MGBY, nice responses...you show that you actually think about the opinions of others, instead of simply passing judgment on others based on their political stances...I appreciate that!



Interesting thought. From my perspective, it often appears that social conservatives do the same. Perhaps this is an area, through further exploration, the left and right can at least begin to understand each other better.



Again, look at the conservative pundits that do exactly what you speak of! MGBY, there are those who choose to engage in constructive debate, and those who choose slander and attack. I believe that the left and right contain both!



Exactly. So the question is: do we fight endlessly, or find common ground? Do we work to defeat those of differing views, or do we work toward better understanding of each side's arguments so that we solve problems together?

lOCALLYPWNED: I pondered on your current and earlier post(s). You are astute in what you had delineated, and they are tenable. To respond to your statements is not just a personal view that would be suffice nor am I striving to appease or at insult. The fact is, the truth lies within our purported "Democracy". Let me preface, to best answer you, I would like to refer you to the golds and wisdoms in the pages of Plato's Republic, that is where it holds the keys to understanding whats really going on, and why we are the way we are, and where we are today. In that light, I will say whether you are to the left, to the right, Democrat, Republican, independent, liberal or conservative, what have you in what ever labels thats PC or not, everyone is culpable. Everyone is guilty in this infighting thats tearing this fabric of Democracy apart. There are no easy answer as to what the solution is. Since all people wealthy or impoverished are subjugated by "unlimited desire", the root of all trouble(Plato) that leads to corruption. After all, we are but a prisoner of desire in this democratic state of our creation. To find a common ground and to reach a common understanding is most desirable of goal. However, In the real sense, how the real world works, it is not alway an easily attainable state. As we know, Plato respected" democracy as the fairest, the most beautiful of constitution". With democracy's inherent principle being the most desired by many, that is to say in democracy all desires are equally good and anything goes. Inevitably,desires of some will interfere with desires and acquisitions of others. Ultimately, democracy will become undisciplined and chaotic. In the end, desires of the populace is for law and order in which will give rise to tyranny. In desiring for law and order, power to be are instated per our desire, this is where we have arrived at the state of oligarchy. And, presently, we have a classic case of oligarchy, thats totally out of control. Lord Acton said: "power tend to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". What a fine mess we got ourself in. Who is willing to give an inch for the good of them all?? Why can't we all get along?? Take care. Warmly. YOYO.

Wow, have we gotten off track... the question (Poll) "Is Hillary going to be the next president" scares me as a question. I would assume that if she is on the ticket, yes, she will be our next president. Nobody voted for Bill, yet he won the seat. Bush did not win, but he also got the seat. Time has passed and the Clintons progress in their wisdom. This scares the beegeebees out of me.

I did not answer the poll... as it was not really a yes or no question (yet). If she is on the ballot, the answer is and will be.... yes. Learn to live with it now folks.

I was surprised at the heavy print, Maxadoo.I had to clean my coke bottle lenses.(LOL)
I cannot agree with your statement,( Learn to live with it now ,folks)because this only breeds
complacency,in my opinion.However I respect your opinion.We have got too many people in
my country with the same casual attitude.I take a lot of interest in your great country,but I
fear, unless you want to continue on the slippery slide, which you are now on,taking into account
the last few Presidents you have had, it's time for everybody to make their voices heard,and
make sure your vote counts.

DSTM.

Maxadoo: Now , why do you feel that angry and hateful, and full of contempt??? Having passion from your heart on a issue is fine, but no need for insult. Neverthless, one day your will wake up and realize freedom is not free & the wrong person has been leading you down the wrong path and destroying this country(it is Hillary and fascism)!!!! This country needs your support or will parish. Furthermore, you are not without intellect, but you have being given the wrong information. Nothing wrong in who or what you want to identify yourself with, but be sure you do yourself justice by identifying with the correct influence and the correct information. By the way: FYI- Democrat has left you long time ago!!!! Think about it!!! Take care yourself. Be Good. YOYO.

Hillary already had her term while Bill was off with Monica.

Great point! Billary

The term "fascist" hardly applies here. When used in this way, the word has no real meaning anymore; it's just emotion-based hyperbole. It's used by people when they want to besmirch a politician to the fullest, yet make no useful comment while doing it (ie convey any real opinion, support for that opinion, data, information, comparisons, ect). I am sure we have all been guilty of this; whether in jokes, in anger, ect. But it doesn’t contribute to earnest conversation or debate.

