Hardliner, you've pointed out the fallacy in those who say "Leftists (or whoever) just hate Bush, and everything springs from that."

.

No, the hatred didn't come first, and it's supremely justified.

.

By the way, have you checked out his appointment as chief of “population affairs” at the Department of Health and Human Services? 

Yeah, unbelievable bastard.

http://www.washingtonpost.c...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration, to the consternation of its critics, has picked the medical director of an organization that opposes premarital sex, contraception and abortion to lead the office that oversees federally funded teen pregnancy, family planning and abstinence programs.

Spat in our eye again.  We hate him because we're sick and tired of being effectively flipped off for the 1,001st time in a row by the "uniter turned decider."  I know of no president in history who has deliberately, purposefully tried to insult over half of his nation on a sustained, continuous basis.  Not even Nixon.  Not even Reagan.

See my "pro-life" blog post.

"That lying S.O.B.?"  To me, this type of name-calling is what divides further divides the nation.  The beauty of a democracy is that, presidents can nominate whoever they want, and government officials can either vote them in, or turn them away, after a fair hearing.  Furthermore, you seem to be stereotyping, marginalizing and demonizing all those who disagree with your position as freedom-haters and worse.  I'm all for being passionate, but I believe that your passion may be causing you to prematurely judge others and make gross generalizations about people before carefully examining them from an objective point of view. 

Wrong, Doc, I'm not going to let you get away with it.

Bush pro-actively spits in our eyes, and you criticize me for reacting to it.  That's like someone driving by and yelling obscenities at you -- and then criticizing you for reacting while letting the obscenity-shouters get away uncriticized.  Sorry, ain't gonna let you get away with it.

I know for a fact that these are freedom haters.  I have thoroughly documented it in my other blogs.  At least give me some benefit of the doubt for having studied this movement for 14 years.

Lastly, you have no credible standing to criticize others for "dividing the nation" until you refrain from it yourself.

But we've already thumped on you for that, yet you keep doing it.  Your credibility to criticize me is, at this point, nil.

 

Doc, as the leader of our country, the Shrub is a figure which by the nature of his job, makes him fair game for what you and others call "name calling". We can laugh and point fingers at Paris Hilton or Britney Spears..but if we go after the President or any other elected official..we are lowly hate-mongers. I sense a double standard  here.

Hardliner, surely this isn't a surprise to you that the Shrub is trying to pull these rabbits out of his hat prior to the end of his partys reign?

Hardliner, it seem like you've hardened in your position.  I'm not sure what I've done to "divide the nation," but if I have done something, does that give you reason to engage in divisive rhetoric?   All I'm asking is that you tone down the rhetoric a notch.  It's fine to be frustrated, but name-calling and demonizing folks in power doesn't really do anything to bolster your argument.  Furthermore, my criticism is not meant to be personal.  On a personal level, I have no problem with you whatsoever. 

It's not a surprise at all, Dusty, but it sure is an opportunity to highlight the [lack of] character of this evil S.O.B.

 

Actually Doc, in fairness, this isn't really rhetoric.  He lies quite often and is the child of Barbara Bush, who by all accounts...

As to why use divise rhetoric?  Because he has proven that it works even if you are wrong.

BLT, why is it acceptable to go after Clinton and accuse him of sexual misdeeds (with another consenting adult), murder, etc.,  but it's not OK to go after Bush no matter what the reason?
(not that you're doing that here, but that's what I've observed from conservatives in the last decade)

In this case Bush was supposed to appoint someone to oversee a department, but appointed someone that would likely try to hinder the actions of the department, or simply render it useless. If it were the first time, maybe we're being a bit too harsh, but this has been repeatedly going on since he took office. Makes me think he hates our government or something.

He's also the son of a Bush.

There's a rule of thumb in hiring that applies here:

.

First-rate (presidents) hire first-rate people.

.

Second-rate (presidents) hire third-rate people.

.

Third-rate (presidents) hire lunatics and fanatics.

Pete, if Shrub's father hadn't been a Bush, Shrub would be overseeing a school cafeteria somewhere today.

Maybe, RF.  But once he outsourced the labor and bankrupted to school, he'd be fired.

