Woman to Woman

By Todd Candler

November 22, 2004 08:13 AM | Link to this

Diane, your comments are a good illustration of why Democrats lost in the elections. You make fun of a sitting president; tell the Democratic party to “pretend to care” about conservative issues; and you talk down to those who vote Republican. As Shaunti pointed out, I’m one of those that would vote Democrat if not for the hateful speech and lies that come out of the DNC. Enjoy your Kool-Aid.

By Bob swygert

November 22, 2004 08:25 AM | Link to this

For once, this conservative Republican agrees with Diane. Her barely-contained contempt for ordinary people should be adopted by all Democratic candidates. Her elitist arrogance will help ensure that the Democratic party loses elections for years to come before finally dying out like the Whig party. You go girl!!

By Van

November 22, 2004 08:29 AM | Link to this

Todd Candler said it all. Tell them anything to get their vote and do what you want afterward.

I haven’t voted for a Democrat since 1972. At their current rate, I won’t vote for a Democrat for another 32 years.

By Terry

November 22, 2004 08:47 AM | Link to this

Diane suggests that the Democrats need to “pretend” - which is exactly what [she] is doing.

She’s pretending that the Democrats are too smart for the majority to understand. Diane confuses plain-spoken truth with simple-mindedness and well spoken babbling - with intellect. She suggests Democrats are smart - because they say they are. And anyone who doesn’t agree with them - is a “Jethro”. Because they say so.

The American people were highly intelligent when we elected Bill Clinton twice. Now we’ve instantly become unsophisticated rubes when doing the same for George Bush?

How “smart” is this childish nonsense?

By Archie

November 22, 2004 09:04 AM | Link to this

I think Dianne’s sarcasm is on point. Heck I can’t understand why someone with no health insurance or someone that has to pay astronomical prices would vote for Bush. The high cost of gas and the high unemployment were strong issues against Bush but some as Dianne suggested only thought about meaningless phrases. I can appreciate why some would vote for Bush especially if you are upper middle class and you have your benefits. There was nothing morally wrong with voting Republican but Democrats need to find some feel-good phrases and some way to appeal to more of the majority. Obviously solid command of the issues is not important but I think rather than try to be more Republican, Democrats need to be liberal and proud. Democrats also need to show that they do indeed care about morality and faith but they are different. Democrats can be strong on defense but yet different. Democrats must find something to appeal to more Southern whites. The minority vote is great to have but if you can’t get at least 48 percent of the majority vote you will lose.

By Lyrazel

November 22, 2004 09:20 AM | Link to this

It seems quite odd that neither woman would site ANY issues that could rally Democrats floundering in the chum of candidates lost. Perhaps that is what is wrong with todays politics. Its more a bickering media-tv show rather than an election of people who will create laws and govern the people of America. There is no substance, only sound bites for issues—with carefully worded bits—tv ready…and is this government?

In the years ahead we will get social security privitazation, pharmacutical control over health care policy for profit, not for welfare of US citizens, a decrease in FDA power to oversee medicine development and testing. We will see significant losses in civil rights—where making a phone call may be monitored without warrants just based on suspicous name. We will see an increase of taxpayer-paid aid going to Iraq while our military will get loss further of medical services, benefits and still be called up years after term of duty is over. Our civil defense of police, fire and civic workers will be understaffed, underpaid. Pension plans will fail at alarming rates as corporations declare bankrupcy from mismanagement. Oops, sorry. The Pell grant will be significantly reduced so families making 30-40k will have to take on further burdens to make college available to their children. Credit companies in this unregulated industry will be charging rates close to usery at 30-40% interest. Trade deficits will soar, and jobs will be lost but large corporations will continue to get massive tax breaks and those once-illegal immigrants will now get work-passes allowing not only all freedoms Americans have to pay for but will gain access to medical care clinics for the poor that are understaffed and overfilled, to schools and granted, some will join our prison populations. National parks will be opened to logging and drilling…opened for industry to make profit over environment. We voters will have no voice when these changes occur because the people elected to serve will be fundraising which seems more important to elected officials than their constituants’ causes. Remember, the average elected-to-Washington official spends 74% of their time fundraising for the next election.

So here we are, Republicans won and its a chance for them to trumpet their horns. Democrats can sit on the sidelines as they have done for the past 4 years and just complain as they go along with politics as usual but their pathetic whining takes this country nowhere. Will Democrats do anything beyond concentrate on 4 years of unrestricted fund raising?

Who will stand up for American’s rights? Who will make this floundering nation strong—within the country—and not pander to special interest lobbyists and big business that puts profit ahead of people? To me the words: By the People For the People Of the People seems lost on all elected officials Republican or Democrat.

By Casia

November 22, 2004 09:26 AM | Link to this

Diane, I am a campaign contributing Democrat that is saddened by the result of our recent election. I would never vote Republican and reluctantly stand behind our party when they say things like your comments. Please be aware that there are a lot of us dems that are fiscally, socially, and politically moderate or conservative. We have the “Christian Valuesâ€? that Republicans used to win the election. We love our country and are disappointed at its current state. Your commentary seems more than disappointed with the election result. Your tone seems hateful. If we are to mend the party, a tone like yours should be abandoned and instead reflect on things that WE need to change. If we lost, then we alienated some voters in some way. We have flaws and serious shortcomings. We lost common sense and thought that we could just win because we felt we were right. We didn’t consider that we had to listen to voters and what mattered to people. Unlike Bush, Dems appeared to look down on Republicans like we were in on some secret that they couldn’t know. I don’t believe in the dumbing down of America, but neither do I believe in a condescending attitude. Please tell other Dems like you, that it is ok to be moderate or even conservative. That your tone is alienating to even fellow Dems. That we the people are waiting to be truly united for more than a candidate that shares the same political affiliation. That you shouldn’t be so anti-Republican that you chase fringe voters and polarize the party as well as the nation. We the voting Dems are waiting for you to take direction and have more passion. We know that we are a great party that can lead powerful change if given the chance. However, presently we are being lead in the wrong direction. Go towards the middle road and take a stand there. Meet us halfway. Finally, please don’t ever make me like Shanti’s column more than yours again. Like the party, such a disappointment.

By Terry

November 22, 2004 09:31 AM | Link to this

Archie,

Where do we find these “astronomical” prices?

The unemployment rate is right where it was during the 90’s and gas prices have fluctuated up and down throughout and will continue to do so - regardless of who the President is.

More people have medical insurance today than was the case 5 years ago - which was higher than the 10 years before that, which was far greater than 20 years before that when the overwhelming vast majority of people had NO medical insurance - and we somehow survived as a nation!

And I’ll let you in on another little secret: When it comes to “feel-good phrases” - the Democrats have cornered the market! The lack of “feel-good phrases” is certainly not a short-coming for the Dems to be concerned about!

But at least you don’t find anything “morally wrong” with voting for a Republican. How big of you.

By Van

November 22, 2004 09:43 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel - why do you suggest that a government handout is best for EVERYONE?

When did a college education become an entitlement? When did Health care become and entitlement?

It appears that the “progressives” and complaining about not getting their fair share of the federal pie. Maybe they should try standing on their own two feet like the rest of us.

I have been poor, I’ve been a third class citizen, I know what it means to not have health or live insurance. Guess what, I worked until I did have those items. Why should anyone get a free ride?

By randy

November 22, 2004 10:03 AM | Link to this

It’s not going to be easy for Democrats. First you must realize that Republicans won without the support of 88% of African-Americans, Christian votes of the 18-25 year olds and 50% of the Catholic vote. These groups are going to wake up in the next 4 years and realize the Democrats have a very liberal agenda. That they really don’t care about anyone but liberals and that this is not the party it was years ago, when my father and grandfather were staunch Democrats. My father passed away 6 years ago and I am glad he did before he saw what the Democratic party has become. Anti-Christian and to him that would have meant Anti-American.

By Matthew L. Forsyth

November 22, 2004 10:10 AM | Link to this

Ms. Glass, I do not mean to offend but not only do you not understand why the democrats keep losing national elections, But you come across a such an elitist snob in trying to express yourself on the subject. People were galvanized behind this President in part because he was not only fighting a bitter campaign against John Kerry, He was taking assaults every day from the likes of Michael Moore, P-Diddy, Eminem, Martin Sheen, Madonna, Bruce Springsteen, Dan Rather and CBS, The NYT, and a host of left-wing elitists snobs such as yourself. This may be hard for you to understand, But us “Jethros” out here do not like to see our President attacked. I found it shameful the lengths that people attacked President Clinton All throughout his two terms, And just as shameful that CBS would interject itself into a federal election in order to influence the outcome. That is the sole reason I voted for President Bush this time and why I will continue to distrust your party. I suggest you find a county-wide map of the election outcome and print it out. Tack that map somewhere in your office space where it is in a plain line-of-sight, And study it every day…With a good deal of self-reflection you may come to the conclusion that Your philosophies do not reflect the philosophies of just about 61,000,000 voters in our great land. It is as simple as that…Thank you for allowing me to post.

By norman

November 22, 2004 10:29 AM | Link to this

The Democrat Party can do either of two things: it can pander to the Christo-Fascists, or it can stand up for real American values. Doing the latter may not be successful for a long time. But eventually even the brainless bible-thumping born again idiots will give up their manias or be neutralized by the course of events. There aren’t right now enough insane asylums for all of them.

By RS

November 22, 2004 10:30 AM | Link to this

Ohhh, brother, here we go again…this pops up in every forum. “If you’re not Christian, you’re not American”. Democrats are the spawn of Satan, etc etc. This is why I have a, er, “chip on my shoulder” about discrimination & bigotry

By Kool Kathy

November 22, 2004 10:54 AM | Link to this

Hey Democrats, need a recovery program? Make these promises for 2008: President-Hillary Clinton and get Bill too. Remember the old two for one? Their specialty; conspiracies & indiscretions. Sec. of State-Molly Ivins. She can “sweet talk” everyone. Sec.of Defence-Jimmy Carter. He is so good at the rescue of hostages. CIA Director=Madeleine Albright. She could overcome Osama in a fist fight anytime. Press Sec.-Dr. Howard Dean. He can yell louder than the Press Corps. Attorney General & Treasury Sec.-John Edwards. Give him a court room and he could ease the budget deficit. Armed Forces Chair-Nancy Pelosi. She makes everyone want to fight.

By David

November 22, 2004 11:16 AM | Link to this

The Donkeys lost for numerous reasons. I think hibernating Republicans came out to vote in droves, and as usual, the Democrats showed up to vote if the weather was nice. Our country is divided and that’s ok. We are country that is divided between those that prefer Socialism and those that want the Government to above all else protect us. The fundamentals of each party are radically different. One is a party of accountability and consequences for your actions, the other is the party of blame and if it feels good it must be good. One party rewards hard work, the other says if you can’t find enough motivation get up in the morning to find a job we’ll take care of you by taxing those folks that work 12 hour days even more. Most people want to be self reliant, beleive in God, and want their families safe with boundless opporunity to chase their dreams. Democrats want the government to create and fill their dreams. If the Democrats want to recover, they need to get in touch with what Americans want, verses telling them what they need. People will vote for you even if they don’t agree with you, as long as they know where you stand. Democrats are not likeable because they position themselves based on a poll verses taking a stand.

By Akeya W.

November 22, 2004 11:16 AM | Link to this

How should the Democratic party reover from its losses after the 2004 election?

I’m sorry, is this a baseball team that just lost the World Series?

Anyway,

First of all, let’s start off with a definition of Liberal and Conservative:

Liberal- generous; ample; abundant; broad-minded; tolerant; not literal or strict; favoring reform or progress

Conservative- tending to conserve; tending to preserve established institution; opposed to change; moderate;cautious

I’m sick of people throwing around the word “liberal” like the fires of Hell shoot sparks from the word itself. I would much rather be liberal.

Also, the assumption that Democrats are Anti-Christ? That is the most ridiculous crap I’ve heard since, well, last week on this very same forum.

Unfortunately, what the Dems needs are more people who are tolerant, respectful of others, and people who realize that this world is full of many different people. The problem is that these things are taught in the home. People are breeding hateful, spiteful, children who grow up to be intolerant, unloving “citizens.”

I DO think that we need to take things more slowly. How is it possible to expect this country to change so quickly when grown men find women who dress like little girls sexy?

How is it possible when those of us who are working the hardest are getting bent over and effed by the government while those who do nothing reap the benefits of other’s hard work. But no one wants to talk about that.

And these cute little catch phrases “red states and blue state”, please let that go. It sounded silly during the election and it sounds even sillier now that people are trying to use it to explain everything.

In 2008, we need an even stronger candidate.

And why do Repubs get so upset when people call Bush out for what he is?

I think that Diane was attempting to be comical, but with truth embedded. Bush is inarticulate and doesn’t show much intelligence. I believe that it’s the child in us that just makes us want to be a part of that “winning team.”

Hey, if your team isn’t winning, just switch to the other side instead of staying and contributing positive attributes…

Also, VAn, what do you mean a “free ride?”

That’s the point of social programs, to help out those that need it. It’s not a handout and it’s people that think of them that way that starve themselves to death from “pride” when something tragic happens (layoff, termination from job, disability)

Perhaps you need to look more into social services and find ways to keep them from being abused instead of seeing them as handouts…

By Zack

November 22, 2004 11:49 AM | Link to this

Diane Glass has shown hatred before, but never before like this, at least not since I began coming here. I guess seeing her candidate from Massachusetts lose the election has attacked any inhibitions she might have had about acting ladylike.

She again refers to abortion as a woman’s right to choose. This infuriates me. She’s right that it’s a civil rights issue, but not the way she puts it. It’s a civil rights issue in that the unborn are being killed mercilessly by a status quo that allows whores of both genders to have sex and deny the responsibilities of parenthood.

Hillary in 2008? Please. The egalitarians of the world probably would do like the gays of the world and call me a bigot for opposing the idea of a female president, but I’m going to anyway. (Does anyone take their sharp tongues seriously anyway?) Besides, Hillary is a far-out liberal without a clue. The idea of her as president is frightening, to put it mildly.

Glass’s comments are a fine example of why we are fortunate that the Democrats lost the election. I’m so glad that, “It’s the economy, stupid.” was refuted, as conservative voting on moral issues was the difference-maker. All the hate-spewing, baby-killing-endorsing, gay- marriage-supporting, tree-worshipping people protesting (illegally, in many cases) outside the Republican National Convention walked away disappointed again.

I love it.

By John Rogers

November 22, 2004 11:53 AM | Link to this

Yeah, I’m telling you that Nancy Pelosi was the main reason Dubya got re-elected, give me a break!

All Democrats really have to do is wait. This President’s re-election totals are the lowest in history, his “mandate” is tenuous at best. 2 years of radical right rule should begin swinging that ol’ pendulam back to the left. I think the media is making a bit more out of the party’s “demise” than is really there(Who’d have figured that?)in order to stir up the usual post-mortem’s by the Kool-aid drinkers, and gloating by the GOP.