Now let’s see why. Let’s play the game. Ok, let’s begin a lovely conversation with the assertion that the Clintons…are…fascists. I will even use bold, because it just makes it so much more clear! They are fascists, I tells ya!

But what exactly makes them fascists? How do you define “fascist” in this context? Many who would gladly support the emotion-charged idea that the “Clintons are fascists” would also claim that Bush is nothing but a good, moral, g(G)od-fearing Christian doing everything in his power to better our country. Right? No Clinton-esque fascism there, agreed? Hmm, let's see. Secret wire taps without warrants, holding prisoners indefinitely without charge or trial, secret military tribunals, invading and occupying countries in the name of our own security...that all sounds suspiciously like fascism to me. Though I am willing to bet that the relentless Bush-supporter would never in his/her wildest dreams consider the policies above to be fascist in nature.

In a nutshell, distaste for one politician makes him/her a “fascist,” no matter what he/she actually does. Hero-worship of another politician makes him/her a saint, no matter what he/she actually does.

That’s faith-based democracy for you. It’s not about measurable facts or observable evidence, it's not about cause and effect; it’s about support and belief in “your guy” through “thick and thin.” It’s like faith in a driver no matter if he’s driving responsibly, driving drunk, driving straight into a chestnut tree while laughing maniacally…support your driver, dag nabbit!

That kind of faith might work for your personal or religious beliefs. And when it comes to your own beliefs, I say “what ever floats your boat,” live and let live. But when it comes to politics and interaction in the real world, if you are taking the rest of us with you into your chestnut tree, there’s bound to be some resistance. But no doubt, you’ll comfort yourself, the resistance will come only from “fascists.”



Now back to the word “fascist” itself. As we all know, it's not as though any western politician today, no matter how much you hate him/her, is even close to the vileness of the fascists of the past. I think we throw words like "fascist" around too easily these days. It's just hyperbole at this point.


By the way, Hillary is but one democratic senator from New York. We've had a Republican house, senate, and administration for the last 6 years. Who's led us here? Conservatives need to take responsibility, too. But then, I imagine it would be hard to admit you are wrong, especially if your support for a politician is based on emotion, ideology and religious belief rather than an empirical assessment of his/her platform and qualifications when casting your vote.

Fortunately for me, my religious beliefs and emotions coincide with the party platform that I support.
I'm a conservative republican. Not Uber-conservative, but not borderline either. I stay in the middle.

Lets bump a older topic since a lot of talk has been going on about hillary lately.

Does anyone think she has a chance with the femnists and whatever?

One of the things that scares me is the large number of women voters that are willing to vote for her just because she is a woman. I'm all for a qualified candidate not matter what sex or race they are, but Hillary Clinton would be a major mistake, and it saddens me to see that she is the best that the Democrats have to show so far. I suspect that Hillary needs to keep notes in order to keep track of which way her support is on each topic each day as she obviously uses her woman's' prerogative to change her mind.

One day a Marine guard stationed in front of the White House was approached by an elderly man who asked "is President Hillary Clinton in residence today"? The guard patiently explained that Mrs. Clinton is not the President.

The same gentleman approached the same guard the following day and asked the same question, and the guard replied again the Mrs. Clinton is not the President.

The same gentleman approached the same guard and once again asked the same question, the guard explained "sir, I have told you twice that Mrs. Clinton is not the president, why do you keep asking me this question"? The gentleman explained "I just like hearing you say that she is not the President".

I thought it was The President and Mr. Clinton

The first time that I heard Bill Clinton speak in a debate my impression was that he had the personality of a used car salesman. But with all things considered he wasn't that bad as Presidents go, I don't believe anyone will argue that he did a better job than the joke that is currently in office. Here's a President that vetoed a bill on stem cell research on his religious beliefs and has once again blocked research that could provide cures for some of the major diseases effecting people today.

There are those that will argue that Dick Cheney's hand is permanently stained brown from playing puppet master with Bush, but I have to disagree with oldfart regarding Hillary's influence over her husbands political actions.

As you can guess, I dont like Bill or Hillary, or Bush 2 for that matter.

Please don't post intentionally misleading statements. He vetoed a bill on embryonic stem cell research. Very much different. He pushed through funding for other forms of stem cell research.

Oh, and shame on him for doing what he believes and thinks is right, and what is in line with his political party.....SHAME!!!

Show me from other countries that allow embryonic stem cell research cases where cures have been found for diseases.