Doc..you wish for the left to tone down the rhetoric, but I see the right still attacks the left regularly here on the blogs and that is ok with you? Our only way to convey our feelings is with words, correct? I think your asking too much since much of what we say is in how we say it. Its the only method we have to convey our feelings on any given subject when our method of communication is the written word.

All I'm saying is that name-calling rarely bolsters one's argument and seems to contribute to divisiveness.  I don't encourage it, whether it's coming from the right or the left.  I think reason and logic are the best ways to bolster one's argument.  Have I always relied upon reason and logic to try and get my points across?  Probably not, but I think it's something we should all work together to try and achieve.    PP2, I was under the impression that Clinton was in trouble over lying under oath.  But, to be honest, some may have hid behind this because they had a problem with Clinton performing sexual acts in a place generally designated for a president to engage in presidential acts on behalf of those he represented,  and during a time when they were hoping he was busy working on their behalf, engaging in presidential responsibilities. 

That is why I prefer calling Bush a sadist and a liar to calling him an idiot.  It's not name calling if it's actually descriptive.

Pete wrote, "If it were the first time, maybe we're being a bit too harsh, but this has been repeatedly going on since he took office. "

That's the size of it, Pete.  It's not the first time that Bush has spat in our eye.  It's the 1,000th time.  In a row.  Are we really supposed to keep giving him more and more slack?  We've taken the Bible's 70-times-7 and doubled it!

Again, and again, and again, I'd hope and think that maybe, "this time around," he'd act in the interest of all Americans and not exclusively that coveted 13% known as "the base."

Again, and again, and again, he has spat in our eye.  Each and every damned time.

James Madison is rolling in his grave.  One of the major concerns of Madison, the Constitution's chief architect, was to try to prevent one specific faction in society from getting it's way all of the time while the rest of the society got nothing that it asked for, ever.

Bush and the GOP leadership are doing everything that the Founding Fathers tried to protect us against -- giving his pet faction -- a small fraction of America -- its way 100.000% of the time.

I guess the Founders didn't quite anticipate a political faction that would happily destroy our system of checks and balances itself, if that's what it took to give itself its wishes 100% of the time.

Precisely Tom- it isn't slander if it's true.

BLT wrote:
some may have hid behind this because they had a problem with Clinton performing sexual acts in a place generally designated for a president to engage in presidential acts on behalf of those he represented,  and during a time when they were hoping he was busy working on their behalf, engaging in presidential responsibilities.

Now what if instead of having a little (not) sex, he was taking long naps or drinking or anything else not work related? It's well known that Bush takes 2 hours off for naps, etc.  and is in bed before 10pm. I guarantee you that even the best BJ in the world doesn't last 2 hours.

I'm curious, what has Bush done that you would consider "on your behalf?"

Hardliner, I thought that by voting out all the bad guys, and voting in Democrats to take their place, you would feel a renewed sense of empowerment.  Instead, by your persecutory tone, you give the impression that nothing has changed and the Republicans still hold all the cards.  PP2, would you (any of you liberal folks for that matter) even notice if Bush did something right---something that worked in your own best interest?  If you hypothetically would notice, wouldn't you automatically attribute such actions to some sort of devious, political opportunistic motive?  Be honest. 

Nothing HAS changed until January, 2007.  That's just it.  That's when the new Congress take their seats.

Maybe I owe you an apology, Doc.  Perhaps you really do know little about politics.  We tend to assume that everyone who talks politics is a political junkie who knows every little thing about government.  I shouldn't berate you for things that you don't understand.

I have studied what I criticize for 14 years now.  When I became a born-again Christian back in 1990, and started listening to Christian (and conservative) radio, I didn't want to believe what I was hearing, politically speaking.  I made excuses for Focus on the Family up through 1994.

I had to believe it eventually, because what I criticize now has all been borne out to be true.

 

BLT, I'm sure you're talking hypothetically about Bush "doing something right". I'm sure if he hypothetically did something "right", we would hypothetically notice and say something hypothetically nice about it. But until it happens, we'll never know for sure, will we? BTW, you might want to read this blog post (again). Hardliner went to all the trouble to write it, including a sentence mentioning "using his now-lame duck Senate", in which Republicans (in your own words) "still hold all the cards". That "persecution" you sense has an actual base in reality.

