You don,t seem to know what Liberalism means rambill, maybe you should stop quoting Rush Limbaugh.

I'd trust Rush a little more than Wikipedia.....

Rush - extreme conservative

Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia that anyone can change

Yeah but Rush is always high on something

Rush is a druggy and a loser, and so are his followers.

i agreed with redneck--

Cloudy, Redneck, Dog..have you guys been changing Wikipedia?

And were you high on anthing when you made the changes?

Mega-dittos,guys.(LOL)

The only thing more frightning than Rush on the radio was Rush on TV. Yes, he had a syndicated show on in the mid 90s that lasted...well, if you blinked, you missed it.

Why is conservative radio more popular than liberal radio?
Easy. Liberals are too busy to sit like sheep in front of a radio, listening to the daily indoctrination of ignorance that conservatives eat up on a daily basis.

But, if it keeps Rush off out TVs where we don't have to look at him, all the better.

I'm high on MtDew! I listen to talk radio alot, and the conservatives shout too much and give me a head ache. its like 'OMG KIDS ON DRUGS! BAD BAD BADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD! And liberal radio just drones on like the teacher did in math class. But theres no in between or middle ground for either.

I agree, cloudy, I should have said, in all fairness, we don't get Air America on a radio station here. But I've heard it over sattelite radio. Al Franken gets my vote as the most boring person on the radio, and that's including our local sports guys. I've tried reading some of Franken's books, and while he has good points here and there, he ruins his case by trying to be funny-and he's not. He survived on Saturday Night Live as long as he did(as a writer), because with a few exceptions, that show was never really funny.

I hear you, it is very perplexing, they have our country devided right down the middle. A politician who is moderate has very little chance of winning, and slim chance to change anything if he does win.

I hear you, it is very perplexing, they have our country devided right down the middle. A politician who is moderate has very little chance of winning, and slim chance to change anything if he does win.

sorry, don't know how that happened

Man, rambill, I think you're confused.

You don't like lies, half truths, rewriting history.

Say, did you vote for Bush?

Because that's what he represents!

Draft doger for president? Bush wasn't a draft dodger,
but most of the people he associates with are.

**** Cheney got out of service!
So did a lot of other Republicans!

Bush got light National Guard duty his daddy got him
so he didn't have to serve in Vietnam!

And then he slacked off in the National Guard as well!

He never saw any combat, while a lot of liberals were
in the thick of it like John Kerry!

So if you respect people than have been in combat,
like a lot of Democrats have, maybe you should\
switch allegiances!

"2/3 of the news dedicated to the latest lawsuits and criminal actions"

Hey, why is Gonzales in the news so much.
Did he break the law?

Ya THINK?

How come Bush doesn't want anyone to talk?

Because they might tell the truth?

YA THINK????

All Clinton did was get a little ***** and
lied about it.

They tried to impeach him and couldn't.

Why don't you look at all the serious crimes
the Republicans have done instead of looking
at past crimes and misdemeanors?

"TAX AND SPEND". Well, Bush certainly
has the "SPEND" part down!

Bush is like a ventriloquist dummy
and you know who has his hand up
his ass?

You guessed it, CHENEY!!!

Kerry was in the thick of it??? Two of his three wounds were from shrapnel from his own firing of an M-79 granade launcher at targets that were too close. One ok but twice stupid. His three wounds that got him an early out from Viet Nam were so serious that they required about a day and a half off duty. Then he came home and testified under oath in front of Congress, that all who served in Viet Nam were rapists and murderers. Further, Viet Nam wanted to charge Kerry with war crimes for jumping off his boat and summarily executiing a wounded V.C. Kerry said the guy was getting ready to throw a grenade, but if that is a fact, why waste the time to jump off the boat run up and shoot him in the head, why not shoot him form where you were.

I know a lot of people that spent years in college pursuing multiple degrees on student deferments, most of them were liberal anti war people were they draft dodgers too?


As for service in the National Guard, there were a hell of a lot of people that opted for the national guard instead of the Regular Army, AF, Marines or Navy. It was an option. During Viet Nam the National Guard was always full. You had a 6 year military obligation you could be drafted and do 2 years active duty, and 4 years in the active reserves or National guard, enlist for 3 years and do 3 years inactive reserves or enlist for 4 years and do 2 years inactive reserves.


Slick Willy Clinton was also a draft dodger, he didn't even serve in the National Guard, he went to Russia instead and there were a damn sight more democrats burning their draft cards than serving in Viet Nam and they were the same ones that called me a baby killer and spit at me when I came back so don't tell me how democrats respect people who served over there. They pretend to do it now because it is the popular thing to do. Remember Jane Fonda, she is a democrat and a trator.

As far as Clinton he was impeached, he just was not convicted by the senate. That was because it takes a 2/3 majority in the senate to convict and the senate voted mostly along party lines. Had there been a 2/3 Republican majority in the senate, his butt would have been in the street in a heartbeat.

I find it very depressing that most liberals cannot sustain an argument on fact and must resort to slander, unproven accusations and inuendo to try to prop up their argument.

