Debate the debate

[golfhobo]

Come on guys.... you know you want to do it! Where are all those staunch McCain supporters this morning? Tell us again how Palin is going to save the ticket from the grasp of this bumbling fossil. I so MISS that "whooshing" sound that supposedly sounded Obama's defeat only a few weeks ago.

I heard (not sure if it's true) that Fox was too embarrassed to even run a poll on their website. :eek:

Do you still believe that the Palin phoenix can counter the Bush albatross around the neck of the McCain buzzard?

Keep it civil now! You know I'm still undecided..... and the right words could still sway my vote!

[Colin]

This should go well...

[ben45750]

The Debate was a bore fest. I'm to the point where I could care less who wins. In fact I would kind of like to see Obama win. I think it might get exciting if he is elected.

[Twilight Flyer]

I only caught bits and pieces and neither candidate impressed me. Biden and Palin were far better.

The election is far from over, too, and there is not much of a gap between Obama and McCain. I still say that without Palin, McCain would have been annihilated on election day. The fact that it's still close, tells me that Palin did indeed resurrect McCain's chances. Whether it will be enough to give him the White House, remains to be seen.

But you know, there's a small part of me that hopes Obama wins the election. It'll be nice to say "I told you so" a few months into '09.

[Roadhog]

They haven't pulled out the big guns yet.
Wait until the last week....Palin will wear a tight sweater with no bra...
and the race will be over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRCBsFaUz_Y&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiFm8cpzoiw&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtJkTAS2z6Y&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02zpXmFEUaY&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXTUT-jMttc

Hobo...too bad you can't see these youtube links...they are hilarious.

[golfhobo]

They haven't pulled out the big guns yet.
Wait until the last week....Palin will wear a tight sweater with no bra...
and the race will be over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRCBsFaUz_Y&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiFm8cpzoiw&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtJkTAS2z6Y&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02zpXmFEUaY&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXTUT-jMttc

Hobo...too bad you can't see these youtube links...they are hilarious.

'sokay, Hoggie. Every now and then I go over to my Dad's house and watch them there. He has RoadRunner. Next time I go, I'll take him a pair of speakers! :eek:

Oh, but thanks for a few words to explain your postion. Kept me from going OFF on ya!

And, don't count on the sweater tactic. I guess she's about a B. Nothing to cry about, but probably not enough to sway too many votes!

[golfhobo]

Twilight Flyer said:

I only caught bits and pieces and neither candidate impressed me. Biden and Palin were far better.

Well, certainly more entertaining!.... wink, click, there ya go, JOE!

The election is far from over, too, and there is not much of a gap between Obama and McCain.

You think so? Obama has like 269 electoral votes in the bank, and leads in, I think, 4 or 5 battleground states by about 4 to 5% (or at least within the margin of error.) And, IIRC, that's even GIVING Florida to McCain.... which is NOT a given. Sure.... there is still a month to go. But, most analysts are calling it already unless something drastic happens.

I still say that without Palin, McCain would have been annihilated on election day. The fact that it's still close, tells me that Palin did indeed resurrect McCain's chances. Whether it will be enough to give him the White House, remains to be seen.

Gee, I don't remember you saying that, but I give you credit for your accumen. No doubt Palin was chosen (as I said,) JUST as a way to sway votes from both independents and conservatives who were drifting the other way...(and women, of course)... with NO consideration to her abilities to fill the job, or to step in if needed.

But you know, there's a small part of me that hopes Obama wins the election. It'll be nice to say "I told you so" a few months into '09.

Cynical are we? And what makes you think some couldn't say the same thing at the same time if McCain wins? But, more to the point... what will America be saying 4 years in? A question lost in all the debates lately is "are you better off today than you were in 2000?" I doubt many can claim they are (with the possible exception of Sarah Palin.)

I don't know of any O/O's who can. Or any trucking companies who can. Or many Bank employees who can. And the list goes on.

But, this is not really a thread about the election. I just want to hear from someone who thinks McCain WON the "townhall" debate he has been crying for. And that it somehow built on the performance of sweet Sarah last Thursday. I want to hear how the Straight Talk (bumbling) Express is going to steamroll their way into the White House, especially on the shoulder (pads) of Palin.... as was promised by so many here a few weeks ago.

[Twilight Flyer]

Well, certainly more entertaining!.... wink, click, there ya go, JOE!