None of us can divorce ourselves from our biases and opinions, no matter how hard we try, but I for one appreciate Doc BLT trying to encourage a little civility, even if he's still striving to reach that ideal himself.  I hope that he and others who want this community to grow as a space for discussion and divergent opinions continue to try to practice what they preach and to spread their message equally amongst people they may agree with ideologically as well as those they don't.

BLT, I think we'd notice if Bush did something to benefit us.  The sheer novelty of it would stand out, for one thing.  Difference between Bush and Schwartzenegger:  when Arnold failed utterly (at the polls) to implement his schemes, he changed tactics.  Oh, and he speaks English more fluently.

But speaking non-hypothetically, his invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 was on the mark.  Too bad it all turned out to be just for show.

Jason, I agree.  The big problem with civility is that it can be in the eye of the beholder.  I think for the most part, we manage to be civil.  Even when we're not civil, we play nice with new people.  Maybe we need a flag for "kiddie pool blogs".  :)

I would definately give "W" credit if he did something to really benefit us. My question was whether you can identify anything he's done to truly benefit us. I don't count cutting taxes, since it will come back to bite us later.


I did find something good that just about everyone should agree on. The recently enacted Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards (PETS) Act which sets standards for evacuating our family members rather than face leaving Fido behind to die. Good job Mr. President.

Nice catch, Pete.  I had forgotten about that one, the PETS Act.

Good job.

 

Standards, but no funding, if I recall.  Like the "No Child Left Behind" act which failed to allocate funding for condoms to accomplish that goal.

Blah, blah, blah..you all sound like a bunch of broken records with only one side. Do you actually believe the left will do anything differently when it comes to bipartisanship? Are you trying to tell me that liberal presidents and congresses have never installed one sided justices? PU-LEEZE! Political promises in todays climate are ALL hollow. Bush did not divide the nation, the people divided the nation. The president, no matter who he is, really doesn't have that ability. Congress has the final say in whether someone is appointed to anything, so save your vile comments for the elected representatives of the people, not just the President. Just as with the war, WMD were one of TWENTY points that were voted on when Congress approved it, but nobody wants to talk about that. You can spin your vile name calling anyway you like, but it is still just that, Name calling, and it is typical of liberals to make it as foul and venomous as possible as if that justifies their positions. Shouting and foul language do not make one any more right. The comment that the hatred of Bush didn't come first is ludicrous! The liberals hated him because he won the 2000 election and that hatred has never abated. It wouldn't matter what he did, you would despise him for it. It has nothing to do with the man and everything to do with your feelings. How can anyone possibly hate someone they have never met? It is an immature attitude. I may have hated Clintons policies, but I actually think he would be a kick to hang out with. I never had a problem with his inability to control his libido(although if I were going to risk my marriage and the presidency, I would have picked a much better looking woman than Monica!), it was his obvious BS about the whole thing. He lied to Congress and the people, just as you claim as one of your basis' of hatred for Bush. It's either OK all the time, or it's never OK.  Bush will be gone in 2008. I suggest the left stop pretending they have a plan and start trying to figure out what to do about the future of America, because the same electorate that just gave them the house will not sit still for more pointless posturing and lip service. The "new guys" are already at odds with each other over just how far left the pendulum should swing when they should be concentrating on the promises of change that they made. I was astounded at the rights misuse of the chances they were given when they were on top, but what is going on with the left right now is no surprise at all. America is sick of all the talk of  hate and division. Gloom and doom is not what we are looking for, so I suggest you stop whining about what IS happening and start working on what SHOULD happen.

Now why do I get the feeling that Nancy will consider Motopoet's post to be completely civil and above reproach?

Sorry, but I'm not in a play-nice, back-down mood today.

 

moto, why would you /complain about the "new guys" being at odds with each other (to me that means they're trying to compromise rather than just agree with the forced opinion), and then tell them they should be working on what SHOULD happen. Seems to me that's just what they're doing. Heck, they're not even in charge until Jan 3, 2007.

For the record, I didn't like Bush long before he ran for President.

Thanks for the props, Jason.  I consider this cluster of blog sites to be potentially redeemable.  Most folks who blog here, including myself, have a natural resistence to seeing things from the other side's perspective.   So we close our eyes and ears, and dig in our heels.  For the most part, however, with a few notable exceptions, folks here have been relatively civil towards one another.  I'm saying that in comparison to the character assassinations and base cruelty I've observed on other blog sites.  So there's hope here, as long as I'm able to persuade everyone to adopt my point of view :) 

As for my own opinion of Bush before he was first elected:

1.  I didn't form any negative opinion of his actual performance as President until he gave me an actual reason while in office to form a negative opinion.