I think the heart of Diane Glass’ argument about “pretending” to care about conservatives and their “values” simply mirrors the bait and switch the Republican Party has used with the evangelicals since the days of Reagan. They don’t really care about your issues, never have, Reagan never did anything for evangelicals, and Bush really won’t either. But suit yourself, for you are to the GOP what African American voters are to Democrats, an ignored constituency with no where else to go.

Show me a politician willing to talk about consensus on either side, and you might begin to see a chance for good governance, otherwise this “winner take mandate” attitude will bring us down regardless of which party is in control.

By Tony

November 22, 2004 11:56 AM | Link to this

I’ll tell you why the Democrats lost. They areno longer the party of the common working folk who made themgreat. They have become the party of the “limousine liberal”, the Hollywood elite, the radical feminist (Diane!), the militant homosexual, the people who believe in something for nothing, and they have excised God from their whole platform, or they just give him lip service. Keep it up, folks. Whine, cry, b*** and moan, but you lost because of these reasons and you will continue to lose unless you move back toward the center.

By E. Lewis

November 22, 2004 12:08 PM | Link to this

Until the voters start doing their own research, looking at the records, and stop listening to political speeches, ads and spin which are designed to tell you only what the campaign wants you to know, the Democrats are going to have a difficult time winning the Presidency. I am not saying that every Democrat is good and every Republican is evil, but ask your average voter about the facts concerning the issues: Saddam and 9/11, Saddam and Al Qaeda, Saddam and WMD, job loss, taxation policy, poverty rates, homeland security funding, federal deficit, etc., etc., and you will hear the party spin instead of the easily verifiable reality.

By Akeya W.

November 22, 2004 12:11 PM | Link to this

John-

Good points!

Another ignored constituency that was somehow duped into thinking that Bush and his admin care about them…Latinos!!

What were they(we) thinking?!

Latinos are now the largest minority and they were almost completely ignored.

I’m not disappointed at the outcome. There is a time for every purpose under heaven.

Maybe what Dems really need to go is throw God’s name into everything as does Mr. Bush.

By Zack

November 22, 2004 12:15 PM | Link to this

Ms. Glass also said to pretend as though God isn’t dead. This is a comment apparently intended to antagonize Christians (while opposing gay marriage is NOT showing hatred toward gays, this kind of comment IS showing hatred toward Christians).

God will never die. The rhetoric of liberals might kill me, but it can’t kill God.

By Van

November 22, 2004 12:28 PM | Link to this

Just like all Democrats are not liberal pinko Commies, all republicans are not Christian-Fascist.

Interestingly Fascism is a form of socialism.

It is also interesting, that all the hate is coming from the Democrats.

The Democrat party needs to look at what people want, and not what they THINK we want in our Government. Look at the Map. There is not that much “Blue” territory.

The conservatives believe in self reliance and not reliance on the government. If we do not have something, we work hard and earn it.

When I got out of the service, I wanted a house - I saved a down payment and found a house I COULD AFFORD.

When I went looking for a car, same thing. I would have liked a sporty car, but I could not afford it.

No handouts, no welfare, just the wife and me.

By Ted Burnham

November 22, 2004 12:29 PM | Link to this

Elite liberal inbreeding is not working in our political system or our universities. Just ask Walter Cronkite- he tied them both together quite well.

The liberal media icon has a nice quote which the Media Research Center noticed last Thursday. Walter claimed the U.S. needs a new election, doesn’t have an intelligent electorate “and we’re not going to have it because our education system is in a shambles right now.”

Today in the Wall Street Journal John Fund comments on the overwhelmingly liberal bias of our colleges and universities citing research that says:

“a new national study by Swedish sociologist Charlotta Stern and Santa Clara University economist Daniel Klein found that in a random national sample of 1,678 responses from university professors Democratic professors outnumber Republicans 3 to 1 in economics. 28 to 1 in sociology and 30 to 1 in anthropology.”

Walter’s saying the unintelligent electorate is to blame for the current “mess� we are in.

But liberal ideology dominates our colleges in universities.

Those on the left need only to blame themselves for their unlivable, bankrupt, and arrogant worldview.

By Lyrazel

November 22, 2004 12:35 PM | Link to this

Van, I did not once say handouts are what is fair. Sorry I am no communist, I hate standing in lines. I have paid into the system for 48 years—so should I not be able to see a return on my manditory investment in America?

I too learned to do without and to work to make my life better. I dont like entitlements but who is getting a free ride off my tax dollars? Those corporations who can declare bankrupcy just to avoid funding pension plans? Pharmacutical companies who collect tax dollars to research and develop new drugs but re-introduce old drugs with new names for substantial profit? Why should Americans pay MORE for medicines? We are being charged twice. Im not an advocate of socialized medicine—but I think the enormous amount of money we already pay to medical research should allow us a cheaper cost to drugs not pay the highest prices in the world. And why cant citizens import drugs from neighboring countries pharmacies to pay less? What right do these companies have to meddle in government policy? If the FDA cannot guarantee safety to those over-the-border filled perscriptions why are pills released that cause more problems than cure? Is my safety really what is being though of or is it profit?

I too paid for my college—there were no free rides offered so I funded my education with work. Not work grants—they were not available for most women. We were told women’s education was frivilous because our goal was to be married and men needed the extra financial aid. Being a woman I earn 74 cents to every dollar paid to men. If thats not second class citizenship what is Van?

By Zack

November 22, 2004 12:44 PM | Link to this

Ted Burnham,

Thank you. THAT is the kind of post people need to hear.

I do not wake up and worry about terrorism. I instead wake up with strong concern about the verbal terrorism spewed by professors down the minds of students.

The university system, like the Democratic Party, is in need of very serious reform.

By BJ

November 22, 2004 12:45 PM | Link to this

A tad bit bitter, Diane?

By Akeya W.

November 22, 2004 12:56 PM | Link to this

Van-

I am a liberal and I believe in self reliance. When I want something I work hard for it, and am teaching my son the same.

The conservatives do not have the monoply on this subject.

I didn’t get pell grants to put me through college. I worked and am still paying off the money.

I have never been on food stamps or TANF, though I did have a brief stint with Medicaid with my newborn.

I’ve been working since I was 16, held down 2 jobs in high school and had good grades, went to college full-time and worked full-time, and my son was planned, and planned very carefully…

You cannot lump all democrats into one box and expect people to not be hateful or distrustful.

I work with Republicans and not all of them are the same. Some are pro-choice, some aren’t, some are homophobic, some aren’t.. The one thing they all seem to agree on is this “war.”

By SOOO RICH

November 22, 2004 01:04 PM | Link to this

Greetings everyone!

I have just returned from a lovely two weeks on the island of Fiji. For a while I did not travel because I was afraid that our magnificent President Bush would not be re-elected. Thanks to all you wonderful people, he was. Now I am off to beautiful Saint-Tropez until after the holidays.

I pity you poor people who do not have wealth, but I am so grateful that I get to keep mine, because we have our honorable President Bush. In four years we will have his steadfast brother Jeb for our President. I could not be happier, and hope you all are as well.

By Steve

November 22, 2004 01:09 PM | Link to this

Diane, I try to teach my children that the way the communicate says as much about you as what you communicate. I think you probably mean well, but your constant sarcasm and put-downs of those with whom you disagree does not help you. If you want people to respect your opinions, be respectful of them.

I am a staunch conservative and I realize that conservatives are often guilty of the same. We need to get back to the idea that we debate ideas, not people.

Why be so hateful?

By Zack

November 22, 2004 01:29 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

Actually, being homophobic isn’t really bad. I’ll be the first to admit I wouldn’t want a gay person being my server in a restaurant.

Do you want to know why homophobia isn’t bad? Studies show (and the secular media hides) that AIDS is clearly much higher in the gay community than in the straight community. My not wanting a gay person to wait on me is in no way showing hatred to the individual.

Actually, hatred is what is shown TO the Christian community. The liberals are imposing sickly their agenda on us all, and you’re treated with overt hatred if you dare to be a nonconformist to it.

By Brian Curtis

November 22, 2004 01:52 PM | Link to this

It’s an amazing thing to watch… Christians are in the majority in our nation; they have their holidays and Sabbath respected and enshrined in law, a God slogan on the currency, and every politicians bends his/her knee to the Christian faith as an integral part of every campaign.

And yet, the Christians continue to feel like they’re an endangered and oppressed minority, hemmed in on all sides by a brutally overbearing anti-Christian nation. Where does this come from? Is victimhood really that important to keeping the faith and whipping up political support for gay-bashing candidates?

By the way, Zack: Why would it bother you to have a HIV-positive waiter? Are you planning to molest your server?

Diane’s sarcasm and arrogance are unfortunate; other posters have made the very reasonable point that what the Democrats really need is to not only point out Bush’s numerous failures, but also to stand up for specific principles themselves.

The Democrats used to be identified with the working class, but they’ve abandoned just about all economic issues to avoid offending their corporate backers. No Democrats were talking about jobs, healthcare, the minimum wage, or education this year. And those are real genuine concerns of millions of Americans.

With no one talking to them about what matters to their everyday lives, is it any wonder so many turned to whichever party talked about the social issues they cared about? The fact that conservative/Republican leaders regularly run on social issues, only to ignore those issues and continue dismantling the middle class once they’re in office, matters not at all to “Middle America.” They continue to rail against the wealthy elite in the cities, complain about our filthy TV and movies… and vote consistently for cuts in healthcare, education, and jobs as a result. “Keep it up, and I’ll actually slit my own throat!” might as well be their motto.

It doesn’t have to be that way… if the Democrats remember what they used to stand for: workers and consumers.

By Matt

November 22, 2004 01:57 PM | Link to this

Ted, there’s a reason a liberal dominance of colleges hasn’t transfered to the populace. According to the Census Bureau, of the 25+ aged population 48.2% have no college credit and only 24.4% have a bachelor’s degree or better. Not sure on the margin of error on this (comp problem), but it’s good enough to show the point. The majority of Americans have had little to no exposure to “liberal” colleges.

On the main topic, about all I’ll say is I’m tired of hearing the drones on both sides argue over which group is led by God and which is led by the Antrichrist. As far as I’m concerned any candidate in the next election who can show he (or she!) can truly govern from the center will have a leg up on everyone.

By SR

November 22, 2004 02:16 PM | Link to this

Diane, why did the democrats loose so badly. Let me try, how about: 1) Not from around here - John and his wife were definitely not from around here… From “Shove it” to “Liar”, give me a break.
2) Against the family - Married families in Georgia reacted - Loose the Traditional family - Never!
3) Attacking your own country - John Kerry attacked his own country and threw medals/ribbons as fake as he was at the White House. The lamestream media said that was ok, but we in Georgia said ‘Not’. 4) The Lying Press - Fake National Guard Documents, Timed Ammo stories - being in the tank for one party. I am, and we are fed up with all the spin. Time for the plain old facts Mam, folks with hairbrained opinions - a dime a dozen.

By Lyrazel

November 22, 2004 02:18 PM | Link to this

Sooooo Rich—Why do you travel to Fiji in the middle of typhoon season? Why San Tropez and not the ever-more-expensive-to-be-seen-at Aruba? San Tropez is for pensioners…off-season… Try heading your yact to Monacco where Akeya and me will be enjoying spending all that surplus tax rebate we got from you silly Republicans.

By randy

November 22, 2004 02:19 PM | Link to this

The key is we Christians are a major majority, its probably closer to the 75% who voted against homosexual marriage than the 51% who voted for Bush. As we didn’t have alot of confused voters who are Christian(88% of African-Americans for example). However, the problem is we need to be a total Christian nation. Why, so we could start to help the other nations and peoples of the world, help them with food, doctors and commerce. But we have to fight with those of you who refuse to accept the peace of mind and happiness, that those of us who have accepted Jesus as our lord and savior know. Hurts the whole world, but God wants you to have free will.

By PoliticalMan

November 22, 2004 02:23 PM | Link to this

It’s pretty amusing to see so much consternation over Diane’s sarcasm. The ultra right has been scamming their so-called base ever since Reagan, with their God talk and chauvanistic spiel. The fact is that the Repub fat cats are not one bit more saintly than the hated liberal elies and in fact dine with them and take vacations with them. In fact, I would take Nancy Pelosi any day over the snake, Tom Delay. What a piece of work that guy is.

The bad joke is actually on the fundamentalists. Stealing from the working class while giving them a steady diet of religious patter is about as immoral as you can get.

Why in the world would anyone of any integrity want to emulate the Republicans. Let them take the low road. Sarcasm is an appropriate attitude to take toward those who wish to manipulate the ignorant electorate to further their radical right agenda.

By SOOO DEM

November 22, 2004 02:30 PM | Link to this

SoooRich, I am sooo glad you are back. Sooo boring without you. While you were gone, that clean, honest, all-American Bush won the election. I may have to go to work. But John and Teresa let me clean their mansions. They paid me in ketchup. Said they were in a pickle. I gave them some of my food stamps. Ted Kennedy tried to encourage us with “Remember Chappaquidic”. I did and nearly drowned.

Now some college professor keeps telling me we didn’t really lose. Should I keep my Kerry bumper sticker? Those strong, smart, patriotic Bush boys keep sweeping the country. Whassa matter with everybody? Those movie stars told me we couldn’t go wrong.

By Tim

November 22, 2004 02:31 PM | Link to this

Randy, I have an idea… why don’t you lobby and try to get a bill passed that states that a person in the USA can ONLY be Christian and anything else is illegal. In fact, go one step futher and force them to wear some sort of mark proving that they are Christians and only if they have the mark are they allowed to buy and sell any goods! and those who do not have the mark should be put to death! we wouldn’t want to risk anyone messing up the utopian society that you describe

By Terry

November 22, 2004 02:36 PM | Link to this

I keep hearing about “governing from the center”, moderate this and moderate that, “working together”, etc, etc.

Beyond sounding good - those notions have no validity. The ideology of Conservatism and Liberalism are worlds apart - there is no middle ground. In order for anyone to work together on anything - there must be a common goal. Person A wants to tear the house down, person B wants to refurbish it - where’s the common goal? Where’s the middle ground: re-do the half that wasn’t torn down?

And who’s to blame…the Left! Just how long did the Left think they were going to get away with the name calling? You don’t agree with Leftists on racial issues - they call you a “racist”. You don’t support [their] policies on education - you don’t care about the children. Don’t support [their] environmental policies - you don’t care about the environment. If they’re for same-sex marriage and you’re not - you “hate” Gays.

And it keeps going: They demand you remove your nativity scene and you object - you’re trying to force religion down everyone’s throat! Disagree with [their] social programs - you don’t care about the poor! And when you don’t vote for [their] Presidential Candidate, as Diane Glass points out: You’re just stupid!

The ridiculous name-calling and lableling never ends. And it all comes from those who want to turn right around and demand “tolerance” and “understanding” from everyone else.

They’ve been given the rope - now they’re hanging themselves.

By John

November 22, 2004 02:36 PM | Link to this

Brian your comments about Christians was dead-on. I’m fairly certain that they will not rest until the christian religion is mandated as the official religion of America.

