Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - GorgonlaVacaTremendo

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 103
Everything Else / Re: Public School Writing Teachers
« on: January 04, 2009, 07:11:53 AM »
Nearly everybody enjoys creative writing in some aspect or another.  The fact of the matter is, when compared to non-fiction writing styles, it is useless in the academic world for a grand majority of people.  Public school exists, theoretically, to prepare individuals to be intelligent, capable individuals who are capable of performing necessary skills in the post high-school academic world or in the job market.  Teaching students creative writing doesn't really do this.  This is why creative writing is often offered as an optional course, or given as a minor part of the general curriculum.  Unfortunately, there are other areas which overshadow it as far as academic importance.

There are a lot of artistic functions which are overshadowed by their "academic" counterparts for academic reasons.  Orchestral band classes, sometimes coupled with jazz and marching band classes are offered, but rock band or modern pop band classes are not.  Creative writing classes are often overlooked or mushed as a minor part of curriculum for non-fiction writing courses.  Painting, sculpting, and drawing courses (if offered) can generally only be taken at the expense of other artistic courses, and in a preset order to provide the most marketable "graphic design" skills first.  It comes down to the amount of time students spend at school, the amount of time teachers spend at school, and the amount of funding the school has for extra-academic programs.  Students who are very interested in these arts will pursue them outside of school, whereas it is difficult to see students pursuing essay writing, calculus, etc. outside of school.

It would be nice, but we need to make sure students are taking the courses which better prepare them first and foremost, and the courses which they feel they are interested in, but aren't likely to use in the future, after that.

Suggestions Box / Re: Education?
« on: December 04, 2008, 07:22:22 PM »
I'm a two semesters away from having my BA in Psychology, with a specialization in Film Studies (which, for anyone who doesn't know, is actually an English specialization) from Michigan State University.

Rants and Stuff / Re: Are you serious?!
« on: December 04, 2008, 07:16:45 PM »
Dude, any person who does not believe in the literal translation of the bible (about 2/3 of the American population) is going to "marginalize" in some way or another the bible when talking about it, if you're looking at the bible from a literal point of view.  You don't need fantasy stories to do it.  More importantly, any person who does not believe in the bible being at all true, or being very distorted, is going to do so with or without fantasy stories. 

It's just as easy for somebody to point to a picture of Starry Night and say, "Well, the diegesis in this piece is unlike anything you've seen in real life, so the diegesis in the Bible could be equally unreal."  Should there be a stance against all still art, too?  And, really, in all movies--as any person who has studied film will tell you--everything from the basic appearance of movement to the editing affects are facets which appear to be real despite the fact that they are illusions.  So, again, it's easy to say, "Films look like moving pictures, but they're not--everything in them is fake.  The bible probably just looks like a historical outlook on Christ's teachings, but it too is fake."

Nearly ANY art can be construed to compare to the bible as "unreal."  Not only is that logic inherently flawed because it attacks one facet of creation where all facets fail, but it is also flawed because even without the arts these comparisons would STILL happen, so the art is, in this case, an unnecessary tool instead of the cause.  In fact, like you said, it would be just as easy to compare the Bible to facets which stem FROM Christianity, such as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

Any person who has to defend their belief by attempting to take away ways to question it, rather than addressing those ways, either does not understand his or her beliefs well enough or is believing the wrong thing.  Obviously, with Christianity, they are not inherently believing the wrong thing.  Darx, if your argument is, in fact, a stance any person takes, perhaps these people should spend more time trying to understand why they believe what they do, and less time trying to remove the beliefs of others from their surroundings.  It seems to me, however, that you are misunderstanding the stance some people are taking.

Rants and Stuff / Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« on: October 14, 2008, 02:48:21 PM »
I'd take that one step further and say I don't think medical insurance companies are moral institutions because the entire premise of them is to make a profit off of other people's suffering.  So long as medical coverage is handled by a private business, that business has a responsibility primarily to those people who invest in it, and then the customers.

I don't think everybody should be able to up and get whatever treatment they want from wherever they want.  But should anybody, especially those who are more likely to need it (e.g. the homeless or poverty stricken), be able to walk into a hospital and find out what is wrong with them?  Yes.  If somebody needs a surgery that could be performed at nearly any hospital in the nation to try and save their life, they should be able to receive it without putting a second mortgage on their home.  Does this mean everybody is entitled to the best possible medical care around all the time?  No.  Should everybody be given enough health care to handle accidental injuries at their local hospital?  Yes. 