2.  On the other hand, he didn't leave any of my negative predictions about him unfulfilled by the time 2008 rolled around.

 

Motopoet, I do.  Let's take a look, shall we, at the 20 points:

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - [H.J. Res. 114]>>

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

OK, nothing to argue with here...

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

This must be the WMD one. OK.

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Oops, ok, well maybe two were about WMDs.

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Uh, here's a third about WMDs...

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

WMDs again.

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

WMDs and nukes. Both wrong.

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace
and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

OK. Here we go. See, they were killing civilians. We needed to go in and stop that. Too bad more are dying now.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

WMDs again.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Violating Cease fire and had tried to kill Bush I 10 years before. OK.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Not WMDs but also proven wrong.

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Wasn't true before the war, but it is now. Maybe we should invade again.

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

WMDs again.

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

And again.

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Supporting the UN. That's why we did it. Because we always support the UN.

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

UN again.

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

More support for the UN.

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Citing themselves supporting Democracy in Iraq.

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Tacitly WMDs, but also UN.

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Yikes. WMDs and Al-Queda again, both wrong.

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Again with Al-Queda and still no link ever found.

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Al-Queda and September 11th. Neither of which ever had anything to do with Iraq before we went in.

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

International terrorism, which again, had nothing to do with Iraq.

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Well, That's going swimmingly, isn't it?
So Moto, that's 21 points, 11 were about WMDs, 4 about Al-Queda, 3 citing other UN resolutions and 3 others, which were:
They invaded Kuwait, they were brutal to their own citizens and took stuff from Kuwait, they tried to kill Bush Sr. in 93 and they fired on our guys in the no-fly zones.  That's your rational for war.

The Democrats don't *HAVE* to demonstrate bipartisanship, motopoet.  They just have to say "no," and keep on saying "no" until January 2009.  Now, if they hold investigational hearings along the way (and it appears they will do so) then so much the better.

.

As for the resolution authorizing military force (not a declaration of war and not intended to be one), John Dean covered that document fairly well in his book "Worse than Watergate."  It was a scam through and through--but the Republicans didn't *NEED* bipartisanship to push that through. 

.

I disliked the fact the the Supreme Court elected Bush president, but thought he couldn't do too much damage in four years--we handed him a strong economy and peace.  Boy, was *I* wrong on that one.

I'm a little troubled by the use of the word evil ( a very potent word)  when describing George Bush.     So,  I looked up it's definiton in Websters and found that it means "morally bad or wrong, wicked, harmful, injurious.  Anything that causes harm or pain. 

Based on this definition, I suppose the argument could be made that George Bush's actions as president have "legitimately" earned him the appellation of an Evil Doer.  

He picked opportunists and criminals as advisors.  Then he blindly and wholeheartidly trusted these advisors, even  when it was obvious to  everyone else that our war "effort" was doomed to failure.   He lied to get America into that war and lied to keep us there. 

He held onto his disatrous military "statergy" with myopic stubborness until Americans took matters into their own hands and voted his party's majority out of office. 

But, is he evil?   I don't think so.  I just think he set a new standard for DUMB. 

His ineptness will ensure that his appellation in history books isn't  Evil Doer but "Worst President America Ever Endured".

Audrey, I kind of understand why people think he's dumb, but that's only because they believe he's trying to do good things and keeps doing what he's doing.  For a while, I believed that.  After everything that has happened, I just can't believe that he either doesn't care or wants things this way.

We handed him peace?  We handed him an country that was almost immediately attacked.  Where was the peace in that?  We handed him a country where previous administrations could be blamed for those attacks when you realize the attacks had been planned for years.  Long before he took office.  I won't argue that he's made mistakes but handing him peace didn't matter much when extremists decided to destroy it.

 

Lets at least keep it honest.

H4F.  ... You well know that motopoet is my son.  Is there some particular reason why you brought me into this discussion?

No one's asking you to play nice.  If you're referring to the comment I made earlier, it was because it just wasn't like you and I was surprised.  I don't know who peed in your cheerios but using a family member in your anger really is beneath you.

