By Beauty Damned

Yeah, there are LOTS of assholes in this world....besides, what does it matter what President Bush thinks?

You don't like him anyway, so why get all indignant over something you probably haven't really thought about anyway?

This just seems like so many crocodile tears....

Why does it MATTER what president Bush thinks?

Why don't you kindly pull your head from your ass and then come back when you've accomplished that first crucial step towards figuring it out for yourself.

Something tells me that what the President of the United States actively strives to accomplish during his presidency, actually MATTERS to Americans.

You don't like him anyway, so why get all indignant over something you probably haven't really thought about anyway?

What does this mean? You think I haven't thought about President Bush's stance on abortion before? Are you high again?

No - not what President Bush thinks, but rather why you're concerned about what he thinks.

Honestly, would you have even considered voting for him if he had expressed his concerns about abortion? No, you wouldn't have given it a second thought.

Just seems like you're trying to make this a bigger matter than it is....

Why am I concerned?

Because I'm concerned about the right of myself and every other woman to choose what to do with her body in the case of pregnancy.

Would I have considered voting for him if he had expressed a desire to outlaw abortion? Of course not, but that's not the purpose of honesty Mad Mikey. Its purpose is greater than that of obtaining a vote.

Perhaps you think I'm making it bigger than it is because you are a man, and you have no business making choices for women who you don't know. Perhaps you think I'm making it bigger than it is because you don't value the rights of women and if they disappear, it won't concern you much. That just says a lot more about you than it does about me now doesn't it?

You're right - I won't impose my thoughts about this onto you - you'll have to reconcil anything you do with between yourself and the Supreme Being in the future.

And as for 'valuing the rights of women', you're wrong. Dispite what you might think, I support the rights of woman to choose.

And you should tone down your venom in responding to differing opinions. Honestly, if you don't want opinion(s) that contradict with your own, shut down your comments.

Buzz off. If you had any idea HOW to express a differing opinion, that would be something. But you don't. You just come here and assume a bunch of things and then pretend as if it's just your opinions. It's not your opinions, it's your assumptions, and I'll maintain my venom or lackthereof at whatever level I choose. You want free speech? Perfect. You have a website. I don't have to be kind towards your assumptions and you don't have to be kind towards mine.

Yes Maria.

When Barbara Walters did her interview with Dubya and Laura Stepford Bush it was the same non answer...

I think it's a fair assumption we know where this is headed.

Richard, they never answer any questions. Everything is an evasion of the truth. You could see that throughout all the debates. Bush answers like a broken record, never quite addressing the question or the issue. It is his way of playing both moderate and conservative republicans at the same time. He's a sheisty sonofabitch.

facilitator - "Mr. Bush, citing the Roe v. Wade landmark case, do you think this ruling should be overturned?"

bush - "Uh, Saddam was a threat and we rid this world of that threat. He was a terrorist and we rid the world of the terrorism in Iraq." (smirk) "wanna buy some wood?"

It will be interesting to see how much more Bush can screw us in the coming 4 years. The last four years will be hard to beat.

Grab your popcorn.

"This just seems like so many crocodile tears..."

Spoken like a TRUE ASSHOLE MAN. For every woman this is an issue and one we've all tossed around..and I love the George Carlin quote..because it's so freakin' true. I don't see too many people beating down the doors to poor little mothers who can barely feed themselves offering Help or even a Thank you for not "killing your baby". These 18yr old kids coming into Landstuhl ARmy hospital everyday with tubes sticking out of their necks, missing limbs..major injuries..they're still someone's baby, in somebody's eyes..Does not bother the Christian sector? Are these boys just sacrifices for the greater good? Don't tell me you value a person's life if right after high school you're willing to take their FUTURE away and allow them to die in a foreign country...what's the difference? Let them die when they'll never know love, life or how to feel or let them die when they know what they'll be missing and let them die when they really can express that they want to live. Christians want the WANTED to die and the UNWANTED to suffer..it's a hardship either way with these fucks...

You just come here and assume a bunch of things and then pretend as if it's just your opinions.

Really?? How so....?

Mad Mikey, do you have anything to contribute or did you just come to play the shit stirrer?

You don't like him anyway, so why get all indignant over something you probably haven't really thought about anyway?

First, you assume that I haven't thought about this before, which is the greatest assumption of all, since this has been an important issue to me since I was 15 years old and will continue to be an important issue to me, regardless of who the president is, as long as there are those who would seek to limit a woman's right to choose.

The second thing that statement does is betray your own belief that ignorance is bliss. If you've never thought about it before, why worry about it now? I'm sure you apply that to a lot of things in your life Mikey, but I don't. Even if I've never thought of something before, but I find that it outrages me once I do think about it, I don't suppress the outrage by telling myself that there was a time that I did not possess this knowledge, therefore it makes perfect sense to refrain from worrying about it now.

Once again, it says more about you than it does about me.