What is poverty has to shift with growing technologies, as they affect us as a society.  That being said, I don't have AC and I'm not in poverty.  I do have indoor plumbing, because in order to maintain sanitation it's pretty important that everybody have indoor plumbing.  Also, because refrigeration is taken for granted by the food industry, it's pretty important that people be able to buy things they used to be able to get locally when they needed them (meat, for example).  Changing times make what is poverty change.  There are international standards for poverty which have been laid out by social scientists, policy makers, etc. who work on these very same problems and the very least we could do is try to match the low standards those set.

Rants and Stuff / Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« on: October 12, 2008, 07:32:20 AM »
I'm not a violent revolutionary marxist, nor do I believe in taking from the rich and handing to the poor (especially at the point of a gun).  I do believe that those with more money should give a larger amount of money to the society they live in, in the form of taxes--this is not the same as giving to the poor.  Also, yes, I do believe it's a terrible shame that some people get ahead by birthright.  In fact, it flat out disgusts me that this is true.  I would love to live in a society where birthright had no standing to life outcome--but, alas, I understand such a society is essentially impossible.

Perfect equality is ridiculous.  Some people are naturally more intelligent, more athletic, etc.  Some people are raised in a way that they gain these traits through hard work.  There is no point to trying to make everybody equal.  I want to take steps towards making sure everybody can earn a living wage, no matter where they come from.  I'd like to see steps taken to make sure everybody can at least put food on the table and not have to skip going to the doctor because they can't afford it.  I wouldn't want to live in a world where everybody was perfectly equal, because to truly be equal two people must be identical.  I would like to live in a world where the welfare of a society as a whole is considered a societal imperative, not a personal one.  I find it silly for people to say they love America, but not be willing to hold up the Americans who make it run how it does.  I also find it ridiculous that being poor is a personal problem--poverty is correlated with crime, young pregnancy (and thus abortion), under education, young death, drug use, and other problems which we consider societal problems.  I we can consider any of these a public issue which requires government funding, then poverty should be just as important, if not more so.

We spill plenty of taxpayer money every year into each of these other categories which are correlated with poverty (and some into poverty as well).  Why is it okay to take away from everybody and give to the poor after-the-fact, where it doesn't help the root of the problem?  Is it cheaper to hold a thousand petty thief in jail, or to reduce the probability that the person will become a petty thief (both monetarily and in other costs)?  The fact is, we're taking money and giving it to the poor, sometimes at gunpoint, as it is.  Why don't we make it a national policy to help those in need, not by handing them money, but by providing the services which they cannot afford, so they can spend the little money they do earn on other living expenses?  We already have started this trend with public education and other public services which are a cornerstone of our society.   I don't think we've taken that far enough.

Everything Else / Re: Check this out....
« on: October 11, 2008, 07:10:29 AM »
I very much like the idea of adding in Instant Runoff Voting, or some other form of voting which allows you to pick your favorite without fear of taking votes away from a major candidate.  I also like the idea of "none of the above", which takes away any excuse people have to not vote.  I do not like the idea of mandatory voting for two reasons.  Forcing a person to vote, even if it is in their best interest, is still forcing a person to do something outside the realm of power I think the government should have.  Also, the people who tend to not vote also tend to be the people who are uninformed or simply do not care, which means if they do vote (even if "no opinion" is given as an option), many are likely to make uninformed decisions just because they're told to.

Everything Else / Re: Check this out....
« on: October 10, 2008, 11:17:52 PM »
We don't live in a democracy.  But it is touted that we live in a democracy none the same.  My point, therefor, is still perfectly valid.

The people in congress have changed, in a major part, as recently as a few years ago.  Also, while I'm not a large sports person in general, a switch in coaching often can lead to a large increase in team productivity.  Especially if you are switching from a terrible coach or to a great coach.  Congress sucks.  I know, I've said it several times.  They are failing to act at important times because (big surprise) they are more obsessed with reelection than they are with issues.  The Democratic congress has been doing hardly anything, and the Republican congress continuously failed to check to the president at important times until issues became publicly noticed.  Bush would have been a much better president, I believe, if his congress had checked him more.  This would have allowed him a fallback net which he didn't have.

