know what he is about. I'm not saying they will harm him, but I can bet that the gay guy is going to be made to feel very uncomfortable in that situation. That's just a fact of life. I don't know what the answer is to that particular situation, but I think it is in our best interest to address it before changing things all up.

Esther - posted on 06/18/2009

Quoting Traci:

[ ] I understand where you're coming from on the whole DADT thing, but I am not sure how that is going to work. I mean, those Marines have to take showers together and to expect them to know who may or may not be checking them out...I don't know how well Marines are going to deal with that. I really don't think that is fair to them. Unless they have homosexuals shower seperately, but that seems awkward and segregationary too. I don't know.... I just don't think it's fair to make a majority of people uncomfortable just to make a few happy. I wonder how they will address that issue....

I thought the Marines were supposed to be tough? But THIS they couldn't handle? My guess is they'll get over it pretty quickly. And any gay marines are in there taking showers with them now as well. They just don't know about it, but if they wanted to "check them out" they'd be doing it now too.

Sara - posted on 06/18/2009

I don't think we have that available here. There used to be something called "common law marriage", but I know at least for the state I live in, it's no longer used.



I understand that they don't want people just putting roommates on their policy and stuff like that. I think a contract like what you're talking about in Holland would be a great way to go.

Esther - posted on 06/18/2009

Quoting Sara:

 

Well, the University I work for extends benefits to same sex partners, but not a man and a woman if they live together and aren't married.  While I'm glad and agree with the fact that they extend this benefit, I also think it's BS they don't offer it to M/F couples that live together but aren't married...

Sara - the company I work for has the same policy and I agree that they should also open it up to M/F couples that aren't married. I'm not familiar enough with US law but in Holland there is such a thing as a relationship contract where you make your relationship "legal" so to speak (division of assets, etc.) but you're not married. Is there such a thing here as well? If so, they should make that a requirement for non-married couples just so your employer doesn't end up having to extend benefits to say your roommate.

Esther - posted on 06/18/2009

Quoting Sara:

 

Well, the University I work for extends benefits to same sex partners, but not a man and a woman if they live together and aren't married.  While I'm glad and agree with the fact that they extend this benefit, I also think it's BS they don't offer it to M/F couples that live together but aren't married...

Sara - the company I work for has the same policy and I agree that they should also open it up to M/F couples that aren't married. I'm not familiar enough with US law but in Holland there is such a thing as a relationship contract where you make your relationship "legal" so to speak (division of assets, etc.) but you're not married. Is there such a thing here as well? If so, they should make that a requirement for non-married couples just so your employer doesn't end up having to extend benefits to say your roommate.

Sara - posted on 06/18/2009

Quoting Traci:

Esther, what did Obama promise that still needs to be done? He said all along that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Are you referring to DADT? I'm sure it's just a matter of time for that one. :)

Does anyone know how giving benefits to federal employee partners will work? I mean, if two chicks are together and living, say, in IN they are not married, but they can give their partner medical benefits under their plan. What will happen if a man and a woman live together like the two chicks do but would like to be covered under the other's health plan? Are they still allowed to do that even if they are not married? I wonder how that works, I'm not sure. Does there have to be some sort of committment like a civil union before they can recieve those benefits?

Well, the University I work for extends benefits to same sex partners, but not a man and a woman if they live together and aren't married.  While I'm glad and agree with the fact that they extend this benefit, I also think it's BS they don't offer it to M/F couples that live together but aren't married...

Traci - posted on 06/17/2009

Thanks for clarifying! I wan't sure what you were referring to...



:)



Yeah, I think hate crime statutes are a joke and completely unfair. I really have a problem with that...



On the whole gender identity thing, I really think an employer should be able to do what he sees fit on this. If I hire a waiter at my restaurant and all of a sudden he decides he is a girl instead of a boy and starts dressing as such, that is bad for business and I should be well within my rights to let him go. I don't buy that whole gender identity thing. They need a psychiatrist...not a surgeon, in my opinion.



I understand where you're coming from on the whole DADT thing, but I am not sure how that is going to work. I mean, those Marines have to take showers together and to expect them to know who may or may not be checking them out...I don't know how well Marines are going to deal with that. I really don't think that is fair to them. Unless they have homosexuals shower seperately, but that seems awkward and segregationary too. I don't know.... I just don't think it's fair to make a majority of people uncomfortable just to make a few happy. I wonder how they will address that issue....

Esther - posted on 06/17/2009

This is what he promised:



Expand Hate Crimes Statutes - Don't believe that has been done yet, but it's not too high on my list either so this one doesn't bother me. A crime is a crime. I'm not sure the "hate" motivation makes that much of a difference to me. If someone attacks someone else they should be thrown in prison - period.



