Post election thoughts a week later

November 9th, 2008 Urban Conservative

It’s been a week since Obama won the election and I have been silent. I have been listening, wondering, contemplating, analyzing and thinking. I have been completely silent from any and all election news, both on television and online. The guy I voted for lost and I can live with that.  But I am ready to speak my mind and get back in the mix.

Most everyone knows that I did not vote for Obama. In fact, for the last year and a half, I have been on the offensive in this blog and Obama was in my cross hairs. I was so vocal that Obama’s internet team even infiltrated the comments and tried to refute everything I or my team wrote about.

What I am going to say next will not go down well for some conservatives; and I have thought long and hard about this. But I have decided to support Obama as the President. That doesn’t mean that I am going to worship the ground he walks on or even register as a democrat. What it does mean is that I will respect him as the Commander in Chief and I will be as objective as I can when he makes Presidential decisions. I will no longer judge Obama for his past relationships or any other accusations, even though most of them were never really addressed in my opinion. And no, I am not moving to Canada. I am not going to call Obama names or let this blog turn into a hate mongering site. I am not going to blame him for everything that doesn’t go my way.

But I will be watching every move he makes and I will be critical and vocal with my opinions, when I need to be; and as we move into 2009, I will be most concerned about the following:

  • Redistribution of wealth, including any and all tax increases and big-government welfare programs where people who don’t pay taxes are getting tax refunds
  • Silencing people like me through the Fairness Doctrine and other efforts that restrict free speech
  • Open border anarchy including amnesty for illegal aliens and promotion of multi-nation “unions”.
  • Government-run health care that weakens our system and imposes more tax burdens on citizens
  • Weakening of our military through rapid deployment out from Iraq, defunding our troops and overall disarmament
  • Extreme liberalism including the radical pro-abortion agenda and the attack on traditional marriage
  • Liberal court activism that undermines faith, family and liberties while expanding government control.
  • Post-American globalism that diminishes our global role and threatens our national sovereignty

Don’t get me wrong, please. I am a conservative. I hold strong to traditional family values and that will never change. I believe in capitalism and know that anyone in the country who works hard can achieve success. I am a Marine and I love this country and all of our civil rights that so many have died to protect.

Urban out.

Rating: 3.0/5 (49 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!
  • Keith
    I completely agree with your sentiment. I would go so far as to say it is my duty to see Obama as "my President." I fully expect to disagree with many of his policies and I will surely be opposing many of his initiatives but this does not change the fact that he deserves my respect as President.\

    My thoughts on his election. and why the GOP didn't win
  • DS
    I agree UC.  We are Americans first, and are obligated to support our President.  This is not easy for a lot of us conservatives, but I think it highlights the differences between conservatuves and liberals.  If McCain would have won I can almost guarantee you that we wouldn't be getting this same response from liberals.  Hopefully, the real conservatives in Congress will have learned their lesson this time and get back to fighting for the family values on which their party is based.  Then, and only then will they be able to gain seats back in Congress and get our country back on track.
  • Nicolae
    while I'm not American, I'm a Canuck, I understand what you said and I commend you for that.  its one of the fundamental differences ebtween left and right my friends.  I supported our Canadian Conservative Stephen Harper for re-election, and when he was re-elected the knives came out for him and the "ignorant" masses who elected him.  Not everyone on the left is so simple and puerile but we all know more than a few ourselves no doubt.  Your president does deserve your respect and reasoned co-operation.  If his movements seem wrong to you, then you will voice your opinion, but at least before the man gets actual power, support him, and give him the benefit of the doubt until his actions prove otherwise. 
    for the record I never liked McCain, too middle of the road for me.
  • newrepublican
    Would you consider linking to my blog? We have similar interests.

    The New Republican at

  • davidwwalters
    i'm sure you'll do a good job as loyal opposition!
    i can tell you from experience it can be fun!
  • simonesdad2008
    Good for you, UC.  In the end, we all want this country to be at its best.  Be vigilant with your scrutiny.  Government must return to being accountable to the people.  I want Barack Obama to lead this country out of these tough times.  We, as Americans, have to do our part as well.  I will be curious to see how your list of priorities will evolve over the next few years. Republicans and conservatives need to go back to the drawing board and figure out how you will address the middle class. 

    You are to be applauded for your blog.  Good luck.  See you next election season.
  • DS
    Wow, it seems like we're having a love fest now!  I have to say that this feels a lot better than it did last week.  Conservative principles will never need to evolve simonesdad2008.  And I don't agree with your premise that our principles don't address the middle class.  If it means that we have to promise handouts to everyone as BHO did, I wouldn't support that candidate whether they were Dem., Rep., Ind., or otherwise.  And only time will tell whether BHO actually provides what he promised.  This election was all about "change", anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-christian, and any other "anti" that you can think of.  Unfortunately, that is how degraded our society has become.  Conservatives just need to stand up and be conservatives again.  Let's see what happens in two years.
  • WadeHM
    With you all the way on this one. New Republican, you are added to my links too.
  • kevin

    please link my blog if you feel it appropriate.
  • Fred Marks
    UC - I love your opinion! You tell 'em :) If more of us stick together, then we will make it through. We should smartly support the President-elect, which is why I co-wrote an Obama survival book. You can check it out at
  • KevinP
    Well, it has happened.  And I am not surprised.  I am a conservative and believe in fundamental Republican principles...always have.  I believe in true capitalism, the right to bear arms, decreased government involvement, and the fundamental morals that keep our country strong.  I have always thought of liberals as spineless, blind, and willing to believe anything that is said to them, as long as there was a Democrat saying it. But in the last few weeks of the campaign I started asking myself, "Am I a blind conservative?"  I think McCain is an honorable man and I feel comfortable with him as president, but as much as Palin is a true American, she is simply not ready to lead this country.  I think all of us know that deep down, even if we choose not to admit it.  And if Obama was running with someone that I really felt was NOT prepared for this job, I would have been questioning his judgement from the get go.  So I asked myself, "am I a blind Republican that can't hold my own party to the standards that I judge others?"  I am someone who loves the freedoms so many have fought for, and it pains me to say this, but I did not vote.  While I could not vote for Obama, I would be a hypocrite if I voted for someone who was simply not ready to run this country.
  • Titus Hunt
    I didn't like Clinton but respected the Presidency.  If obama wasn't going to ruin this country with his policies, i would do the same as i did for Clinton.  President Bush has been so gracious and has shown his class by welcoming obama.  Clinton didn't have that class.
  • DS

    WHile I understand your reasoning, it is VERY unfortunate that you chose not to vote.  There is no such thing as a perfect politician.  Sometimes we have to vote for the best candidate, even though they may not be who we would like to have.  I wasn't a big McCain backer myself.  I voted for Romney.  BUT one thing I did realize was that the McCain-Palin ticket believed in "most" of our conservative principles, whereas Obama-Biden believe the total opposite.  You really need to use your head as much as you do your heart when it comes to politics kevin.  I hope that there weren't enough conservatives like yourself who decided not to vote to actually tip the election to Obama.  That would be an abolute shame.  And as far as Palin goes, she has had more executive experience than ANY of the other three candidates!  She may not be as "politically polished" as the other three, but that was exactly what drew her to us.  She (and folks like her) are the future of the conservative movement Kevin.  She will be more mature and knowledegable in four years.  I hope we can count on your vote then.
  • KevinP
    While I do consider myself a Republican, I simply cannot vote strictly down party lines, without a thought to who I am voting for.  Yes, the conservative principles do ring a bell with me.  But that alone is not enough to get me to vote for someone who I think could be a possible detriment to this country (Palin).  I voted strictly down party lines in the last two elections (despite what my gut told me about Bush's inability to lead, especially in the second election), and I feel that I am now paying for that mistake.  While I do not always agree with Obama's policies, I do not think he is a great danger to our country.  It is unfortunate, but had McCain demonstrated better forethought in choosing a running mate, he would have had my vote.
  • Pat
    I am a conservative republican who completely opposes Obama's liberal and socialist views, but I will support him as the elected President of the United States.
    At the same time, I do believe Obama's policies are going to worsen the recession. This will lead to Republican control of the Senate in 2010. Of course, these Republicans need to be new, conservative faces with a new plan for America; like a "Contract for America" that the GOP brought in the 90's. After some success, the American people will vote a Republican in as president (Bobby Jindal/Mitt Romney 2012!!). Finally, the story will end with conservative republican control of the House, Senate, and White House. Then, 76 year old John McCain will be named Secretary of Defence.
  • DS

    Your logic and response makes me wonder if you're just pulling my leg, and that you're really an Obama supporter in disguise.  I never said you should vote strictly down party lines, but if you couldn't see a BIG difference between what was being offered by each candidate, I wonder what would have changed your mind.  Simply because you didn't like Palin is a really lame excuse.  And if you really believe that Obama (and his beliefs) aren't a real threat to our country, I'm not sure what you were doing while he was being vetted day after day leading up to the election.  He has so many whackjob relationships and socialist ideas that, if implemented, will change the course of our nation for generations to come.  Please tell me you're really an Obama supporter.  That would be easier to understand.
  • Ben
    I like your idea but I don't think I completely agree with it. If I support him then I am supporting the socialist ideas that America has run away from. This is a president who is pro everything that I am not and I cannot support someone like that as a concervative republican
  • newrepublican
  • Jason
    If this country turns into what Obama wants it to become, I WILL be tempted to move to another country.  What's the point of being an American if all our hard-earned liberties are trashed and we just end up becoming the (relatively) wealthy host nation for all impoverished socialist parasite nations.
  • Jason
    Hint: there is no point.
  • amber2
    Kevin, listen to your instinct, you voted for not once but twice, your an idiot .
  • amber2
    stupid fucking republicans
  • Kevin S. Willis
    KevinP: That's funny. I voted for McCain. Had he not chosen Sarah Palin, I almost certainly would have voted for Obama. I was excited about voting for Bush in 2004. Ultimately disappointed but . . . yeah, I think KevinP might be trolling. But, you know, it takes all kinds.