What's funny about you Mad Mikey, is that you think you're a lot smarter than you really are. In reality, your mind and your ability to analyze are not the sharpest tools in your shed.

p.s. Not much to say to Sandy huh Mikey? Perhaps because it's easier to try and derail the subject than to address reality.

I have noticed that Mad Mikey is much like Ge* and Go* in that he likes to stir the pot rather than add to the ingredients. This is interesting because later this year I will start thinking of a new case study and I am tempted to try and see if there is a real scientific connection between conservatives and agression. It would be a fairly controversial study and the likelihood of getting funding for it is low (keep in mind, the monies come from think tank groups which are run by, you guessed it, conservatives - you will find many of them iconized as fatcats on that url I listed last week - www.theyrule.net)

Now onto more lightheartedness:

facilitator "Mr. Bush, please describe your feelings on the Roe v. Wade decision"
Bush - "I'll tell ya, down in Texas we have a saying, you fool me once, you cant, you cant get fooled again. Roe is a good man. Honest Christian values. He pacifies (that is personafies Mr. Bush) what America is all about. I served with him in the Atlanta National Gaurd (thats Georgia Mr. Bush, and you served in Alabama, remember...oh wait, only on paper you did)."
facilitaor - (blank look on his face) - "Mr. Bush, you do realize the Roe v. Wade decision legalizes abortion solidifying a womans right to choose"
Bush - "Yes, I have look it up on the Internets. If a woman wants to choose, in this country we have something called the bill of rights. in it it states a woman has the right to choose. After all, they chose me as President. Woot woot woot!"
facilitator - "Mr. Bush, do you believe you are sensitive to womens issues."
Bush - "Ya know, Laura and I were just talking about this very thing the other day. We think that the women in Afghanistan have made great strides. We think our women should strive more to be like them...(smirk) only not wearing those little masky-type thingies"

Mad Mikey, do you have anything to contribute or did you just come to play the shit stirrer?

I did come here to offer an opinion on your post, but I see that no matter what I 'contribute', you and the other femme-nazis will attempt to scratch my eyes out.

As for Sandy, I have nothing to add cause it's simply not worth acknowledging.

Not worth acknowledging huh? I think you just have no justification for your warped hypocrisy, which may explain why you would have us believe that offering an opinion is the same as telling someone that they're overreacting.

So Mikey, since you want to offer your input so badly, why don't you explain to all of us "femme-nazis" how you reconcile the belief that every life is precious BEFORE it's born, but you support capital punishment and war for full grown adults.

Why? No matter what I'd say, you'd consider it 'wrong' and make another suggestion that I pull my head out of my ass.

Not "no matter what you say." If you said something even remotely intelligent, I would definitely not tell you to pull your head out of your ass. Alas, you've not said anything remotely intelligent yet, so expect the previous treatment to continue as long as your level of discourse continues. I don't think you know anything else. You truly have no clue how to state your thoughts ON THE SUBJECT. You're very well versed, however, in sounding like a chauvenist prick and making uninformed assumptions.

Just to clarify in case anyone here missed the part where Mikey stated his opinion, it was the first comment:

Yeah, there are LOTS of assholes in this world....besides, what does it matter what President Bush thinks?

You don't like him anyway, so why get all indignant over something you probably haven't really thought about anyway?

This just seems like so many crocodile tears....

Posted by Mad Mikey at January 25, 2005 06:46 PM

For the record, this is what people like Mad Mikey call an "opinion." To express such an opinion all you have to do is bundle together a couple of uninformed assumptions with an insult, toss that little turd on the fire and watch it burn! Then, when you're informed by the recipient that this is nothing more than a flaming turd with no value whatsoever, claim that the person who you tossed it at just doesn't know a valid opinion/point when they see one!!! Hahaha! It's classssssic.

"Not worth acknowledging???"

Are you daft man?? Sandy's hit this nail on the freakin' head and that's all you can say?? For the love of Pete this is a WOMAN'S decision. Men legislating this shit is like them saying "Here ya go! Here's my dick. Make me cum... when it's all over fuck off. I'll call ya later. But you try to abort that thingy cuz I was too horny to cover it with latex I'll make sure you end up dead or in a back alley butcher's kitchen!"

Men have NO PLACE in this... (especially that poor excuse for one in the Oval Office) trying to control a woman's body. It's male manipulation of the highest order.

I've always maintained that once all the freaking "pro-lifers" (misnomer but self-appointedly so) are getting all them lil fetuses born into the world they turn their backs. Job done. Next? What else can we control with our lower heads??" I asked one of these types recently what she thought we should do with all these unwanted and unplanned babies. Answer?? "HUH?? I haven't a clue. I just know abortion's wrong". WTF IS THAT SHIT???

Fucking hypocrites ... it's about a PREMISE not about a LIFE to these motherfuckers.

There's one absolute in the abotion debate that ought to be branded into the Christian "Right's" foreheand:

"IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN ABORTION, DON'T HAVE ONE".

Simple.

