The Conservative and Republican Thread

College Confidential Community
41

<p>Pixie, why is having an emotional side bad when thinking of policies? I mean, it seems as if the liberals are the ones who understand the world's problems instead of wanting to shelter themselves in their own countries and let the rest of the world deal with whats going on. That would be an emotional thing, not just using one's head.</p>

<p>I also forgot to add in response to Bigjake's UN argument that the UN recently declared the situation in the Darfur region of Sudan to be one of "ethnic cleansing." By the Geneva Convention, it is mandated that the 5 leading powers of the world at that time must go and help that country in need. The US blatantly ignorned this warning as they were to busy with Iraq and Afghanistan to help a country that really needs our support.</p>

42

<p>C) Bigjake587, you demonstrate all that I hate about conservatives. The only thing they are concerned about is money. You believe that money, somehow, solves all of the world's problems. The crux of your argument is such that a poor person can get a job by going to community college and get paid roughly 30-40,000 dollars a year and that in return, they will lead happy lives. WRONG!! It is the goal and necesity of every society to help other members of the same society. That cannot be argued. By saying that the government shouldn't be allowed to help others is ignorant beyond belief.
D) Allena, you ask why we should be disturbed by the figures that come out from war. Yes, innocents die in war. However, this specific war has some special problems. The UN (although, I know Republicans don't want to believe that it actually exists or has some power in the world), has stated that no less than 50,000 innocents and up to 150,000 innocents have died in this war. With all of the United States' advanced technology, this number should be far lower. That means out intelligence is bad and as a result, innocents are dying. If you were to read the Geneva Convention, that many innocent deaths per enemy death can be considered a war crime. And you wonder why Bush and this administration don't want to join the world court?
E) If the Republicans on this thread would actually post facts instead of making sarcastic responses to posts and using them as points, it might help your argument somewhat.</p>

<p><em>~</em>~<em>~</em>~<em>~</em>~<em>~</em>~<em>~</em>~<em>~</em>~<em>~</em>~<em>~</em>~<em>~</em>~<em>~</em>~<em>~</em>~<em>~</em>~<em>~</em>~</p>

<p>Jaug: I'll just speak from my perspective
1) No money does not solve all the world's problems. FREEDOM does...and even still, freedom won't solve all the world's problems and the world can't and won't ever be perfect...but I totally believe capitalism under a democracy is the best thing we've got, even with all its flaws. As a world power, I believe it is our responsibility to promote freedom even in places where people don't want it to work or don't believe it's possible.
2) There is no such thing as as perfect war. There is no such thing as an absolutely perfect strategy. Liberals have to understand that mistakes will be made, and this global War on Terror is going to be LOONNNG and BLOODY and DIFFICULT--and sorry to say, but Afghanistan and Iraq might only be the beginning. But we STILL have to do the job, becuase by ignoring places oppressive regimes liek Saddam's Iraq, (even if they never had attacked us) will not do anything except create a bigger long term problems for us in the future. Sometimes "minding our own business" works against us in the end. 4/4 times dictators can't be trusted, no matter how many international treaties are signed etc...WHY are liberals so willing to trust bad people? I never understood that. They jsut think that by ignoring the problem or by having the UN make up some fancy diplomatic deal, all will be solved. Yeah sure diplomacy will work where it can....but many times it won't. In terms of the enemy we face today: it won't. And when DIPLOMACY can be used, the UN doesn't do cr*p! Like all Kofi Annan really did in Sudan was have press conferences and shake hands in front of cameras.
3) The World Court? Bah! All those countries don't care about torture or human rights violations---they just care about the best ways of weakening American power. EG: France and Germany weren't against going into Iraq for MORAL reasons---they were worried about their billions of dollars worth of oil deals with Saddam Hussein and they don't want to see the USA gain anything from it either. </p>

<p>No, the United States record in handling prisoners isn't perfect---but how can you say corrupt International Organizations have any authority over us at all either? Why do you put halos on them? </p>

<p>When the whole Abu Ghraib happened, the rest of the world JUMPED up and down in cheers, becuase they were able to say "Finally! We got some beef on America" instead of having hope in liberty and making a free Iraq work. Goodness, why didn't the 10times worse types of torture used by Saddam and by fighters in hundreds of other places aroudn the world get any media attention? </p>