    That being said, Obama is our president and deserves some respect. If conservatives make an effort, they will find a lot to love in an Obama presidency. He may not quite "govern from the center", but the Messianic regard with which he is held on the left is sure to be a big disappointment. Some of his initiatives aren't going to happen. He certainly isn't going to wave a magic wand and make the world a safe and perfect place--which is going to be a disappointment to some voters. Frankly, 

    That being said, it's interesting that so many liberals are as ungracious and hateful in victory as they are in defeat. I've actually found some things to like in the Obama agenda, before they Obama Ministry of Truth purged the site. 

    He is the president. I'm gonna support the guy. Will liberals support the next Republican or conservative that wins? Of course not. But that's not the point.
  • Kevin S. Willis
    BTW, Kudos UrbCon. I don't know too many conservatives who would hold your support for our President against you. Conservatives love America--all the time. Even when it elects liberals! And we respect the office of the President and the Will of the People. Of course you're going to support Obama? What else would you do?

    And we better get used to supporting Obama. I'm pretty sure he's guaranteed to win in 2012, so we're going to get eight long years of him. But, hey, fair is fair. The liberals had to endure eight years of Bush after we did our eight years of Clinton. So . . . we're just taking turns.

    I'm not a marine, and I've never served in the military, but I've got the greatest respect for those who have. So, will all due humility and respect, semper fi, UrbanCon. God bless you for your service to our country. 

    And, as always, God bless the president of the United States.
  • davidwwalters
    "It is unfortunate, but had McCain demonstrated better forethought in choosing a running mate, he would have had my vote."
    .......the christian wing of the republican party has got to be pandered to, as evidenced by the selection of Sarah P.
    The voters of America rejected your party because a woman of such narrow intellect was chosen to step in for an aging politician.
  • Guest
    Amber – your inability to post coherent and well-thought-out comments has gotten you banned from participating here. <span> </span>I am sorry you didn’t finish high school but it’s never too late to go back. :)
  • 2BlueStarMom

    When you are a guest,  in someone else's home,  show R-E-S-P-E-C-T
  • 2BlueStarMom

    I will always stand by to defend and support our country.

    I will be praying for our President elect that "God"  gives him wisdom, knowledge and understanding, so that "God" will be glorified.
  • Titus Hunt
    obama was elected a week ago and is already upholding his promises to cut spending?  yesterday, it was announced he would squash the restriction on funding abortions overseas.  wow!  i didn't know we had the money for that?  so much for keeping our money in America.  of course, Biden said all he needed to say even for idiots when he said obama's plan called for doubling foreign aid but they would consider holding back for now due to the economy.  so much for that, huh.  i guess obama's true colors are showing once again!  the way it is looking we will see our country bankrupt before it is over with.  but hey, i guess if people get checks and don't have to pay taxes, nothing else matters!  so tell me again why businesses and people's taxes should be raised?  liberals enjoy your wonderful choice!
  • davidwwalters
    "it was announced he would squash the restriction on funding abortions overseas.  wow!  i didn't know we had the money for that? "
    I s'pose he could use the funds that Bush used for Abstinence only sex ed., huh?
  • DS
    Happy Vets Day to UC, David Walters, and ALL other veterans.  I am a veteran, and I know how much it means for us to be appreciated.
  • 2BlueStarMom
    My deepest gratitude to all of you!

    Thank you for your service and sacrifice.
  • Titus Hunt
    David--if everyone were responsible we would not have to worry about abortion would we?  President Bush did the right thing in trying to prevent that problem in the first place whether it worked or not.  a lot of the problem is with irresponsible parenting and that is the root cause of most of society's issues now.  (notice i said a lot and not all.)  however, you are missing the point here.  if obama is the person you guys elected, he would follow through with cutting back on spending as he promised.  well, it is obvious that is not his intention.  why should taxes be raised because of this kind of spending?  so from now on, liberals really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to backing the tax increases unless you guys are doing it for some kind of revenge against people who have money or....... some other dumb reason.  obama cannot justify any tax increases when he has promised to lower spending when irresponsible decisions like these are made.
  • harrysmom
    UC- well said.  I wish that I had been so magnanimous in 2004.  In stead, I went into a 12 step mourning process.  

    Let me say again that we are seriously more alike than not- and it's the similarities that will lead us out of this mess.  I honestly do not agree with much of the Republican platform and I think I've made that clear, but there are definitely points of agreement.  For example- I, too, believe that anyone can make it in this country.  However, I see this concept as a trope because, as a sociologist, I focus on the structural mechanisms that afford people of differing social locations (race, class, gender, etc...) a different set of obstacles and head starts.  I think that a balanced, two party government, advances a set of checks and balances on that structure.  We go back and forth- like a pendulum.  And now it's time to swing the other way for a time.  
    I'm glad you will be a conservative watch dog- I may just be there along with you.  Something tells me that Obama will be far more centered than I will be able to appreciate.  :)
  • KevinP
    Its interesting that someone who is a conservative such as myself, but who could not vote for John McCain due to his poor choice for a vice president is accused of being an Obama supporter.  Its as simple as this:  I voted for Bush twice.  He is the biggest mistake this country has made in the past century, and as a result, has made the Republican party falter tremendously.  Bush and his cabinet has made us a laughing stock among the world, and now we are trying to get ourselves out of the biggest recession since the great depression.  So this year I decided to not vote blindly.  While I like McCain and think he is a good leader, I could not get myself to vote for Sarah Palin.  She is simply not ready to be vice president, and we all know that.  She was not ready to speak to foreign leaders and represent this country in such a high office.  She was not ready to lead our troops in the event that she would have had to.  If McCain would have won, I would have been on eggshells for 4 years that something would happen to McCain and she would take over.  Now, I don't agree with Obama on everything, but the man is intelligent and charismatic...two assets that remind me of Ronald Reagan.  He is our president now, and I am not surprised.  I believe many other conservatives did not vote for the simple fact that we were nervous of a Palin presidency.  Let us hope that the Republican party gets it together for 2012.
  • Titus Hunt
    If giving good speeches, making false promises and wasting our taxpayer dollars more than Bush did qualifies obama to be president, this country has a big problem.  however, if reaching across party lines is what obama intends to do, his chief of staff choice is the wrong pick.  he is a thug from chicago who wasted the taxpayers money.  also, obama is getting off on a good start with wasting our money by lifting the ban on taxpayers footing the bill for people overseas to have abortions.  yep, that is what i call a good use of our money already.  i didn't realize we had enough money to spread around the world right now!  hmmm!  now why should taxes be raised while money goes overseas for..........................?  so i don't think "true" republicans have a lot in common with democrats.   

    ....and he hasn't even gotten into office yet!  what a long four years this is going to be.  but hey, President Bush is showing class by welcoming obama in for a smooth transition.  Obviously, Bush believes in the do unto others rule, which is the opposite treatment he received from your boy clinton.
  • DS

    Sorry, but I don't buy your excuses for not voting.  You say that you liked McCain, but wouldn't vote for him because you were afraid of what "might" happen to him.  With that kind of hope and optimism, I find it very hard to believe that you're a true conservative.  We weren't voting for VP my friend.  You bought right into the liberal lies regarding Gov. Palin.  The fact that she was a breath of fresh air, and would have turned Washington upside down doesn't seem to mean as much to you as it does to the rest of us conservatives.  As far as Bush goes, I voted for him twice, and worked on his re-election campaign team in '04.  He has disappointed me on spending and immigration, but he and his poilicies have kept us safe since 911.  That is BIG deal to us!!  I hope and pray that BHO lied to all of us about what he plans on doing regarding the war on terror and the economy.  The hard left is going to push him as far as they can, he owes them.  And if he does what they want, we're looking for a lot of trouble the next fours years.  Hopefully, he will come to his senses and not pursue the things that he lied about to get elected.  I would be happy if he just went on Hawaii vacations every other month for the next four years.  So Kevin, stop the excuses about Palin and admit you're not a true conservative.  Otherwise, your conscience would not have allowed you to sit out the election and usher in the messiah.
  • Titus Hunt
    DS-- you are correct!  i would never vote against a party that has has my belief systems.  even if they do not live up to everyone of my expections, it is better than going to the liberal view.  so obama has gotten himself into a pickle.  if he fulfills his promises to the idiots who voted for him, he will destroy our country.  if he doesn't fulfill his promises, he is a liar and can't be trusted.  hmmmm!  sending money overseas for abortions and hiring a thug who doesn't want to work across the isle is a really bad start no matter how it is sliced.
  • davidwwalters
    Titus (33)
    <<if everyone were responsible we would not have to worry about abortion would we? >>
    -Are you speaking of abstinence only as a method of birth control method as being responsible?  It may be "responsible", but not practical...
    <<why should taxes be raised because of this kind of
    spending? >>
    .................................No one (other than you)is making this claim.  If we really want to cut spending, cut some big ticket items such as military assistance programs to corrupt governments(giving expensive weapons away) ,though weapons manufacturers wouldn't like to see that gravy train stopped.
    harrysmom.....looking for tickets to the inauguration!
  • davidwwalters
    Well written piece. I felt the same way in 1980.  I couldn't agree with Reagan on many issues, he did provide  leadership......
  • 2BlueStarMom
    2006 Statistics for only, Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and Syphilis
    This does not include the other prevelant STDs!
    Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars.2
    This document summarizes 2006 national data on trends in three notifiable STDs — chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis — that are published in CDC’s report, Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2006. These data, which are useful for examining overall trends and trends among populations at risk, represent only a small proportion of the true national burden of STDs. Many cases of notifiable STDs go undiagnosed, and some highly prevalent viral infections, such as human papillomavirus and genital herpes, are not reported at all.