Actually lots of Democrats, including the nominee, talked jobs, and the economy, the problem was people absolutely hate the idea of legitimizing homosexual relationships so much that any other message was obscured.

It really doesn’t matter, both sides are morally bankrupt, this was the dirtiest campaign I remember, which doesn’t bode well for the future.

By Matt

November 22, 2004 02:55 PM | Link to this

Terry I have the same reaction regarding this belief that everyone either supports one whole party platform or the other. If a person considers themselves a conservative, it doesn’t mean they have to support everything all conservatives back, and likewise for liberals. For the majority of people their party/side is just the best fit from among the options, not a perfect fit.

The middle ground comes in finding a platform that best represents the majority in many issues. It steers aware from individual party extremes on both sides. To simplify, say economic conservatism, social liberalsm, and a hawkish foreign policy.

By Rebecca

November 22, 2004 03:05 PM | Link to this

Ok, this is totally off base but I must address a few comments from Zack about HIV/AIDS. As an HIV educator for the past 3 years, I can tell you that Zack’s comments are toally off base. Have you ever heard of a thing called “statistics”? You know, they teach it in school? Well, if you bothered to look at any, you would see the real issue. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of 2002, male-to-male sexual contact made up only 33% of HIV cases. Various heterosexual contact made up 36% of HIV cases. In case you don’t know, 36% is more than 33%. Furthermore, how would you know your watier has HIV? There are almost no outward signs. White people, Black people, gay people, straight people, etc. all have the potential for HIV. Also, are you planning on having sex with your waiter? Are you planning on sharing needles or doing drugs together? Are you planning on sharing blood specimens together? Then you have nothingn to worry about. HIV CANNOT be spread by saliva, air, touch, coughs, sneezes, or the like. Also, I assume you haven’t read the Bible. God didn’t say, “I don’t want to be near them leppers, they’ll get me sick”. He embraced all people, no matter what illness they have. I believe in God (although I left the Baptist church long ago for various reasons) and it’s people like you, who refuse to educate yourself, who give the rest of us bad names. Do us a favor and think before you speak. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402.htm

By Terry

November 22, 2004 03:15 PM | Link to this

I have heard of “statistics” as well. And when you consider that roughly 5% of the population accounts for 36% of HIV cases (your figures) - you might [statistically] see the high rate of HIV amongst homosexuals. Would you not?

And as you are certain that AIDS cannot be spread through casual contact - I sure hope you are right. But, leading scientists were at one time positive as well - that the earth was flat.

By Akeya W.

November 22, 2004 03:19 PM | Link to this

Man, smells like homophobia in here…

By Tim

November 22, 2004 03:21 PM | Link to this

In reference to the comments concerning HIV/AIDS… if it is a good idea for us to not want a gay person serving us because they MIGHT have HIV then it would be wise to also be apprehensive about African American women and Senior Citizens being servers as well because those are the two fastest growing sects of people who are contracting the AIDS virus

By Rebecca

November 22, 2004 03:29 PM | Link to this

Tim, there has never been a documented case HIV being spread by casual contact. NEVER. My major question is, HOW do you even know your waiter is HIV positive? There are no outward signs so, you could potentially have a straight, white girl from South GA serving you who has HIV and you would never know. I do love how nobody addressed the fact that staying away from and excluding people who might be “contaminated” is a total 180 degrees from how God would have behaved. Typical of the Christians to not discuss that.

By Tim

November 22, 2004 03:31 PM | Link to this

Rebecca~ AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID!!

By AllaboutME

November 22, 2004 03:34 PM | Link to this

…damn I didnt know there was so much fear about waiters…now I need to worry about checkout clerks at mcdonalds and getting a haircut…gays with sissors….run…terry…do you ask point blank if they are gay and if so do you leave the restaurant or ask to be seated in a non-gay area…and are there church pews where no gays have sat so you can pray free of HIV detritus…and randy…get an ayatollah for america is kind of a catchy jingle…live christian or die…believe it or not we could spin some words so that we were not at war…oops…in conflict…in Iraq but having a moral crusade…with guns…for values you know…values americans love to practice and share with other nations…like gay bashing and ignorance of real political issues…

By Archie

November 22, 2004 03:35 PM | Link to this

Terry, I meant to say astronomical drug prices. Many seniors pay so much for drugs that they have compromise on other needs. I have nothing personal against Republicans but I do think the employment issues and the healthcare situation are important issues. I have not read anywhere that more people have insurance than 4 years ago. I have read that 25 million were without health insurance 4 years and now that number is 45 million uninsured. At some point that will adversely affect everyone. Many seniors are working at fast-food places in higher numbers than before. This is something occurring in more than just one state. Dianne was sarcastic and I understand why because neither of us understand how a president could have a poor job approval rating and get reelected. I can’t believe anyone likes paying $2 per gallon for gas regardless whether you are Dem or Republican. Democrats can win but they have to articulate their position to Southerners in an appealing way — not necessarily a smart way but appealing.

By Terry

November 22, 2004 03:35 PM | Link to this

Rebecca,

I doubt that “God” would become deathly ill from HIV/AIDS or leprosy - as we might. Then again - we are not he.

By Akeya W.

November 22, 2004 03:41 PM | Link to this

I still have not had this question answered..

Why do we comdemn Muslim countries for their practices, but the “citizens” of this country are intent on changing our society where it will be one in which people are not allowed to express individuality, be themselves, dissent from “popular” religion?

Why are we a nation so intent on having our privacy and rights revoked?

By Terry

November 22, 2004 04:00 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

We are not doing such. I think you may want to see it that way - but we’re simply not. There’s a big difference between a few members of a society that want to mandate religion ‘on’ the entire society and that of a society whose majority is comprised of religious believers who don’t want their beliefs removed ‘from’ society - by the few.

Contrary to a populist notion held by some, it is not required of the majority - to be dictated to by the minority.

By Rebecca

November 22, 2004 04:02 PM | Link to this

Last comment, but for those of you who are skeptical about whether or not HIV is spread by casual contact….think about it this way. EXCLUDING all of the thousands of scientific studies and replication, casual contact has never been found to spread HIV. Over the past 20 years, thousands of family members and friends have taken care of AIDS patient in their last years….hospital staff and community health workers are surrounded DAILY by patients with HIV, without gloves and mouth covers….thousands of co-workers work with HIV patients everyday….hundreds of church members sit next to and care of HIV patients without protection. If HIV was truly spread by casual contact, don’t you think that in the last 20 years out of MILLIONS of potential exposures, just one case of HIV spread by casual contact would be reported?

By Akeya W.

November 22, 2004 04:08 PM | Link to this

Terry,

I don’t wish to remove your beliefs from society. I simply want them out of my bedroom.

Because our country is comprised of many different people from different cultures, races, etc.. we simply cannot force people to live according to one religion and one way of life.

By Terry

November 22, 2004 04:15 PM | Link to this

Archie,

No, “many” Seniors do not have to compromise other needs. That’s just another myth out there designed to collect sympathy for a cause. The wealthiest group of citizens among us: Seniors. Some may be struggling with medical needs - the vast majority are not. And when you consider that the life expectancy of American citizens continues to rise - the validity of the Seniors health care “crisis” diminishes even more.

And lastly - you have to [have] a position in order to “articulate” it. The Democrats don’t - and that is what is at the core of their problem.

Disposable diapers are a burden on many more younger folks - should we have the President concerned about ‘Pampers’…?

Orange Juice costs far more than $2.00 a gallon - is OJ going to be the next “crisis” for which we need to get the Government involved? And why do you think the President has anything to do with gas prices? What would have been the price of gas if Kerry had been elected?

By Akeya W.

November 22, 2004 04:20 PM | Link to this

Hmm… that’s funny… I’m a social worker with a large number of elderly on my caseload. I can’t tell you how many of my clients have to forego one medicine for another, one bill for another, food or meds, food or bills…

Unless you’re seen it up close, you really cannot say that.

By Terry

November 22, 2004 04:21 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

No one wants to be in your “bedroom”. In fact, most of the folks that you oppose, wish people would keep their sex lives IN the bedroom! Out of the public square, public schools and everyone else that they demand it be noticed!

By Akeya W.

November 22, 2004 04:26 PM | Link to this

eh-wrong Terry…

It IS in my bedroom. Case and point? Sodomy law? Why is the government allowed to tell me HOW I can have sex? That’s in my bedroom. The only reason people were so in love with that law was so that they could use it against homosexuals, meanwhile shooting themselves in the foot.

That’s why we have books full of the missionary position, right?

By Terry

November 22, 2004 04:34 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

You don’t about what you speak of. Sodomy laws evolved from forceful men abusing their wives - “back in the day” you might say.

Had nothing to do with homosexuals - but everything to do with trying to protect women from abusive husbands.

By Derek

November 22, 2004 04:37 PM | Link to this

I agree with all who’ve said that Diane’s tone is reflective of the reason the Dems lost in the first place. I got really tired of the “you must be stupid if you don’t think like us” position very early on in the election. Just like Diane’s sadly-phrased sour grapes, the election was lost on their intellectual version of the same moral tag they’ve tried to hang on us for years. “Brainer than thou” won’t work, and silent majority of the middle finally stood up and said so.

By Nathan

November 22, 2004 04:38 PM | Link to this

Democrats, stop trying to pretend like you are something your not. Just come out and tell the electorate that you understand financial liberty is tough. If they will just vote you into office, you will steal as much money as you can from those evil hated rich peple and give it to the government dependents.

Just be honest, tell your constituents that they are entitled to financial security because they are American. Tell them that that saying “pursuit of happiness” is on a “living document” and you want to change it to “guaranteed financial security”. Tell them you can do all of this if they just pledge to give the gov’t power over the people and pledge to be dependent on that government.

Like Dianne said, don’t act smart, because us stupid hard working, poor, country people see what you are doing. We stupid country boys like our financial liberty and haven’t been dependent on anyone since we moved out of our parents. How many years have you democrat politicians lived across the street from section 8 housing or fought to have “affordable housing” built in your neighborhood.

Hey democrats, if I continually make bad financial decisions and you continually swoop down to alleviate the consiquences of my decisions, well, why should I learn from my mistakes? A dependency society is the worst thing that I can imagine. Can people be truly free and dependent?

Democrats, if you could just give up your urge to socially engineer a socialist system of financial equality and become libertarians, I would vote for you. Because the silly republicrats want to legislate morality on my gay brothers and sisters.

By Akeya W.

November 22, 2004 04:39 PM | Link to this

Eh- wrong again, Ter…

There was an attempt to actually uphold that law a few years ago until a gay couple challenged it.

It may not have had anything to do with homosexuals before, but it darn sure was used to make homosexual size punishable by criminalizing it, even though it affects MANY heterosexuals in the process…

By Tim

November 22, 2004 04:40 PM | Link to this

Terry, since what one does in their bedroom should be left in their bedroom, does that mean you support the supreme courts decision to overthrow the sodomy laws?

By RS

November 22, 2004 04:41 PM | Link to this

Oh, THAT’S RIGHT!!! Most hairdressers are GAY, arent they? That means I can never enter another hair salon again for fear of contracting AIDS from breathing the same air (right, Zack?) Hey, Tim, when I get to Heaven I’ll be the witch with long, unkempt black hair, complete with grey roots & and an infinite amount of split ends. But, better that than being touched by (GASP, HORROR) contaminated hands!!!

By Brian Curtis

November 22, 2004 04:42 PM | Link to this

Riiighhtt…. because Bush has been all about smaller government and reduced spending, right?

Wow. Does it even matter how Bush flies in the face of everything conservatives stand for? How he screws up everything he touches? Or is the only thing that matters the fact that he’s 1) “a good Christian man” and b) not a Democrat?

I’ve often remarked that Bush could announce on nationwide television that he’s a drug-dealing necrophiliac, and Georgia would still vote for him. “Because at least he’s not a durn Demmycrat!”

By Tim

November 22, 2004 04:46 PM | Link to this

RS~ nice to hear from you again ;) it is actually all making sense to me now… woman are constantly asking why most the really attractive guys are gay… now i know… it is because we are the only ones willing to risk ‘catching something’ to get our hair cut by another gay man who actually knows what he is doing :)

By Terry

November 22, 2004 04:49 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

Can you see what you’re reduced to? You’re trying to support the notion that the majority of Americans are conspiring to invade your bedroom privacy - by pointing to ancient laws that had nothing to do with homosexuals, but have recently been in the spotlight because they were challenged by a gay couple.

And because of that - we are now becoming like the Islamic fanatics? You don’t see anything wrong with your argument?

By Tim

November 22, 2004 04:52 PM | Link to this

Terry, the only reason why the law was challenged by a gay couple was because they were prosecuted for having sex

By RS

November 22, 2004 04:55 PM | Link to this

Well, Tim, that explains a lot. Just don’t run the other way screaming when you first catch a glimpse of my Medusa-like locks! LOL

By Akeya W.

November 22, 2004 04:56 PM | Link to this

And what’s even sadder is that those who are not in agreement with “what Diane said” make it seem like she echos the voice of the entire liberal population.

I would be willing to say that not even half of the population of liberals even know who Diane Glass is, or Shaunti Feldhahn for that matter.

By Akeya W.

November 22, 2004 05:00 PM | Link to this

No, not the majority, just a population of very loud people who are intent of making law what I can and cannot do in my bedroom, period.

There is no reduction of anything here.

Gotta go, have a date with an adorable 2 year old…

By Zack

November 22, 2004 05:01 PM | Link to this

Like Shaunti, Diane is obviously a very intelligent woman. However, unlike Shaunti, her intelligence is diluted by her worldview.

As I said before, the comments Ms. Glass made this time were very hateful, very uncalled for, and I’m still challenging her to use the phrase “…darn Buddhists”, “darn Muslims”, “darn Jews”, etc.. (The liberal crowd likes to attack our president verbally. If they’re going to criticize him, they should criticize his lies about Islam being peaceful. Islam is NOT a peaceful religion. Of course, our politically correct society would rather lie about it than tell the truth and offend someone, even if that someone hates us.)

The post Ms. Glass presented scares me because of its sheer ignorance. It scares me to see the Akeyas, Normans, Brian Curtises, etc. supporting it.

By randy

November 22, 2004 05:04 PM | Link to this

Tim I glad you see that the Christian society I described is a “Utopian” society. Anyone else is in a lose/lose position, some secularists will even defend that position to the death, which I find amazing. Why do they want to lose big or lose small, when they could win big with Jesus? I don’t get it. I guess that they don’t know, that they don’t know!

By Brian Curtis

November 23, 2004 08:11 AM | Link to this

Zack: Are you even reading the posts here? So far I haven’t seen anyone agreeing with Diane’s opinions—well, except maybe Norman.

I expect Randy to ignore all points made and refuse to respond to any arguments… but surely you can do better than another sweeping attack on “any and all liberals, regardless of what they say.”

By Terry

November 23, 2004 08:16 AM | Link to this

Tomorrows topic: Acceptable mercury levels in Tuna.