 

 

Hi Nancy

Great article about you in yesterday's paper.  I LOVED it!

Thanks Audrey.  Steve asked if I'd met any of the bloggers and I could only say you, and one other.  He asked if you and I knew each other before the blogs too.  As much as I would loved to have known you for years (it seemed like it didn't it?) I was still happy to say that we met through the blogs and then at the bloggers lunch.

What ever happened to the notion of another lunch?   Not enough interest, I bet.  Plus, some bloggers have burned their social bridges.

BTW you looked bigger in your picture.  No one would guess what a petite thing you are.  Envy Envy

The magic of cameras.  hehe.

I was surprised at the reaction from a few bloggers who thought I was brave showing myself.  I had to laugh since I show myself every day every where I go.  My guess is most bloggers want to remain anonymous for various reasons... not the least of which is that it makes it easier to get snippy with someone if you've never looked them in the eye.

 

I've always put my money  where my mouth (and my face) is and let the chips fall where they may.  I think I'm the same here as I am in person...you and Steve would know..and am as likely to say what I say no matter if you see my face or not.

A lot of people here don't like Marks politics or his manner but he is honest, up front, and doesn't hide behind anything.  He's the same here as he is in person.  Just better looking.  If we had another lunch and he was in town, hed be the first to agree to go.  They had a ride the last time but he said he would have liked to have been at our gathering.

Audrey, you were just the same as you are on here and I thoroghly enjoyed meeting you. 

I know at least two of our regulars here live far away and wouldn't be able to attend but how bout it folks?  Anyone else up to a lunch?  Or are you going to continue to hide out?  (that's a dare ya know)

I'm there.

Hey..a pizza lunch sounds like fun.  I work on Sats. but am available for Sunday brunches, lunches and whatever.

 

Audrey..see what you started?

If in town I'd try to make it...

Great minds think alike, huh?  :)  'Cause I've been thinking about the same thing, maybe on a regular basis.  With us footing the bill.  How 'bout that?  Of course, I don't wanna step on any toes or anything, so we don't have to pay if you don't want.  ;)  Let's see some different times and days of the week that work for folks...  (You can e-mail me if you want.)

Nancy

I just want an excuse to eat.  The doctor put my husband on a diet and so I went on one too.  It would be nice to sneak off and chow down.

I would like to know what was uncivil about my post? The fact that I disagree with people namecalling and using vile, hatefilled language? That sounds like my ex-wife, a woman who I never raised my hand OR my voice to, who would claim I was being abusive if I didn't let her have her way. I disagree with the views in this blog Hard,but that's OK. I disagree with many that I don't comment on because there's nothing wrong with differing points of view. I wasn't attacking anyone by name, but if the shoe fits...There are plenty of anti-right, anti-Bush people who don't resort to such tactics to get their point across, but hey, it's YOUR blog site. Say what you will, just as I do. I mean, it's not like I am making up these things, I am merely commenting on what is there. I don't have a problem with people voicing their opinions, but the foul namecalling has worn out its welcome. If people are going to make such harsh statements, they shouldn't be so thin skinned about responses.

As to the points..Well..it was um..lets see..what do they call those guys..um..oh yeah..CONGRESS who voted to go ahead with the war and again to fund it(right before they voted against it). You can call Bush whatever you like, but it was only his IDEA. We won the war in Iraq when their military and their leaders were crushed, killed, deposed and no longer a threat. Now we're just fighting the war on terror there. I posted on another blog recently that if we don't have the stomach for it anymore, let's leave and let then have their civil war. Let them kill each other like they have been doing for centuries(within the "Religion of Peace), but when the do-gooders of the world, and those who so vehemently opposed this start asking for someone to do something about the killings there(which will get MUCH worse should we just leave right now), go ask France or Spain or some other EU country, but leave us out of it.

Listen, I have never said that I thought the timing of the invasion of Iraq was good. We would have ended up there in the war on terror eventually anyway. My point these days is that we are there and simply leaving would be as bad an idea as never having gone. Anyone who believes that Saddam didn't need to be stopped has no right to ever complain again about any leader, anywhere, commiting atrocities(like the Sudan). As someone else stated, nobody here is going to change anyone elses mind or heart. We are just here to say our piece. I just think it can be said without resorting to foul, hate filled language.