    Then there is HIV/Aids 2003

    Prevalence is the number of people living with HIV/AIDS in a given year.
    At the end of 2003, an estimated 1,039,000 to 1,185,000 persons in the United States were living with HIV/AIDS, with 24%-27% undiagnosed and unaware of their HIV infection.1
    Incidence is the number of new HIV infections that occur during a given year. In 2008, CDC estimated that approximately 56,300 people were newly infected with HIV in 2006 (the most recent year that data are available). Over half (53%) of these new infections occurred in gay and bisexual men. African American men and women were also strongly affected and were estimated to have an incidence rate than was 7 times greater than the incidence rate among whites. Visit the HIV incidence page for more details.
    The cumulative estimated number of cases of AIDS through 2006 in the United States and dependent areas was 1,014,797. Of these, 982,498 were in the 50 states and the District of Columbia and 31,217 were in the dependent areas.  In the 50 states and the District of Columbia, adult and adolescent AIDS cases totaled 973,352 with 783,786 cases in males and 189,566 cases in females, and 9,144 cases estimated in children under age 13 years.
    These numbers do not represent reported case counts. Rather, these numbers are point estimates, which result from adjustments of reported case counts. The reported case counts have been adjusted for reporting delays and for redistribution of cases in persons initially reported without an identified risk factor, but not for incomplete reporting.

    The estimated total number of people living in the US with a viral STD/STI is over 65 million. [2] Every year, there are at least 19 million new cases of STDs/STIs, some of which are curable. [2,3]

    More than $8 billion is spent each year to diagnose and treat STDs/STIs and their complications. This figure does not include HIV. [4]

    In a national survey of US physicians, fewer than one-third routinely screened patients for STDs/STIs. [5]

    Less than half of adults ages 18 to 44 have ever been tested for an STD/STI other than HIV/AIDS.

    Each year, one in four teens contracts an STD/STI. [6]

    One in two sexually active persons will contact an STD/STI by age 25. [7]

    Then there is also
    HPV infection.

    Genital human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection (STI)
    Approximately 20 million Americans are currently infected with HPV, and another 6.2 million people become newly infected each year. At least 50% of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives.
    Genital warts. About 1% of sexually active adults in the U.S. have genital warts at any one time.
    Cervical cancer. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2008, 11,070 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer in the U.S.
    Other HPV-related cancers are much less common than cervical cancer. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2008, there will be:

    3,460 women diagnosed with vulvar cancer;
    2,210 women diagnosed with vaginal and other female genital cancers;
    1,250 men diagnosed with penile and other male genital cancers; and
    3,050 women and 2,020 men diagnosed with anal cancer.

    Certain populations may be at higher risk for HPV-related cancers, such as gay and bisexual men, and individuals with weak immune systems (including those who have HIV/AIDS).
  • 2BlueStarMom
    Abortion as Birth Control
    Using abortion as birth control means that abortion is being used as a back-up method to ineffective or improperly used contraception, or no contraception is being used at all. Of women having abortions,

    46% did not use contraception during the month they became pregnant
    8% never used a method of birth control
    47% have had at least one previous abortion

    Although there are situations in which abortion is in response to health concerns of the mother or fetus, or in response to pregnancy arising from abuse, the majority of abortions are obtained for social and financial reasons. The primary reasons given for choosing abortion are given below.

    75% say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities
    about 75% say they cannot afford a child
    50% do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner

    Using abortion as birth control is not healthy physically or psychologically, and is not a mature or responsible approach to sex. Women obtaining abortions are at higher risk for reproductive tract infections, including HIV and PID. If you are using abortion as birth control, you are encouraged to rethink your sexual decisions. You might wait on sex until you find a relationship where you could continue a pregnancy should one occur.

    There are medical risks associated with surgical abortion which increase with subsequent terminations and gestational age of the fetus. As the physician cannot see what he is doing during the abortion procedure complications may include cervical laceration, perforation of the uterus, and hemorrhaging which can be life-threatening. Medical abortion, performed using mifepristone (formerly RU486) or similar drugs can also result in prolonged hemorrhaging and other long term effects which are not yet known.
    Common abortion-related problems include pain, infection, emotional distress, and problems in future pregnancies are possible — including miscarriage and prematurity leading to infant disability. Because of scarring to the uterus which can result from surgical abortion, a woman who has had an abortion is up to five times more likely to have an ectopic pregnancy if she conceives again. Ectopic pregnancy requires surgery to correct and can be fatal if not caught in time. There is also evidence that a first trimester abortion may increase the risk of breast cancer (box below), especially among women who have not had children.
  • davidwwalters
    So what you are saying 2BlueStarMom......we need more information about safe sex, and contraception huh?
  • 2BlueStarMom

    They all go hand in hand.  Safe sex, STD and abortions.
  • davidwwalters
    Again, (you always seem to do that!)
    missing the point my friend......STD's go with ignorance.  That's is why comprehensive sex ed is essential(something our government is eschewing in favor of "abstinence only education")!
    We have had Bush's policy of "abstinence only", and yet we have an increase in STD's......if his policy you support was truly effective, it stands to reason the rates would diminish.
    This idea (abstinance only) isn't really "responsible", is it?
  • DS
    Abstinence is possible.  I have seen it practiced successfully by my daughter and many of her friends, both boys and girls.  Of course it does take a set of moral values that believe it is better towait until you're married to have sex.  And that is where the problem is......liberals don't believe in that.  We could discuss all of the benefits of waiting until marriage, but it wouldn't matter to liberals.  They want to do what they want, when they want, and nobody is going to tell them any differently.  Then they just clean up the mess later.  That's what I call "smart".  You are right on 2BlueStar.  Of course, all of us who love God already knew that.  Keep it up sister!  The truth will set them free...
  • 2BlueStarMom

    Where do you draw the line on where you want the Govt. to get involved?

    You see, therein lies the problem.

    We don't want them involved in private citizens lives, right?

    It seems to me (and I am no rocket scientist, that is obvious to everyone who reads my post), that everyone wants Govt to play God and dictate laws that the different groups find acceptable and meets with their life styles.

    There is such a great diversity in this country, you can't please everyone.

    So, who makes the determination, who plays God then? 

    I don't want them involved nor to play God.

    I want them to stay out of our lives.

    However, we have to have laws and guidelines.

    Which is why the basic 10 commandments covers every aspect of our lives.


    But, here we go again.  It doesn't stop.
  • 2BlueStarMom
    You don't want politician's with Judea Christian principals running the Govt.

    We don't want politician's without Judea Christian principals running the Govt.

    So, what do you do?

    None will ever be happy with either party or their elected politician's.

    So how do we all live in harmony?

    Do you realize that if we got rid of all laws, we would destroy each other?

    We are practically doing that now.

    So, without going into all the things everyone is debating on this site.

    Someone, tell us, simply put, how do we do it?
  • 2BlueStarMom
    I believe that if it were to ever happen, it could only be on a super natural level.

    No one person, government, entity, can fix this.

    The only thing many of us have to hold onto is, hope.

    That sustains most of us. That give us strength in a crazy, mixed up world, to go on.  To make it through, life, death and everything in between.

    Here is how I see it, in my little feeble mind;

    Liberals probably hope that we, conservatives and Christian's,  will go away, forever.  We will, don't worry! LOL

    But do you realize that if it weren't for us and our prayers, God would have destroyed the world a long time ago?

    Go read about Sodom and Gomorrah. 

    God will not strive with man forever. 

    I don't know how he can stand this. 

    I can barely stand it and I've only been here for.....well, that's not important, but less than 55 years! ;-)
  • davidwwalters
    2BlueStarMom writes:
    <<You don't want politician's with Judea Christian principals running the Govt.
    We don't want politician's without Judea Christian principals running the Govt.>>

    getting close, but not quite right....
    Judeo-Christian principals are fact they are a part of our collective society as a nation.  This i cannot deny.
    What i see as the main difference is the exclusivity of your other words, there is a narrow definition of those Judeo-Christian principals which leads me to believe the "common-sense" values you desire in a politician are actually idealistic and not at all common sense or based on realism.
    We have spoke on the issue of abortion as murder......and i retorted rationally that foreign policy that kills Pakistani kids can also be seen as murder.
    I wouldn't think that we can agree on wouldn't be realistic or pragmatic.  To think that ONLY your views or principals are correct is in fact idealistic, and therein the problem lies.  To resolve this dilemma will take a reexamination of your values to the extent of those values being purely exclusive...
  • 2BlueStarMom
    Dave 50

    "I wouldn't think that we can agree on wouldn't be realistic or pragmatic.  To think that ONLY your views or principals are correct is in fact idealistic, and therein the problem lies.  To resolve this dilemma will take a reexamination of your values to the extent of those values being purely exclusive..."

    My exact point.  Right back at you! LOL
  • 2BlueStarMom
    I am on standby.  My son is taking her to the hospital.... I think we are going to have a baby today!

    Whoopeee!!  I am so excited!
  • Beaker
    The gist of this thread seems sound.  I agree with the notion that we should respect the office of the Presidency.  We can certainly disagree with the President at the same time.  I've said this in other blogs recently; one of the big differences (there are several, but ...) between liberals and conservatives is in how we greet defeat.  After an election loss, liberals whine and toss accusations of fraud and voter suppression, etc.  Then they refuse to acknowledge the winner in his or her official capacity (how many liberals refused to recognize George Bush as the President after 2000 or 2004?).  Conservatives, on the other hand, will lick their wounds for a day or two, then set about figuring out what went right vs. what went wrong.  They'll figure out how to do better next time.  Conservatives tend to be positive about the future, while most of the liberals tend to be doom-and-gloomers.  I for one say, let Obama have a chance.  I think (hope) he knows he won this 52-48% so he's starting out with a 48% disapproval rate from day one.  If he does ok, fine.  If he screws up, he gets hammered.  Simple.  That's true of any president.  Until then, he's actually done nothing good or bad.
    This is a fun blog.  Glad I found it.
  • 2BlueStarMom
    Welcome Beaker!
  • DS
    How exciting!  I know how you feel.  Enjoy this blessed event.