I don't believe I ever flat-out blamed Bush for 9/11.  I said that relieving him of all responsibility, as it sounded like you were trying to do, is ridiculous.  It did happen on his watch, and there was some intelligence his administration had which they failed to act on.  I never said, "It's all Bush's fault," I was defending the fact that he has some blame.

You know, it's not just as though television is bashing Bush, and all of those people who are informed really admire him for his greatness.  There is plenty of literature from political scholars and even those involved in the administration who hold similar opinions to myself.

Rants and Stuff / Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« on: October 10, 2008, 11:06:15 PM »
Primarily, I never assaulted the religious here--and it's true that the most generous people groups (in private life) tend to be the most religious.  That's one of the good things religion has to offer.

We're pretty far away, considering the number of people who are locked into debt and poverty.  There are tons of people who make it in life because their parents were well off, and didn't have to do a thing for it.  That's certainly not an ideal society.  I have a fun assignment for you.  Find the number of people in this country alone who work more than one full time job.  I would consider that working hard, and a very small percentage, if any, of those people will go up in the socio-economic strata because of it.

I don't want to help anyone directly, I want to help groups of people who need aid.  I also don't support blatant and flat-out welfare, because sad as it is, that does lead to some people not willing to work. 

As for charitable organizations that aren't religious, most scientific research grants are not religious, and do qualify as charity.  The NAACP does charity work, and the AARP Foundation is a non-religious charity.  The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  Toys for Tots is not backed by a religious organization, and is only religious in the sense that it gives Christmas presents (Christmas is considered a national holiday as well as a religious one, and I know many non-religious persons who celebrate it, including my own family).  There are also plenty of non-religious scholarships and educational grants, even if you take out government sponsored ones.  There are also plenty of veteran affairs charities or non-profit organizations which are not religiously backed.  Make-a-Wish is a very well known and mainstream charity which is not religiously sponsored.  This is all off the top of my head, I'm sure if I did research I could find a slew of others. 

In fact, I think Wikipedia is classified as a charity, though that is not the type of charity I think you were looking for.

But, yeah, I'm not entirely sure where that challenge came from, but the aid we are giving simply does not cut it.  I don't know about you, but I feel like people should be able to get medical care when they need it, no matter where in society they were born.   I would be more than willing to pay out of my pocket to make sure that everybody who can't pay out of pocket receives care.   And this would be much cheaper to achieve if we didn't rely on for-profit insurance agencies.  There are lots of people trying to help, but there are also lots of people taking advantage of those who cannot economically defend themselves.

Rants and Stuff / Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« on: October 10, 2008, 10:09:59 PM »
I do love Animal Farm, though that's more of a statement on the evolution of communism in the USSR (which I now notice you've stated).  But, while you can say that the same thing could occur with change, any system can grow to have those type of problems (and unchecked, every society will).

 Also, I mean Polygamy, not Polygymy.  In a society that simply allows Polygymy, women often do become property.  I'm not encouraging forcing polygamy, either--just allowing it legally.  No person, group or establishment has to allow or engage in polygamy (or anything else for that matter)--they just can't stop others from doing so.  For example, I would have no problem if the private institution of some religion (we'll say Lutheranism, for example) did not allow its congregation to religiously engage in polygamy.  I just don't think there should be laws governing everybody.

I also don't agree with censoring speech for either of the reasons you just mentioned (while I strongly disagree with, for example, somebody saying that one race is lesser than another, as long as that person is not advocating physically harmful action or political devolution, they have every right to say what they believe). 

Doesn't every society come down to an Autocracy, in some way or another?  In our country, there is definitely a group of economic and social elite that more or less has the important government jobs.

One way 9f thinking does dominate society.  Every society.  That's culture.  Just because other ways of thining exist doesn't mean there isn't a dominate one.  I am proposing that there should be a different way of thinking which is dominant, one in which people are allowed to pursue what they wish so long as they do not hold back others from doing the same (within reason.  You'll always be able to come up with examples for me to counter, but you know the spirit of what I mean, and I think you know that outside of playing with semantics, it could be worked out).  Is it perfect?  No.  Am I saying we should drop everything and make society today like it?  No.  But I do think that it is a goal that we should strive towards because it is much more realistic than our "perfect societies" people often try to strive for--a perfect socialism in which everybody is working and happy, a perfect capitalism in which those who are naturally talented and work hard always get ahead.  These are just fabrications which could not possibly come true.  But a society with a checked capitalism, in which those who have trouble achieving are aided and people are left to judge what is right for their own lives is perfectly possible--if not immediately so.

