I agree with you too, snookums. Isn't it time we got a little more sophisticated as an electorate (ROFLMAO) and demand that our leaders pay attention to what's important? My biggest beef, by far, with Georgie Boy (friend of Kenny-Boy) is that he squandered the unified feeling that existed in our country immediately after 9/11/01 in 2 1/2 short years. I want to hear the words, at least, that I heard at the DNC, that we are ONE country. I didn't live through WWII but I can't imagine that the President concentrated on divisive issues when the country as a whole was called on to sacrifice because we were at war.
A true leader would call on us to put aside our differences for the ideals of preserving our country, which is under attack, as a beacon of hope and democracy in the world. A true leader would call for the best in us, not the worst.

Your comment is dead on. Bush bombed the hell out of some bad guys, but he hasn't lead at all.

Right on LK1. Someone simply needs to examine Bush actions and ask who are they all for? Big tax cuts. Easy job exports. Easy offshore tax havens. Nice fat contracts in a War in Iraq. Control of an Oil Supply, all of which is slated to be turned over to US corporations. Easy deficit-financed pork on a massive scale. Easing of mining and logging restrictions on federal land. Easing of air pollution on utilities. Who is all of this for? For the Amercian people? In a rats ass it is. Every move every step has been for the Big Corporations and the Very Very Rich. The people, they have found, are easily controlled with these turdlick issues. Think things are wavering? Lets trot out old gay marriage that'll get those hayseeds riled at the libs again. Lets starting screaming Welfare! Welfare! Oh my God!, and Lets Put Prayer Back in Public Schools! And if that doesn't work, we'll just smear em.

This is not a president even INTERESTED in uniteing people. he is interested in CONTROLLING people and events. He is a front man, a snake oil salesman selling products to the rubes while these guys are mixing poison in the barn out back.

Posted by KirkVining: This is not a president even INTERESTED in uniteing people. he is interested in CONTROLLING people and events. He is a front man, a snake oil salesman selling products to the rubes while these guys are mixing poison in the barn out back.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right on, brother Kirk. In thinking of the illustrious presidents who have graced the Oval Office in my lifetime, I can always think of something good to say, even about the most loathsome of the lot. Richard Nixon, for example--a perfectly reprehensible character--did open relations with China, which was a good thing.

But when it comes to G.W. Bush, I am at a loss to find anything good to say. His environmental record is atrocious; his coziness with corporate interests is scandalous; and his foreign policy has alienated former friends and galvanized potential enemies. And he conveys, in his every utterance, a level of arrogance that is astonishing.

Joe B.

So who's the real divisive force in America?
To me, the issues you blame as Bush's divisiveness are nothing more than the traditional way Americans usually thought--with some qualifications, but in a general way, true. So the guy who is saying what the vast majoroty of Americans have always said is divisive, but the ones who protest against all this are the unifiers?
There is a cultural war. Some Americans are requiring changes in traditional values; others want to preserve those values.
"Unity" as defined by the left simple means that everyone agrees with them.

Even both sides of this election have to agree that neither the incumbent or the candidate are very good at the "unity" thing with approximately 41-47% of the electorate each. Both of them are campaigning in the same "Rust Belt" in a tight race. While one had to admire Mr. Obama's rhetoric that this is "the United States . . " it still looks like mix and match of Red and Blue states from here.

Just compare him the Reagan. Reagan knew what fights to stay out of, and genuinely thought fiscal conservativism was best for everybody and I respected him for that. As others mentioned, even Nixon knew the actual job description of the President is to be the representative of all the people. Not since the Bush's arrived on the scene have we seen such a brazen, cold blooded turnover of the government and property of the people of the United States, turned over wholesale to a single class of wealthy and powerful citizens. It is the crime of the century.

it just brings me back to my idea that one of the best reasons to vote for Kerry is to get "gridlock" back. You are right - they are never going to compromise. As a result, we should never turn over the government to one party - things get to extreme, and half the people are going nuts. At least in "gridlock" they are forced to compromise, and we need compromise the most - its what makes unity possible. Instead we have total mistust of one side for the other because the controlling side has screwed them bad on everything.

Yeah, we're in a cultural war all right. With AL-Queda, and they don't give a rats a$$ if you are for or against gay marriage, or abortion or birth control or any other issue that's none of your F****** business. I don't care if you agree with me or not. I just want you to leave me alone and let me believe what I believe. If you don't wan't an abortion DON'T HAVE ONE. Considering the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is LEGAL, it's you (and your ilk) that are the ones that are at odds (and war) with our government. How does it threaten your marriage if 2 men or women profess their love for each other in a government sanctioned ceremony that gives them EXACTLY the same rights you and your husband have? It's YOUR bigotry and hatred that are the problem, not the 2 people that love each other. 2 gay women live down the street from me and NOTHING they do affects my life in any way, shape or form. Want to defend marriage? Punish adultery and forbid divorce. Of course Bush's cheating brother wouldn't like that, nor would have your hero Ronald Reagan, who got Nancy pregnant out of wedlock. I'm not passing judgement on them, cause I really don't care. It's you that insists everybody has to believe what you believe. Again, GROW UP and MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. Or learn to speak Arabic and pray to ALLAH.