<p>Nobody seemed to focus on the fact that Afghan elections went off pretty smoothly too. The progress of these places gets barely any publicity of course.</p>

<p>The USA needs to worry about the best ways of getting intelligence and information out of the terrorists we capture, and further our goals in the War on Terror. Yes, in the most ethical ways possible. People don't realize that a whole bunch of the terrorists we've captured weren't even in places we did any military action. We've used lots of intelligence sources and other means to track down people living all over the world and have been able to quietly arrest them. </p>

<p>This is the difference between the United States and much of the rest of the world right now: The US doesn't liek failure, while the rest of the world doesn't mind it as long as a maze of diplomatic courses were taken and the US didn't get any gain from it.</p>

43

<p>Don't give me that....The USA, although it could have done more, has done more for Sudan than the UN. </p>

<p>The UN was the organization that took months to formally call what was happening a "genocide" becuase they didn't want to **** off other countries who haev trade relations with Sudan. </p>

<p>They give the benefit of the doubt to oppressive governments, and not to the individuals who suffer under them. That's the fundamental problem with teh UN.</p>

44

<p>Freedom does not solve all problems, believe me. If freedom was so wanted everywhere, why then are there insurgents? Why are Iraqis protesting everyday in the streets for us to leave? Just because US citizens have been indoctrinated to think that absolute freedom is the world's best solution, doesn't mean that it is. In certain parts of the globe, it may not be the best response because they do not trust it (and I cannot blame them). </p>

<p>The US has done absolutely nothing for Sudan except continue illegal oil trades with them while the situation there has become genocide. The Darfur region is a place that truly could use US intervention and many people in the world would support it. But we don't because we have already extended the military to too many places in the world as it is.</p>

<p>The World Court is not just a place to bash the United States. They try members of all countries in order to help root out evil and human rights violations. The US does not want to join it because if they did, the country could be indicted on hundreds of thousands of counts of human rights violations. Look at Guantanamo Bay as one example.</p>

<p>Afghan elections went off so horribly its not even funny. If you would stop watching Faux news and read something like Reuters wires or watch the BBC, you would have heard hundreds of stories of voter fraud and intimidation tactics that forced people to vote for Hamid Karzai, a former top Chevron Corporation executive and ally to US oil interests. </p>

<p>How did the UN ever give the benefit of the doubt to oppressive regimes? You did know that the US originally sponsored Osama Bin Laden and his attacks in Afghanistan in the early 80's against Russia because we were in the Cold War? You also remember that the US gave weapons to Saddam Hussein because they thought he was going to restore peace and democracy to Iraq in the late 1980's? You also know that these policies occurred under two heavily conservative administrations yes? Just checking.</p>

45

<p>Good post pixie...ok Jaug, all political correctness is out now. You misread all of my posts. You're not aware of anything beyond what politically correct textbooks tell you. I said that Europe hasn't done anything in addressing INTERNATIONAL issues in the past 50 years, and you're telling me German cars?? Wow. That's my point exactly! Rather than siding with the US in addressing conflicts, Europe would rather build up the EU and make more money. </p>

<p>the US is the driving force behind the United Nations. For your information, the only other world powers today besides the US are Russia and China (please don't tell me that Germany and France are actually strong militarily). And Russia and China DON'T care about the world. China is adopting an isolationist policy "You don't bother us...we won't bother you" because it is VERY SUCCESSFULLY building up its infrastructure and addressing problems in Southeast Asia (North Korea, etc.) It's preparing itself right now. In 20 years, China will be on equal footing if not more powerful than the US because of its economic and military potential. But thats a digression from my argument...Russia, in turn, also does not care about Iraq. As Pixie pointed out, the only thing Russia cares about is checking the US. They're preoccupied with their own country and the Chechen conflict. Tell me WHEN was the last time that Russian and China...with their resources...actively contributed to UN operations on the scale that the US does annually?? These are countries that are historically and ideologically opposite to Europe. They're not interested in cooperating with Europe nor do they care about the UN. Without us, the UN is nothing. </p>