Everything Else / Re: Check this out....
« on: October 10, 2008, 07:52:26 PM »
Had the roles been reversed, I would be JUST as angry about a candidate who did not win the election's popular vote taking advantage of a legal loophole.  Whether he be third party, or EITHER main party.  I wasn't blaming Bush for the electoral college, I'm upset at the system that allowed a person who did not win the popular vote take a position.  I dislike Bush for a slew of other reasons, such as taking advantage of the system.  The Electoral College was created because people used to be uneducated, and the educated feared the decisions they made.  It was wrong when it was made to tout being a democracy but have systems in place to keep an elite, be it the intellectual, the economic or the political, or others elite, with an edge.  And it is still wrong today.

The Judicial system is a control for moral reasons, to keep the majority from getting out of control with immoral laws.  And nobody was complaining about having that check and balance--the judicial system wasn't enacted, nor was it intended, to keep one group of people in front of another.

Yeah, the democrats are disgusting too.  Politicians are.  Right now, I have a largest complaint with Bush's administration because it is the longest living and most powerful example of this crap.  Maybe if Obama is put into presidency, I'll like what he does.  Maybe he'll be just like Bush and I'll have problems with him, too.  But I can rest almost assured that McCain will be more like Bush than Obama.

Rants and Stuff / Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« on: October 10, 2008, 07:43:57 PM »
A) I don't want to be a polygamist, I just don't have problems with those that do.  Similarly, I'm not gay, but I have no problems with those who want to marry in the same sex.  There are plenty of societies which existed perfectly capably with polygamy without those things you mentioned.  The law was initiated because of our ethno-religious background as a culture, and for few, if any, other reasons.  If a husband, for example, goes into a marriage knowing his wife will want to have another husband, things such as jealousy become a personal issue, if an issue at all.  Broken homes?  The divorce rate is around 50% and rising, is monogamy really doing that much better?  Spread of disease?  First of all, those people who would have unprotected sex enough to spread a disease under a polygamy allowing system spread it anyway with unprotected sex outside of a marriage.  Secondly, when polygamy laws were written, STDs were not an issue.

If somebody is using a right, such as free speech, to incite illicit activities which are intended to lead to harm, such as inciting a riot, then they are seen as causes of said harm.

Yes, it is perfectly fair for somebody's behavior to make somebody else uncomfortable.  I'm made uncomfortable anytime somebody is on the street, asking me for money.  I'm made very uncomfortable when people come to my house to "talk to me about Jesus".  Being comfortable with other people's actions is a personal problem.

There is nothing stopping somebody from making the world's best business when businesses are regulated.  They will just have to do it without intentionally harming others, and, like I said, rights only last as long as they are not trampling on the rights of others.  My pursuit of happiness cannot allow me to become a mass murderer, and for the same reasons, to a lesser extreme, others cannot trample on their workers for their pursuit of happiness.

I am very close to libertarian.   But I'm not.

I see many laws as unnecessary, that doesn't mean they weren't made for a reason.  I don't feel the reason for many is good.  I also think that if the agencies which now exist to regulate business spent a little more time actually regulating business instead of being paid off, etc., it would be a good thing, not a bad thing.  I happen to think the people need to keep the government more accountable as well, and I would like to see the system made a little more direct.

I don't get your last statement.  Nobody is saying take away consequences for harming others.  I'm saying that it isn't a crime to NOT harm others, no matter what form your are not harming them in.  I don't really get what context that statement was supposed to be in, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Rants and Stuff / Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« on: October 10, 2008, 01:56:53 AM »
Let me explain where I stand (briefly), which may help you understand my viewpoint a little better.

I believe that the governments responsibility is to the people it represents.  I believe all people have natural rights which should never be denied by the government, or other people.  I do not believe corporations have these same rights, at which point I disagree with modern law.  I believe corporations and organizations, as groups of people which often become run in the self-interest of an individual or, even worse, no individual--but the "soulless corporation" itself.  I believe it is the government's job to regulate its corporations to keep them acting responsibly, because corporations have more power than individuals and are not naturally held to acting responsibly, as people will always have to hold them up.