And “Gays” and “Religion” will dominate the conversation.

By Brian Curtis

November 23, 2004 08:23 AM | Link to this

Terry, you had mad psychic skills. I am in awe.

8~)

By Brian Curtis

November 23, 2004 08:23 AM | Link to this

Terry, you have mad psychic skills. I am in awe.

8~)

By Terry

November 23, 2004 08:30 AM | Link to this

Brian,

There was no need to post twice. My “mad psychic skills” allowed me to realize you meant “have” the first time.

By Randy

November 23, 2004 08:32 AM | Link to this

Brian, I will be glad to respond to any good liberal arguments. Unfortunately, I’ve only heard liberal “opinions” no facts and the opinions are not even very good. But then liberals really don’t have a case!

By Terry

November 23, 2004 08:45 AM | Link to this

Back on topic.

Shaunti fails to realize something. She points to the Dems selection of Pelosi as a big mistake - and they should have known better. But they saw it as the proper thing to do, because once they convinced themselves that the Republicans were creating the 4th Reich - they felt they had to reach far Left to create a “balance”.

Better known as ‘Liberal reasoning’: Create an imaginary problem and offer an unrealistic solution.

By John Turturbo

November 23, 2004 09:27 AM | Link to this

It is said that right wing hate is the result of a poor self image. Based upon your photo, I can see why this woman would have a poor self image.

By Terry

November 23, 2004 09:38 AM | Link to this

And of course, only someone respectful of others, kind, compassionate, caring - not of “right-wing hate” - would make such a childish comment about someone’s looks in a photo!

By AG

November 23, 2004 09:56 AM | Link to this

Diane, your condescension is sickening. Your editorial further confirms my desire to vote Republican, or at the very least NOT Democrat.

Was that the effect you were going for?

By Kool Kathy

November 23, 2004 10:16 AM | Link to this

Well, Terry (mad psychic mystic), I was going to restrain myself today and not post. But the fun & games go on. Let’s see. Shaunti & Diane always resorting to political mayhem.I wish they’d exchange recipes and get over it. But what do we get? Diane, the madder than a righteous Democratic wet hen. Shaunti, the sweet little conservative mom with “values”. Ho hum. Same old, same old with the usual in-your-face follow up. Your originality keeps this thing from being deadly tedious. Maybe I should go out and save the world, help old folks cross the street, rescue stray animals and hug a tree. I know. Stick to the subject! Now, what was it?

By Texas

November 23, 2004 10:19 AM | Link to this

I believe the problem with the Dems is that their party is split with no comprimise, not to say that the GOP is not split on certain issues. For example, our buddy Arnold believes in Stem Cell Research and other Liberal issues. The good thing about the GOP is comprimise, even the Prez (4 more years) said something about accepting civil unions, however, the Dems have an all or nothing mentality. For example, Abortion on demand, in fact sKerry voted for Partial Birth Abortion, but the majority saw the wisdom of stopping this unacceptable behavior. Bottom line is if the far left (Hillary) will continue down their slippery slope, (which is good for the GOP) and they will, (not in the near future) regain any dominance in Politics…Amen to that!!!

By F. Caudle

November 23, 2004 10:49 AM | Link to this

Overcoming democrack losses? The best way is for the democracks to realize that they are the party of OPPRESSION, and thrives upon keeping the poor people poor and dependent on the government. My wish is that they would realize their monumental failures, and just shut down as an obsolete group of naysayers. Why would anyone even WANT to be a democrack these days? It shows a huge lack of knowledge and understanding about the American way. Damn all the clueless democracks.

By Vincent

November 23, 2004 10:50 AM | Link to this

Recovery from losses - After the election, I asked several colleagues who expressed happiness over Dumbya’s victory why they voted for him. When asked about the debt ceiling report (which the Treasury Department waited to release an August 2004 dated report until one hour after Dumbya’s victory speech) they had no idea. They had no idea Dumbya entered office with a 3 trillion dollar surplus and after 3.5 years we are at –7.34 trillion. Over 10 trillion dollars? WAKE UP!!!! Dumbya refusing to join 250 UN countries in the International Women’s Health Commission renewal, lifting the ban on the sale of assault weapons sales and relaxing the laws so immigrants can enter the USA easier (hmmmm, were not the 9/11 terrorists immigrants? For anyone to believe Dumbya is truly interested in the safety of Americans needs to think about this. More immigrants with less background checks that can buy assault weapons??????), Dumbya saying 9/11 was the worst crime committed against Americans and then waiting 2.5 years to approve the 9/11 Investigation (approved it for 5 million budget; The Columbia Shuttle Disaster Investigation got 50 million), eliminating the 275.00 annual tax break for teachers, and the various Dumbya blunders from a very long list. Each response given was, “Why didn’t I know about that? Why wasn’t that in the news?” Until someone, Democrat or Republican can lobby to reinstate the Fair Reporting Act (which the Dripper got rid of in 1988), Murdoch and Clear Channel News are going to tell any story that will benefit their wallets. And since Murdoch’s circle of friends are Republicans, the only thing Democrats can do is demand the full story, and let Dumbya have enough rope.

By chuck

November 23, 2004 11:14 AM | Link to this

Neither columnist is right. The dems will not recover from their lost election because they will never have the same values as the majority of Americans. We are winning the values war as conservatives because we represent those values and don’t oppose them at every opportunity. Democrats think that they they are smarter than everyone else, but they can’t see that certain types of activities and lifestyles are not compatible with the transmission of our culture, maintaining our strength as a nation, or with enhancing our ability to solve societal problems. We can see the difference between right and wrong, normal and deviant, and success and failure. Most of us understand the necessity for maintaining a strong set of moral values. We don’t want our children exposed to the immorality of pornography, base language, and deviant sexual behavior (to include homosexuality). The dems on the other hand believe in some ephemeral concept that they call “tolerance�. The definition of tolerance is “the ability to put up with something harmful or unpleasant. I don’t see this as strength. While I put up with a great deal that is unpleasant, I am not going to put up with those things that are harmful to our way of life or to my children. The left has led us astray as a nation. Things that we would not have stood for 50 years ago in the public arena are now accepted as a matter of course. I can’t take my kids to a ball game without drunks falling all over them, and having them subjected to base individuals who don’t understand that letting fly with the “f� word in a setting where children are present is inappropriate and rude. Television has become a cesspool of immorality. Even watching a football game on Fox on Sunday afternoon is difficult, because they choose Sunday afternoon as the forum for promoting their sleazy prime time line-up. These things harm children. They lead them to believe that life is about sex and alcohol and doing whatever makes you feel good without pointing out the consequences for such actions. Study after study has shown that a loving home containing both a FATHER and a MOTHER is the BEST way to raise positive, successful, well-adjusted children. The dems should embrace policies that foster this kind of family and oppose making ANY other less successful means of raising children seem normal or even OK. Yes, there will always be children raised in other types of homes but we should be trying to make this rare rather than embracing it. When the dems understand that most of us feel this way, then they might make some headway. As long as they continue to embrace the left wing of their party they will continue on the road to marginalization.

By RANDY

November 23, 2004 11:27 AM | Link to this

CHUCK, YOU MADE SOME GREAT POINTS. THE ONE POINT IS LIKE IS HOW THE DEMOCRATS THINK THEY ARE SMARTER. IN REALITY THEY ARE WORKING ON PARTICAL INFORMATION AND ARE DUMBER. I HAVE MANY EXAMPLES OF THIS. THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO PLAY GOD, NOT FOLLOW HIM.

By Royal Chic

November 23, 2004 11:29 AM | Link to this

Diane is simply using the facts of this past campaign and is simply making a mockery of how a president who did not win one debate, did not win one state in which terror attacks are likely to happen, and cheaply used religion as a way to win the office for another four years……wow and the war in Iraq is of God too, right????….but because Kerry feels like homosexuals/lesbians should have the same rights that are afforded to all citizens of this great country he and all Dems are antiChrist….how convenient????? Who are we to judge???

Is it not our right as citizens of this country to question our leadership and his competence???…….there is not much more wrong with the Dems than there is with the Repubs…..Repubs are just too traditional to understand that everything evolves….and religion of all things should never be used in the governance of this land…..church and state should remain seperate…..for all the bloggers that are posting facts and statistics don’t you understand it is not about educating yourself about our country’s issues, policies, “exit strategy”, and goals…..where there is Christ there is success….

By Brian Curtis

November 23, 2004 11:30 AM | Link to this

Actually, Democrats DO have the same values as the majority of Americans—they just haven’t pointed it out well enough.

Democrats support a minimum wage, improved healthcare options, solid funding for public education, avoiding war except as a last resort, clean air & water, social justice, and equal treatment under the law.

Unfortunately, the Democratic party has focused entirely on war and social issues this past year (or at least, that’s all that’s been reported by our corporate-biased media), and utterly failed to address the economic, working-class issues that made them the party of the common man. THAT’s what they need to get back to, instead of remaining silent on economics and letting Republicans deceive the “values voters” by promising to end abortion and discriminate against gays.

By ignoring real issues (job loss, deficit spending, etc.) and playing around with trivia like gay marriage and cusswords in broadcasting, the Democrats have left themselves without a solid connection to everyday Americans. The “white, wealthy elite” knows they’re right on these social issues—but Middle America disagrees. And with no other issues on the table, what’s left but simple arithmetic? Christian homophobes outnumber enlightened envrionmentalists in this nation.

By Brian Curtis

November 23, 2004 11:32 AM | Link to this

I see Randy has slipped into ALL CAPS mode again, as he usually does. Randy, is it even possible for an issue discussion to NOT revolve around how stupid all non-Christians (and apparently, all Christian Democrats) must be?

By Dmones

November 23, 2004 11:34 AM | Link to this

Vincent- More immigrants with less background checks that can buy assault weapons??????),

Why is this always the non-intelligent argument for gun control? Last time I checked I didn’t know that crimes that were committed that involved guns were registered gun owners. When will we give up this ignorant statement? Also, please don’t follow this post up with the lame “stoloen guns from registered gun owners” argument. I agree that Repubilcans should at least admit that Bush’s spending is out of control. Last time I checked he spent more money then the “hated” Bill Clinton. I’m EXCLUDING the war also. I guess being conservitive is no longer one of the parties value. From the $400 billion medicare program, plus tariffs and farm subsidies, those are not things you can blame on the war for spending. I still have yet to hear a Republican disagree with his spending. It is okay to say that your candidate has flaws. No one is perfect.

By john

November 23, 2004 11:42 AM | Link to this

This text will be bolded

So much ignorance,myopia,and hatred. Where is our Country going ?

By Terry

November 23, 2004 11:42 AM | Link to this

Kool,

I nominate you as a third contributor to “Woman to Woman”. Even though it’s pretty funny that the majority of posters are men - on a woman to woman board - maybe you could knock a few old folks down as they cross the street, kick a few stray animals and chop down a tree or two!

Well, you don’t really have to do that, but just say you would so as to spice this stuff up a bit more! I agree - it can be a bit tedious.

And BTW - If you get the job, could you tell these girls to quit coming up with all these different names for the topics — all most folks want to talk about is Gays and Religion!

By AG

November 23, 2004 11:52 AM | Link to this

I would just like to make one point to those throwing around labels like “Christian homophobes.” The gay marriage amendment here in Georgia passed by a significantly larger margin than that by which Republicans defeated Democrats. The amendment passed 76-24, while Bush won something like 60-40, give or take, in Georgia. This is not simply a Republican issue, nor must we infer that all Republicans or Christians voted for the amendment. Obviously, a good number of Democrats did vote for it, and the “yes” vote was not limited to Christians. Though the issue may have been brought up by a Republican, it is not strictly a Republican issue.
Please realize this before you hurl partisan labels back and forth. Maybe instead facilitate meaningful, open debate.

By chuck

November 23, 2004 12:09 PM | Link to this

Dmones, Here is a Republican who disagrees with the free-spending Congress and executive branch. I think that we should cut spending along with and in excess of cutting taxes. I think there are many things we can and should cut from the federal budget. We can start with the EPA, the Department of Education, HUD, Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce, the Surgeon General and a bunch of other bureaucracies as well. Take that money, and return it to the states to establish their own policies in these areas with a transitional time period to determine how they should pay for it, then cut the funding out completely. The best way to begin cutting spending is to pass a constitutional amendment that gives the President a line-item veto. Then we could begin turning these other functions over to the states where they belong. That said, as bad as spending is with Republicans, it would have been much worse with Kerry in the office.

By Dmones

November 23, 2004 12:18 PM | Link to this

Chuck- I’m glad that you could admit that. I’m a libertarian so I agree with all the agencies you mentioned being eliminated. Along with the IRS. I also agree that it would have been much worse with Kerry. With the Constitution we already have the document that places the powers to the states. It just has to be honored. Thank you for being honest.

By RS

November 23, 2004 12:24 PM | Link to this

Terry, this is a red-letter day! I actually got to agree with you on something! Yes, it is childish (& 100% unacceptable) to make negative comments about anyone’s appearance. Ditto their disabilities, ethnicity, etc

By chuck

November 23, 2004 12:25 PM | Link to this

Vincent, There you go again. Let’s talk about the 9/11 Commission. It was made up of a few LIBERAL Republicans and a bunch of partisan democrats like Benveniesta (sp?). The last time I looked, not one of them was an expert in National Security. I believe that it is much wiser to follow the advice of professionals in the field rather than a few partisan democrats who would rather place the blame than fix the problem. There is no perfect solution that will keep all of us safe all the time. We can’t even do that against AMERICAN CRIMINALS. We are doing what we need to do. We’ve got the terrorists focused on IRAQ and our military guys who are trained to eradicate them. That’s a good thing. As time goes on we are going to all see how well thought out this plan was. Our guys in uniform are the best in the world. Let them do their jobs and they will handle this problem for us…at least to the extent it can be handled.

By Akeya W

November 23, 2004 12:49 PM | Link to this

Chuck- 50 years ago?! What are you talking about? We’re supposed to be moving FORWARD as a nation, not backwoods…er..wards…

Are you assuming that the only people that get drunk are Dems? Dems are the only people usuing expletives?

Also, it’s funny how this whole “democrats think they are smarter” is so popular on this forum. Where was that silly a* comment last week, two weeks ago, three weeks ago. Must be your catch phrase for the week..

Royal Chic- thank you for pointing those things out…

And let me get this straight, people can continue to be uninsured medically, paid a sorry excuse for wages, programs can continue to be cut, we can spend billions of dollars on a useless war, yet as long as people agree with these so-called values all is well.

A wonderful quote I saw on the vent a couple of weeks ago:

“Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider God-fearing and pious” Aristotle.

