Finally a subject we can sink our teeth into.

brckwlt wrote:There is a difference the person being beheaded in your story commited a crime. And his punishment was beheading. Saddam killed people for no good reason other then he didnt want them alive. The people saddam killed didnt commit any crimes. So i would say there is a huge difference there.

And to top it off i cant believe your still bashing bush. Let it go. Your messiah is in power now, try to be HAPPY!

Who are you? The chief Middle East legal expert? You know who is and isn't guilty halfway around the world? The people who Saddam killed were guilty of crimes against Saddam. Period. End of story. His country, his rules. Same argument you are making to me about the Saudi's.

And I got nothing to do with BHO. Try to have a clue who you are talking to before you try to insult me. I helped get Ron Paul on the ballot here, I donated money to his campaign, and I ran as a delegate for him to the national convention. And when he dropped out, I voted for Chuck Baldwin.

R's and D's are two sides to the same coin. Tax and spend vs. borrow and spend. All a bunch of turds that WILL destroy this country.

And sheeple such as yourself who swallow the party line will help them until the end. Sad......

jpete wrote:Who are you? The chief Middle East legal expert? You know who is and isn't guilty halfway around the world? The people who Saddam killed were guilty of crimes against Saddam. Period. End of story. His country, his rules. Same argument you are making to me about the Saudi's.

your so misled, what Saddam did to his people is totally different then what is happening in saduia arabia. Its not even close to the same. You trying to compare the two situation is ludicrous.

jpete wrote:And I got nothing to do with BHO. Try to have a clue who you are talking to before you try to insult me. I helped get Ron Paul on the ballot here, I donated money to his campaign, and I ran as a delegate for him to the national convention. And when he dropped out, I voted for Chuck Baldwin.

So you knowingly tried to get ron paul who had no chance in hell of ever winning an elction on the ballot, then once that failed, you thought ill try to hurt the republicans chances even more and vote for freaking chuck baldwin. My friend, what you did was vote for obama believe it or not. I guess if you want you can go ahead and keep wasting your time on some thrid party candidate who has no shot in hell of ever getting elected not in my lifetime or your kids lifetime.

jpete wrote:R's and D's are two sides to the same coin. Tax and spend vs. borrow and spend. All a bunch of turds that WILL destroy this country.

Once again your wrong, There is a huge difference between R's and D's you must be blind not to see the difference. I guess you see no difference between Sarah Palin whos state is amoung the best financially in the country and someone like Obama who spends our money like its going out of style. Not to mention the whole abortion thing, i guess there is no difference there either. There is a big difference between r's and d's especially when you go to the left of the d and the right of the r. the differences would over flow the grand canyon.

jpete wrote:And sheeple such as yourself who swallow the party line will help them until the end. Sad......

I dont vote by party line. I vote for people who most represent my political, financial, and spiritual views. The truly sad thing is that without even knowing it, when you cast your ballot for chuck baldwin you really cast a vote for socialism.

Calling me a "sheeple" because i vote for people who mostly think like id do and share my political views and views on life is just wrong.

Wikipedia describes a "sheeple" as

Sheeple is a term of disparagement, a portmanteau created by combining the words "sheep" and "people."

It is often used to denote persons who voluntarily acquiesce to a perceived authority, or suggestion without sufficient research to understand fully the scope of the ramifications involved in that decision, and thus undermine their own human individuality or in other cases give up certain rights. The implication of sheeple is that as a collective, people believe whatever they are told, especially if told so by a perceived authority figure believed to be trustworthy, without processing it or doing adequate research to be sure that it is an accurate representation of the real world around them.

That to me sounds like all of the morons who out right voted for obama and those who voted for chuck baldwin (really casting a vote for obama and socialsim)

I think for myself, do my own independent research on the issues and watch and listen to alternate forms of media besides the state run media the white house shoves down our throat. I would be the exact opposite of a "sheeple" i am the anti sheeple.

brckwlt wrote:your so misled, what Saddam did to his people is totally different then what is happening in saduia arabia. Its not even close to the same. You trying to compare the two situation is ludicrous.