    Welcome to the blog.  You are right on with your comments.  One more I might add tho.  Liberals spent ALL eight years trying to crucify and undermine EVERYTHING that Pre. Bush tried to accomplish for our country.  He tried to fix social security, medicare, education, and various other problems only to have to liberals fight him every step of the way.  Republicans didn't say no to everything that Clinton proposed.  As a matter of fact, I believe that it was actually the Republican controlled Congress which helped him accomplish most of what was done.  Balancing the budget would not have happened if the Republican Congress hadn't pushed for it.  Their "contract with America" was a huge success, and Bill Clinton reaped a lot of the reward from it.  Republicans are willing to work together for the good of the country.  Democrats have done NOTHING to support Pres. Bush.  That is a BIG difference in how we see our country.  COUNTRY FIRST was actually a slogan for soemone wasn't it?   ;-}
  • David W. Walters
    The part of 50 that you missed.....
    <<What i see as the main difference is the exclusivity of your other words, there is a narrow definition of those Judeo-Christian principals which leads me to believe the "common-sense" values you desire in a politician are actually idealistic and not at all common sense or based on realism.>>
    The Exclusivity of YOUR views is what leads to a lack of realism on you part.  A stance on abortion that differs from yours brands that person a murderer. 
    I don't like the idea of abortion for birth control.....few people do.  Yet we need to teach safe and effective methods of contraception which would stop this practice, and allow the choice of an abortion to remain a decision of a woman and her doctor for a mother's safety, and not the governments. The numbers you quoted on the rise of STD's and unwanted pregnancies seems to verify that the policy that promotes "abstinence only" methods of birth control and sex ed. do NOT work.  To insist on a policy that is proven not to work, shows the idealism and lack of common sense of your views.
  • DS
    I never heard 2BlueStarMom brand anyone a murderer per se, but isn't that really where we differ?  They are taking a human life.  Is that not murder?  Of course it is.  The "only" debate in regards to abortion is the argument about the time at which an embryo becomes a living human being.  If liberals were honest, they would concede that point since there is overwhelming evidence that life begins at conception.  If that is not thrue, then when does it begin?  And what triggers it to begin?  If scientists "really" believed that, they would be able to tell us.  The fatc is, it DOES begin at conception, and christians have always known that because the God who created us told us!  As far as sex ed., our schools, among other organizations have been teaching sex ed. for many years now.  And our governement has been funding it with big dollars as well.  You make it sound like it is something we haven't tried.  And yet, the numbers quoted by 2BlueStarMom prove that it doesn't work.  We know why don't we?  It's not that kids don't know what causes pregnance or STDs.  They don't need education!  They just don't want to be hassled with using any of the methods available to them.  They're a hassle.  Haven't you ever been in the position of making love with a beautiful woman, knowing it was time to put that condom on, only to say "heck with it, this feels too good...and I'm not going to stop what we're doing to slap that thing on."  "We'll be ok just this once."  Be honest David.  I know I have done that in the past.  Well, that's why sex ed. isn't working, and never will.  If we put as much money and emphasis on educating our kids on the "true and tried" method of birth control (abstinence), we should see a BIG drop in all of those statistics.  But, I'm a realist too.  I have hormones like everyone else, and I know how strong they can be.  There are a lot of kids who will never even try to abstain.  And they will also never really try to use birth control devices.  They will continue to get pregnant, and then be talked into getting an abortion because "society tells them it is ok."  That is why pregnancies keep going up.  If abortion wasn't so accepted/promoted, there would be many fewer there were back before the 60's introduced us to the sexual revolution.   So, this is a spritual/societal issue which can only be resolved by spiritual/societal methods.  God needs to be allowed back into our lives so that everyone can see what "real" truth is, and how to find it.

    Isn't it amazing that we always come right back to God in all of our differences?  Is that a coincidence?  I don't think so!  God is truth, and without God men attempt to create their own truth.  The problem is that every man has his own definition of truth.  Logically, that means that there is no truth without believing in God.  And none of His truths have EVER been disproved.  If you know of any, let me know.  But man's heart is evil, and doesn't want to be told what he should/shouldn't do.
  • 2BlueStarMom
    Oh David you are so silly!

    I chose not to answer because it just keeps going back and forth.

    I never really was one to get into debates or I would have become a politician and there are enough of them and enough, wanna be politician's as well.

    Let's see if I can address these things;

    "What i see as 1. the main difference is the exclusivity of your other words, there is a narrow definition of those Judeo-Christian principals

    It's true, I am exclusive and wonderfully made in and out! 

    Narrow, gosh that makes me feel better:

    "Enter through the narrow gate.
    For wide is the gate and broad is the
    road that leads to destruction, and many
    enter through it.
    But small is the gate
    and narrow the road that leads to life,
    and only a few find it"

    2.  leads me to believe the "common-sense" values you desire in a politician are actually idealistic and not at all common sense or based on realism.

    Again, I know I have stated this before, it's all about perception David. 

    You may be on to something there.  I have through life, become disenchanted with politicians and have come to the conclusion, most of the are full of bologna.  Most of them are lawyers too, so there it is.

    Howeva!   I believe you are guilty of the same thing.  You are a liberal. I am a conservative.  We are bound to disagree and I believe you are lacking common sense and realism for the idealistic views you have.

    Gosh it's a no win!
  • DS
    True wisdom comes only from God.  The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.  Common sense isn't always common.  It depends on many things like your value system, your environment, your understanding of truth, etc.
  • 2BlueStarMom
    Tell congress how you feel post election!
    The campaigning is over.
    Tell us how you feel about the election results.
    Take our Voice Vote and share your feelings with others.
  • Hallelujah
    David Walters is right. Urban is right too. Support the President-Elect.

  • Larry
    I agree, we need to support Barack Obama, although with some caution. He has been elected to the highest office in our country and as such, deserves our respect. We can do that and still disagree with his policies, calling him out on them, without acting like the Democrats have acted in hating President Bush the way they have.
  • Titus Hunt
    I'll never act like the democrats and spread the hatred they did and still do with Bush.  i think most republicans have too much class for that.  however, i don't know how much i can support obama, especially since i think he is dangerous, and this country has more to lose than it ever has in past elections.  he owes too many favors and has promised everything just to get a vote.  i'll pray for him and our country though.  to see our country come out of this mess and if he has integrity through it all will earn my respect.
  • KevinP
    David, what you said about Regean does go hand in hand with my thoughts of Obama...I do not agree with all of his policies, but I see him as an intelligent and charismatic man who has qualities about him that are presidential.  DS, I am sure that makes me an "Obama supporter" or a "pseudo-conservative".  If voting for my own party regardless of grave errors and irresonsible decisions makes me a "true conservative", then you can have it.  frankly, I fear for people that cannot see fault within their own party...we have had our share of faults my friend.  Look at the past 8 years which has been 8 years of primarily Republican rule.  Look at the reaction of the world to Bush and how that has affected America's standing within the globe.  Look at what has happened to our economy and how things got out of hand.  This was under our policies that all of this happened.  And now the person who was supposed to take us out of all of this mess made the most unwise decision in choosing a running mate and that became clear throughout the campaign.  I am not listening to liberal agendas; I think if Obama had chosen someone like Palin to run with, our party would have had so much to fault in his decision.  Even the Alaskan state newspaper would not back her for the fact that she was simply not ready.  And what of McCain's campaign?  How cowardly of them to suddently trash Palin after the election...if there were doubts, they should have forced her resignation (as many had wanted to) and chosen a different running that would have made a true maverick.  Yes, this may have cost us the election, but for godsakes, this is our country we are talking about.  We are in the worst economic crisis since the great not tell me that Palin was the right decision.  It was for this reason I, and many other "pseudo-republicans" stayed home on November 4th.  Am I proud that I did not vote?  No.  Am I proud that I did not vote blindly?  Yes.  What I learned from this election is that the Republican party is in need of serious reform.
  • Robbin Swad
    Just came across this blog and your post. Two days before your post I wrote a blog post with a very similar message. And on a social networking site where I have been passionately arguing with liberals for months against an Obama Presidency, I had posted this message:

    "When all is said and done, I have felt from the outset, that if my candidate didn't secure the Presidency, I would not despair.

    I have always known that the embodiment of my assurance, my well-being and hope could not really be directed towards any one individual.

    Barack Obama will, after all, be our President and, by virtue of his authority and position-- he is worthy of our respect. That doesn't necessarily mean that I will be supportive of various positions which I may oppose-- however, it does mean that I feel we need to unite in the best manner of which we are capable and that regardless of our views, we can each strive to do our part in moving this nation forward with dignity and civility. "

    But those who hope in the LORD
    will renew their strength.
    They will soar on wings like eagles;
    they will run and not grow weary,
    they will walk and not be faint.