By Texas

November 23, 2004 12:52 PM | Link to this

Brain, Let’s talk about the people who are actually earning the minimum wage. Most of these people are teenagers working in entry-level jobs. They’re developing job skills and will only spend a minimum amount of time at the minimum wage. But what about that small number of people who are trying to raise a family on minimum wage. If you have done such a pathetic job of developing job skills and a work ethic that you cannot earn more than the minimum wage, then you have no business having children. We have far too many people in this country who have children that they know full well they cannot afford to raise. The answer to this problem is not to force employers to pay them more than they are worth. The answer is to educate people as to the cost of properly raising a child, and to encourage them to make sure they can pay the bills before they make the decision to have a baby.” The unemployment rate, currently at a very low 5.4%. That’s lower than the average rate of the 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s. That’s also lower than it was when Bill Clinton was re-elected over Bob Dole in 1996 For 3 years now, the media and the left all over the world have been promoting the myth that somehow the whole war on terror is an overreaction to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. In other words, as the nonsense goes, we shouldn’t bother them so they won’t bother us. A new story out of Britain shows why we have to keep the heat turned up on Islamic terrorists. The report says that four or five (that’s right…not one, but 4 or 5) 9/11-style attacks have been thwarted on a number of targets including Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf. Canary Wharf is like the UK version of Wall Street. The plans, which were stopped when authorities stepped in, called for Al-Qaeda to fly airplanes into buildings, killing thousands of people with every attack. Remember: these were attacks that were going to happen. Had they not been stopped, scores of people would be dead at the hands of these Islamic killers. Right now, as you are sitting reading this, terrorists are plotting to kill Americans. Just keep that in mind the next time somebody calls the war on terror into question. Under sKerry health care plan the health care would have been lowered and Taxes would have been raised to pay for it. Social Justice is not what a few liberal judges say it is, it’s what the Masses and the Cconstitution sez it is. I know I haven’t addressed all your stated issues, but suffice it to say I addressed most of them.

By Akeya W.

November 23, 2004 12:56 PM | Link to this

Texas, most of my tenants that work at minimum wage jobs have 2 plus kids to raise…

By Akeya W.

November 23, 2004 12:59 PM | Link to this

Texas,

Thank you!!! Finally some real issues!!

I can’t tell you how many people on my caseload have wayyyyyy too many kids and can barely take care of them. It’s so annoying…

By Texas

November 23, 2004 01:06 PM | Link to this

Royal Chic, Winning the debates? Cheaply used Religion? Answer one thing: When Edwards promised people in wheel chairs that under the sKerry administration they would get up and walk again, whatintheheck was that?????

By Terry

November 23, 2004 01:06 PM | Link to this

Royal Chic,

How did you come to know - where terrorist attacks are “likely” to occur?

And was that last paragraph supposed to have a meaning - or were you just taking advantage of the 300 word limit?

By Akeya.

November 23, 2004 01:08 PM | Link to this

Gee…now why would anyone want to kill Americans?

By Brian Curtis

November 23, 2004 01:13 PM | Link to this

Texas: Thanks for at least addressing the issues… but as Akeya has already noted, “most minimum-wage workers” are NOT teenagers who want some extra spending money or some temporary job experience. That’s talk-radio propaganda.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about half of minimum-wage workers are over 25. (More people are actually paid LESS than minimum, compared to those who earn that exact figure.) The average workers brings home more than half of his/her family’s entire income. It’s more often women—single, working moms—than men. 60% are women; nearly half are working full time, not part time, at these jobs. And it’s Hispanics, blacks, and other minorities who are disproportionately holding these jobs—not wealthy white teenagers in the suburbs.

Today, the minimum wage is at its lowest level, compared to average American wages, since 1949. Its inflation-adjusted value is 26% lower than it was in 1979. A full-time worker on a minimum-wage job would earn about $10,000 a year—well below the poverty level.

To return to the topic: Democrats need to address issues like these, and the people affected by them, if they want to gain broader support.

By Kool Kathy

November 23, 2004 01:15 PM | Link to this

Terry,

I’m flattered to pieces. Absurd is wonderful. Just think;”Woman to Woman & Appendage”. I could dwell on toxic topics like “Why does the Mayor always wear a big flower? Why? Why?”, or “If you can make a bid playing Bridge, why not on airport concessions?”, all cerebral in depth subjects. And I do confess: Once I said a “bad” word when I burned my finger. Spicy enough?

By Randy

November 23, 2004 01:16 PM | Link to this

Brian, The democrats started the name calling after they lost the election, or should I say got demolished in the election. I for one say give me your best shot. I’ve never heard a logical liberal discussion, just their opinions. We are waiting.

By Akeya.

November 23, 2004 01:22 PM | Link to this

Randy- this is an OPINION forum, remember?

By Terry

November 23, 2004 01:24 PM | Link to this

Good points Brian.

And I think we should go ahead and raise the minimum wage up to around, say - $10.00. That should out help all those folks that you mentioned.

Then we would have to raise everyone else’s salary; people who have already worked their way up to $10.00 or more - because it wouldn’t be fair for them to be making the same wage as those just starting out.

And in order for businesses to pay all the increases, they will need to raise the cost of the goods and services they provide.

And once all this is in place - minimum wage workers will have the same buying power that they do now.

In other words: We will be right back where we started!

By Texas

November 23, 2004 01:26 PM | Link to this

Brain, Individuals have job skills that they take to the employment marketplace looking for a buyer. Employers have jobs to offer to people with the appropriate job skills, but these employers also have budget to meet. Each job has a value to the employer. Employers simply cannot afford to pay someone more for their job skills than those skills are worth to the employers. So, along comes government to tell the employer that he must pay more for job skills than the value of those skills to the employer. The result? The employer doesn’t hire. Why hire someone for a basic job that requires few skills when you will be forced by government to pay more for those skills than they are worth to you? The result? High unemployment rates. I don’t want to make this an issue. I was merely pointing out a different view on some of you issues.

By Terry

November 23, 2004 01:28 PM | Link to this

Kool,

We already had the topic: “Why does the Mayor always wear a big flower”.

It quickly evolved into the Gay Marriage issue as well!

By Akeya

November 23, 2004 01:30 PM | Link to this

Even better, Terry-

Why don’t we just make all of these wealthy Repubs care for the children?

That way, we won’t have to raise the minimum wage because surely these people will live better if they don’t have to be responsible for the children.

Conservatives like to take responsibility, don’t they? Hey, it’s all about telling someone else what they SHOULD and WILL do with their lives.

This would be perfect!!! Then they can raise more conservatives and then they’ll be like Children of the Corn and wipe out anyone who’s not a part of the new 100% Christian America!

By Dmones

November 23, 2004 01:37 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis-Today, the minimum wage is at its lowest level, compared to average American wages, since 1949. Its inflation-adjusted value is 26% lower than it was in 1979. A full-time worker on a minimum-wage job would earn about $10,000 a year�well below the poverty level.

And? You are being paid for the skills that you provide. Tell me, what is stopping you from leaving that job and getting a higher paid job? Please spare me the economy excuse also. Last time I checked there are not mechanical engineers or Neurosurgeons working at the mall or at Mcdonalds because they can’t get a job. I know that there are some skilled people who can’t find a job but this does not apply to them. As an individual you have to be able to provide a skill that is valuable to the company and can’t be that easily replaced. I’m tired of people complaining about that their job is being taken by a person that will do the job for half of what they make. Well then your job must not have been that hard in the first place! Have you ever spoken with someone at a minimum wage job? Why should an employer have to compensate you for a wage higher then what your skills are valued at. I believe there should be no minimum wage at all. I know that is “out of the box” but it is because enough thought is not given to it that it is not the Federal Government’s responsibility to set that wage. Find that in the Constitution. All people on this board, whether you disagree with their opinion or not, are smart. Therefore I present this to you: If your job all of a sudden said that they would only pay you a $1.00 an hour what would you do? Leave. Because you know you could find a job that would compensate you properly for your skills. That is exactly what you should do if you are in a minimum wage job. Obtain more skills, which will equal more income. I know people with ONLY high school diplomas, no trade school training, who make $15 an hour which is not great but at least you could support a family.

By Zack

November 23, 2004 01:40 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

Yeah, conservatives like to take responsibility, unlike your type, who want to throw the responsibility of raising kids off to others. (Maybe not you personally, but you apparently come from the “If you don’t want me to have an abortion, volunteer to adopt and raise my child while I go find more sex partners” mentality.)

As usual, Shaunti’s worldview on this topic is right, and the Akeyas, Normans, Brian Curtises, etc.. respond with their hateful rhetoric.

The gay community’s unofficial slogan: “Accept our lifestyle or be called a bigot.” My, not very open-minded, is it? Then again, when has the left wing ever been known for being reasonable?

RS—Have you accused anyone yet of saying something against the Jewish community, like you normally do? Good ol’ name-calling always seems to be the first response, huh?

By Zack

November 23, 2004 01:45 PM | Link to this

Ms. Glass—I still can’t get over your implication that God is dead. What a crazy, unreasonable statement. Do you feel good saying that? Do you honestly hope this world is all we have and that we have no afterlife? Do you believe there is neither a Heaven nor a Hell?

We have The Holy Bible, which says otherwise. To refuse salvation from Jesus (offered by Him and no one else) is the ultimate act of irresponsibility.

By Akeya

November 23, 2004 01:46 PM | Link to this

Zack- did I not make it clear that there should be no further communication between us ever since your harassing e-mails you sent to me?

Please be respectful of my wishes.

Since you are ever so holy and righteous, I’m sure you can achieve the goal of not bothering me…

By Randy

November 23, 2004 01:49 PM | Link to this

Zack, In defense of Brian, Norman, Akeya, they are doing their best. They just don’t know what you and I know. They haven’t experienced Jesus’ love, they haven’t had a life changing experience. When they felt the pressure of the spirit, they rejected it and now may be so stubborn and full of pride, they may never accept it. Maybe they are doing their best?

By Randy

November 23, 2004 01:54 PM | Link to this

Zack, Don’t argue the bible to yet to be believers, they won’t recognize its absolute truth. There are very logical responses to any question they may have. Some of the answers are so obvious, after they hear them, they will wonder why they couldn’t see the forest for the trees.

By Dmones

November 23, 2004 01:54 PM | Link to this

Zack-We have The Holy Bible, which says otherwise. To refuse salvation from Jesus (offered by Him and no one else) is the ultimate act of irresponsibility.

That would be an opinion. I love how also people who believe in the bible have selected passages they use and choose to discard the ones that make no moral sense at all. I’m an agnostict so it’s easy for me to see the many flaws of the bible. But, people like yourself will only choose the “rosy red colored glasses”. I don’t see you any different from people or Islamic terroists who believe in the Koran. People who take their opinion or theory and pass it along as fact. Next time your quoting the bible take a look at Exodus. Where it is okay to “sell your daughter into slavery” and where anyone who works on the sabbath should be put to death. Funny how I don’t see many people quoting those passages. I don’t want to get into a religous debate because that is not the topic so I will read your reply and leave it at that. I don’t mean that you are an Islamic terrosist by any means, I just mean people taking their religion and following their scriptures and taking them out of context. If you followed everything in the bible, how you are supposed to, you would be guilty of atrocities also.

By Texas

November 23, 2004 01:55 PM | Link to this

Brian, Lets move on, I got this from Boortz on the deficit:

Give me an honest answer here. Considering your own household budget, which would you rather have: A deficit equal to 5% of your annual budget, or one equal to 3% of that budget?

Now, another question. Which deficit would you rather have: A $3000 annual deficit or one equal to $5000? You’re going to take the $3000 deficit, right? So far, so good.

Now … the third question. Just a little more complicated. Which would you rather have: A $3,000 deficit with an annual operating budget of $10,000; or a $5,000 deficit with an annual operating budget of $50,000. Whoops! Now you’re going to take the larger dollar amount, right? If you chose the smaller deficit amount there is a strong probability that you were educated in government schools. The $3,000 deficit in our example represents a 30% budget deficit, while the $5,000 deficit equals a 10% deficit. It would be a lot easier to increase your productivity by 10% to cover that $5,000 deficit than it would be to boost your personal economy by 30% to take care of that smaller $3,000 total.

Now, what did we learn here. We learned that the important figure regarding budget relates to it’s percentage of the total budget rather than its dollar amount.

By Akeya

November 23, 2004 01:57 PM | Link to this

My “life-changing” experience was when I had my wonderful little son.

And people will feel the effects of the Spirit in different ways. How can you speak for anyone else on this forum, Randy, about their experiences?

What do you know about me or my life other than what I say here that leads you to believe that you can call out my life and experiences?

By AG

November 23, 2004 02:02 PM | Link to this

In response to Zack and Randy’s most recent posts: It’s condescension like Diane’s that alienates me from the Democratic Party and the left in general, and self-righteousness like yours that alienates many from my brand of Christianity. I’m a Christian who voted for Bush and who usually falls on the conservative side of the issues. The last few years I have been looking around and wondering why I feel such widespread persecution for being a Christian. Well, thanks guys, I am starting to understand. I prefer to witness my faith to others through good works, taking responsibility for my own sin and appreciating forgiveness. I’m not perfect, nor are you, so please don’t talk down to those who differ from you. As Christians we are taught to be tolerant of those who do not believe what we do, just as we wish that others would be tolerant of our own views. I am fairly certain this is what your average Christian believes, or at least I hope so. I apologize to those offended. Please don’t apply what has been expressed to Christians across the board.

By Randy

November 23, 2004 02:02 PM | Link to this

Akeya, Its very obvious you are not a Christian by your responses! Am I wrong?

By vincent

November 23, 2004 02:04 PM | Link to this

Regarding the 9/11 Commission, I don’t give a rat’s behind who was on the committee. If someone acted in the worse criminal act against my house and my family, I wouldn’t wait around for 2.5 years to do something about it. You guys can argue all you want about why you can excuse the president for this behavior, but actions speak a heck of a lot louder than words, and that idiot waited 2.5 years before starting an investigation.

And as far as guns and crime, why don’t you read the FBI Criminal Statistics report. And show some respect on this board. You don’t always know who you are attempting to insult.

By Zack

November 23, 2004 02:05 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

I did e-mail you, but there was no harassment in it, and I have not e-mailed you again. On this blog, I can say what I want to to anyone else, including you. Before you again say I harassed you, remember that there are laws in this country against libel. Dmones—I never said I was sinless and never will. We have the Bible, which is supported 100% by reason and wisdom, our God-given faculties. It also was written by eyewitnesses of Jesus (of course, this truth has been attacked by guess what—the liberal agenda. However, like the other objects of its attack, the attack changes nothing.) Further, the Bible is the standard for which this country based its original laws on. Only in gravitating away from it have we fallen into the quicksand we’re in now.

By Randy

November 23, 2004 02:08 PM | Link to this

AG You are what we need, another Secret-Service Christian. That is why some people in this nation don’t understand God. I’ll stand up for my beliefs, reguardless of any consequences it may bring!

By Zack

November 23, 2004 02:10 PM | Link to this

AG—Are you referring to, for example, my comment about abortion being an outlet for male and female whores? That might offend some people, but I don’t care. This quiet, sitting-back, non-offensive approach hasn’t worked. Yeah, I’ve said some things on here I shouldn’t have, but I don’t apologize for being hard-hitting. I hope your intensity against Randy and me is at least matched in your responses to the wrongs of the liberal agenda.