<p>And, by the way, the ONLY reason we are in Iraq and Afghanistan is for oil??? You seem to be pretty sure of that. I'm sure half the country (the smart half) will disagree with you. First off, correct me if i'm wrong, but Aghanistan has no oil...second, if we're only interested in oil, why isn't our deficit decreasing. I don't see the government raking in the millions of dollars from oil sales...and you know what i also don't see...oil prices dropping in our own country. If the US was interested in oil, don't you think oil would be available cheaply here??? I won't disagree that in the past, US actions have been economically driven and I am opposed to its frequent interference in the affairs of other countries. </p>

<p>However, we are in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are a threat to us. You talk about war crimes?? Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. The UN mandates that the top 5 powers address the issue...well Haha...we're doing that right now. And if you think that Saddam was not developing nuclear weapons or that, even if he had them, he would not have given them to terrorists to attack us, you really are a total idiot. Liberals should just rename themselves "friends of Saddam" or "US citizens for terrorists" because thats what your views hint at. You don't learn anything from history. You haven't learned that, had we cut Hitler off in his tracks back in the mid 1930s when he first started building up his military, there wouldn't have been a Holocaust or a World War II. I'm just grateful that some people in high places learned that lesson unlike you. You can hate Bush now. I bet you probably hated Ronald Reagan too. But i bet that 30-40 years from now, historians will analyze Bush's policies in retrospect and see that he was a great, courageous leader who finally took the first step in addressing a major foreign conflict. </p>

<p>I hope that Russia will join us because their fightign their own terrorists and that China will support our policy in North Korea. As long as these 3 superpowers are united, Europe can cry as much as they want. They won't matter.</p>

46

<p>I'm a Republican/Libertarian. It's actually more that I can't stand Democrats.</p>

47

<p>Jaug...i wholeheartedly agree that Darfur is a major conflict...but the US cannot address all conflicts...where is your United Nations now?? I like what pixie said. The UN has done nothing for Sudan but talked. And no European country has sent in troops. Where is your China, Russia, France, and Germany??? Everyone seems to be waiting for the US to act. Why should the US constantly take all this abuse? Sometimes, the world wants us to intefere. Other times, it hates us. We're the strongest country in the world and yet we're expected to float with the tide. Right now, we're preoccupied with the Middle East. But rest assured, we will go to Sudan just like we interfered in Liberia a few years ago. In the end, the US would be completely justified in just spitting at the rest of the world and saying "Forget you, we're tired of always doing the right thing and then being criticized for it..." But we won't do that. We'll keep sending our troops and our dollars to places of conflict while the rest of the world talks and does nothing. You and anyone who agrees with you are total hypocrites.</p>

48

<p>Alrite, jaug1, let these people be. God knows I agree with you, but these people have a right to their views without interference.</p>

<p>But while you Republicans/conservatives complain about people misjudging you, there is also a common perception about liberal-leaning people that is wrong. I would call myself a liberal on many issues. I am for the environment, I am for gun control, I am against tax cuts, as well as the national debt. I am also pro-choice. Also, ultra-right Christian conservatism scares me at times. However, I DO believe in a God. In fact, I attend religious services every week. I am not a big fan of gay marriage- I think that gay civil unions are the best compromise. I think that we should have finished off bin Laden before taking on Iraq. I was annoyed when Kerry criticised Bush for letting the British handle Iran without us- let someone else handle an issue for once. I am annoyed by PC-ness, and I have lost a lot of faith in the UN over the past few years- they are much better at fixing social issues than they are at stopping wars, although I'm not sure that's saying very much.</p>

<p>You see, we are all mixed bags. Most people (or at least a strong minority) have views that straddle across party lines. I'm just so sick of this partisan hatred. Look, both the Democrats and Republicans are good for each other, just like Pepsi and Coke. It creates competition, motivating the other side to do more to help this country. This rivalry also prevents the country from getting too liberal or too conservative. Balance is the key here.</p>

<p>If you guys want to celebrate your conservativeness, go right ahead. I'm not going to stop you, or argue on this thread, unless you guys want to, in which case bring it on. All I ask is that you guys keep in mind that the political system is not black and white (or red and blue). It's about making sure that this country comes as close to the edge of messed up-ness without actually going over the brink.</p>

<p>And one final note about Iraq and Afghanistan, we are not going to win the war against terrorism by killing militants. Its a battle that is going to have to be waged in the hearts and minds of the Muslims of the world. the only way to stop al Qaeda is to stop its most valuable income- young, fanatical men who hate the west- from ever joining in the first place.</p>