I think there should be no laws except protecting the rights and safety of individuals (which includes corporate supervision).  In this matter I disagree with many, as well.  I don't think our laws should be dictated by cultural morality, and activities such as homosexuality, nudity, crudeness/manners, etc. should not be regulated because they do not trample the natural rights of others.  These rights include a right to free speech (which should protect everything from lingual speech in its most disrespectful forms to artistic speech), the right to be free from physical assault, the right to life (for people, not fetuses...which is a sticky subject, and the definition of which I and many who agree with me would be happy to negotiate), the right to pursue happiness (when it does not inflict on others' rights).

In this sense, I think there are many laws that do not need to exists.  I disagree with laws about marital customs, and I think if a man/woman wants more than one husband/wife of the same or opposite sex, it is not the government or anybody else's business.

The only exception to this that I can think of off the top of my head is laws protecting children from their own ignorance--for example, obviously children should not be be allowed to choose to smoke until they are old enough to make an informed decision, probably around fifteen or sixteen.

I think in this nature, I agree with you in the "I am responsible for me" statement.  I am responsible for me, and you are responsible for you--and as long as you don't interfere with my ability to be responsible for me, and have no right to be responsible for any action you partake in, whether or not I find it distasteful or offensive.

I understand that explained briefly, there are logical gaps in this argument, but it is a discussion for a different thread entirely, as it is mostly unrelated to the topic of this thread.

Also, technically this is a mix between an extraordinarily conservative and an extraordinarily liberal viewpoint, as I am for small government when it comes to individuals, but big government when it comes to social work, social aid, social services and corporation maintenance.

Everything Else / Re: Check this out....
« on: October 10, 2008, 01:41:27 AM »
Link did work this time.  "While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus."  I believe I said earlier, accompanied with a link to a US treasury page, or some such sort, that the surplus was according to some financial mumbo-jumbo talk, using different words, of United States accountants/treasury, but these are the same terms that are used to measure Bush's financial responsibility, which means I see them as accurate, professional definitions of terms as they are used in accordance with the way national deficit is measured.  I can understand how you might get tired of hearing this argument from people who don't understand what was meant by "surplus", but I assure you I do understand that it is not being used in the way we may expect in everyday language, but I continue to use it not to distort the truth; I continue to use the term because that is the term that was used professionally by the persons evaluating the national monetary situation, and thus I see them as accurate terms.  Especially since the same system is being used to measure Bush's administration, and every other administration after-the-fact.

You're right, our system isn't based directly on the popular vote because it is ridiculously outdated.  But it is run based on the assumption that the electoral college will vote with the popular vote.  Predictions and declarations are different, and it didn't work out in Kerry's favor because the situation was different, plain and simple.  As far as I see it, using loopholes in the system to gain control of the country is despicable, and I would immediately dislike any candidate who did so, Republican, Democrat or otherwise.  I think the system needs a major overhaul in nearly every aspect, and I don't see Democrats or Republicans doing enough to change it--I just see them becoming more and more like each other as time passes.

And I don't want to go back into the Iraq War lie argument any more than you do, so I not repeat myself.  I just think it stands to say that after the testimonies of intelligence officials and government officials, it is pretty obvious to me that Bush misrepresented the truth at BEST.  He was even quoted as to saying, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."  Whoops.

And so negating the Iraq War misrepresentation argument, as to not repeat ourselves, you've still ignore all the other categories in which Bush's administration has regularly refused to testify, purposefully distorted or misrepresented the truth or flat out lied.

Like I said before, you can continue to like, or admire, or whatever this president if you wish.  I do not.  There is very little about his presidency that I have respected, and there has been a lot of I have disliked.  This is difference of opinion--you always rag on me about how I have this liberal bias and it makes me see things distorted, but it's not like you don't also have a bias.  Our biases are really just a compilation of our opinions on events, which frame the world for us.  I respect the fact that your world-view allows you to like a president that I cannot fathom respecting.  I have given plenty of reasons why I dislike Bush, many of which have not been countered or even mentioned, and many others of which have been countered with reasons or logic that I do not find more compelling than the ones on the side that I have taken.  A few points you have made have hit home, but certainly not enough to change my opinion of the administration. 

Everything Else / Re: Check this out....
« on: October 09, 2008, 05:43:09 PM »
Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "

There's a list of times his administration lied about weapons of mass destruction.  There's also quite a few times we've been mislead or lied to about the nature of Iraq's "civil war" status, the nature of the cost of the war, the nature of our success in the war, the nature of Iraw's links to Al Queda, American sanctioned torture, the firing of judicial officials and other officials under his administration, and more.  Lots of politicians lie or misrepresent the truth on purpose on issues just as important just as often, and each and every one of them should also be removed from office.