Saudi Arabia is a long time, leading human rights abusing nation, much akin to Saddam's Iraq. There are degrees of evil and on that spectrum I would place SA on the friendlier side of Saddam era Iraq, but not too far to the friendly side. Strict religious intolerance (even for various Islamic faiths), a dangerous strain of Wahhabi Islam infesting the nation and the royal family leading to problems from the very highest points in government all the way down to the "education" of children, horrible treatment of women culturally and legally, a ridiculous concentration of unearned wealth in the royal family, and the list goes on.

While in this one instance SA managed to cut the head off of someone who was, we assume, actually guilty of a horrible crime, there is little reason to believe that the 35+ other people they've beheaded so far this year or the 100s in years past were guilty of things nearly as bad as in this case. Hell, they very well could have been innocent of all charges and were simply in a show trial for some other "offense" against the religious or power dominant sensibilities of the royals.

It is an ongoing national shame that our leaders, year after year, administration after administration, give that government the time of day, much less the annual tongue bath, hand in hand strolls, and deep waist bows that they do.

Hell, Obama and Clinton just signed off on the rules for their traveling press that will be accompanying them on their Mid East trip coming up shortly. In the rules the administration agreed that all press access will be limited to official sanctioned press events and that any reporting outside of those events (most particularly out among the general public) will be strictly denied and that anyone breaking the rule can be arrested and tried for the crime. These are journos traveling with the President! I don't know what's worse, that the Saudis would impose such a set of rules or that our new glorious leader signed off on them.

Its worse that obama signed off on them. Im not saying what is happening in SA is right or condoning it but its still much different the what saddam did. He killed 10's of thousands of his own. and not to mention the point Jpete originally made was that they beheaded a guy who killed an innocent little boy. So that is much different then Saddam testing biological and other weapons on his people and killing them. i hope we can all understand that.

Ohh and this must be the start of Apology tour version 2.0

i wonder how many times he will apologize for americas past actions.

I wish obama would start supporting america instead of tearing it down.

If BO is not a muslim why does he bow to his superiors and apologize of our past rightly defending ourselves against them. He also refuses to call them terrorists that they truly are. I really do think BO is setting up a kingdom I think the abortion and marriage bills are a rouse for something bigger to give up and to instate something else that may seem minor at the time but will grow into something unstoppable. I believe the things going on over there will someday happen here if Bo Continues on this path.

Bill S.

brckwlt wrote:So you knowingly tried to get ron paul who had no chance in hell of ever winning an elction on the ballot, then once that failed, you thought ill try to hurt the republicans chances even more and vote for freaking chuck baldwin. My friend, what you did was vote for obama believe it or not. I guess if you want you can go ahead and keep wasting your time on some thrid party candidate who has no shot in hell of ever getting elected not in my lifetime or your kids lifetime.

I'm not going to reply point by point because you aren't going to agree with me anyway.

But by your "logic" because your side didn't win, you voted for Obama too. Because McCain certainly didn't have a shot in hell of winning. McCain was called "The Maverick". Why was that I wonder? Maybe because he voted with the Democrats and AGAINST the Republicans more often than not. McCain was a RINO. And you voted for him.

Nice job. Thanks for help turn the country into a socialist country.......

jpete wrote:Maybe because he voted with the Democrats and AGAINST the Republicans more often than not.

Nope.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... s0507.html

During the 10 years The Republic examined, McCain crossed over to vote with Democrats 19 times in 82 close votes. He did so just once in the four years he was running for president: 1999, 2000, 2007 and 2008. All 12 of the close votes he missed happened in those years, too.

Even so, in 59 of the 82 close votes, Republicans got what they wanted regardless of McCain's position. In those 59 cases, McCain broke with his party 16 times.

jpete wrote:
But by your "logic" because your side didn't win, you voted for Obama too. Because McCain certainly didn't have a shot in hell of winning. McCain was called "The Maverick". Why was that I wonder? Maybe because he voted with the Democrats and AGAINST the Republicans more often than not. McCain was a RINO. And you voted for him.