By John K.

November 23, 2004 02:11 PM | Link to this

Since we are talking about minimum wage, why don’t people complain about paying athletes or actors millions of dollars for entertainment?

Why would anyone want to get rid of the Department of Education? If you leave it in the State’s hands, we will probably go right back to the way things were before Brown v. Board of Education. A microcosm of this belief is the disparity of Fulton County schools. The schools in the north county (Alpharetta) have plush, lovely schools with olympic pools, tennis courts, etc. The south county schools are using outdated materials, in a dilapidated building.

As for Bush, why haven’t we still caught Bin Ladin? The man has been on the run for three years. Is it me, or weren’t there Saudi Arabians on the 9/11 flights? Why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia? Ah, that’s right. We are good friends with the royal family in Saudi Arabia.

By Lyrazel

November 23, 2004 02:14 PM | Link to this

Dmons, Terry, Texas: As Archie pointed out some of the new class of minimum wage workers are senior citizens. They return to the workplace after retirement, normally not by choice. Because of their age they are not offered more than minimum even with their years of experience in other fields. They return to help pay for perscriptions, home caregivers and other luxuries not totally covered by SSI. Many return to work because the pension plans they had paid into went into bankrupcy, or perhaps they had a stock portfolio full of Enron/WorldCom recomended to them by Estate Builders and even their banks. Or because they spent life at mills that went belly-up. Very few go for extra cash. Because they are seniors they are not offered better positions, there is age prejudice, because they dont have same physical strenth,etc. Their contributions to society have been possibly as vetrans, nurses, teachers or full time moms; a broad range of experience. They are not the slugs of society people who think workers of minimum wage workers are, of course its common to think bad of someone who has less than you. The idea that all seniors are rich is laughable—however in group—the 70-90 set did put back the most savings of any generation. You could learn a valuable lesson from that old lady serving burgers…or not…

By Zack

November 23, 2004 02:14 PM | Link to this

AG—If you do not stand up for your beliefs, you’re not doing God much good.

As for offending people, I’m offended by the non-Biblical, unconstitutional act of killing another human being. You need to show some passion in the right direction instead of worrying about offending the perpetrators.

By Randy

November 23, 2004 02:18 PM | Link to this

Here is my suggestion for you liberals who want to attack us Christians. If we do something wrong, you call us hippocrits, although no one is perfect. Here is what I say, if you celebrate Thanksgiving and Christmas. Two big Christian holidays, I say you all are hippocrits. Put your actions, money etc. where your mouth is. Stop celebrating Christian holidays.

By chuck

November 23, 2004 02:20 PM | Link to this

Akeya W. That is exactly the problem with the left. You made my point for me. The dems don’t believe in moral absolutes. There are some things that are ALWAYS going to be wrong. The list in my post was not all inclusive but it was a start. I don’t care if the drunks were dems or republicans. What they were doing was WRONG. The point is that some behaviors are destructive and others are constructive. The dems want to tolerate ALL BEHAVIORS. The rest of us want to support constructive ones and limit destructive ones. It’s not about going backwards. We have devolved to the basest of societies and if we don’t change our direction, we will end up on the scrap heap of history like the rest of the societies that have degenerated into state sponsored HEDONISM. By the way, The “dems think they are smarter� comment came from the columns that are supposed to be the subject of the forum. As for your comments about reps taking care of the children, they already do. They take care of their own AND through exorbitant taxes, many others as well who had children without thought to how those children would be raised. (NO I am not pro-abortion, just PRO RESPONSIBILITY.) Brian, I’m not against having a minimum wage, but I think that wage should be based on the value of the work and not on the needs of the worker. It is ridiculous to reward the poorly prepared. I worked full time the whole time I was in college. Even when I was in high school, I worked and paid for all of my clothes, my car, my insurance, etc. I always got raises above the minimum wage at those jobs because I was worth it. I was honest, and I gave my employers a full days work for what I was paid. I didn’t quit because it was hard. Believe it or not, I am not totally against helping people who, through no fault of their own, in a situation that temporarily puts them in a bind. I just think that that should be a function of the states and not the federal government. I also think that during that period of help, they should do whatever it takes to improve themselves to the point that they no longer need assistance.

By Akeya

November 23, 2004 02:20 PM | Link to this

Thank you for pointing that out. They make most of their money for ticket sales, but who’s buying the tickets?

Lyrazel- I think that there are too many movies with little old women wearing big, diamond rings and old men with ascots and butlers at their sides that make these people think that seniors are rolling in the dough…

By Dmones

November 23, 2004 02:24 PM | Link to this

John K- Since we are talking about minimum wage, why don’t people complain about paying athletes or actors millions of dollars for entertainment?

Because, once again, that is their VALUE. I know that is hard to understand for most people. I know we sit here and complain that athletes make so much money and why is that fair. You know why it’s fair? Because consumers are willing to pay that much. I guess you have never taken a basic economics class thus relying on an uninformed opinion that they are “overpaid”. If people did not go to games and be willing to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars the owners would have to lower the salaries or go out of business. Pro sports teams don’t get bailed out by the government you know. Not like the airlines, Amtrak, etc.

By Dmones

November 23, 2004 02:31 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel- As Archie pointed out some of the new class of minimum wage workers are senior citizens.

Do you have any numbers to support that? I see that you said “some” which is a good choice of words because I doubt that the percentage of minimum wage workers that are senior citizens is even above 15 %. Therefore that case is a minority. Being a libertarian, If they didn’t hire them because they are old…..so be it. Their number one goal is to make money as a business. If an older person could do the job to the best of someone that is half their age I think the employer would hire them. If that is not the case, since this older person is such an assest they should be able to find work somewhere in this country

By Randy

November 23, 2004 02:31 PM | Link to this

When you stop celebrating Christian holidays you can move to France and live with the cone-heads. HA!

By Akeya

November 23, 2004 02:39 PM | Link to this

Chuck- from the way you posted your comment it appeared that you were blaming those particular behaviors on dems. Was I wrong in believing that? If so, I apologize.

Also, it’s the self-righteous who believe that their way is the ONLY way. Dems/liberals have morals, but I’m sure it makes people like you feel better to say that they don’t.

I’m taking care of the people who sit across from my desk, do nothing all day, and complain about FREE services.

I pay taxes out of BOTH of my jobs.

I am also pro-responsibility. I am responsible for raising my son to be a healthy, intelligent adult who will add positives to our society. I am responsible for paying my bills, keeping my family healthy, maintaining and improving employment, etc….

By Akeya

November 23, 2004 02:42 PM | Link to this

So because they are the minority their issues are of lesser or no importance?!

By Kool Kathy

November 23, 2004 02:46 PM | Link to this

Well, Terry, guess I will just log off. I’m so wilted not to be in the “know” on the mayor’s flowers. Just shows how hard it is to keep up with world events.

Keep a sharp eye. Sounds like the heretics and the homilies are on the loose.

By Texas

November 23, 2004 02:48 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, Let’s talk about Prescription Drugs in which I agree the elderly have a major problem. Let’s first talk about what sKerry offered, “Tort Reform” Basically he stated that they would get another group of lawyers watching over the suit lawyers to ensure that the law suit was not frivolous. That’s their plan. Now, the Prez say’s we must cap lawsuits to mimimize Insurance cost, etc. etc. in an effort to lower costs of drugs. Now you tell me, which is better?

By chuck

November 23, 2004 02:49 PM | Link to this

Vincent, you are clueless as are most on the left. Failing to appoint a commission is NOT the same thing as failing to act. I believe we were in Afghanistan about 6 weeks after we attacked. The President DID act. He just decided REAL and effective action was better than POLITICAL action (or political FAKE Action). You are right about one thing: Actions DO SPEAK louder than words. The President ACTED. The commission TALKED. John K. The department of Education doesn’t ENFORCE the Brown decision, the Justice Department does. All the Dept. of Ed does is suck away dollars that should go to education and spends them on things that make politicians feel good without having any real impact.

By Terry

November 23, 2004 02:55 PM | Link to this

Lyzarel,

If ever a Lib could understand the POINT of a post - I would dance at their wedding!

I am not saying that there is NO ONE who is a Senior that is living on hard times. I am simply saying that the MAJORITY of Seniors are doing far better than the rest of us. To point out examples of SOME seniors are who are not - does not dispute my point.

There are people of all ages, colors, backgrounds, handicaps, and you name it - that are experiencing hardships. We have young children with leukemia who may not see Christmas again - for which I am sure they would be more than happy to trade-in their fate with Seniors who’ve lived a full life and who have had at least had a CHANCE to provide for themselves in their latter years.

And I am not trying to over-simplify things with the above example, but what I am saying, is that there can be all kinds of situations that are not ideal for some folks - but that does not mean that we need to treat everything as if it is some uncontrollable crisis!

It’s called: “Life”.

By Akeya

November 23, 2004 02:56 PM | Link to this

Funny,

I always thought that those on the right were blinded by their bibles and bank accounts, turns out it’s just that many of them don’t listen…

By Dmones

November 23, 2004 02:57 PM | Link to this

Akeya- So because they are the minority their issues are of lesser or no importance?!

Not of lesser importance but for Archie or Lyzarel to base their argument on that issue as if elderly people are the majority to try and tug at an emotional string of some people, then I wanted to make it clear that is NOT the case. This is one of your posts from 11/22. Correct me if I’m wrong: -It IS in my bedroom. Case and point? Sodomy law? Why is the government allowed to tell me HOW I can have sex?- The way you are countering my point you make it seem like it IS the government’s job to tell me how to run my business and who I can hire. You have to be consistent. Or, to be fair, maybe you think it is the government’s job to tell ME how to run my business, but when it comes to Akeya the government shouldn’t tell YOU what to do. I see the pattern here. But where are you getting the lines that you are drawing of what the Government can and cannot do. By the way….. the Government shouldn’t be able to tell you what to do in your bedroom. You go girl! :-)

By Tim

November 23, 2004 02:57 PM | Link to this

There Randy goes again trying to packs peoples bags that don’t agree with him and try to send them somewhere else… I would think you would want to try to keep them around to show them to Christ… but I guess that is not what it’s about… just get all those of different views to leave!

By chuck

November 23, 2004 03:00 PM | Link to this

AND Texas, The Tort Reform measures do NOT cap actual damages, just punitive ones. That’s where the trial lawyers make all of their money. If someone is injured and permanently incapacitated, damages are calculated on what that is worth MONETARILY and that amount would still be paid. What the trial lawyers like EDWARDS want is the ability to punish the doctor or hospital or insurance company THEMSELVES and at the same time, collect enormous sums of money for doing so. It is the job of governments to punish offenders, NOT some sleazy attorney who stands to profit personally from doing so.

By Texas

November 23, 2004 03:08 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I agree, I did not say that the Prez wants Tort Reform, I said sKerry wanted Tort Reform. I said the Prez wants to pass laws to cap lawsuits at $250,000.00

By chuck

November 23, 2004 03:14 PM | Link to this

The President’s plan IS Tort Reform Tex. It is exactly what we need. Kerry wanted toothless tort reform that would still increase the costs of healthcare by billions of dollars each year and would continue to line the pockets of trial lawyers.

By Brian Curtis

November 23, 2004 03:18 PM | Link to this

I’m not sure what it has to do with a new agenda for the Democrats, but I’m solidly opposed to “tort reform,” as it’s called. A fairer description might be “maximum set penalties for criminal negligence,” which is what it really amounts to.

Does our personal-injury system need some improvement? Of course! But I don’t see how setting guaranteed maximum punishments on corporate wrongdoing will improve matters for society as a whole (i.e., workers and consumers).

Corporations are eager to set damage limits so they’ll be able to budget for the penalties that come with endangering, injuring, and killing consumers. “Hmmm… this product fault might kill six people a a month. At a maximum cost of $200,000 per person, compared to our annual budget of $18 billion… yes, we can afford that. Let’s do it!” It’s only the uncertainty of how much they might be penalized for their crimes that keeps them in check. Do we really want them to be that secure and comfortable in their malfeasance?

By vincent

November 23, 2004 03:28 PM | Link to this

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for calling me clueless and a leftist. I suppose you must know everything about me then. Congratulations on be so clued.

Tom Kean, Republican former mayor of New Jersey brought to everyone’s attention the way Dumbya refused more than once to properly fund the 9/11 Investigation Commission, and they were at risk of missing the deadline.

Dumbya’s administration may in fact have gone to Bin Laden’s neck of the woods quickly, but that was only part of the entire picture. And anyone with a brain knows the other part.

By Randy

November 23, 2004 03:29 PM | Link to this

Tim They can stay. But I can’t find Jesus for them, the holy spirit will have to do that and then they will have to accept the free gift of eternal salvation from God. I can’t do it for them and some people after a certain age are to proud and stubborn to accept.

By Akeya

November 23, 2004 03:32 PM | Link to this

My comment was questioning whether or not you believe that simply because a group is in the minority their issues should be downplayed.

It seems that you are coming out of left field with something COMPLETELY different than my question.

Please explain what you are talking about, Dmones?

By Terry

November 23, 2004 03:34 PM | Link to this

Brian,

Where do you guys get these beliefs? Which corporation do you know, that employs as a fundamental business practice to make money: endangering, injuring and killing consumers?

And when these corporations get sued by the trial lawyers which gives you the ‘warm and fuzzy’ - who do you think has to pay the amount that is awarded?

Is it possible that the corporations really don’t even care if they’re sued - since the consumers are going to pay the damages anyway? And wouldn’t it be in OUR best interests to severely limit the amount rewarded - since we’re the one’s who are going to have to pay?

There used to be saying that went something like: “Cutting off one’s nose to spite their face”. Some folks have taken that literally.

By Tim

November 23, 2004 03:41 PM | Link to this

Randy~ I never said that you could find it for them… but I seriously doubt they are going to find it if you (someone who is supposed to be a Christian) are trying to push them out of ‘your state and country’… or wait… do they just have a better chance of finding Christ in France? you have a good way of descibing how wonderful God is… the problem is in the next breath you practically say they should go somewhere else… and then try to come back all sweet and nice and say ‘oh they can stay but I can’t find Christ for them’… no you sure can’t but by some of the things you say you sure can turn them off to Christ!

(sorry I know this is off subject but it hurts to see some professing to know Christ speak to people in a way that sure doesn’t help the cause of winning people to God)

By Brian Curtis

November 23, 2004 03:42 PM | Link to this

You know, I’ve heard the argument before that corporations shouldn’t be taxed because “they’ll just pass those costs on to the consumers.” And now I’m seeing it used to justify the notion that corporations shouldn’t have to pay a penalty when their negligence injures or kills someone… for the same reason.

Corporations already enjoy quite a few privileges thanks to their legal status—evasion of individual liability being the most obvious. Is anyone seriously suggesting that they should be exempt from punishment when they commit crimes, too? That’s a level of favoritism I just can’t fathom.