That link doesn't bring me anywhere.  Yes, I was surprised I was sent to a link of random other links, each of which is a sponsored advertisement.

Yeah, Bush didn't have it easy.  Nobody says he did.  He didn't completely screw everything up.  He screwed up enough throughout his presidency (starting with being elected without the popular vote--before he was even president coming into office dishonestly) that I don't want to bring in anybody like him, although admittedly McCain would probably be better.

Like I said, not all media is on our side.  As I showed you earlier, the largest media corporation in the world has a conservative bias (the extent of that bias depends on what angle you look at it, it appears.  Ironically, I have FOX on right now).  Bush was elected in 2000, for example, partially because he had a cousin in high places within conservative media who said Bush won before the results are in, leading to all media doing so, and thus putting pressure on the system to see Bush as the victor.  The democratic politicians, just like the Republican politicians, in Washington are childish.  They always are.

Yeah, the democratic congregation isn't really doing anything.  That also angers me.  I only have two parties to choose from, and like I've said, I don't really like either one.  I see Obama as the lesser of two poor choices.

I'm going to be honest, I am not really knowledgable of the Barney Frank situation.  I think if he lied, or ESPECIALLY if he performed poorly in overseeing the agencies because of conflict of interest (sleeping with corporations is one of the lowest things I think a politician can do), he should be removed from office.  I don't know enough about the situation to truly give you a good answer, but I hope that gives you a decent idea where I stand.

Oh, and I meant to say something in my last post that I didn't: I said Obama was fresh blood, and you said he doesn't have new ideas.  But he does have a fresh point of view, and a fresh means of coming to his conclusions--more so than McCain.  If you get a great new basketball player on your local team, he's using the same fundamentals.  It's an imperfect analogy, but I'd rather see some new perspective.  Another reason I dislike McCain's campaign right now is it seem more blatantly focused on the negative, rather than the issues (which McCain admitted in a way, saying, "this campaign would be different if Obama had agreed to going around in town halls as I requested"), not that Obama's campaign has been all tulips and roses.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  I wish there were more major parties so I wasn't stuck choosing one of these guys.  I think Obama will do a better job, I'd hardly describe myself as an Obama supporter (although I am supporting him...I hope that makes sense).

Everything Else / Re: Check this out....
« on: October 09, 2008, 06:43:07 AM »
First of all, this election seems more important, to my understanding, than elections in general to the nature of Roe V Wade and the Supreme Court.  Secondly, yes, abortion is an important issue to me because I feel that a part of this nation wants to take away what I see as a natural right, and on the basis (in majority) of religion.  You can call me whatever names you would like because I've taken the opposite stance on an issue than you, and strongly so, but it doesn't change the fact that I am justified in every way to be willing to vote one way or another in an election based on what I see as an important issue.  You are also wrong if you think that there aren't republicans who want to just overturn Roe V Wade--there are a lot of them.  I'd be perfectly willing to make an agreement somewhere in the middle of the road, and happily, as I've expressed on the board before.   But there's an entire other thread for this.

I would agree Obama didn't handle the press' assaults well when he eventually abandoned Wright.  But I still think it is ridiculous that Wright says occasional remarks, and a is known to have a generally strong congregation and positive message, and use it to assault a congregation member.  Do I assault Catholic politicians because they remained Catholic after the scandals with children?  No, because that would be ridiculous.  If they were involved, that would be different.  Obama wasn't the one spouting off unacceptable speech, and there are many reasons for him to stay with a long time friend and mentor, even if he doesn't always agree with him.

Bush did lie, he has lied, and he probably should have been impeached.  He has lied or distorted the truth throughout his presidency.   His administration oversaw the largest surplus and turned it into the largest deficit.  I have agree with few of the policies Bush has supported that I have heard of.  Just because you support a president, which you have every right to do, does not mean I can't disagree with him.  You're also right when you say that I generally will side with democrats, because I am a liberal.  I, in fact, do not like democrats and republicans primarily because they agree on too many issues and do not give me enough options for many issues in which I disagree with both.  I'm liberal, I never denied that.  I'm also an independent, and do not/will not always agree/vote for democrats.  I will be MUCH more likely to vote democrat than republican because I disagree with republicans more often.  I wish there were more major parties so I could find one that agreed with me on more issues that I find to be important civil liberty issues.  These are the issues that I find most important.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 103