Nice job. Thanks for help turn the country into a socialist country.......

Hold on,

your way off base. The point i was making was that by not voting for mccain you were throwing your vote away and helping obama. Virtually voting for him. I Voted for the person (mccain) who came closest to my views on politics etc ... obama didnt even come close to agreeing with me on any point. So by voting for mccain i certianlly didnt vote for obama, i think your logic is twisted on that point. my logic is correct and right on point.

sure i could of voted for someone like chuck baldwin or whoever else was trying to run. maybe they had views similar to mine. But that would of been a waste of my time. It certinally wouldnt of helped the republican party win the election. and thats what every election comes down to d's and r's. so by voting for a third party its a cop out on your part. You know they have no chance in hell and all they do is take votes away from people who need them.

Mccain may be a maverick but atleast he votes his Conscience and does what he thinks is right. so i guess the state media would say im a maverick as well. I dont agree with the repub party 100% of the time either but they best represent me and have the best chance of winning the white house each election and no third party even comes close.

brckwlt wrote:Hold on,

your way off base. The point i was making was that by not voting for mccain you were throwing your vote away and helping obama. Virtually voting for him. I Voted for the person (mccain) who came closest to my views on politics etc ... obama didnt even come close to agreeing with me on any point. So by voting for mccain i certianlly didnt vote for obama, i think your logic is twisted on that point. my logic is correct and right on point.

sure i could of voted for someone like chuck baldwin or whoever else was trying to run. maybe they had views similar to mine. But that would of been a waste of my time. It certinally wouldnt of helped the republican party win the election. and thats what every election comes down to d's and r's. so by voting for a third party its a cop out on your part. You know they have no chance in hell and all they do is take votes away from people who need them.

Mccain may be a maverick but atleast he votes his Conscience and does what he thinks is right. so i guess the state media would say im a maverick as well. I dont agree with the repub party 100% of the time either but they best represent me and have the best chance of winning the white house each election and no third party even comes close.

Voting for McCain was a waste of time. You threw your vote away. I voted for a candidate that couldn't win and so did you. By your logic, you voted for Obama.

But see, there isn't just two choices. Rep's and Dem's are the same. Tax and spend vs. borrow and spend. They both sold this country out. GWB pushed the deficit to record levels and BHO is making him look like an amateur.

If more people would see that, then a third party, by default, would win an election. Perot was barely credible and he got 20%.

im still amazed you dont see a difference in d's and r's. are you blind?

if there was a third party candidate who had a good chance to win and agreed with me on the issues id vote for him/her

mccain had a great shot to win. he only lost by a couple of states. it was much much closer then the media would have you to believe.

brckwlt wrote:im still amazed you dont see a difference in d's and r's. are you blind?

if there was a third party candidate who had a good chance to win and agreed with me on the issues id vote for him/her

mccain had a great shot to win. he only lost by a couple of states. it was much much closer then the media would have you to believe.

What's the difference between R's and D's? Educate me.

As far as the "close" election, it was 365 to 173 electoral. Since you need 270 to win, it was hardly "close". Granted, it wasn't a Reagan/Mondale style ass kicking, but it wasn't a razor thin win.

Popular vote was a difference of around 10 million in about 130 million votes cast. No landslide, but again, not a neck and neck race to the line.

jpete wrote:What's the difference between R's and D's? Educate me.

I cant believe you dont know the difference between r's and d's. Do you pay attention to the state run media, or listen to rush, hannity, or levin? Im not going to waste my time listing all of the differences between parties. Its to obvious to even bother. Im sure a 5 year cold tell you the differences.

here i took some of my precious time and googled the differences for you.
here are two generic links with the differences.
http://www.markshannon.com/republicandemocrat.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/AskMe/Dem_rep.htm

Hope that helps or else go to your local elem school and ask a kid in kindergarden or 1st grade

jpete wrote:As far as the "close" election, it was 365 to 173 electoral. Since you need 270 to win, it was hardly "close". Granted, it wasn't a Reagan/Mondale style ass kicking, but it wasn't a razor thin win.