...and freedom's a well armed lamb, Philosopher!
In the first place, of course it's always about wealth and power
- so much so, that it's pretty much already been a one world govt. for a long time; CFR, Trilateral Comm., Bildeberg Group.. Most of the world's leaders are bullied or bought by financier families/cartels - check out a 1945 book- "Empire of the City: The Jekyll & Hyde nature of the British Govt." And it's mostly the poor who do the fighting as soldiers and dying as civilians, invariably to make some super rich gangsters even richer. The poor are redundant and expendable to these people.
And no matter what you think of Chavez, he has genuine support of the poor and supports them back. He nationalised their own commodity and gives the citizens a cut - the same thing we killed
Mossedegh in Iran in '53 for - He would'nt bow down to Bush and there's too much oil there, so the U.S. tried a coup and failed -
it's all caught on video!

I disagree on several of these points. Freedom is first of all not a well armed lamb. I think that statement would require some qualification before it could hold up on its own.

Second, unless you happen to be a member of the Bilderberg Group I hardly think you are qualified to speak for what their actions might be, even though it is nice to be able to blame troubles on others.

I disagree that Chavez has the popular support of the poor people in Venezuela. What he has is primarily strong support from paid henchmen and minor support from the most uneducated and uninformed portion of the population. This is fostered by a candy coated disinformation campaign and paid with the funds from stolen oil revenues. More and more are learning of his hypocrisy though and he is losing that base.

Next he does not give back to the poor of his country any more than token measures to publicize his benevolence. His use of the money is much more for his own purposes than the provision for the people's needs. Further his seizure of the resources was in contravention to international contracts which resulted in billions of investment in the Venezuelan infrastructure by foreign oil companies. Essentially his action was breach of contract on a huge scale and amounts to theft in that respect.

As to Mossegedh bowing or not bowing to Bush in 1953 it seems you have misspoken there so I'll mostly overlook the problems with that timeline.

Finally your commentary overlooks the fact that natural resources are part of world commerce. People and countries who participate and cooperate in world commerce help with global development. Dealing with international trade with contracts that are beneficial to both parties is a reasonable way of doing business. Keeping corruption out of these contracts is something to remain vigilant about, but keeping the corruption out, or even making some measure of the level of corruption is a gargantuan task and the subject or international intrigue and war.

Philosopher -
Do you really think the subjects of empire are given deals
"beneficial to both parties"? Mossedegh was killed 'cause he
tried to nationalise his countries own rescources because the
U.S., England and France were stealing all the oil revenue.
We DON'T have the right to anyone else's rescources without their permission. That's where the bribing and bullying comes in.
Should another country take OUR rescources by force, since natural rescources are part of world commerce? Read: "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" or send me an adress to send you a copy of
"The Revolution Will Not be Televised".
These "developing" nations are always offered sh*t sandwiches
at the negotiation table; You just don't hear about it 'cause
guess who controls our media... Go to my profile, email me and I'll send you a dvd or two - I'd be curiuos to hear your feedback..

It's not just developing countries. Canada supplies the US with roughly a third of it's oil. We pay more than you do in the US for gas and diesel. I'm tired of subsidizing the shipment of our natural resources to the US. Does anyone know what happened to all that money we're supposed to get from all the softwood lumber exports to the US? What about our farmers not being able to ship grain to other countries before the US sells all theirs?
Yup, free trade was a great idea. So was NAFTA.
All Canadian politicians past and present should be tried for treason for selling out.

Gardenforge-

I'm sorry that people were so cruel and disrespectful of you and other soldiers when you came back from doing what you perceived as your service and duty. That was wrong, and the people who took their frustration and anger out on the individual soldiers instead of the people in charge were wrong.

Life is full of people who do the wrong thing because they are evil, or stupid, or scared. But Garden, this sad situation is an example of what I'm talking about. It's a false clumping of people into groups without recognizing their induviduality. E.g.:

1. You were a soldier in Viet Nam.
2. Some soldiers in Viet Nam did atrocious, horrible things. (We know this because some of them have admitted killing, raping, torturing civilians- including women and children).
3. People assumed you did and/or treated you as if you did atrocious, horrible things because you were a soldier.

Obviously, what those soldiers did was wrong. And the people who judged you based on the actions of others were also wrong. It's always a mistake to decide that because a group of people have some commonality they all think or act exactly the same.

I believe that dividing people into rigid categories, including when you base them on political ideologies like "conservatives" or "liberals", is just another false extrapolation. In this country the divide has now become so extreme that I don't think it would be an exageration to say that it is a kind of bigotry- political bigotry.

Any time you assume that people that identify with a certain group all think or make decisions or act exactly the same way in all or even most situation you are prejudging them and it's a bad idea. Setting up or reinforcing "us" vs. "them" mentalies just ends up hurting everyone.

I hope individuals from both groups will, at some point, stop the name calling and assumptions and remember that they are individuals- some who have more in common and some have less- but they are all responsible for making their community's and country the best they can.

Maybe we can start here by using less accusations like "traitor" or "draft dodger" or "baby killer"- especially when we have no proof that any of these are really accurate.