Quote:"Unity" as defined by the left simple means that everyone agrees with them.

Do you think the other side feels any different?

The vast majority of Americans have always said that we should invade sovereign nations who pose no imminent threat? Boy, have I been out of touch.

I was also unaware that the vast majority of Americans have always said that: we should alienate countries who could help us penetrate and destroy al Qaida; that budget deficits don't matter; that the federal government has been too tough in protecting the environment; that the federal government should continue to pile new obligations onto local governments while simultaneously taking away federal financial assistance; AND that we should AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to ban gay marriage (probably Bush's most brain dead idea yet). Gosh, I had no idea that the vast majority of Americans have always said those things.

I guess it will come as a surprise to those people who voted for Gore in 2000 that Bush is saying what they have always said. If they had only known, maybe Bush would have won the popular vote.

Now there's an interesting rant . . . what exactly does praying to any deity have to do with anything, besides being a less than subtle slur?


It was once the law in the US:

That slaves were not to be counted as "whole" persons.
That women couldn't vote.
That liquor could not be sold in the United States.
That Japanese American citizens could be denied due process.

Man made laws are just as flawed as the men that make them, so the existence of a conflict pertaining to our man made laws is hardly unexpected.

The comment about gay marriage did refresh some neurons, though. In a recent campaign stop, President Bush, while affirming his position on the need for a Constitutional Amendment regarding marriage, said that he is not opposed to the gay/lesbians and their activities in the privacy of their own homes/bedrooms. Sounds like a nice pitch . . . until you check on his position, as Governor of Texas, where he consistently stated that he would veto any of the proposals to remove the sodomy laws in the state which would allow the "own home/bedroom" activity. The Texas Supreme Court, despite the Governor's stated positions, struck down Texas' sodomy laws.

Flip Flop?

Bush flip flops all the time. Kerry not making more of it might cost him the election. For every time he is called a "flip flopper" he should run an ad listing Bush's. Bush is a world champ. Like I said, he is only interested in what social-issues position is currently selling snake oil.

Seemingly just in time to make the point that the right to freedom of religion only applies to religionists, this pops up:

Atheist Invocation Sparks Outrage
Monday, August 02, 2004

Foxnews.com

TAMPA — Across America, many local government meetings begin with public prayers but a Tampa city council meeting recently started out with members leaving because of the invocation.

Atheist Michael Harvey (search ) was about to give the invocation at a Tampa City Council meeting when some members became angry. A debate continued for nearly 30 minutes until three members walked out.

Mary Alvarez left saying she shouldn't have to "listen to an atheist sit here and tell me what I should or should not believe in."

Tampa atheists were granted permission to speak during the invocation after scolding the council for praying to "invisible men in the sky."

Harvey doesn't believe in God so praying for civic wisdom for public servants, the whole idea behind any invocation, was impossible.

"All I was trying to get across was that if they're going to be guided by something let them be guided by things we know work... reason... logic, science," Harvey said.

Inviting an atheist to lead a prayer seems foolish, said Luis Lugo of the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life (search).


"It doesn't make any sense to be praying in essence to ''whom it may concern.'"

One way of looking at is that he squandered something. The other is that he didn't follow your particular prescription.

Leadreship is not looking over your shoulder to see which way the crowd is going. Leadership is stepping-out and doing what you think its right, damn teh consequences. He did that and I'm glad he did.

It presents the voters with a clear choice, at least on his part. There is nobody unsure of what he believes or where he wants to go. If he stays in power, nobody will be surprised by what he does.

To that degree, J. F. Kerry is still a cypher. I am not saying that Kerry is a bad choice because of this ambiguous--any challenger is going to be an unknown precisely because he does not occupy the office for which he is contesting and thus, has no track record for that office.

Between now and the election, it will be a contest to see who's definition of J. F. Kerry prevails: The Repos or Demos. I hope nobody is under any misconception that either the Demos or Repos will be completely honest about their characterization of J. F. Kerry.

This is where muckraking journalists come in. If there is anything about Kerry that he hopes to keep hidden, he's screwed. Just like somebody found a DWI on Dubie, if J. F. Kerry did ANYTHING, we'll find out and it will be amplified.

I'll be glad when this crap is over.

B