<p>P.S. I agree, it is true that Democrats argue more than Republicans, or at least the minority more than the majority. In my school's Youth In Government Club, which strives to be as nonpartisan as possible, there are about 25 Democrats and 2 Republicans.</p>

49

<p>Umm silmon...if this was just a thread where republicans came and supported each other, that'd be pretty boring. You're welcome to argue :)</p>

50

<p>Bigjake, I completely agree with your big, long post. It really makes me mad when liberals talk about the UN and about how the UN should have had more of a role in Iraq. Saddam Hussein completely ignored their mandate for years, and what did the UN do about it? Nothing! The U.S. was the only one with the guts to put its foot down. In all honesty, I think the U.N. is a joke. It's intention was a good one, but all of the countries are so interested in their own welfare that a system like this just isn't going to do much. Plus, I don't think it's right to base the way you run your country off of the way smaller, less powerful countries run theirs. We became powerful for a reason, why should we change it because some people are hypocritical. That said, I don't deny that the U.S. isn't perfect. What country is? No matter what action you take, it is always going to be disagreed with by someone else. The U.S. can't be the peace-keepers of the entire world. We must decide what actions will bring the most benefit to ourselves AND the world. It's not wrong to consider your own country's well-being when making decisions. That's why we elect our officials: to make America the best country it can be. I just get so frustrated with some of these liberal views.
On a side note, I do believe that the people must be responsible for themselves. America is a land of freedom, and the more the government interferes, the less freedom we are going to have. I know there are cases where people truly cannot find work and make a living, and these people must be helped. However, there are just as many, if not more, that cannot find work because they are too lazy or simply feel they are incapable of finding work. These are the people who are screwing over the truly unfortunate people. People can get a job at McDonalds and at last have a basic source of income and benefits. And, finally, all of you Bush haters out there, you think you are so powerful because of how loud you are, but, I hate to break it to you, you ARE the minority. Believe it or not, more people like Bush than hate him, so he must have done something right.
Anyway, silmon77, I respect your thoughts and opinions even though I don't necessarily agree with them. Of course politics aren't black and white. I am willing to be respectful towards other views as long as those people are respectful towards mine.</p>

51

<p>wow....</p>

<p>uh...as an 09'er, I am happy that Bush will be leaving his legacy right before I graduate from college. I feel safe with that. And I'm not sure why all the snipping by liberals in this thread...and don't say that it's the minority trying to battle the majority, because it was the same thing before the election, and as long as I can remember. Also, I saw one of jaug1's comments before...something to the effect of "Republicans win because they pander". Oh, please, please, please...don't. or do. Because that holier-than-thou attitude is exactly why Dems lost and will continue to lose. They can't see past their coffee and berets to look at the rest of the people in the United States.</p>

<p>and forgive me, but I'm pretty sure that Kerry was nothing but a panderer.</p>

52

<p>LoL!!! This thread is hilarious! Republicans making a thread for themselves. Yea they sure are different than Democrats.. wait.. they're basically the same ****.</p>

<p>So Bu$h wins this hard fought election. BIG DEAL. Am i the only one who wouldn't care if Osama won the presidency? Kerry and Bush are pretty much the SAME PERSON. Except Bush is slightly more stupid. I would have voted for Nader or Van Auken if i was of age, but i am happy Bush won. All marxists should be endorsing Bush. Bush has shown to be marxism's greatest asset. He is impulsive, incompetant, and a bungling idiot (much like most americans). another four years of him should do the US great harm. Hopefully the republicans will dig up some other halfwit to run when he gets out of office in 2009. A few more idiots for presidents like him and we'll have the US at its knees economically, and militarily. </p>

<p>If anything this election is excellent. As i've said a thousand times- if you can't change the course of the train, derail it and stomp on it. Only Nader could even stand a chance of changing the course of the train. Kerry would keep it on the same path its going, but Bush and leaders like him will derail it. So HAW HAW HAW to all you liberal faggots who are dissapointed because your lame ass idols Green Day told you that kerry was a better candidate. this is a big ** YOU from the south and midwest. the slack jawed yokels and the white trash, NASCAR watching hicks have prevailed over you middle class suburban twats who think Kerry is a "radical leftist," or joined the kerry bandwagon because bashing bush is the new "in" thing. **** you. Bush blows, kerry blows.** Nader is the only half respectable candidate on the ballot.*** I'd vote for bin laden over any of them, and i am willing to bet my life that Lenin's mummified body would be a better president than any of the presidents we've had since FDR.***</p>