Whatever trips your trigger. I watched the Palin/Biden debate and came away with the following:

1. I trust Biden more than I trust McCain or Obama
2. I trust Palin more than I trust any of the other three.
3. Palin and Biden were both infinitely more likeable and reachable than either McCain or Obama.
4. Biden and Palin should both dump their running mates and run a Biden/Palin ticket. I believe they'd win hands down because McCain Republicans that detest Obama can tolerate Biden and Obama democrats that detest McCain can tolerate Palin. And yes, that's a ticket I could get behind very easily, even with Biden at the POTUS.

After careful consideration and watching a replay of their debate, I called it a draw. I thought Biden edged Palin out on knowledge, but I gave the edge to Palin on presentability. She clearly had Biden against the ropes a couple of times and she maintained or composure throughout the whole thing.

You think so? Obama has like 269 electoral votes in the bank

Provide proof please. But let me help you out...no one has any electoral votes in the bank yet and all Rove was doing was postulating on what he thought was happening. He very well may be right, but that won't bear out until November.

and leads in, I think, 4 or 5 battleground states by about 4 to 5% (or at least within the margin of error.) And, IIRC, that's even GIVING Florida to McCain.... which is NOT a given. Sure.... there is still a month to go. But, most analysts are calling it already unless something drastic happens.

Most of the analysts that are calling it for Obama have a vested interest in him winning and are hoping that it will deter McCain supporters from voting. How about this. When the final numbers come out, that's what I'll believe.

Gee, I don't remember you saying that, but I give you credit for your accumen.

Point out to me where I said McCain was going to win before Palin was chosen. Find a post where I said I was voting for McCain before Palin was chosen. I'll save you the trouble. You can't.

Until Palin was chosen, I was undecided. Obama will never ever get my vote, period. He's a slick talking sleazebag that stands against just about everything I believe in. So that was always a given that I would vote for anyone but Obama. However, my thoughts on McCain for the entire time was that he was given to us by the democrats who didn't want to see Romney or Gulianni on the ticket. True or not, the fact is that McCain isn't the strongest candidate that the Republicans could front and I believe fully that when McCain won it, he was going to be the sacrafial lamb for the Republicans getting back the White House in '12, which will certainly happen if Obama wins. But then something happened that people on both sides of the political fence didn't expect. McCain started picking up support and gaining strength. Instead of being written off, strategists went to work and adding Palin to the ticket was a stroke of genius. Adding Palin to the ticket was what got my vote. Why? Because she's not a Washington insider and she's more like you and me than anyone else put out there for us to vote for.

Is she lacking in some areas? Of course...she's not part of the Washington elite. She's a mayor turned governer with more executive experience than the other 3 candidates combined, but lacking the national and international knowledge to be an immediate shining star on stage. But I'm fine with that. She's running as VP and not as POTUS, but if McCain were to win and then die in office, I'd be fine with Palin as POTUS because that's what a cabinet is for.

But that's neither here nor there. What's happening here is you're trying to claim I said something I didn't, which is apparently par for the course for liberals these days.

Look. The election is a month away. Obama hasn't survived anything yet and he hasn't been hit with any of the big bombs yet, from McCain or the Clintons. He's going to take some nasty hits in the next few weeks and McCain won't. The reason for that is McCain's dirty laundry has long been out on the table, hashed and rehashed ad nauseum. With Obama, however, we're getting new things about his sleazy background every day and it's going to whittle away his support. Will it be enough to get McCain in the White House? I hope so. I do know this...he wouldn't even be an afterthought if he hadn't brought Palin onto the ticket.

Cynical are we?

Yes, I am. McCain and Obama both have a real chance of winning the election. If Obama wins, I already know what that's going to mean for our country. And yes, I'll take perverse satisfaction in saying "I told you so" to a hell of a lot of people and I make no apologies for it. You get what you vote for and it'll be a rude awakening for a lot of liberals and probably long overdue coming.

And what makes you think some couldn't say the same thing at the same time if McCain wins?

I am far more comfortable with what McCain is bringing to the table that Obama. But I'm not a socialist, either. :rolleyes:

[marylandkw]

I watched it and listened to it again this morning on the satalite radio. Complete and total bore. Most all polls are saying Obama Won but I don't see as there was a clear winner or looser.