I will wait patiently.

I believe that there are a lot of people who will vote for her simply because she is a woman,

and not because of what political party she is, or what she stands for on issues, etc.

And,

there are some who would argue that President Clinton's actions while in office are the main reason that President Bush has been placed in the situations that he has regarding world affairs. Would Hillary take us back, leaving an even worse scenario for the following leaders?

I think she will get more votes than people realize,simply because she was wronged by a wandering Husband,and a lot of women voters will take this into account on voting day.
From what I have seen on TV and Documentries about Hillary Clinton,although a very nice person,She wouldn't be able to cut the Mustard as they say,as President.
I think Bill Clinton as President was far better than the foot in mouth one you have now.
He showed he was human with M.L. and most men would have done the same.Problem is he got sprung.
In Public Office these scandals are not supposed to happen.

I would highly disagree with that. A real man most certainly would not have done the same thing. It shows cowardice at the very least.

I didn't say all.I said most. Most men stop thinking with their Brain,if put in the same position.
Very few Men have the will power to resist such a temptation. I have resisted temptation while Married,
because I value my marriage more than what's on offer.

I understand, but I still disagree that most men would. With Mr. Clinton, this was a serious problem that he had even before his presidency.

When I read your posts 'Jwinathome' on this subject,the word 'Naive'springs to mind.

While I appreciate your opinion. I am a man, and an American, and keep up with politics, and feel I have a valid opinion on the point you made. I would be interested to see how many people honestly think that "most men" would have done the same thing.

I guess I should add that I am also married.

Another question is do women make good leader? Women are very emotional while men are more in control of the emotions.

In my opinion,there has been some Excellent Women Prime ministers.If they do the job given to them properly,why not a woman. Many huge Companies now employ women CEO'S because they are the best candidates for the Head Position.
I would put my trust in a women leader as much as I would a man.Just not Hillary Clinton,if I were American.
You may be surprised how many women are climbing the Corporate ladder,and one Day may Run for President or Prime Minister. Here's a link to how Women are getting more powerful in our Society.
Emotion can be a plus in Government,as I think Women understand more than Men,on a lot of issues.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/mos...list/index.html

I have to agree that emotion can be an asset in government. On what governmental issue(s) would you say women understand more than men?

There was nothing misleading about my statement, and it most certainly wasn't intentionally misleading, that is you own interpretation. The point of my statement was that Bush based his decision on his religious beliefs rather than the belief of the international scientific community. Those that have been keeping up with this know that Bush compromised his personal beliefs by allowing funding for somatic stem cell research. If he had his way I suspect that he wouldn't allow stem cell research of any form.

And you are darn straight...shame on him for doing what he thinks is right. If you do a little reading you are going to find that his own party is split over this decision. Embryonic stem cell research holds the best hope for finding cures in the next decade for diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and others.

At this stage of in embryonic stem cell research no one has cured anything, it's too early, but the potential is definitely being recognized. You might be interested in reading this article. The European scientific community has the same interest in embryonic stem cell research as the U.S., the difference is not in the talent being thrown at this project, it's funding. Funding is one of the things that the U.S. does better than any place in the world on this level, and because of Bush's veto it effects the whole international effort.

I am keeping up with it. Regardless...you should specify the difference. There is a reason why private investors have absolutely zero interest in embryonic, because it has produced nothing, and will produce nothing.

That is a completely unjustified comment. Its a matter of pure speculation and opinion.
I don't mean to be rude, but allow me to point out the fault in your logic....What you are saying here is..."He should not do what he believes, he should do what someone else believes."
He is under no obligation to do anything the "international science community" fantasizes about.

How do you know he compromised his beliefs by funding stem cell research?

You and I are not going to come to an agreement, you are obviously biased and are trying to place a spin on what I have said and are trying to support it with unsubstantiated statements.

You are right about the private sector as far as it goes, they will not support the research because there isn't any money in that end of it for them.

As for the protracted results of the research being speculation, that's true too, but that's what most research is based on. I can't see the interest being generated in this area without something driving that interest, especially as this is on an international level.

The thought of any leader of any nation being dictated to by the scientific community is ludicrous, however, not listening to the scientific community or tempering their decision on their findings and then basing their decision purely on their own religious beliefs is outrageous.

The thing is dc3...the "scientific community" does not ONLY contain people that endorse embryonic stem cell research. Some people have opposing views. There are actually scientists out there that know it is not worth pursuing, and money and time would be much better suited on proven sources of cures. Its not only religious people that feel that way.