By Dmones

November 23, 2004 03:43 PM | Link to this

Akeya- No. There is your answer. Sorry it got so complicated. I was explaining that most people try and find something as an emoitional argument to get concern for their issue or to try and sway people from their point of view. Can you answer my question now? Where are you getting the lines that you are drawing of what the Government can and cannot do?

By Tim

November 23, 2004 03:44 PM | Link to this

Terry~

‘Is it possible that the corporations really don’t even care if they’re sued’

I guess that is why corporations don’t hire the best lawyers that money can buy… they don’t care if they get sued… that is one of the funniest things I have read yet

By Akeya

November 23, 2004 03:55 PM | Link to this

It is not the government’s responsibility to decide if it should be illegal for me to have sex a particular way.

THAT is what I was talking about.

NEWSFLASH- Most people’s point of view is based on an emotional argument.

And what do you mean, where am I getting the lines? Based on what?

By Terry

November 23, 2004 04:03 PM | Link to this

Brian and Tim,

You really do need to consider a few things about businesses.

Brian, the way businesses are punished for neglecting the safety of their consumers - is that the consumers don’t buy their unsafe products! This is an age-old approach that has worked well. Sueing those corporations does not have the same effect - because we pay for it as I stated earlier.

Tim, when corporations are sued - they will obviously have legal representation, wouldn’t you think? And it would only appeal to common sense that corporations can afford the best representation in most cases, would it not? And when I make a general statement that they “do not care” if they are sued, no, that does not mean that they will not represent themselves in legal matters and have the entire corporation be awarded to the plaintiff!

You boys are something!

By Dmones

November 23, 2004 04:06 PM | Link to this

Akeya- I thought most people’s arguments were based on some sort of fact. At least I would hope. I would like to think that someone doesn’t just say “I believe this way because I do”. They have the right to, but did they gather any factual information to support their stance. Okay….let me try this again since this is soooooo confusing. Akeya writes- It is not the government’s responsibility to decide if it should be illegal for me to have sex a particular way. Do you understand that part so far. Dmones writes- Government should not be allowed to tell me how much to pay my employees or who to hire in this day and age. Got that part. By those two statements it would look like we agree that the government should not be responsible in making something illegal that is a personal decision. The correlation….here it goes….pay close attention…… I don’t want to confuse you…. Akeya as a person, Government can’t tell you what to do sexually. Dmones as a business owner, can’t tell me how much to pay my employees. So, minimum wage should be abolished. Now if you disagree that minimum wage should be abolished, please explain where you draw your definition or guidelines that the government cannot tell you what you can do with your sex life, but can tell me what to do with my fiscal business practices. Hopefully that worked because I’m going to develop carpal tunnel from this conversation.

By chuck

November 23, 2004 04:07 PM | Link to this

Once again Vincent, you proved my point. The deadline you spoke of was nothing more than an artificially contrived political ploy designed to hopefully find some dirt and dish it out before the elections. The supposed “work” of the commission does not make any of us safer. What Bush did by attacking terrorists where they were DID. That is the difference between talk and action. Bush acted decisively to defend America from terrorists. Tell me how a few NON-ELECTED liberal lawyers are supposed to tell our ELECTED OFFICIALS the best way to keep America safe and fix the problems with the CIA. Not one of the members is trained in counter-terrorism. As far as I could tell, not one of them had any agenda other than a political one. That being said, IF there is a POLITICAL solution to the terrorism problem, it should come from the ones we elected to deal with it and not some politically motivated commission. The Senate and House Intelligence Committees began working on the “intelligence” miscues as soon as it became known there was a problem. Though the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief, didn’t make public the failings of the intelligence system, I’m sure that his people were working on it as well. Instead of making political noise, he ACTED. Maybe you should exercise that brain you supposedly have.

By Akeya

November 23, 2004 04:11 PM | Link to this

Oh Honey, I’m sorry…

Did I ever disagree with you that minimum wage should be abolished?

And, Dmones, if you would refrain from your attempts at condescension you wouldn’t have to type so much (sweet smile)

By Dmones

November 23, 2004 04:18 PM | Link to this

Akeya- Did I ever disagree with you that minimum wage should be abolished?

You never agreed either.

Akeya- And, Dmones, if you would refrain from your attempts at condescension you wouldn’t have to type so much (sweet smile)

I like that! Sincerely. Especially because you’re right.

By Terry

November 23, 2004 04:19 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

I wish I had as much assurance in my winning the lottery - as you do about someone trying to find out what is going on in your “bedroom”.

Folks win a lottery somewhere every week - yet no one feels certain that they will this week. One couple, many months ago, in one state, get charged with sodomy - and you appear to be scared to death of someone invading the privacy of your bedroom!

By Randy

November 23, 2004 04:21 PM | Link to this

Tim SORRY! Don’t mean to turn anyone off, but if they need to awakened, I’ll try to do that. Some just have such thick skin and the penalty is so severe.

By Tim

November 23, 2004 04:27 PM | Link to this

Randy~ ‘awakening’ someone is fine… but I don’t think that trying to get people to move out of the state or out of the country is going to do much ‘awakening’

By Tim

November 23, 2004 04:31 PM | Link to this

I really enjoyed a bumper sticker I saw the other day

‘I don’t hate God… I’m just not fond of some of His followers’

how sad and true that really is

By Texas

November 23, 2004 04:38 PM | Link to this

Okay folks, Let’s get back on forum. Let’s let the Dems in on a secret. America is a land of prepetual rebirth and reform. That’s why W got a pass on whatever he did before he found Jesus and swore off drinking. Thats why Clinton received the benefit of the doubt over his “youthful indiscretions”. sKerry probably would have been given a pass on his anti Nam activities, if only he’d claim to have seen the error in calling his fellow veterans war criminals. There’s a debate raging now whether the election really did turn on values as if the word applied to abortion and gay marriage. If that is the extent of the debate for Dems, it will prove to be a dead-end street. The short answer is, of course the election turned on values. But the hard answer is that it’s hard to think of an election that didn’t. Fight the war on terror, bring democracy to the middle east, protecting SS, ending an era in education dominated by the soft bigotry of low expectations—it’s hard to find a contentious political issue that is devoid of fundamental moral judgements. And on each one of these issues, it is the GOP that has been offering fresh ideas, a chance for a new beginning. Dems need to get a reform agenada and start thinking about ways to be born again.

By Akeya

November 23, 2004 04:40 PM | Link to this

Hmmm..lottery, sodomy, lottery, sodomy..

You’re in left field, Terry…

Come on back to the home field with us…

By Akeya

November 23, 2004 04:40 PM | Link to this

Hmmm..lottery, sodomy, lottery, sodomy..

You’re in left field, Terry…

Come on back to the home plate with us…

By Royal Chic

November 23, 2004 04:58 PM | Link to this

Terry,

If you did not find any meaning in the last part of my post then it was not intended for you to….try reading it a few more times…..and I think you are as guilty as most people think Diane is for her rebuttal….if anyone has an opposing viewpoint you have a sarcastic response or shall I say question…..Repubs and Dems will never completely see eye to eye, but we need to be intelligent enough to find a solution instead of adding to the division of this country…by the way have a great evening:)

By Texas

November 24, 2004 07:31 AM | Link to this

Good Morning All :) Royal Chic I posted this once before, but for your benefit I’ll post it again: James Madison, the fourth president, known as “The Father of Our Constitution” made the following statement “We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

By norman

November 24, 2004 08:21 AM | Link to this

In politics you just have to have patience. Eventually the American public, despite its brainwashing by evangelical nonsense and patriotic gore, will realize that the Republican party is the present version of American fascism and turn against it.

One of the advantages of living in the Ole South is that you see America in the raw and can draw conclusions more easily than in the more superficially cultured parts of the nation — the blue states.

By W2004

November 24, 2004 08:50 AM | Link to this

I think the best strategy for the Democrats to win more votes will be the followings: 1. Curse the Republicans that they are too stupid to understand what Americans need; 2. Block all imports of foreign made commoditities so we can buy all American commodities; 3. Withdraw from the UN World Trade Organization(WTO) as well; 4. Tax the rich as President Jimmy Carter did so we can all become poor. 5. Last, consult the French or Canadians before we do anything;

By Archie

November 24, 2004 09:19 AM | Link to this

If S.C. Democrats hope to be successful in statewide races in the future, they must figure out a way to get back the white voters that abandoned them for the Republicans.

This was published in my hometown newspaper. Democrats have to find a way at the national level as well to get those voters. Healthcare for some reason that doesn’t make sense to me is not important to people. I know a man who has no insurance but that’s not important to him. By his own admission he does not earn much but he talks about Bush—a man that’s never known minimum and wage. With the internet a person can several newspapers from across the country and several newspapers list the Southern states as the worst in terms of health. The point is the South doesn’t appear to vote for our economic or health interest and the Democrats have to communicate why change would be better. USA Today in the last few weeks published an article that ranked Minnesota and other northern states at the top as far as health but it ranked southern states at the bottom as far as health. This can be easily verified.

New Hampshire and Minnesota led the rankings - tied for No. 1. None of the states ranked in the top 20 were in the Deep South.

This info comes from thenewstar.com out of Lousianna. The article uses the same term as I did when it says: Louisiana’s low ranking doesn’t surprise Larry Prater with the Governor’s Office of Elderly Affairs. Prater coordinates a state pharmaceutical aid program for seniors in 12 northeastern Louisiana parishes.

“I’ve traveled throughout this 12-parish area, and the condition many of the seniors and their families are living in are deplorable, especially in the rural areas,” Prater said. “Many people in our rural areas don’t have convenient access to health care.

By Kool Kathy

November 24, 2004 09:54 AM | Link to this

If everybody has finished their therapy this morning, please let me wish you a happy Thanksgiving. (I’m busy tomorrow.)Give thanks for our great country and those brave enough to fight for it.

As to Democrats & Republicans, suppose you invite each other over for dinner. New plan! If you can do that without calling 911, Santa might bring you a new electronic voting machine with batteries. If you are still unhappy, buy a one way ticket on Grayhound to Saint-Tropez and celebrate with SOOO RICH.

And remember what Aristotle said: Biscuits are always better with red-eye gravy.

By norman

November 24, 2004 09:57 AM | Link to this

To: Kool Kathy, Aristotle also said that some people were natural slaves. He must have meant Republicans.

By Roy L

November 24, 2004 10:02 AM | Link to this

Akeya,

If, as you say, your son was planned and planned carefully how come you used someone else’s money (Medicaid, funded by the taxpayers) to pay for that birth?

Roy L

By Terry

November 24, 2004 10:07 AM | Link to this

Royal Chic,

We Republicans are finding a “solution” - we’re working to defeat Liberalism!

We don’t want to compromise with Liberalism - that’s like trying to compromise with cancer! Because just like cancer - Liberalism destroys everything it comes in contact with!

By Kool Kathy

November 24, 2004 10:16 AM | Link to this

Norman,

You need to eat more biscuits. Happy Thanksgiving!

By Terry

November 24, 2004 10:20 AM | Link to this

Archie,

Can you please explain to us why it is, that if the South is supposedly so unconcerned about health and economic issues - more people relocate to this region of the country than any other? Can you please tell us why so many Northerners are blazing a trail down here to Atlanta, when things are supposedly so good where they’re coming from - and so bad down here?

And it might help bring the numbers down of the “unhealthy” here in the South - if folks would quit coming down here and dragging their aging family members with them because the quality of living, along with the climate, is so much better for them at their age than it is where they come from, which is where they would be; unhealthy and dying - if they weren’t down here!

By Texas

November 24, 2004 10:30 AM | Link to this

Happy Thanksgiving Kool Kathy: We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heavn. We have been preserved, the many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preseved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virture of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken sucess, we have become too self-sufficent to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to God that made us! Abe Lincoln Thanksgiving proclamation of 1863

By Terry

November 24, 2004 10:40 AM | Link to this

Kool,

Have you got your car packed yet? No, not for the Thanksgiving weekend, but for the mad rush to New Hampshire and Minnesota! Don’t wait until it’s too late - the highways are going to be jammed bumper to bumper with folks trying to get up there for “health care”. Now that Archie has let the cat out of the bag, that is.

By Blaine

November 24, 2004 10:49 AM | Link to this

dianne, you have over consumed at the buffet of liberal junk food. your column smells of acid reflux. i voted for Bush not so much because i am a republican or because i am conservative. i voted for bush because his beliefs seem to be more in line with the values of our founding fathers than are those of kerrys. our founding fathers outlawed dictatorships, monarchys and communism. i am sure that you and democrats like you have good ideas and concepts that would be beneficial to our people. you are clearly frustrated because your voice was not heard on November 2, 2004. the democratic party does have some good ideas. unfortunately those ideas will never be heard or implemented until the democratic party aligns its core values with those of the founding fathers. the democratic party clearly has a socialist core that will always be rejected. presidential elections confirm the last statement.

please fix your political party. we truly need 3 viable political parties for proper checks and balances. the leadership of the democratic party is failing to the point that we now only have 1 political party. put away your hatred and get to work on rebuilding, start with what is good about the great american democratic party.

By Akeya

November 24, 2004 11:01 AM | Link to this

Roy L,

enh…wrong… I have been working since I was 16 years old. I’ve never had less than 2 jobs.

Ever since I started working I have contributed by paying taxes out of my paychecks. So, in essence, I’m using part of the money that I, myself, contributed to the system.

I don’t just sit around and collect benefits without contributing.

By Akeya

November 24, 2004 11:04 AM | Link to this

I’ve a date with a cute 2 year old.

Everyone have a great holiday and weekend!

By Kool Kathy

November 24, 2004 11:16 AM | Link to this

Thank you, Texas. You know how to celebrate Thanksgiving, with a little reminder from Lincoln.

And Terry, I wouldn’t be caught dead on those holiday freeways, just to stay alive. Besides, leave our great state of sunshine, moonshine and tornado watches? Not me. Love this place! Don’t pay any attention to Archie. He’s just jealous.

By Roy L

November 24, 2004 11:42 AM | Link to this

Akeya,

I can guarantee that you have not contributed enough to cover the expenses of child birth. A very small portion of the taxes you have paid go to Medicaid. Medicaid is not an insurance policy, it is plain and simple, welfare. Face it. You had to rely on someone else’s money to provide you with the benefit you received.

Roy L

By John R

November 24, 2004 12:08 PM | Link to this

Democrats don’t really have to do much, just wait for the greedheads to bankrupt the nation. Granted, a loss of 10 trillion dollars in less than 4 years should have been enough to handle that, but let’s face it, wartime presidents never get beat, regardless of how reckless and stupid their policies are. And given the fact that this particular president won re-election by the lowest margin in history, it seems illogical to assume that he has any mandate for anything. Of course, like the last election, he will continue to govern as though he does, which in the long run is a win-win situation.