[Colin]

They haven't pulled out the big guns yet.
Wait until the last week....Palin will wear a tight sweater with no bra...
and the race will be over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRCBsFaUz_Y&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiFm8cpzoiw&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtJkTAS2z6Y&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02zpXmFEUaY&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXTUT-jMttc

Hobo...too bad you can't see these youtube links...they are hilarious.

I didn't find those funny at all. I guess I suck...

[Roadhog]

I didn't find those funny at all. I guess I suck...

I forgive you, for I'm sure I laughed hard enough for both of us. (nod--wink--eh?)
But I am Joe six pack, and I'm easily amused, by golly geez, doncha know..eh?
Boobage, and hockey, ummm things that America wants, John S. McCain he's a hero, Alaska...great State that Alaska...energy... and good-good people.

I really don't know whats wrong with Hobo. I think the choice is clear. Boobage. Now if you wanna cry about the size of Boobage, then that is sad really. I fear for Hobo if McCain is elected. I'm really concerned...but one might think Boobage would sooth and comfort those who can't cope with what is clearly a McCain victory.

McCain blew Obama away in that debate. He circled around that stage like a wolf studying his prey, and waited for the right moment to attack. Obama sat on a chair limp and unassuming like a dumb energizer bunny mouthing change-tax, change-tax, change-tax.....and you know Obama was thinking about Palins boobage.

[ironeagle_2006]

With the more I hear about ACORN WHICH YOUR MESSIAH GHOBO OBAMA was an Atty for in Chicago along with Ayers gave them MILLIONS of bucks from a board that Ayers created Obama was the head of for years the more I am glad that the fraud that ACORN is being exposed and being ivestigated that Obama is being EXPOSED for the FRAUD AND THUG AND YES HE IS NOTHING BUT A CHICAGO THUG POLITICAN GOLFHOBO. He worked with a group that threatened to KIDNAP BANKERS FAMILIES AKA ACORN IF THEY WOULD NOT OPEN UP THEIR LENDING STANDARDS THEN ALSO TOOK THEM TO COURT TO MAKE THEM OPEN UP MORE AFTER THEY WERE FORCED VIA CORERCION TO DO THAT ALREADY.

[Rev.Vassago]

I just want to hear from someone who thinks McCain WON the "townhall" debate he has been crying for.

No offense, golfhobo, but you are doing a hell of a job representing everything that is wrong with politics today, and you have been for quite some time now. Your "if you're not with me, you're against me" attitude is what is dividing this country down the middle, and is what causes things like your alleged "stolen election" of 2000. Rather than actually discussing real issues, it appears as if you'd sooner discuss why "your guy" beat "the other guy".

Who cares who won the debate? Does who the talking heads found to be more likable during a debate solve any of the crisis that we find ourselves in today?

I'd like to see you actually discuss the issues of the debate, rather than parrot what the talking heads said in the recaps about who won what. I'm not holding my breath that you are capable of doing it, however.

[golfhobo]

No offense, golfhobo, but you are doing a hell of a job representing everything that is wrong with politics today, and you have been for quite some time now. Your "if you're not with me, you're against me" attitude is what is dividing this country down the middle, and is what causes things like your alleged "stolen election" of 2000. Rather than actually discussing real issues, it appears as if you'd sooner discuss why "your guy" beat "the other guy".

Who cares who won the debate? Does who the talking heads found to be more likable during a debate solve any of the crisis that we find ourselves in today?

I'd like to see you actually discuss the issues of the debate, rather than parrot what the talking heads said in the recaps about who won what. I'm not holding my breath that you are capable of doing it, however.

No offense taken, Rev. I guess you didn't understand the title of the thread.

If I wanted to discuss the issues, I'd have titled it "debate the issues."

I have, actually, thought about that, but I'm not sure it would do any good. No one here is going to change their minds probably. I just remembered all the "whooping it up" a few weeks ago when Palin was selected, and how everyone was so sure that Obama was toast. Thought I might see if they all still felt that way. I just found it interesting that no one was saying anything about Tuesday's debate.

I think you're giving me way too much credit for the situation in our country today. Personally, I don't feel that I have a "with me or against me" attitude. That is a Conservative mantra. Ann Coulter is the queen of it.

"I" am not the one who comes on here with all the hate about the other side's candidate. Obama has been skewered on this board nearly on a daily basis. So has anyone who supports him or doesn't join in the hate.