Fight Workplace Discrimination and Promote Rights - the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should be expanded to include sexual orientation

and gender identity - don't believe he has acted on this yet.



Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples - Hasn't acted on this yet, except this bill he signed today but that's only a small step toward this goal.



Fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. - He spoke about this today and said he wanted to accomplish this next. I hope he does. I think btw that this also answers your other question.





Repeal Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell - HIGH on my list. Hasn't happened yet. Should be a no brainer.

Traci - posted on 06/17/2009

Esther, what did Obama promise that still needs to be done? He said all along that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Are you referring to DADT? I'm sure it's just a matter of time for that one. :)



Does anyone know how giving benefits to federal employee partners will work? I mean, if two chicks are together and living, say, in IN they are not married, but they can give their partner medical benefits under their plan. What will happen if a man and a woman live together like the two chicks do but would like to be covered under the other's health plan? Are they still allowed to do that even if they are not married? I wonder how that works, I'm not sure. Does there have to be some sort of committment like a civil union before they can recieve those benefits?

Esther - posted on 06/17/2009

I agree, but it's a minimal step and nowhere near what he promised or what needs to be done.

Rachael - posted on 06/17/2009

But at the very least, I'm glad that Obama has finally taken some steps forward by allowing same sex benefits for federal employees. It's at least a start.

Esther - posted on 06/17/2009

I like Peggy Noonan too - which is why I was even more disappointed that she said the "keep walking" thing. I am also VERY disappointed in Obama re. GLBT issues. It is high time he at least repealed DODT. I have mentioned my disappointment on other threads as well and as most of you probably know by now gay rights issues are very important to me.

Traci - posted on 06/17/2009

Joy, I'm wondering what you think of Obama firing that IG illegally. I mean, Bush was fully within the law to fire those AG's, as they serve at the pleasure of the president. Clinton did the same exact thing, he put his guys in there. Obama fired that IG becuase he is investigating his pal, that basketball player. Thoughts?

Sara - posted on 06/17/2009

I have to agree, I think the way he has handled most GLBT issues since taking office is disappointing....

JL - posted on 06/17/2009

I like Peggy Noonan she is a Republican whom I respect. She uses intellect and pursues the facts and above all else she wants what is best for this nation and is not afraid to openly oppose her own party and call out their faults. I mean no one should feel like they cannot openly disagree with their party or blindly follow the leaders of the party.



I for one have been livid with Obama lately because of the Attorney Generals stance on DOMA. I have openly discussed this with all my freinds even my conservative friends and one said to me..OH you finally realize he is not perfect...I responded that in no way am I delusional and think that whomever is in office will accomplish everything they say they will and I in no way agree 100% with the people I vote for, but if you tell me during your campaign that you will support repealing DOMA..i and then instead of repealing or at least not going out of your way to bring about a repeal of DOMA because you don't think the timing is right you actually go forth with an arguement that defends the act...then yes I will become angry and yes I will respond by e-mailing your office and my Democratic representatives relaying my dissapointment in the administration.

Esther - posted on 06/17/2009

Quoting Joy:

[ ] I mean hello the Attorney General scandal was an outrageous attack on our legal system and I am suppose to say hey what is done is done lets move on and hope because we did not set any real consequences against the abuse of power that it never happens again under any other administration.  [ ]

As Peggy Noonan famously said "Sometimes you just have to keep walking" and in lockstep they march.

JL - posted on 06/17/2009

I agree I gave Bush the benefit of doubt and hoped he would do right by this world and did not assume certain things or spew vile hatred toward him because he was a conservative. Unlike other people I respect the office of the presidency, but it was continued actions over 8 years they led me toward my utter disregard toward the Bush adminstration. And in most parts I cannot even say that it was Bush that I attacked and blamed, I mean ultimately he is the man at the top so he is too blame but most of my anger was and is still directed at Cheney and Rumsfeld for forgoing the laws in the name of winning elections and perpetuating preconcieved plans. I do not get and never will why conservatives have no problem with spending tax payers dollars and time on investigating Clinton for letting some dumb intern giving him a blow job yet they can not come to terms with investigating members of the Bush administration for purposely and knowlingly violating the highest laws of this nation in order to support thier own party ideals and thier personal objectives. I mean hello the Attorney General scandal was an outrageous attack on our legal system and I am suppose to say hey what is done is done lets move on and hope because we did not set any real consequences against the abuse of power that it never happens again under any other administration. Well this is not the first time we have had abuse within the exectutive branch and it has happened under Democrat and Republican adminstrations. There has been a pattern of abuse that started during the Twentieth Century and until we take the objective steps to curtail the abuse of the power of exectutive privelege clause by actually investigating past abuses and establishing that we as citizens will no longer stand for it...it will make no mistakes continue to happen.