I suspect the tone of Ms. Glass’ column reflects some of that attitude. Frankly, when the excrement hits the fan in the next year or so, at least John Kerry won’t have to take all the blame, like Jimmy Carter did. Republicans have done an incredibly good job over the last decade advancing values issues in order to win elections; however, their legislative achievements on all of these issues add up to the big doughnut. Why? because they really don’t care all that much about advancing these issues. Reagan didn’t, Bush 1 didn’t, Bush 2 won’t. What they will do is what they always do, bankrupt the treasury, export jobs, expand the trade deficit, flex military muscle against lesser nations, and denigrate relationships with our allies.

So there you are. It’s quite simple really.

By RS

November 24, 2004 12:12 PM | Link to this

Funny you should ask, Zack! No-o-o, my beef isn’t just in defense of the Jewish community, it’s in the defense of anyone non-Christian. Slam on AG all you want, but he/she has the right idea about tolerance. AG isn’t taking the “cowardly” way out, as you profess, but is actually showing what is known as Christian values. Jesus Himself loved everyone whether or not they agreed with Him. The problem with fake “Christians” is their prevailing “If-you’re-a minority-you’re-a-non-person-and-don’t-count” mentality. Don’t forget, I’ve read both Testaments & have never seen evidence of that in either. Randy, I KNOW how you’ll feel about this but a lot of non-Christians view Christian holidays as OK to celebrate in a non-secular way. I guess it’s the opposite side of the coin from Christian families giving/attending Halloween parties & taking their children trick or treating, seeing that Halloween is a “pagan” holiday. Roy-if you read Akeya’s posts, she’s been working multiple jobs & has been in the work force for years so I’m guessing she’s either breaking even or has received less than she’s given in to the system. Tim, I can certainly relate to that “..God’s followers” bumper sticker, just like I love the one that says “God is too big for just one religion”.

By Archie

November 24, 2004 12:25 PM | Link to this

If anyone has read my earlier posts here you would know that I am from the South. As to Democrats & Republicans, suppose you invite each other over for dinner. New plan! If you can do that without calling 911, Santa might bring you a new electronic voting machine with batteries. I like what Kool Kathy said in that paragraph. It shows that she thinks and understands that Republicans and Democrats just might be married to each other. I posted about healthcare to support a point I made earlier but instead of responding to facts someone started talking about migration which has nothing to do with the facts that were reported in newspapers across the country. Serious debate does not require insult it requires thoughts. I know Republicans that could run circles around the individuals here supporting the GOP position but the Republicans here seem devoid of deep thought. I do have friends that are Republican but they don’t talk and respond to fact by adopting some false sense of southern pride. My point is millions voted Democratic but not enough to win the presidency but that does not make them invalid. In fact you have a divided country and the issues brought up by the losing side are valid. Even republicans know that something has to be done to insure more Americans have healthcare, they just disagree with Democrats. Even republicans agree something needs to be done with social security benefits but Democrats disagree on what has to be done. Republicans and Democrats disagree on how to keep jobs for Americans and improve the employment status of Americans. These are issues not some play-play stuff. Of course I love the weather here but I hate to see us on the bottom of so many things that matter.

By John

November 24, 2004 01:06 PM | Link to this

Archie, Very clearly and well stated. In respect to the ‘someone’ who tatally disregared your views on Healthcare and went on about migration and other matters—-disregard her. She offers ample sarcasm, viciosness narrow mindedness- never fair minded or respectful of other people’s opinion “In medio stat vritus”

By Terry

November 24, 2004 01:31 PM | Link to this

Archie,

We are not “on the bottom of so many things that matter”. The quality of life here for the average person - is unmatched by any region of this country!

Your attitude about it all is what makes your posts so damned hilarious! We have the best quality of life in the country, more and more people are moving here everyday to become a part of it! We’re on the top, not the bottom, Archie. Regardless of what someone writes in an article about where we may or may not place in some ridiculous “health care” ranking - we have the best quality of life of anyone, not only the nation - but in the entire world if you ask me. And I have seen most of it!

Try getting your head out of some silly paper, open your eyes - take a good look around you! You’ll like what you see.

By Kool Kathy

November 24, 2004 01:48 PM | Link to this

Yes, Archie, more cooperation is needed in politics and more rehab.

But, I am going to confront you with one of those dreaded cliques: “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” You see, I behold the south as gracious, sunny, forward-marching place with much to offer in every way. We are overcoming any shortcomings and fussing all the way. People love to come here.

On the other hand, you are looking at statistics,a bottomless pit of questionable negativity. Don’t believe in them. Be proud. Once a Southerner, always a Southerner.Nothing false about it.It is real.We forgive your Democratic tendencies and love you anyway.

By Texas

November 24, 2004 02:05 PM | Link to this

Sooo John R, your going to wait r ya? Bush’s tax cuts, 9/11 the war in Iraq, massive irresponsiblity. Yeah….Dems are the paragons of thrift when it comes to the federal budget, right? Yeah….if you believe that you would believe that Teddy Kennedy is a great humanitarian. Just how fiscally responsible are these Dems? Well, Fox News is reporting that if you took all of the spending increases proposed by House Dems over the next ten years they would equal more than Bush’s tax cuts for 2003 and 2001 combined! House Dems have proposed spending 13 times as much money as Rupublicans. Just this year House Dems have proposed $417 billion dollars in new spending. House Republicans proposed only $32 billion. A $10,000 budget deficit is a huge deal to someone who only makes $40,000 a year. That same $10,000 deficit is a mere inconvenience to someone who makes two million a year. Our current budget deficit is nowhere near as large as some previous deficits under Democratic presidents as a percentage of our total budget. Bush’s tax cuts have actually increased tax revenues paid to the federal goverment.

By Archie

November 24, 2004 02:16 PM | Link to this

Kool Kathy, I know people love to come here because as I said I love the weather. I love the heat and spring temperatures today. I like your comment about more rehab but statistics just tell the truth. It is a form of denial to say nothing needs to change. A sense of Southern pride won’t help people with venereal disease,obesity, and poor prenatal care, and high medecine costs. Statistics aren’t questionable negativity. Virginia is not in the bottom 10 but they are a Southern state. The point is if you can do better then one should. I absolutely agree you need more cooperation in politics. People need to know Arnold S. is married to Maria Schriver and there are other republican/democrat marriages. The point is serious issues involve more than soundbites and Southern pride. The topic is what can Democrats do to recover and I used statistics to support my viewpoints, not to denigrate the South.

By John R

November 24, 2004 02:21 PM | Link to this

Texas!!

Someone who actually wants to talk issues intstead of polemic moralizing, or name calling. How refreshing.

Doesn’t really matter what Democrats propse, as none of it passes. They could propose 70-11-trillion dollars in new spending, but they won’t get it. But it’s not like I don’t see your point, you’re right, but I was talkin’ about how the Democrats can get back in the white House. Frankly I find both parties talk of fiscal conservancy blatantly absurd. You cannot amass a deficit of 7 trillion dollars in a matter of 3 years and talk about the other side with a straight face. Come on!

But that’s the game, and that’s how you play it.

By Rueben

November 24, 2004 02:34 PM | Link to this

I have to conclude that Ms. Glass believes that God is dead, since she says that we should pretend that He is not dead. If He is dead, then when did He die and where is the note He left leaving Ms. Glass in charge? Ms. Glass advocates the use of lies and deceit as a viable strategy for Democrats to win the next presidential election. When do we ever know a liar is telling the truth? It would seem to me that the reason that the democrats are losing is precisely because they do lie and practice deception as a matter of policy. This is not to say that some Republicans and even some people who profess to be Christians don’t also lie. However, the difference is that they don’t believe in lying as a matter of policy.

Since Ms. Glass is formally educated in theology, she should be aware of the fact that the Bible states that Satan is the father of all lies and is the arch-deceiver. Since she has embraced his philosophy of lying and deceit, what does that make her, his sister?

By Texas

November 24, 2004 02:48 PM | Link to this

John R, I agree that both parties have a lot of pork. However, you gotta admit, 9/11, Afghan and Iraq played a major part in amassing 7 trillion dollars.

By Kool Kathy

November 24, 2004 03:04 PM | Link to this

Hmmm, Archie, denigrate the South? Well, “if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc” , people might just think it is a duck. And if politics were the reason or excuse for marriage, the Clintons would be the only ones in wedded bliss.

Nevertheless, I’ll go along with the need for improvement in politics. Meanwhile, you need to notice that every state in the Union has problems, even such sunny states as California. If you don’t recognize that——well—-I might think you’re a duck.

By John R

November 24, 2004 03:06 PM | Link to this

Yeah, they did, if you consider 5 or 6 hundred billion to be a major part. Mind you, I’m thinking in terms of real dollars spent by the government. Clearly 911 had a major effect on the economy, and as a result less tax dollars coming in, but to suggest that those things you outlined are the sole factor (or even a major factor) is a little off the mark. 4 trillion dollars (and counting) of tax cuts, that most economists believe only had a real effect in the year 2002.

Jimmy Carter left office with a 9 hundred billion dollae deficit. Ronald Reagan left office with a 3 trillion dollar deficit. George Bush 1 left with deficits ranging toward 4 trillion, and an annual shortfall between 280- 400 billion dollars a year. Bill Clintion, and a republican congress left office with a ballanced budget, and a projected surplus of over 3 trillion dollars, while sheparding the largest expansion of the american economy in the modern era. Makes me think we need more divided government, because that’s about the only way you ever get anything constructive done.

By Dewey Hayes

November 24, 2004 04:04 PM | Link to this

ajc- i consider myself,a conservative yellow dog southern DEmocrat…. i support the Democrat party,as the champion of the middle class,righter of wrongs—- i believe that hillary can win in 20008,she has a goodbaseofsouthern women,who identify with her …lots of southern men id w/her husband &their wives identify themselves w/ hillary… the 1st position propose legislation to limit salaries of executives to some sliding scale or max out @ $2 milon public co.listed on NYSE&NASDAQ—-2ndpostion limit credit card fees &increasing int.rates by law—-3rd limit rights of public companies from reorganization &dropping old shareholders-let courts be controlled by market forces w/out caps or attach to exec salaries caps

By Texas

November 24, 2004 04:17 PM | Link to this

Cranberry Sauce and Pumpkin Pie

Turkeys and cornucopias and pilgrim hats. Seasoned stuffing hot from the oven. Creamed onions, cranberry sauce and pumpkin pie. Uncles and aunts and cousins to play with. Grandmothers and grandfathers with family gathered round. Children waiting for the Great Pumpkin rise over Charlie Brown’s pumpkin patch and dads watching college football. A day to relax and maybe rake leaves in the afternoon.

But Thanksgiving? How much will our celebrations on Thanksgiving have to do with giving thanks?

A glance at the first Thanksgiving brings it all back. On December 21, 1620 the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth rock. Through the dead of winter the colony struggled with poor and meager food, strenuous labor, a biting wind that chilled to the bone, and the ravages of disease. Nearly half the 102 Mayflower passengers did not live to see Spring refresh Cape Cod Bay.

But God sent Indians—Samoset, Squanto, and Massasoit—to help the English settlers plant and hunt and fish. The bountiful harvest that autumn led Governor Bradford to invite the Indians to celebrate God’s goodness. Ninety tall braves accepted the invitation to join the Pilgrims in a feast of Thanksgiving to God for His blessings.

The Pilgrims lived close enough to the soil to know how dependent they were on God’s Providence. They had learned to thank God in the midst of the bitterness of winter past. And they were quick to thank Him during abundant blessing, too.

We teach our children to say “please” and “thank you” as the rudiments of courtesy, yet it is so easy to be rude and unthinking toward God. How often we forget to gratefully acknowledge His goodness towards us.

This Thanksgiving let your prayers and expressions of love rise toward your Heavenly Father.

“What shall I render unto the Lord for all His benefits toward me? I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord.” (Psalm 116:12-13)

By AllaboutME

November 25, 2004 08:55 AM | Link to this

…and the pilgrims and other anglo settlers did move the indians into lands away from their homelands…encamp them on reservations where they were to die so the nation could be purged of their kind…

By Zack

November 25, 2004 12:18 PM | Link to this

Texas—Have you noticed how so many people refer to Thanksgiving nowadays as “Turkey Day”? I don’t see this as any coincidence. The latter makes no reference to God and endorses selfishly stuffing yourself. I’ve gotten where I absolutely hate the latter reference. This is a religious holiday, not a day to eat and ignore the presence of God and His will.

By Zack

November 25, 2004 12:27 PM | Link to this

Thanksgiving, to be more specific, IS a Christian holiday. I’m sure the ACLU would love for us to believe otherwise, but again, they’re wrong.

This has turned out to be possibly the best Thanksgiving of my life. If not, it’s in the top two or three easily. I’m thankful for my realization that I cannot live life on my own and need to rely on God. As a country, we need to remember this.

By Zack

November 25, 2004 12:42 PM | Link to this

I’d also like to address the following people:

WAR PROTESTERS—Please remember that we wouldn’t have a free country if we hadn’t gone to war with England. Please remember this the next time you act as though war is the worst thing on the planet. There are indeed times for it.

GAY RIGHTS ADVOCATES—As a country, homosexuality should not be endorsed, since it goes against the Bible, which is what our country was founded upon. Please remember that opposing homosexuality and opposing homosexuals are opposite.

ABORTION ADVOCATES—We began as a free country but are not presently due to your getting your way in this department. There is no such thing as freedom for all when not all are guaranteed their right to be born.

I’m thankful that our most recent election refuted the above constituents and resulted in a major step in the right direction.

By john

November 25, 2004 01:04 PM | Link to this

What a culture shock- From the warming, informative and inspirational message from Texas -To the distractions and nonsence from Zach. A Thaksgiving of Happiness and Love to all.

By Zack

November 26, 2004 10:31 AM | Link to this

John—Just another message I’d expect from a liberal, especially in this context.

Reuben—Nice comments earlier. The statement about pretending God isn’t dead was nothing short of ridiculous on the part of Diane Glass. Her most recent reference to abortion as a woman’s right to choose is just as sorry and frustrating as ever. I’m so glad the election results went against this way of thinking. We need to quit appeasing the gay rights community, the feminist community, etc.. No more of their imposing their self-made, devil-influenced will on the rest of us.

If a woman chooses to have sex, she has already made her choice. This needs to be realized.

Thank you to those who post conservatively on here, as it’s nice to refute those on the left.

By Zack

November 26, 2004 10:38 AM | Link to this

In meeting and dating a girl this summer who now is in Africa for a year-long missions trip, I’m really wondering which country needs her more. I think we do. This country has drifted in a really bad way.

I hope you all had a nice Thanksgiving yesterday; that’s “Thanksgiving”, not “Turkey Day”.

By Terry

November 26, 2004 03:01 PM | Link to this

Hope everyone had a Happy Thanksgiving!

Even to you Libs who are compelled to believe that ‘Sitting Owl’ and brethren; saved our hides before we killed their Braves, raped their women and drove their old folks and children onto reservations to live in eternal poverty.

Speaking of Thanksgiving - what is taking you Libs so long to attack THIS American tradition? The Pilgrims were religious you know. And rumor has it - they started ‘Capitalism’…!

Gotta be some angle in those things. Somewhere.