    Isaiah 40:3"

    I appreciate your sentiments and your service to our nation.
  • DS
    Oh Kevin, why do you continue repeating the same old excuse?  We've already talked about Palin.  She was NOT the reason McCain lost.  She has more guts and honesty in her little finger than most of the other politicians put together.  She is like all of us regular folks.  She has a normal family, great husband, loves the Lord, and has wisdom that comes only from God.  For goodnes sake Kevin, how much power does the President "really" have?  His main responsibility is to protect the people from attacks, whether they be foreign or domestic.  And I have no doubt that Sarah would have been able to perform that job admirably.  Besides, she would have had a team of counselors around her to help make those decisions.  And I know she could have learned everything she needed to know in a pretty short timeframe.  What experience does Obama have in this regard which makes him so much better than Palin?  NONE!  So stop the Palin argument already!  And as far as McCain's campaign trashing her, it turns out that they didn't!  It was an MSNBC hoax after all.  They made it all up!  Gee, are we surprised?  Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews probably spent a lot of time planning that.  What a disgrace the media was during this campaign!  I don't trust anything they say anymore.  You can go ahead and change parties if you like.  The Republican party doesn't need to change Kevin.  It just needs to get back to it's roots and stand up to it's conservative values again!  This country is still center-right, and the conservative party will be back stronger than ever!   Just stop complaining about Palin, ok?
  • 2BlueStarMom
    Ok all, Yesterday was false labor.  This morning, she's back at the hospital and in full blown labor!

    Now, since my family nor anyone in this neck of the woods, knows I am posting here, I had said I would explain why this baby is such a miracle.

    This child, my son's child, almost ended up a statistic.  One of the millions that are destroyed annually in our country alone.

    The mother's parents tried to talk the mother into having an abortion.
    The mother is 21.

    The day of this attempt for the family to sneak her off to take the babys life, my son found out and went to the entire family, pleading for his child's life.

    Crying, debating, pleading he stood his ground and left with these words "I can't believe I am standing here, pleading for my child's life.   You have heard my feelings and thoughts on this, you know where I stand.  This baby is my baby too.   If you take it's life, the blood is on your hands."

    It was also with the intervention of a female friend of my son's, who called the mother, with prayerful words of wisdom and love that stopped this horrible thing from happening.

    So, today, the baby is being born.   As I speak, they are at the hospital and she is definitely having him today.   I am on my way there now!

    Please pray for us that her delivery is smooth as she has had some complications.

    Also, that this child will rise up and call her blessed!

    God Bless ya'll and thank you for your support, as always!
  • davidwwalters
    Fight for ALL those babies, and don't forget about the ones killed by bombs!
  • DS
    Why do you have to throw insults in a situation like this?  BlueStar was only sharing her situation.  This shows how lost you really are...nothing more needs to be said.

    I will be praying today for your daughter-in-law and your grandbaby.  God, bless them and keep them, and cause your light to shine upon them.  And may your mind be the mind of the doctor, and may your hands be his hands.  We thank you already for what you're going to do! 
    In Jesus' wonderful name, 
  • 2BlueStarMom
    Thanks DS!

    ;-)  He's here!

    Of course I got to hold him and kiss him!

    I am so stoked!  

    Thanks for the prayers.   Mom is doing good and all is well.

    Perfect features, all parts there, alert and oriented.

    Gonna go back and get some more lovin!

    Talk to ya'll later!
  • 2BlueStarMom

    Sign the Petition :
  • DS
    That's fantastic!!   Thank you Jesus!!  Love that little boy grandma!  He is a miracle from God, and you will have a lot of stories to tell him when he's older.  By the way, I have a miracle baby myself.  My daughter (who is now 19) was a miracle baby.  I had a vasectomy in a previous marriage.  It had been done about 15 years before my current wife and I decided we would like to try for a baby.  It cost about $5,000 for the reversal at that time, and we couldn't afford it.  But, with the help of God, she went to work for a company whose insurance policy covered that type of surgery.  So we went forward with it.  The doctor told us he didn't have much hope that it would work since it had been so long since the vasectomy.  But we told him, "That's ok doctor, go ahead and perform it.  We believe that it is God's will for us to have a baby."  Story short, we got pregnant three months later, and had our miracle baby girl.  We named her Lindsay Nicole which means "Refreshing One" - "Victorius Heart", and she has been just that!  She has brought so much joy to our family.  I can't imagine never having her.  I hope everyone else doesn't mind that I told my story here.  I just felt a real connection to 2BlueStarMom, and wanted to share my story as well.  Both of our stories are examples of how much God loves each and every one of us.  Trust Him today, and see if He doesn't pour out a blessing on you as well.
  • 2BlueStarMom
    Our God is Good.  Even though we have devastation that touches our lives as well, we know that it all works together for Good.   He is in control.  If he wasn't, mankind would have destroyed themselves a long time ago.
  • DS
    Amen!  Oh, I forgot to add that my daughter is currently a sophmore in college.  She is going to be a pediatric nurse.  She LOVES kids!  Gee, I wonder is that is why God sent her to us?  ;-}
  • davidwwalters
    I did say:

    <<Fight for ALL those babies, and don't forget about the ones killed by>> bombs!
    ....but not to be insulting.....just to draw attention to the fact that babies die from reasons other than abortion........Reasons that can be halted.
    I am glad for 2BlueStarMom, i applaud her efforts to save lives in these instances.....yet i'd like everyone here to be cognizant   of the fact that babies die due to policies that many here support.....and you know exactly what i mean.
  • DS
    Yes, and I agreed with you already about that didn't I?  Why do you feel like you need to keep bringing it up?  And besides, don't you see ANY difference between aborting innocent babies BEFORE they are even born and innocent children who are killed because they happen to be shields for terrorists who want to kill ANYONE who don't agree with their religion?  They kill innocent babies, children, mothers, fathers all of the time in the name of Allah.  How can you morally equate them the same?  That is absolutely ridiculous.  Don't keep trying...
  • 2BlueStarMom
    And further more................besides all of the additional millions that will be murdered under Obama's reign, what you are you going to say when innocent civilians overseas are accidentally killed under his reign?

    Let me think.........oh..............the mainstream media won't report it, will they?!

    Nope, they sure won't.  And as long as we don't see it, or know about it, it didn't happen, right?!

    What Hypocrites!
  • KevinP
    My gosh, you don't like listening to people that disagree with you, do you DS?  Relax my friend, people are allowed opinions, that is why this country is so great.  For some reason (Palin or not), we lost this election and we lost it bad.  I happen to think she is one of the main reasons, but if you think she is qualified to run this country than I thank god for the majority of Americans that did not agree with you (conservatives or not).  But you may be right, perhaps its the ineptness of the past 8 years in power that caused us to fall.  Or perhaps it was the way the McCain campaign ran without a strong central message.  Either way, the country has spoken and now its the liberals turn to do their thing.  We will see if they can get us out of our mess....only time will tell. If not, maybe our party can reform ourselves as they often talk about on FOX.  But perhaps you are right and the future of our party is in the hands of the likes of Governor Palin; I will just hold my breath that she can mend her image, mature, become more knowledgable in four more years and then win over the majority of voters in 2012.  Then she can move her "normal family" into the White House, grandbaby and all.
  • davidwwalters
    i guess if we can rationalize killing kids this way:
    <<because they happen to be shields for terrorists>>
    We can rationalize abortion as well.
    This was the point i brought to 2BlueStarMom's attention a while back.

    <<How can you morally equate them the same?>>

    Have you ever laid eyes on a dismembered child killed by the explosion of a 500lb bomb?  I will never get that sight out of my mind's eye.  Oh....the cause was just, the target was hit precisely as ordered, and the result was one less child....

    If Obama wants to use the same strategy in Pakistan as Bush is....i will oppose that strategy as well.
  • DS
    Kevin P,
    ok, we can agree to disagree about Palin.  We have a lot of good, young leaders in our party.  But you know, I'm not a "party" man.  Yes, I'm registered Republican.  But I don't just vote Republican for the sake of it.  I vote for the BEST person for the job, the one who most closely reflects my values.  And what are those values?  They are 1) smaller, less intrusive government, 2) less taxes - we are paying WAY too many taxes, 3) cut spending - starting with all of the pork, 4) pro family values.

    One last thing Kevin.  Why do you have so much hatred towards Sarah?  I can see you not thinking she is qualified to be President, but why so much hatred?  Your last statement is pretty personal, and harsh. 
    Your last statement:
     "Then she can move her "normal family" into the White House, grandbaby and all."

    Is it that you are only a fiscal conservative, but liberal on social issues?  That you don't agree with common christian values?  Is that it Kevin?
  • Dora
    Republicans claim to want less intrusive government but, until you get your face out of my bedroom you are nothing even remotely what you claim.
    Until you can keep from formulating laws based solely upon your religion from ruling me who does not believe in your religion,, you are nothing even remotely close to what you claim.
  • DS
    Sorry, you can't rationalize abortion!  How do you rationalize the "murdering" of an "unborn" child who NEVER did anything wrong?  NO WAY David! 
    I already explained the differences to you, but of course you don't want to see it.  And I also said that we (christians) don't like war, and the fact that innocent people are "killed" in wars.  Did you notice my different use of words above?  Yes, they are different for a reason.  Deaths during wars are not considered murder since both sides are aware of the possibility, and are fighting for their cause.  The fact that terrorists hide within the civilian population is an evil, sad part of war.  Take it out on the terrorists David, and not us!  It is their fault that innocents die because they are cowards!  An unborn baby has no way of fighting the abortionist.  That is why christians are fighting for them!  What a paradox huh?  We are fighting for the life of the unborn, while the terrorists are hiding within the homes of innocents not caring at all if they live or die.  Hmmm, who should we be siding with?
  • DS
    What are you talking about?  We're not "in your bedroom."  Where do you get that?  I personally don't care what you do "in your bedroom."  BUT there are laws about what you can do in public, so don't confuse them.  And what laws have we established based soley on our religion?  We don't speak in generalities on this blog as you have seen.  Be specific Dora.  It's ok, we can handle it.
  • 2BlueStarMom
    What we have here, is a failure to communicate.  The spin, is absolutely unbelievable.

    They choose what they want to read and pick out what fuels their fire.