Sara - posted on 06/17/2009

Okay, first, yes it is wrong to invade a sovereign nation that you are not at war with like we did in Iraq. We didn't allow Saddam to do it in 1991 in Kuwait, did we? No matter what you think of Saddam, there are rules that we have to live by and you just can't go around invading places because you "think" they have weapons. Not worked out well for us, you think? And honestly acting "proactively"? That would be like me going over to my neighbors house and killing him because he has a gun, doesn't like me very much and I heard from my other neighbor, who heard it from our other neighbor, that he said he might hurt me one day. Doesn't make much sense to me. And it's not comparable with what happened in WWII in Germany. We got involved with Germany because they were the ally of the country that bombed us. Remember that whole "Japan-Italy-Germany" axis thing?





Secondly, since when is diplomacy the same thing as "kissing butt"? Honestly, I feel that is an ignorant point of view perpetuated by Fox News and friends. Diplomacy is NEEDED. Isolationism does not work (and BTW, how can you consider yourself an isolationist, but then agree with the invasion of Iraq?). It weakens us in the eyes of the world and our allies to be closed off. I believe Obama said that while we would like to open the channels to talk to some countries, we still will protect ourselves and our interests. What the hell is soft about that? I mean, you do actually listen to his speeches, right? I did, and "soft" is not what I heard.





Third, I almost spit coffee out of my nose when I read that you said some of things Bush did was liberal? What planet do you live on? I don't think that man did one thing in office that I agree with. Can you give me some examples of his liberalism?





I'm not trying to be rude to you, so please don't take it that way. I just can't believe what I'm reading. Honestly, this is why I can't handle the Debating Moms group, I just have absolutely NO idea where you are coming from and no matter how much I talk about it, it only irritates me, it doesn't help me to understand. I have a lot of respect for Obama and feeling of pride that he is our President. He's only been in office for 6 months and conservatives seem to just breathe fire when talking about him. It's only been six months!!! That's what I don't get, I feel like this hatred of Obama started before he even got in office, and now nothing he does is ever going to be ok with you guys. I feel like you aren't giving him a chance, and that you already had your mind made up before he even took an oath of office. Like I said before, it took at least a year or two before I started to loathe GW, and it began with how he handled 9/11. I didn't hate him from the outset just because he was conservative, he earned my hatred. With you guys, Obama can't win.

Kelly - posted on 06/16/2009

I see this post has gotten a little heated..... as a Conservative I have to agree with Traci on a few things: no Conservative "loved" everything that Bush did, as quite a few of his acts were liberal. As far a tourture goes, I also agree with her. I am sick of liberals putting us in the same category as the Japanese or the Vietnamese when it comes to tourture. I also have to say, that the arguement about Iraq is getting tired. What exactly do you consider WMD's? I think that the Kurds and the Iraqis that were gassed and bombed with chemicals would say that massive destruction was done to 200k + people at the hands of Sadam. If it was so wrong that we went in to remove an evil dictator, then where is the outrage at Clinton? At least W got Hussein. My husband (along with many others) spent a lonely night in the Mog fighting for his life and the life of his fellow soldiers as his Commander in Chief sat back and watched our men get dismembered and drug through the streets by a bunch of animals. Then they were further insulted when they were immediately pulled out after they were told they were going to remove an evil War Lord and free innocent and starving Somalis. Guess Aidid wasn't so bad after all? I know that the majority of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi, but other countries like Sudan and Iraq are known "safe havens" and financial contributors to terrorist groups. I have somewhat of an isolationist view when it comes to assisting other countries with their problems, however, Iran, N. Korea and until Sadam was removed Iraq pose as a very large threat to life as we now know and enjoy it. We weren't attacked by Germany, but what would have happened in Europe if we hadn't stepped up to the plate? I am one that thinks we should act proactively instead of reactively, and that is why I think invading Iraq was the right thing to do. I don't like Obama, not because he is Black, but because I think he is nieve to think that we can negotiate with crazy people. (And Armadenijad sp? and Kim are crazy) We will see how far he gets kissing butt and trying to "make nice" with the Middle East and N. Korea. If he succeeds I will be one of the first to eat crow, but I think he is making a mistake sending the "soft" message to people that measure worth by strength. Sorry for rambling and if my post is all over the place. I am at work so I have to keep coming back to it... As a final agreement with Traci, I too would also rather talk with people that don't necessarily always agree with me, and its not to get vicious or name call, or tell you that I know better than you. It is just interesting to see the "other" side of things every once in a while, and try to understand where people with different ideas and experiences come from.

Rachael - posted on 06/16/2009

No worries. ;-)