<p>John Stewart’s “Gay Marriage Golf”:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/59810/[/url]”>http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/59810/</a></p>
<p>^^Yes, that was an amusing night. (Logo, not Bravo!)</p>
<p>“Not to belabor the obvious, but there is no place for you in today’s Republican Party.”</p>
<p>Who are you to presume to speak for either me or the republican party?</p>
<p>“Says who? I can only speak for myself, but although I may not agree with everything each Republican candidate says, I could never again vote for a Democrat. If one has an over-riding issue (like national security) then that’s beats all of the other issues.”</p>
<p>I feel the same way and I would never willingly associate myself with the democratic party.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have to give the Democrats credit for showing up at this, and other forums. The Republican candidates duck any forum that isn’t of and for old white dudes. They refuse to have conversation with gay voters, Latino voters, African American voters, women voters, AARP voters, union voters, and so on and so forth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s cool. There no reason you shouldn’t associate yourself with a Party that is pro-war, pro-torture, pro-deficit spending, anti-gay rights, anti-choice, anti-diversity, anti-gun control, anti-evolution, anti-civil rights, and anti-science.</p>
<p>I’m not sure that is quite fair, but I do know that the Democrats are afraid of Fox news. I sometimes wonder how they expect voters to think they can handle international terrorism when they apparently can’t handle Brit Hume.</p>
<p>Why do you get to define the Republican party? Giuliani is pro gay rights, pro choice, pro gun control etc. I take issue with your depiction of the ENTIRE party as anti civil rights or anti science. Just because you keep repeating these allegations doesn’t make them true.</p>
<p>Clinton’s campaign spokesman has appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s show in recent months.</p>
<p>re Dems and Faux News:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22446[/url]”>http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22446</a></p>
<p>“That’s cool. There no reason you shouldn’t associate yourself with a Party that is pro-war, pro-torture, pro-deficit spending, anti-gay rights, anti-choice, anti-diversity, anti-gun control, anti-evolution, anti-civil rights, and anti-science.”</p>
<p>Says you.</p>
<p>Right about now, mini should chime in.</p>
<p>Snarkiness is so pleasant to read! Informative too!</p>
<p>1SM (#111): I certainly don’t equate not supporting Hillary with being a Bushevik. The latter are dead enders supporting Bush’s policy now and, as near as I can tell, forever. I probably disagree with Chuck Hagel on 80 percent of the issues. But his clear, consistent, and accurate view on Iraq gives him a pass from being labeled a Bushevik or Bush enabler. </p>
<p>ZM (#112): I wasn’t attacking you and if it felt that way, my apologies. But I was responding to the notion that (gasp!) Democrats aren’t polite as if it were some sort of a priori upsetting of propriety.</p>
<p>ZM (# 115): Can I name Busheviks in real life? Certainly. But I can’t name them on CC without violating the TOS. I’m on record that I’d give you a Safe Conduct pass if the Democrats win and I get to be provost adjutant for the country. But the larger point is that many Republicans are now suddenly complaining about the lack of civility after years of tolerating same. As drb notes, kinda pathetic. I might re-think things if more Republicans suddenly showed contrition about O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, et alia but I’m not holding my breath and a certain amount of expiation would be required, cf., Henry to Canterbury.</p>
<p>
You desperately wish. The GOP’s stumblebum candidates are outdoing each other trying to assure the base that they’re tougher than the other guy about Iraq, even if they try to avoid mentioning Bush by name; I think Giuliani is probably in the lead on that score.</p>
<p>Bush is going to be welded to the GOP nominee at the shoulder, elbow, hip, and knee and there’s not a damned thing you or any other Republican can do about it. </p>
<p>Metaphorically, I feel kinda like that dive bomber pilot at Midway as the Akagi started to fill his bomb site. I’m looking forward to the secondary detonations.</p>
<p>Someone said this: “Doesn’t that mean insubordination if they don’t follow orders?” about the NYTimes oped written by 7 soldiers on the ground, about the part where they talk about how “we’ll always refuse…”</p>
<p>I don’t think the soldiers meant that they themselves would refuse a lawful order to use force. I read that statement as that the United States would always refuse to use the kind of wholesale brutality against civilians that it would take to “win” a guerilla civil war of this type.</p>
<p>A former Montana State Represenative–Republican–has attacked the writers of the op-ed, insisting that the NYTimes must have written the piece and not the soldiers as they claim, because a staff sargeant wouldn’t be educated enough to know the word “recalcitrant.” Unfortunately, he waited to make the accusations until the soldier/writer from his state had been killed in Iraq and couldn’t defend himself. </p>
<p>Others can only point to the fact that one of the 7 authors has a masters and most of the rest are college graduates.</p>
<p>
Care to show any specifics? I think I’ve been pretty consistent over the past four years about people being courteous to one another as they disagree. I believe that I’ve raised tough issues, but I’ve never started any name calling with regard to any particular poster. I have certainly not been accorded the same kindness.</p>
<p>“But the larger point is that many Republicans are now suddenly complaining about the lack of civility after years of tolerating same. As drb notes, kinda pathetic”</p>
<p>I will cede you that point in real life but not on CC. I find there to be some real meanness from a small but very active group of lefties (using that term not in a derogatory manner but to prevent myself having to differentiate democrats and liberals) in this community which I don’t find necessary in this specific context. I guess I have a problem in some fashion with a person giving personal, compassionate advice in one thread and then calling you hideous names in another. But that’s just me. I disagree vehemently with some posters here but find them interesting, smart and amusing would prefer not to be called names by them.</p>
<p>Post 146 . you left out anti-US Constitution</p>
<p>From Post 155 I’ve never started any name calling</p>
<p>Your statement says you havent started any name calling but implies that you have participated in name calling …was this implication your intention or did you mean to say that you have never started or engaged in name calling?</p>
<p>Which of these statements best describes what you are trying to say?</p>
<p>I have never started, or engaged in name calling.</p>
<p>I have never started, but I have engaged in name calling.</p>
<p>sjmom has probably disagreed with many things I have said. However, she (I think she is a she because of the “mom” part), has stood up in my defense when I was the target of snipe and snarkiness. She has never been rude or condescending to me. I appreciate her comments.</p>
<p>Thank you sjmom!</p>
<p>Your welcome, sokkermom – thanks for your support. </p>
<p>Tommy, if you are really interested, feel free to do a search on all of my posts – that should give you a pretty good idea of the way I interact with people. </p>
<p>I’ve been derided for my faith, harassed for my political views, insulted for my lifestyle as a SAHM, ridiculed for my support of the military, and called a “bully” (only time in my life!) here on CC.</p>
<p>I hope that most people have enough sense to judge for themselves who has been abused and who have been the abusers.</p>