Prolifers have called anyone who believes in choice a murderer. ProWar opinions paint anyone who is against it as a coward or traitor. Capitalists have called anyone who thinks the middle class is being exploited or at least abused a liberal pinko socialist or worse. The list goes on.

Sure, I have said some derogatory things about Conservatives here. But, I have never called them anti-American. I have never said they should be shot for holding the opinions they have. (Well, maybe Dubya...in jest.) Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, as well as Coulter, are the ones saying "with us or against us," and it seems to have infected many here.

I am only trying to say that we have a RIGHT to disagree with their oppressive and dogmatic views that this is somehow THEIR country and it should be run THEIR way. It is, in fact, THEIR rhetoric that has divided the country to the point it is. I have said many times that I hold certain conservative views, but when I feel my party is being labeled as anti-American, I fight back by attacking this agenda of domination.

To be honest, it really surprises me that this country IS so evenly split. Figure the odds of that. But, I believe our "representative" form of government is mostly to blame...not ME. Not saying we could have done differently, but what we've been doing doesn't seem to work too well.

I know it wouldn't work in this country, but I would love to see something more like a government by committee (a form of politbureau if you will.) Can you imagine a "co presidency" headed by the top choice of BOTH parties? Might things be more fair in this country if two guys (or gals) had to sit down and hash out an agenda that would satisfy us all? Or maybe it would just be easier if Presidents didn't feel the need to advance their OWN agenda over the objection of nearly half the citizens.

You want an issue? How about this one. Why is it even the power or responsibility of a President.... beholding to a party and an agenda..... to appoint the justices to the Supreme Court? How can that so-called "equal" branch of the government be impartial under such a selection process? If I'm not mistaken, MOST lower court judges have to run for and win an election. But, somewhere up the line, their decisions are subject to the "opinions" of politically appointed justices.

[Windwalker]

You want an issue? How about this one. Why is it even the power or responsibility of a President.... beholding to a party and an agenda..... to appoint the justices to the Supreme Court? How can that so-called "equal" branch of the government be impartial under such a selection process? If I'm not mistaken, MOST lower court judges have to run for and win an election. But, somewhere up the line, their decisions are subject to the "opinions" of politically appointed justices.

And, if you think of the logic of it, it frees them up from worrying about re-elections. They are appointed, so they do not have to worry about popular opinion when they hand down their decisions. They can work strictly off the issues as they see them, and look at the evidence objectively. But, it also leaves you with no recourse if their decisions are erronious. There's good and bad either way. Our founding fathers thought this was the best way to do it, and that's what we're stuck with, like it or not.

Windwalker

P. S. You are invited to put your two cents in on my thread as well. That should be a very good discussion.:rolleyes:

[golfhobo]

And, if you think of the logic of it, it frees them up from worrying about re-elections. They are appointed, so they do not have to worry about popular opinion when they hand down their decisions. They can work strictly off the issues as they see them, and look at the evidence objectively. But, it also leaves you with no recourse if their decisions are erronious. There's good and bad either way. Our founding fathers thought this was the best way to do it, and that's what we're stuck with, like it or not.

Windwalker

P. S. You are invited to put your two cents in on my thread as well. That should be a very good discussion.:rolleyes:

Okay, that is a good point.... freedom from the electoral process and all the baggage that goes with THAT! But, they are still confirmed by Congress, and "they" ARE subject to re-election. It's a vicious cycle.

Our country has long since lost the feeling of standing up for what one believes and winning or losing on one's own merits. I will say, to their credit, that most Supreme Court candidates DO stand in the box under their own merits and accept their fate accordingly. But, there is just no process whereby a justice would be there UNLESS he conforms to SOME degree to the agenda of the sitting president.

Our forefathers ALSO felt that a representative form of government was best, and that the electoral college would CLEARLY discern that. But, all of THAT has been corrupted, too!

I'm in no way dissing our forefathers. I think they did a remarkable job under the circumstances. But, never forget that they also said that the Constitution should be a "living document," one that could change as the country grew. And, of course.... it has, through ammendments.

They can work strictly off the issues as they see them, and look at the evidence objectively.

I wish it were true. But, most recent cases have been decided by numbers that clearly represent their political views, or those of the president who appointed them. Surely, you haven't missed all the discussion about when and how many might be appointed under which administration? There is clearly a national concern over this.