<p>In conclusion- americans are stupid. They deserve *Bu$h.* They do not deserve to live in an even remotely stable nation but deserve to have their nation collapse around them. And thankfully, this will happen.</p>

<p>HAW HAW HAW I JUST TOOK A BIG ** ON THIS THREAD, THAT'S WHAT YOU DESERVE**</p>

53

<p>
[quote]
Freedom does not solve all problems, believe me. If freedom was so wanted everywhere, why then are there insurgents? Why are Iraqis protesting everyday in the streets for us to leave? Just because US citizens have been indoctrinated to think that absolute freedom is the world's best solution, doesn't mean that it is. In certain parts of the globe, it may not be the best response because they do not trust it (and I cannot blame them).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is because with this quintessential freedom, there are those who would abhor it as well, since it represents a threat to their own sovereign domination. The Iraqis that you cite are complaining for us to leave are either people who wish to incite massive havoc on Iraq and take power for themselves, or are being manipulated by the first-mentioned group. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The US has done absolutely nothing for Sudan except continue illegal oil trades with them while the situation there has become genocide. The Darfur region is a place that truly could use US intervention and many people in the world would support it. But we don't because we have already extended the military to too many places in the world as it is.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The failure in Sudan is a two-pronged failure. Granted, much of the world has just watched and criticized from afar -- the United States is not alone in the inaction that is taking place. The reason this inaction is occuring is because the situation will not allow us -- the Sudanese government must be ** actively ** taking steps to end this crisis, not just sitting around and laughing as they enjoy the fruits of corruption. Unfortunately, we do not have this luxury, and we must work any way we can.</p>

<p>Do not say, "Oh, you did this in Iraq, so why don't you go fix Sudan too!" -- either. Unlike Democrats, the Republicans can actually bite the bullet and carry on -- we acknowledge that some errors of strategy were made in the initial assault. But we do not regret the war. You claim human rights aggression in Sudan -- it was occuring in Iraq, too, and we have documentation of it, as well. However, unlike Hussein, we are prosecuting to the fullest extent of the law those who dare commit aggressive, over-the-limit torture methods, as we saw with the Abu Ghraib trials. </p>

<p>Do you suggest we interfere, invade Sudan, sack the government, and get ourselves into what you call "another quagmire?" You are asking us to jump into the fray when we are barely recovering from the initial assault on Iraq. Of course, logistics are of no matter, it's the passion that counts, right?</p>

<p>
[quote]
The World Court is not just a place to bash the United States. They try members of all countries in order to help root out evil and human rights violations. The US does not want to join it because if they did, the country could be indicted on hundreds of thousands of counts of human rights violations. Look at Guantanamo Bay as one example.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This goes to show what ** little ** you actually know about the International Court of Justice.</p>

<p>President - Shu Jiuyong (China)
Vice President - Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar)
* Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan)
* ** Thomas Buergenthal (United States of America) **
* Nabil Elaraby (Egypt)
* Gilbert Guillaume (France)
* Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom)
* Pieter H. Kooijmans (Netherlands)
* Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone)
* Hisashi Owada (Japan)
* Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela)
* Francisco Rezek (Brazil)
* Bruno Simma (Germany)
* Peter Tomka (Slovakia)
* Vladlen S. Vereshchetin (Russia)</p>

<p>So tell me again. We don't participate in the World Court, huh? Wow. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Afghan elections went off so horribly its not even funny. If you would stop watching Faux news and read something like Reuters wires or watch the BBC, you would have heard hundreds of stories of voter fraud and intimidation tactics that forced people to vote for Hamid Karzai, a former top Chevron Corporation executive and ally to US oil interests.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>FYI, all I ** watch ** is BBC and international news resources. And do tell me, what were Afghanistan's alternatives? Warlords that would have been as ruthless as the Taliban? Well, let's take a look.</p>