Popular vote was a difference of around 10 million in about 130 million votes cast. No landslide, but again, not a neck and neck race to the line.

It really only came down to a few states. If mccain would of took PA FL and ohio we would of had a different outcome. So yeah i guess it wasnt close.

the 10 million votes obama won by were all from california, NY and the rest of the liberal North East. In the rest of the real world mccain won the state or it was a close loss.

So Mccain was a lot closer then you may believe. Right up till election day the obama staffers were in a tizzy because they feared they could loose PA FL and Ohio. So even they were worried when the media had you believe obama won by and landslide and had it locked up tight.

brckwlt,

I don't disagree with the thrown vote but I do believe mccain wouldn't have fared much on the deficit I believe he stands on the same ground as our pa turn coat spector.
And if you listen to rush you'll hear that the republican party is in disarray because they no longer represent the people and our beliefs. Look at Steele he ain't got a back bone he supports abortion and thinks the perverts deserve a special status. I voted for mccain because he was the lessor of the 2 EVILS. Why aren't our representatives in the house and the senate raising a ruckus over the travesty going on calling on us to bring BO's up on charges he's usurping their(our)authority ? Why aren't they impeaching him for bowing to muslim kings and apologizing to them for rightly protecting ourselves from their attacks and supporting attacks against us? He said we're no longer a christian in his last tour and now he claims we're now closer to being a muslim nation. I hope our party gets the democrat pollution out of their midst before 2010 and back to serving us by 2012 or the USA will no longer exist as by the constitution but as the Amero union-Canada.Usa and mexico and martial law will rule with fascism at it's best. I do fear thats where we're heading blind folded and stupid.

Bill S.

brckwlt wrote:http://www.markshannon.com/republicandemocrat.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/AskMe/Dem_rep.htm

You're joking with this foolishness right? GWB expanded the government as much as any Democrat ever dreamed of.

Reagan started NAFTA. And granted 20 million illegals amnesty. GWB tried it again.

If the R's were so against abortion, why not overturn Roe v Wade when they had the majority for 6 years?

You are so brainwashed. Keep spouting the party line. It's been working out great so far. We're only 99 trillion in debt.

jpete wrote:You're joking with this foolishness right? GWB expanded the government as much as any Democrat ever dreamed of.

Reagan started NAFTA. And granted 20 million illegals amnesty. GWB tried it again.

First of all im a conservative. Most of the time i dont get a conservative candidate to vote for. so i vote for the republican they give me most of the time. The line between d's and r's might blur a little but they certianally dont when you compare libs to conservatives. If a conservative was running the country like sarah palin we would be in much better shape. Just look at alaska for an example. they dont want or need the stimulus money. they are better of financially then just about any other state maybe even the best.

GWB certinally didnt expand govt like your claiming and any expansion that was done under his watch can be directly blamed on the democrat congress. they are the ones who wrote the stimulus bill they were the ones who expanded the govt, more or less just doing some prep to make things a little easier for BHO.

I think your out of line with reagan and gwb granting illegals amnesty, its the libs who pander the illegals and vote to get the driver licenses and free health care and education, hardly anything reagan or bush did.

jpete wrote:If the R's were so against abortion, why not overturn Roe v Wade when they had the majority for 6 years?

its just not that simple and not to mention we wouldnt of had the support of the sumpreme court to moderate and liberal. and moderates are a waste of space.

jpete wrote:You are so brainwashed. Keep spouting the party line. It's been working out great so far. We're only 99 trillion in debt

yeah a free thinking conservative is the one whos brainwashed, okay good one

the debt you speak of was started by the dems in the dc before BHO took over and drastically expanded upon once our muslim leader took office. that debt has nothing to do with GWB. but good try