Here's another of Hobo's wacky ideas..... instead of having an ODD number of justices, where a majority vote is at least "easier" to come up with, how about an EVEN number? Rationale behind that would be similar to the committee reference above. "Assuming" that they were impartial, or at least evenly distributed between the two parties, in order to make ANY decision, more than likely someone would have to be persuaded to vote their conscience, or to vote for the common good. Probably wouldn't work..... it's just an idea I've toyed with.

[Rev.Vassago]

If I wanted to discuss the issues, I'd have titled it "debate the issues."

But you're not even debating the debate. You're debating the debaters.

I think you're giving me way too much credit for the situation in our country today. Personally, I don't feel that I have a "with me or against me" attitude. That is a Conservative mantra. Ann Coulter is the queen of it.

You have assumed (on several occasions) that because I do not like Obama, and feel he is a poor choice for a candidate for the POTUS, that McCain was "my man". You've used that exact phrase, several times. Frankly, I believe McCain is as lousy a Presidential choice as Obama is, and stand behind neither of them. So I believe I am correct in stating that you are guilty of that same "profiling" that you are pointing the finger at others for doing.

Okay, that is a good point.... freedom from the electoral process and all the baggage that goes with THAT! But, they are still confirmed by Congress, and "they" ARE subject to re-election. It's a vicious cycle.

There is a completely valid reason for that. Our forefathers did not want our representatives to be appointed for life. They saw our government as fluid, and changing hands over and over. Unfortunately, most of that has been lost over the years as those in power spent more and more money to keep themselves in power. Our forefathers are likely spinning in their graves, seeing what our Democracy has become.

Our country has long since lost the feeling of standing up for what one believes and winning or losing on one's own merits. I will say, to their credit, that most Supreme Court candidates DO stand in the box under their own merits and accept their fate accordingly. But, there is just no process whereby a justice would be there UNLESS he conforms to SOME degree to the agenda of the sitting president.

You are absolutely right. This is why SC judges are, and should be, a lifetime appointment. That way, a POTUS appoints a justice, and then another POTUS appoints another one, and so on and so forth. No one President is capable of "packing the bench".

[golfhobo]

Rev.Vassago said:

But you're not even debating the debate. You're debating the debaters.

Well.... I have barely had a chance to debate much of anything until the last few posts. If you'll note, in my opening post, I COULD have given my opinion on the debate, but I chose to just put the question out there to see what responses were offered. So far, it seems to have worked.

You have assumed (on several occasions) that because I do not like Obama, and feel he is a poor choice for a candidate for the POTUS, that McCain was "my man". You've used that exact phrase, several times. Frankly, I believe McCain is as lousy a Presidential choice as Obama is, and stand behind neither of them. So I believe I am correct in stating that you are guilty of that same "profiling" that you are pointing the finger at others for doing.

You are partially correct, Rev. I don't recall using the term you quoted concerning you, but if I did, it MAY have been before I actually got some understanding of your position. Your one or two word answers don't give one much to go on, ya know. But, I DO recall you standing up for Obama when others slammed him, IIRC. And, I'll admit... that impressed me. If I have offended you by lumping you in with others, I apologize. However, you have made posts that indicate a position somewhat opposite of mine on many political issues. Does that mean you are "against us" on all issues? No. But, I contend that it is the result of the Conservative mantra against anyone who isn't ONE of them, that has made me respond at times in the same manner. Your point, though, is taken. I will make an increased effort to isolate you from the others.

There is a completely valid reason for that. Our forefathers did not want our representatives to be appointed for life. They saw our government as fluid, and changing hands over and over. Unfortunately, most of that has been lost over the years as those in power spent more and more money to keep themselves in power. Our forefathers are likely spinning in their graves, seeing what our Democracy has become.

I certainly agree with this, and stated as much. My point to W/W was that popular opinion (AND presidential agenda) STILL had much to do with who got appointed to the Court.

You are absolutely right. This is why SC judges are, and should be, a lifetime appointment. That way, a POTUS appoints a justice, and then another POTUS appoints another one, and so on and so forth. No one President is capable of "packing the bench".