<p>First off, the allegations that he worked for ** UNOCAL ** not ** CHEVRON <a href="once%20again,%20liberals%20can't%20even%20get%20their%20own%20facts%20straight">/b</a> were presented in a piece of propagandist literature we kindly now know as ** Fahrenheit 9/11. **</p>

<p>But hey, for your sake, let's take a look at the alternatives, shall we?</p>

<p>Mohammad Mohaqiq -- accused of committing war crimes and atrocities with the Mujahedin.</p>

<p>Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai -- led a radical group of mujahedin in Pakistan who worked with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda</p>

<p>Hamyon Shah Aasifi -- Attempted to claim the "monarchial" ticket, as the "representative" of King Zahir Shah, even though the King didn't want anything to do with him.</p>

<p>The list goes on.</p>

<p>Just to address your voting fraud, as well.</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Photographic ID cards and rampant abuse of it: That was would-be warlords/dictators trying to vie the election in their favour. Cheap attempt at winning.</p></li>
<li><p>Pens running out of ink. Well, it happens. Can't expect logistics to flow so smoothly the first time.</p></li>
<li><p>Not enough ballots/poll stations closing/opening -- Karzai can't be everywhere 24/7, now can he?</p></li>
</ul>

<p>
[quote]
How did the UN ever give the benefit of the doubt to oppressive regimes? You did know that the US originally sponsored Osama Bin Laden and his attacks in Afghanistan in the early 80's against Russia because we were in the Cold War? You also remember that the US gave weapons to Saddam Hussein because they thought he was going to restore peace and democracy to Iraq in the late 1980's? You also know that these policies occurred under two heavily conservative administrations yes? Just checking.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let's see, who screwed up Iran. What was that thing called? Oh yeah. Iran Contra. Who was that under? I can't quite think of his name. Oh. Carter! What was his party affiliation? Hrmm. Republican? Nope. Democrat? Yep!</p>

54

<p>Very nice post bigjake, it it on some of the points that i have come upon as well and happen to argue with people about. And flipchick that was a nice followup, but i do believe that your statement that,
"On a side note, I do believe that the people must be responsible for themselves. America is a land of freedom, and the more the government interferes, the less freedom we are going to have. I know there are cases where people truly cannot find work and make a living, and these people must be helped. However, there are just as many, if not more, that cannot find work because they are too lazy or simply feel they are incapable of finding work. These are the people who are screwing over the truly unfortunate people. People can get a job at McDonalds and at last have a basic source of income and benefits" is inaccurate. Though i will agree that this would be good if it were true at the current minimum wage, a person cannot support themselves. It's too low. The problem pulls upon itself though if we were to raise the minimum wage because companies would have to fire more employees to keep up a steady profit, which is the purpose of a company. So without going to a system where the government runs everything, there will always be the poor who can't support themselves. If everyone would be paid the same amount of money, there would be little incentive to work harder and come out with a more improved product that would advance humanity as a whole. It's sad, but it is a fact of life.</p>

55

<p>where am i?</p>

56

<p>Nice to see Republicans still holding it down. Tlaktan...damn hate to do this...Iran-Contra was under Reagan (Republican), not Carter....that doesn't change anything. I just don't want liberals running off again on how much smarter they are than us. </p>

<p>Just to point out, in my opinion, Republican/Democratic notions really only apply to domestic issues. There is no historically Republican or Democratic policy in addressing foreign issues. Roosevelt and Truman were Democratic. Johnson was Democratic. Nixon and Bush were Republican. It might be that a lot of liberals are against Bush's foreign policy just because they don't want to betray their party. It doesn't have to be like that. You can be traditionally Democrat in the way you view social policy but still support what is going on in the Middle East.</p>

57

<p>Sorry, slip of tongue. I meant Tehran crisis, Bigjake. :P</p>

58

<p>I'm a Republican/Bush supporter!!!</p>

59

<p>Globalist, you're my hero. I love NR. Or, more often, NRO. Who exactly is the editor in chief? It's okay that you're a democrat if you're friends with an NR editor.</p>

60

<p>Sorry to be off topic like so many above, but I really just have to say that it is pathetic that liberals stoop to mindless flaming in a thread written specifically for conservative to talk among themselves. Stuff like this, along with Michael Moore's bull***** movies are why the left cannot be taken seriously as a political alternative.</p>

<p>For the record, I myself am quite liberal in mindset.</p>