    You can't make blind people see.   Not going to happen.
  • DS
    All I really want to do is to introduce them to the Great Physician, the Mighty Counselor, the Almight God.  He, and only He can heal their blindness and soften their hearts.  I know I can't do it, but He can!
  • Bobby G
    Amen, DS,

    If the Great Physician cannot get thru to them, because of their unbelief, then it seems that the cause is hopeless.  For Jesus to soften their hearts, they must be willing to let Him. 

    On another note tho, I agree that we must support the president, or at least respect the office, for he is our elected leader.  We need to petition to change what we can, and voice our disappointment with his moral stand where it conflicts with biblical principle, but our support must be there for the things that benefit America. 

    By the grace of God, and by His mercy, I commend Barach Obama to the Great Physician, and to the Power of the cross.
  • DS
    Amen Bobby G!!
  • KevinP
    Relax DS, my statement on Palin at the end was a joke.  You have said quite a few things on these blogs that may be construed as hatred, but I would never call you a hater. 
    To answer your question, I am a fiscal conservative, but when I feel that the trickle down economy is not working for us, I am open to hearing other people's views.  I believe certain economic policies work well in ideal times, but given certain circumstances (time of war for example, coming off of huge errors made by credit lenders), perhaps we should pay attention to other points of view.  Clearly, letting corporations run free without a lot of government regulation has not worked for us in some ways...look at where we are now in terms of our economy as well as environmental concerns.  So, yes, I am a fiscal conservative, but when something fails, I like to try and dissect the problem instead of covering my ears and saying my way is the only way.
    Am I a liberal on social issues?  For the most part I would say no.  I agree with the traditional Christian values, but I also endorse freedom of religion.  And while I have my beliefs, I dont like to endorse them to the point where I throw them in people's faces.  I think religion is a personal issue and should be left out of political discussion.  I do not believe in mixing church and state.  I also think that the more people keep preaching religion on this site, the more bitter and desperate they seem.  Religion is not something to throw in people's faces...people will see what they should when they should.
  • DS
    Sorry, I should have realized it was a joke.  As far as my comments being construed as hatred, I have no control over how people view them.  If you have an example, show it to me.  Otherwise, don't talk in general terms Kevin.  I respect your decision to not mix politics and religion, although I don't think it's possible.  If you aren't comfortable explaining to people why you believe what you believe, then I understand the silence.  If you're really a christian, you have a responsibility to spread the good news of the gospel.  Jesus commanded it.  How you want to do that is your decision.  But those of us who prefer to proclaim it (as John the Baptist and Jesus both did) can't sit quiet as we see our friends and enemies go to hell.  If they don't want to hear that's their decision.  But once they've heard the gospel, they have no excuse before God.  Make sense Kevin?
  • Bobby G
    Kevin P

    I agree, that we should never throw religion into peoples faces, but that doesn't mean that we should never talk about our faith with others.  In doing that, we violate the very teachings of Jesus who said, "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.  And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age.  Christianity is an active movement.  It is not passive.  Our hope is the same as the Lords', that all will come to repentence, but it is also true that we should never force our beliefs upon someone else.

    May the Lord bless you richly, as you seek to serve Him.
  • Patrick britton
    I'll respect the office but I can never respect the man. I will be here all the way keeping track of everything he does. I'm not going to treat him any different now that the majority of America has voted themselves a pay raise.

    The difference between how I treat Obama and how the left has treated Bush will not be the same. I think too many conservative's are worried about being that shallow but you can be on the offensive without being rude or inappropriate.

    That's where I'm going. I'm not standing shoulder to shoulder with him but I won't be spitting on him either. He'll get my prayers, I'll wish for the best but I'll be watching him like a hawk. Someone this radical has to be monitored for the sake of future reference.
  • Dora
    You people cannot read the handwriting on the wall but somehow manage to see Mary or Jesus in your toast.
    Amusing but ignorant, nonetheless.
    You lost.
    Your conservative ideology lost.
    Your trickle-down savior trickled us right down the drain.
    Your "moral high-ground" is a joke.
    Your fiscal conservatism is a joke.
    You are "do as I say, not as I do".
    Your party is in a shambles because you don't know who you are or where to go from here. 
    You as a party have managed to alienate all those voting groups that you would need to become a serious political party.  Blacks, Hispanics, gay & lesbian,  and educated Americans, with labels of "welfare queen, lazy, non-english speaking, deviants, and elitists".
    You spent the entire election process denigrating these people and now you want them to crawl back under your tiny tent? 
    Get real.

    2BlueStarMom is an excellent example of your typical leftovers in the GOP
    (grumpy old poops) closed minded,  clings to their bible and  doesn't give a damn about the future because the rapture will scoop them up and the hell with the rest.  You are totally blinded by your fairy tales as told in the Book of Contradictions and Fantasy.
  • 2BlueStarMom
    Dora. You watch too many sopa operas and may be dillusional.

    Get a grip girl.
  • davidwwalters
    <<Your trickle-down savior trickled us right down the drain.>>
    -nice way of putting it, Dora.
    Do any of the christian conservative crowd see ow they are being pandered to by the RNC?  You work hard for a living and buy into this crap of lower taxes for the top 1%......that you shouldn't have the same health care your Republican Senator enjoys.
    DS 82.....
    <<.......Sorry, you can't rationalize abortion!  How do you rationalize the "murdering" of an "unborn" child who NEVER did anything wrong?  NO WAY David!
    I already explained the differences to you, but of course you don't want to see it.>>

    -No, i see the "differences" is OK to kill children in the course of military operations......right?
    In the context of outlawing ALL abortions it just seems odd that you'd see any abortion as murder, yet so easily rationalize away a child's death as "collateral damage".  The end result is the same....a dead (innocent)child.  Supporting this kind of military operation inevitably leads to the death of small, innocent children.  The question we as thoughtful, caring people must ask is:
    "Is the the only way we can fight terrorist?" -No, it isn't
    Some will rationalize away my arguments as coming from an atheist, so it has no moral grounding.  I beg to differ.....
    Even though i have made the decision NOT to believe, i am still grounded in  Judeo-Christian ethics, and as such, i find the ends don't always justify the means.
  • DS
    Your arguments are getting weaker as you go.  You KNOW that there's a big difference in abortion and collateral damage.  That will be the final word on that subject.  Thank you for playing.

    So you still haven't answered my question.  Since we can't fight terrorism by killing them, how do you propose we protect ourselves David? 
    And finally, just because you live by Judeo-Christian ethics doesn't mean anything to God if you haven't accepted His "free" gift of salvation.  You'll just be a little better than everyone else in hell, that's all.  You really need to think hard about it David.  He is patient, but His patience does run out.  When you take your last breath, that will be too late!
  • Dora

    I don't watch soaps.
    Never have-never will. 

    I would like to know just what have I said that makes you believe that I am delusional?
    I have heard the same noise that comes out of your face for over sixty years- and I am done with people like you.  I have no time for such a tiny mind that cannot see beyond her front door yet hopes to peek in my life and force your beliefs in my face constantly. 
    The gay community is done with the likes of you.  Nobody asked you to fall in love with a woman.  Nobody asked for your version of how I should be living. Nobody asked you to get on your personal pulpit and spew religiious nonsense out of one face and rubbish out your other face. Do you honestly think that homosexuals decide one day to say "Hmmmm, I certainly would like to have this country make laws against me.  I look forward to the prospect of losing my job because of my partner, my lifestyle.  I cannot wait to walk down a quiet street so some redneck knuckle-dragger and his friends could beat the crap out of me because I wasn't in keeping with their religion.  I look forward to the day when some yahoo decides that I just haven't met the right man and rapes me, beats me and leaves me in a ditch."
    I have been through it all, 2Blue- all of it.  And, on top of this, comes your wimpy pompus face full of your religious crap yet again. 
    You don't know the half of it.  You are as clueless as they come. 
    Stick to something you know- whatever that is.
  • davidwwalters
    Since we can't fight terrorism by killing them, how do you propose we protect ourselves David?>>
    it won't be easy, since we have embarked on this military endeavor, it is hard to switch gears....the good will we once enjoyed in the world will be difficult to regain. 
    More emphasis on special ops units, along with cultivating human intelligence networks in that region, paying particular emphasis to those regions we have a reasonable idea the "Bad Guys" are located.  Less emphasis on relying on predator drones to shoot a hellfire missiles into suspected locations.  The idea is to keep a low profile and a small footprint in that area where we aren't exactly the most popular national entity to the local population(do you  blame them?).
  • DS
    We're already doing all of that.  We don't "just" rely on drones.  We have special forces and human intelligence on the ground already.  That is how they determine where to send the drones.  So beyond those tactics, do you have any other ways?  I agree it isn't easy, but it is necessary....and we are the ONLY super power who can do it.  I'm sure ALL of us would love to see someone else do it, but this is where the world is right now.  Everyone else relys on the U.S. to protect them.  I don't like it, but that is the way it is, and I don't see it changing anytime soon, if ever.  And as far as "good will" goes, the peace that everyone says we were enjoying was a false peace wasn't?  Bin Laden and his ilk have been in war with us for a long time.  We just chose to ignore them when they bombed the Cole, the Twin Towers the first time, and various other places around the globe.  In actuality, it would have been better if we would have gone after them in those attacks rather than ignore them.  GW finally said that is enough, and we have taken it to them since 911.  That is what needed to happen.  If we would have just ignored everything, some rogue country (probably Iraq) would have had nuclear weapons, and would have provided them to Al Qaeda by now.   This is a war that we MUST win!  I hope BHO doesn't pull back, or they will see it as weakness again.  Then we better watch out!  One of our major cities will be destroyed.
  • davidwwalters
    Did D. Rumsfeld or his successor do anything to increase the size of our military(personnel) after 9-11?  No, the military is essentially the same size in spite of the huge increase in defense spending......more contracts for arms suppliers, less funding for troops.
    <<We have special forces and human intelligence on the ground already.>>
    -But not nearly enough.  The Rumsfeld doctrine depended far too much on reserves and National Guard as a mechanism to keep costs down (remember the term "War on the Cheap"?)
    Dropping bombs all over the region as reaction may play well to some segments of the electorate in the USA, but it does more harm than good in the long run.
    What i'm saying is that what we as a nation have been doing under "W" has been ALL wrong.  Barack Obama would do well to bring Gen. A. Zinni(USMC) back from his teaching @ Duke University.....he had the audacity to criticise Rumsfeld....
    -Obama has pledged to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps by 100,000.  This is a step in the right direction.
  • DS
    Wow, I can't believe what I'm hearing!  It's ALL Bush's fault.  It took us a while to get here, but I knew we would.  Don't go there!  And your argument is lame.  First, you don't know how many special forces and human intelligence we DO HAVE on the ground.  So how can you say that?  Second, it was Clinton who destroyed our military.  President Bush had the job of building it back up.  And OF COURSE he's gotten nothing but flack from the Dems for doing it, fighting him EVERY step of the way!  Come on David, you can't have it both ways.  And third, BHO has promised to start tearing it doewn again, NOT build it up.  And if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale.  I don't know where you got that idea?  He wants to end this war as quickly as he can, and pull our military back home.  And what do you think Bush should have done to increase the military, institute the draft?  Yeah, that would have gone over really big!  But, as a matter of fact, enlistmens AND re-enlistments increaed after 911.  It didn't matter what Bush did.  The Dems would NOT have let him or his cabinet be successful.  The past eight years have been the most HATEFUL political years in history as far as I', concerned.  And it has happened during a time of war!  What a disgrace!!!
  • Titus Hunt
    There is now a concern that if obama cuts military spending, people will stop joining the military.  there are consequences that obama will not be able to control if he pulls out of Iraq too soon or doesn't fund the military adequately.  even the perception of a decrease in funding is troublesome.  of course, there needs to be a watchdog in place to ensure our money is not being wasted.  obama talks big for someone who has no experience and has already started to back off of some of his promises.  so who knows where our country will be in four years.  i don't trust him!
  • davidwwalters
    DS....."There you go again....." & greetings from Moore Co. (-back end of Ft. Bragg)......
    in 99 you incorrectly stated: 
    <<First, you don't know how many special forces and human intelligence we DO HAVE on the ground.  So how can you say
    that? >>