This issue is simply a politically expedient issue for fear-mongering politicians. I mean, look at the extent they are willing to go to in order to appeal to the emotional side of people....the Michael J. Fox commercial.

The bottom line though is how you feel about human life, and at what point you believe a human life is...well...a human life. You have your beliefs, and the president has his, and I have mine.

Exactly what evidence from the "scientific community" has been found that the president is ignoring?

I will reiterate one last time, you are making unsubstantiated statements. How about backing up some of you statements with facts. What evidence do you have that this research is not going to be productive?

It's a serious lack of self-control when a man can't say no to a woman in my opinion. As I always say "I've got the power of the magic word, 'no'". . Works wonders with a strong personal resolution, which some men apparantly lack, or they just want sex. Hmm, maybe that's the problem: too many people wanting sex .

And as far as Hillary, I didn't like Clinton and I certainly won't like his counterpart.


I disagree, emotion has no place in things like businesses and especially not in places of government. Emotions lead to ill thought out decisions. Decisions in businesses and governments should be made with logic. That's also why I wouldn't vote for a woman without knowing a LOT more about them.

Sure men aren't perfect and we can sometimes be ruled by our emotions, but generally men are more logical when it comes to decision making. It's just where does that logic come from that's in question: was the logic based for the decision intended for the good of the decision maker, or the good of the people under the decision maker? Many politicians make decisions solely to benefit themselves, but those decisions are usually quite logical for their intended purpose.

I mean no disrespect to any woman, I just prefer decisions based from men.

I personally can not stand either of the Clintons. And any woman who might be elected President is in for a big surprise as far as the middle east goes. Over there women are considered property, more or less, and only men have any power. They don't care if she is the President, they will have no respect for her or the nation that elected her.

I respect your Opinion,but disagree.What does it matter a Rats what the Middle East thinks? Our Countries are there uninvited,and do you think for one moment they have one ounce of respect for us,when we invade their Countries.Doesn't matter if our leaders are Male or Female,they hate us with a passion.
If a woman President runs the Country properly,isn't that more important than being worried what a Middle East Country thinks? Western Nations respect a Strong Women leader,and that's all that matters.
If for example Russia invaded New York,and declared Marshall Law.My guess you wouldn't have any respect for the Russians whatsoever,whether their Leader is Male or Female,either.

We didn't invite the terrorists to come on 9/11.

Whats your point?

Iraq didn't invite us over there. Why do you suppose our international reputation is as low as a snake's belly?

Hmm...

one could argue that Saddam Hussein, tbrough his actions, did, indeed, "invite" us there.


He didn't think we "Clinton paper tigers" would accept that invitation, just as Osama bin Laden didn't think we would react as we have to him.

Personally, I don't care about international reputation. I care about doing what's right. Iraq may not have invited us, but Saddam gave plenty of reason for action.

What did Saddam do to invite us there? Or what reasons did he give for action? Tyrranical rule? Yeah, he is by far the most offensive in the world for that *sarcasm*!

Of course, one could argue that tyrrany is announcing that the foundation of a nation's ideology and autonomy is "...just a God#@&^ piece of paper!" Or, war profiteering (Halliburton, Carlyle Group). Or dismissing the will of the majority in a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC!

The so-called 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, why didn't we go there? Oh yeah, Bush is in their pocket!

His "invite" came in the form of UN Sanction violations and firing on aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone among other things.

I guess your copy of the invite got lost in the mail.

Well, I have been moving around a lot!

How much of the UN is with us now? UN Sanction violations are against the UN, not solely the US. I fail to see how these actions provocated open war between us and Iraq?

This whole tragedy is a case of war profiteering and Lil Bush finishing what Senior started.

The US is part of the UN.

The UN is the most worthless organization ever established.

Well I'll be darned, just when I was beginning to think that you and I would never agree on anything.

Haha!!

I'm glad we could find some common ground.

Yes, this I know.

But for what reason, I could never say. It is an organization of complete impotence.

The problem with the UN is that they can't agree enough to get anything done.

Not to mention stealing money that was meant to feed children.

I am almost agreeing with someone, too -



for something that is so worthless,

it sure is costing us all a lot of money!

I say get the UN out of the US. And the US out of the UN.
They are corrupt, on many different levels.
Why we still are connected to them, I'll never know.

Dang, it says I allready voted. But I wanted to vote again.