I agree with the lifetime tenure part. I believe it is the only sensible thing about it. As for "packing the bench," your point is valid, and in principle, I don't disagree. However, that doesn't change my concern about the POTUS even having anything to DO with the process. I am just saying, and wishing, that there was a more impartial way to appoint/select our top judges. Not to gratuitously slam Bush.... but, a president with such a low approval rating should have NO input into the makeup of the Supreme Court. I don't claim to have an answer to the problem. It's just an issue for debate.... though not one even related to the elections.

[Twilight Flyer]

You know, I debated for a while posting this, but after the last post, I'm laying out my cards.

This country is divided because half the country has forsaken God or morality or basic common sense and human decency. Now it's all about "if it feels good, it's A-OK." I don't nor will I ever subscribe to that tenet. So, because we don't believe in same-sex marriage or abortion or coddling criminals and murderers or propping up a nation of welfare cheats, we are automatically the problem or anti-American.

And that's bullspit.

I guarantee you...go back in history and see how and what this country was founded on and you'll see that today's liberal mindset isn't even in the same ballpark. Even if you want to keep God out of the equation, you still aren't even close.

But I don't worry about it. I continue to vote the issues and the person that most agrees with my philosophy in life. And it damn sure isn't Obama. You talk about getting angry when Obama is skewered? What has he done NOT to deserve it?!? You seem to think it's fine to take your own shots at Bush and McCain and Palin, but Lord have mercry if someone talks bad about your own personal Messiah.

Makes me sick.

I hope and pray that McCain wins in November. But if Obama wins, I won't sweat it. I'm already well prepared to deal with the fallout and I'll enjoy seeing liberals "get what's coming to them" because I promise you that it's coming and it's coming in spades. Right or wrong, that's exactly how I feel. I've grown so weary and sick of the garbage that gets spewed out every day by the liberal and far left talking heads and then have to hear it again parrotted by their followers and then told I'm stupid or intolerant because I happen to be old fashioned and practice and believe in conservative values, in this country's founding fathers visions, and in God. I don't have anything against anyone in particular that believes differently, but I'll not apologize for saying that I believe that your liberal ideology, if that is your system, is completely screwed up.

You, however, like most liberals, cannot do the same thing. You cannot seperate the mindset from the person and everyone that believes differently than you is automatically the enemy, stupid, clueless, racist, homophobic, and any other number of hate tags you can slap on us. Right there is your division and it's being led by your Messiah, Barak Obama.

[Rev.Vassago]

I agree with the lifetime tenure part. I believe it is the only sensible thing about it. As for "packing the bench," your point is valid, and in principle, I don't disagree. However, that doesn't change my concern about the POTUS even having anything to DO with the process. I am just saying, and wishing, that there was a more impartial way to appoint/select our top judges. Not to gratuitously slam Bush.... but, a president with such a low approval rating should have NO input into the makeup of the Supreme Court. I don't claim to have an answer to the problem. It's just an issue for debate.... though not one even related to the elections.

The President's picks have to make their way through Congress. The whole "checks and balances" thing at work. The only other option would be to have Congress pick the judges, and the President approve of them. Either way, he has a hand in it. That's how our government system works, and for good reason. If a President picks someone, and Congress approves of that person, then Congress is as much to blame as the President. If Congress were to be given the choice, no judges would ever get picked, let alone approved.

But if Obama wins, I won't sweat it. I'm already well prepared to deal with the fallout and I'll enjoy seeing liberals "get what's coming to them" because I promise you that it's coming and it's coming in spades.

Don't worry. It'll still be all Bush's fault, and the whole "stole the election" will never go away.

I happen to be old fashioned and practice and believe in conservative values, in this country's founding fathers visions, and in God. I don't have anything against anyone in particular that believes differently, but I'll not apologize for saying that I believe that your liberal ideology, if that is your system, is completely screwed up.

Now hold on there mister. As an Agnostic, I have to take issue with you putting that whole "not believing in God" thing on the shoulders of the liberals. That is the same stereotyping that I'm accusing golfhobo of being guilty of.

You, however, like most liberals, cannot do the same thing. You cannot seperate the mindset from the person and everyone that believes differently than you is automatically the enemy, stupid, clueless, racist, homophobic, and any other number of hate tags you can slap on us.

To be honest, it comes from both sides. You're guilty of doing it right here in your post. Just sayin'.


Rev; is so happy he no longer considers himself a Republican or a Democrat. Still voting for Ross Perot, too.