    -Let's just say i know a bit (non-classified)about things related to special ops.....but it ain't enough(Special Forces, Rangers, Seals).......  Bush is no friend of military personnel....his budget's were concerned mostly with funding weapons systems and contracts....NOT increases in troop strength!
    <<....Second, it was Clinton who destroyed our military.....>>
    -Truth is,  the decline in defense spending during the Clinton administration was put in place by  Bush1......
    Again, let's deal with facts, not political rhetoric; How many troops did Bush2 add?
    What i'm talking about is troop levels of active duty personnel.....not overall military spending.
    <<And third, BHO has promised to start tearing it down again, NOT build it up.>>
    Look it up for yourself....i'm not doing your research for you !
    In reading a Veterans of Foreign Wars article, Barack pledged an increase of 75,000 active duty army and 25,000 active duty marines to deal with stop loss and maintain troop moral by giving more time between deployments overseas.
    <<And what do you think Bush should have done to increase the military, institute the draft?>>

    Bush callously decided to commit a force that was far too small, augmented with reservist&national guards because he wanted to maintain his spending on military contracts and keep his tax cut for his buddies...  (.....the "have you cake and eat it too" routine).
    <<The Dems would NOT have let him or his cabinet be successful.>>
    Really?  Didn't he get a blank check from congress before the 2003 invasion?
    I really wanted success for the iraqi operation, but i had a bad feeling from the get go on this.  Invading with barely 150,000 troops was a recipe for failure.
  • davidwwalters
    Titus is concerned(100):
    <<There is now a concern that if Obama cuts military spending, people will stop joining the military.>>
    -Where is this concern?  Only on right wing blogs, i suspect......
    -Spending on "big-ticket" items such as missile shields, next generation aircraft maybe be reduced and replacement parts for weapons & equipment worn out by constant deployments can be made. 
    <<there needs to be a watchdog in place to ensure our money is not being wasted.>>
    -And it wasn't wasted under George2?
    <<there are consequences that Obama will not be able to control if he pulls out of Iraq too soon or doesn't fund the military adequately.>>
    -Such as?  Consequences like fewer US Service Members dying?  That Boeing or some other contractor will have a smaller profit?
  • DS
    I'm not going to argue with you about military strength or whether we're spending it in the right place or not.  First off, neither of us can "prove" anything because we're not close enough to the inside.  You may know some people in the military, but that doesn't provide you all of the information, so I can't consider you an expert.  I WANT missile defense shields, and I want them NOW!!!  They are probably the ONLY thing that can actually protect us and our friends in Europe from Iran and Russia at this point.  You can't reason with these people, and DON'T tell me you can.  That is hogwash!  Putin and the Iranian leadership is UNTRUSTWORTHY, and that's reality.  We need to make sure we don't decrease our military prowess, and we need to RESPOND to their threats accordingly.  Unfortunately, that "may" mean using military force.  Hopefully, BHO will have strengthened the military before that happens.
  • Titus Hunt
    David:  i can say that clinton cut the military intelligience that we had built up for years.  intelligience in the middle east takes decades to build up.  that hurt us tremendously when 911 hit.  the government was begging for people who could translate because clinton had made that area almost obsolete.  that was a huge problem because the government was trying to investigate what happened and had all of these taped conversations but no way to translate them quickly because of the lack of staff.  that had nothing to do with either Bush.  and no this was not a right winged news report i was watching.  this just makes sense.  if someone is considering going into the military and hears there will be less money, the perception is out there.  so some are worried that we won't be able to have the enlistments we need.  why do you always assume this comes from the right when this is just common sense?  i wouldn't want my son fighting under those circumstances.  that would not make this parent comfortable.  so i wonder how many other folks may feel this way when/if the budget is cut?
  • davidwwalters
    Titus 104:
    <<why do you always assume this comes from the right when this is just common sense?>>
    ecause all to often, ignorance is mistaken for common sense.  And i don't mean that in a mean spirited way.....simply that lack of understanding fosters misconceptions.  It was "common sense" that dictated our fiasco in Iraq. 
    -There are guys i know deploying for the 3rd time.....they have to purchase new magazines for their weapon at Ranger Joes, since the ones issued are worn out.  -This is Bush's budget, not Obama's that sends our son&daughters into harms way ill equipped. 
    Our sons&daughters need larger troop strength to increase turn around time between deployments, something McCain never addressed, but Obama pledged to do.
    Cuts CAN come from costly missile shields for Poland....we simply cannot afford it.  Hell, even if iran builds a nuke, who's to say they'd put it on a missile?  It would be far easier to place a nuke in a shippin container and place it on board a merchant vessel and set it off in any port they is a "missile shield" gonna protect us against that threat?

  • DS
    I still want missile shields as it appears that the cold war era just might be rearing it's ugly head again.  Putin is not to be trusted, and he and his other buddies like Chavez and Ahmadinejad are becoming much too chummy.  Throw in N. Korea and potentially Pakistan, and we need every kind of protection we can get.  If missile shields aren't that important, why do our European friends want them and why is Russia fighting so hard to stop them?  I want missile shields, and we can also do more to make our ports safe.
  • Titus Hunt
    David:  i understand that there are problems with the  war in Iraq and how it has been mishandled.  i have always disagreed with the wasteful spending.  however, obama has already proven he doesn't care about our money.  this was shown recently when he wants to start sending money overseas to fund their abortions.  that shows you the stupidity in is money management skills.  his promises to hand out checks and the kitchen sink is what got him elected.  because of this example and the fact that he has backed down from his economic promises already, i don't trust his judgement on money and funding the war adquately.  this could cost more lives lost!  that is never a good thing.  i think that parents and potential recruits will wait to see what happens before enlisting.
  • davidwwalters
    <<If missile shields aren't that important, why do our European friends want them and why is Russia fighting so hard to stop them?>>
    I can understand why Poland would want them, they have a long hateful history with Russia&The Soviet Union.....Understanding Russia's feeling on this matter is a no brainer.
    -Can we afford to protect Poland?  Not right now, DS......and the shield does nothing to protect the United States Homeland!  Let Poland get busy and beef up their military.....
    Again....picture this scenario:
    The United States has budget problems......we spend trillions on a shield in Europe.  The threat (possibly) is iran.  Say they are able to produce a nuke, just as N. Korea did(or almost did).  It would take years to perfect the techniques to mount that weapon on any missile they are likely to possess.
    But i doubt they be so bold as to launch one anyway.....but i don't doubt they'd give one away to someone else.   And that someone else would find it so easy to just place it on board a container ship bound for NYC.  
    We have wasted all this money to protect Poland just to allow a non-governmental entity to nuke us the low tech way!  The money is best invested in upgrading our troop strength in the event we actually DO need to take on iran.....
  • DS
    We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  We'll see what BHO and his advisors decide.  I HOPE I don't have to say I told you so.
  • davidwwalters
    << this was shown recently when he wants to start sending money overseas to fund their abortions>>
    I can't speak for Barack(I'd not make a good press secretary, 'cause i have a Joe Scarborough mouth)
    ......But like i said, i'd hope he'd use the money from the "abstinence only" program Bush Jr. was pluggin' around the world.....
    <<this could cost more lives lost! >>
    i guess i can't say it enough, we've lost 4,000+ for no good reason.....
    -But don't take my word for it(-Just a silly lib, huh?)
    Read some stuff by Gen. Anthony Zinni(-not quite a lib, this guy......)Or Gen. Hugh Shelton(-a former boss of mine)
    As to enlistments......i joined in 1980, the economy was so bad when my girl got pregnant, it was the only job in town, kinda like now, huh? (it's called an economic draft)
  • Titus Hunt
    David:  i agree with the abstinence only program of Bush's.  that is the only way to prevent the spread of AIDS and unwanted pregancies.  look at Africa.  then if people are stupid, that is the child who knew better and parent's fault and the government should stay out of it completely including paying for any costs.  however, we should not be sending money more out of the country especially now.  obama's rhetoric has now proven to be lies before he takes office.  if he meant what he said about cutting spending, this would never have happened.  it is ridiculous.  i don't think 4,000 lives were lost for no reason but that is a matter of opinion.  for what it is worth, i don't think the war was planned properly and there were a lot of mistakes made.  however, we have to do what is right now because we can't go back.
  • davidwwalters
    -you're not a Robeson Co. Hunt, are you?  My dad is Robeson Co. Chavis on his momma's side! (Lumbees rule!)....makes me part Lumbee, part redneck and half German!
    Abstinence only may work for some, yet for others the hormones rage despite any&all moralizing.  Seems like i knew a young man like that once.
    He met a woman of equal libido....
    <<....... that is the only way to prevent the spread of AIDS and unwanted pregnancies.>>
    No perfect way towards prevention, yet we both know there are ways.

    To be sure, i AM going to be matching Obama's pre-election rhetoric with his post-election actions.  -Haven't seen a president who was a 100% match on that count. 
    <<.........however, we have to do what is right now because we can't go back.>>
    -True! We cannot go back.  We do however, have to guard against the policies that have placed us in this present mess. 
    To be successful on this, Obama has to bear in mind that it was the CIA in 1953 that place the hated Shah of Iran on the "Peacock Throne", and today's anti-American sentiment in that nation is directly related to that.  This is but one case in many.  "Blow-Back", the unintended consequences of an action at a later date has come to haunt the USA in that sad region of the world.  We are dealing with the blow-back of so many of our ill conceived plans from more than 50 years ago, and how many new "Bin Ladens" are we conceiving even now?
  • MReyn
    Obama Derangement Syndrome should be out of the question.  But I hear a lot of people saying "Oh, give him a chance, he isn't even president yet."  Conservatives need to stay energized.  I feel like there's a temptation by some to become complacent after The One's victory.

    Our concerns prior to the election still stand and are more relevant than ever now that he has won.  There's really no telling when and if the sycophantic MSM will end the honeymoon. 

    This blog's importance his risen significantly in the aftermath of 11.4.08.  The MSM wandered into the Obama Camp and went native, so until they've un-divorced themselves from reality, holding the Pelosi, Reid, Obama Axis accountable is going to fall on the shoulders of citizen journalists.

    It's our responsibility as Americans to do so.
  • Beaker
    I'm one of those who didn't support Obama in the election and am very wary of his background and intent.  I'm also one of those who says "give him a chance".  I can assure you and all that I'm not complacent.  I just realize that, barring some revelation, he'll take on the office on Jan 20.  At that time, we should keep an eye on him and his minions in congress.  If he does ok, fine, but if he screws up or makes a sharp liberal move, we're on him.  I do agree with the rest of your statement, though.
  • davidwwalters
    <<Obama Derangement Syndrome should be out of the question.>>
    -MReyn, perhaps you didn't get the message from the election 2 weeks ago....the people voted for a change.  Would you rather be an obstructionist, or give the voice of the people the respect due and allow this man you refer to as " The One" a chance to govern?
  • KevinP
    This is ridiculous.  Even after Clinton was elected, I never would say "l hope he fails", which is essentially what you are saying MReyn.  THIS IS OUR COUNTRY you are talking about.  Yes, we lost the election.  Now it is time to pick up the pieces and give the leader who was voted in by a huge margin the chance to lead.  We have had our chance and we dug ourselves deep.  If the left feels they can get us out of this mess, then by all means, let them try.
  • MReyn
    Beaker - Holding him accountable now has already yielded positive results.  He wanted to appoint Henry Rivera to head his FCC transition team.  This guy is a proponent of the Fairness Doctrine.  After this was brought to light, public pressure forced Obama to reassign him.  This is what we need to watch out for from the get-go.  He's going to use this grace period to try and slip things in under the radar.

    davidwwalters - When it comes to infringements on the first (Fairness Doctrine), second (Illinois handgun ban), and thirteenth amendments (mandatory service in a civilian defense force), I absolutely will be an obstructionist.  I don't care if 99% of the people want that sort of change, this is a republic.

    KevinP - I said nothing that even resembles "I hope he fails." I said we better hold him accountable for things he deserves to be held accountable for.  And while we're on the subject of failure, I do hope he fails to accomplish the sort of change I outlined in my response to davidwwalters.
  • davidwwalters
    MReyn  118.....
    What could be wrong with allowing equal time to address some of the crap that comes out of talk radio?  It's only fair!
    Get a shotgun....that's what i use!
  • Beaker
    Allowing equal time?  Sure.  Requiring it?  No.  The "Fairness Doctrine" is inherently unfair in that it mandates equal time for other viewpoints.  If a liberal talk show host wants to start a program and put it on a string of stations, I say "go for it".  It's certainly their right to do so.  But to "require" a station to provide airtime for something that most listeners won't want is rediculous.  If conservative talk radio is so popular it's because people like to listen to it.  Plain and simple.  If people didn't like it, it would go away.  The whole thing sounds like something out of the old Soviet Union, such as "Pravda" which translates laughingly to "truth".
  • Dora
    Here's one for 2BlueStarMom:
  • Dora
    In a nutshell:

    It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs.
    Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs.
    Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting.
  • davidwwalters
    equal time?  Sure.  Requiring it?>>
    if hateful stuff spews from a radio, why not Require a's only fair! No one should be scared of truth.
    Dora, i read that too! Kathleen Parker was dead on.
  • davidwwalters
    We at the National Republican Trust are beginning a multi-million dollar TV ad campaign to counter Obama and his backers.
    <<We want to stop them in Georgia and end Obama's radical agenda in Congress.
    We need you to join them - please do so by Going Here Now
    The maximum donation is $5000. It is a small amount when you consider how much you'll pay if
    Obama gets his way and increases your taxes, as he promises.
    But even if you donate less, say $2500 or $1000 or even $500 -- it will make a huge difference in our TV ad campaign>>
    Even $500?  Wow, how nice!  We know who the supporters of the Republicans are.....Obama's campaign asked for slightly less money, i wonder why?
  • Beaker
    David - Hateful, like a lot of things, is in the eye, or ear, of the beholder.  One person's hateful is another's right on.  There's no clear-cut way to determine which is which.  It's all opinion.  I've never heard anyone on the radio call for violence or destruction.  That would be hateful - in my opinion.
  • Dora
    Rush Limbaugh called for riots and predicted them in Denver during the Democratic convention.  I would call that destructive and violent.
  • davidwwalters
    Did y'all here Rush railing against naming roads after Obama?  Why?  What's the point other than stokin' latent racism in an underhanded manner?
  • Titus Hunt
    well i can proudly say that i know a good many young people who are republicans!  they are unmarried and in college.  my son who is in college is amazed at the stupidity of the folks at his school.  they voted for obama for change.  however, if you ask them what kind of change, questions about simple economics and what obama' plan is, they have no clue!  every democrat that i've met, with the exception of David Walters on this site, has no clue about the effects of economic policy on this country, and those seem to be typical voters on the left!  however, all you have to do is ask them and they will tell you how smart they are!
  • davidwwalters
    Titus  128:
    <<......., with the exception of David Walters on this site, has no clue about the effects of economic policy on this country, and those seem to be typical voters on the left!  however, all you have to do is ask>>

    -Well, there are some on the right who can't seem to comprehend how our military budget, bloated with "gold plated" items for political cronies(....and they are on both sides of the aisle......) -is also hurting our economy.
    -Don't get me wrong, we need a strong military.  Yet some things in the budget just don't make sense in today's world.  B-2 bombers, Virginia class subs are not going to cost effectively counter the threat we presently face.  A larger standing, full time ground force does need to be funded though.
  • MReyn
    davidwwalters 119

    The Fairness Doctrine mandates so called fairness, it doesn't allow it. The sycophantic MSM serves just fine as the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party.  AM radio plays what sells, and it happens to be conservative talk radio.  Don't like it? Too bad, capitalism strikes again.

    And how would the fairness doctrine be enforced?  How do you determine what is and is not a conservative or liberal thought?  Who decides any of that? Why should the government mandate that sort of thought policing?  How could anyone who claims to support the first amendment or democracy in general be in favor of that?

    In response to 127, this "If you don't support The One, you're racist" schitck is infantile at best.  Maybe, just maybe, Rush and conservatives don't want to name schools, roads, babies, and holidays after Obama because he isn't president and hasn't done anything yet?
  • davidwwalters
    In response to 127, this "If you don't support The One, you're racist" schitck is infantile at best.  Maybe, just maybe, Rush and conservatives don't want to name schools, roads, babies, and holidays after Obama because he isn't president and hasn't done anything yet?>>

    By elevating Rush to the same standards as MSM would mean that he'd actually have to report  news.  He doesn't do that.  He regurgitates the RNC daily talking points.  Fridays's comments had no newsworthiness other than to inflame hate against the man.....for what reason?  Your claim that he hasn't done anything yet is the cover, but we know all to well this is straight out of Lee Atwater's book on stoking racism that has been so much of a part of republican election stategy.  No, there are no "N" words used as Strom Thurmond did, it's cleaned up just a bit.
    No, Obama has already accomplished one thing, and that is getting elected in spite of the Rev. Wright hate commercials the RNC aired here in North Carolina the weekend prior to the election......North Carolina went for Obama.  The first democrat since 1976 to accomplish that feat!