(Apologies Maria. I feel passionately about this one... didn't mean to get so graphic)

Not a bit Richard. Thank you.

Ok, I'm going to give a stab at it....regarding the statement of "how you reconcile the belief that every life is precious BEFORE it's born, but you support capital punishment and war for full grown adults."

The way I would approach it is a fetus/child inuterine is innocent and needs to be protected; a full grown adult is responsible for his actions and therefore must accept the consequences of his actions.

By that very same logic that I offer, however, it seems to me that at during the first trimester, this fetus is not a human being because it is incapable of sustaining life on its own. Therefore it is incapable of being described as a "person" yet. It is a bunch of cells reacting to its mother's life.

You cannot "murder" something that is incapable of life independently anymore than you can murder a table. I believe there are zealots on both ends of the spectrum; those who would have you be labeled a purposeful murderer by aborting a fetus at four or five weeks, and those who claim that a nine-month old child, still inuterine, is nothing but a bunch of cells until it is actually delivered into the world. It's an incredibly gray area, and it bothers me tremendously that there are politicians and religious fanatics alike dictating policy on such a debatable topic.

My two cents.

Mad Mikey, please watch and learn from Vickie.

. Yeah.

It seems ALL of those few lines of stem cells that the Ayatollah Dubya allowed research on have become contaminated by naturally-occuring proteins in their storage media. This means that they are useless for research. So Ayatollah Dubya just condemned every one of those poor little pre-born undifferentiated cell clusters to a meaningless end.

It also means that stem cells don't keep. Not in currently available media. New ones will have to be harvested from umbilical chord blood and unused blastocysts, stored by their parents for possible future implant in case of accident or infertility, but never used. But Ayatollah Dubya dont 'llow no researchin' round here.

That means the Ayatollah Dubya is condemning millions to horrible deaths by cancer and other diseases, and to lives confined to beds and wheelchairs for accident victims, because Ayatollah Dubya has forbidden research using these otherwise useless and unviable stem cells.

Which means it does matter what the small weasley Repukelickin hypocrits who stole the White House say and do or fail to say and do. Or do you crypto-nazis not care about disabled sick and dying people? You know, real people? REAL morality? Or do you only care about little white lies about blow jobs? Is that all your "conservative" morality covers? Hm?

REUTERS:
Tue Jan 25, 2005 06:52 PM ET
NJ Gov Urges Bush to End Stem Cell Restrictions "

.

"Which means it does matter what the small weasley Repukelickin hypocrits who stole the White House say and do or fail to say and do. Or do you crypto-nazis not care about disabled sick and dying people? You know, real people? REAL morality? Or do you only care about little white lies about blow jobs? Is that all your "conservative" morality covers? Hm?"

Do you think you could tone down a little bit of that rage pointed at all Republicans, Cosa? I'm a Republican and I really resent this systematic bashing of an entire party considering my particular viewpoints are hardly representative of the picture you paint.

"For the love of Pete this is a WOMAN'S decision."

I have to offer a dissenting, women's opinion on this one. It is NOT a WOMAN's decision. It SHOULD be a woman's AND her partner's decision. It took both of them to create the fetus. Why should the man not have a right or an opinion to what happens to his contribution of sperm? It does bother me that too many people say it is a woman's decision to do what she will with her body, all the while apparently ignoring the fact that she didn't get that way on her own.

Vickie, I have to disagree. Ultimately, it is the woman's decision, whether or not a man contributed. Of course, a decent woman would give the father of her child a chance to express his thoughts on it, but in the end, she is the one who has to give birth to this child and it is her ultimate responsibility. For this reason, though a man has the right to express his opinion about what choice she should make, it is not his right to make that decision for her.

On another level, the idea of some old white guy in Washington having the right to make the decision for a woman, especially one he will never know, really blows my mind wide open. I don't know how anyone thinks they have that right. Should I have the right to tell you how you should care for yourself and your loved ones? NO. So why should the government have that right?

I do see your point about how it ultimately is the woman's decision, given the fact that she is the one either giving birth or aborting the fetus. I just think that there is too extreme an expression of one-sidedness in some of the comments when I read that men have no opinion in this matter. Yes, men have the responsibility just as much as women do to "cover it up with latex" so when they don't, it's hard to give them a say in the matter. But a woman has an equal amount of the responsibility in ensuring she DOESN'T end up pregnant by either being on birth control herself or absolutely insisting that before the act begins he finds protection. I think we're pretty much in basic agreement generally on this topic, though.

Mad Mikey, until you learn to address me without acting like a whining little bitch, you will no longer be permitted to comment here. As you can see, others are perfectly capable of having a discussion. Obviously, you don't know how to get your point across without hysterics and rambling about things that have no pertinence to the subject matter. If your purpose is to come here and tell me to shut up and quit complaining about George Bush, you're going to have to find another purpose or another democrat to hassle. I'm not going to quit harping on this motherfucker until his last day in office, so get used to it or fuck off.

Sorry about that. Please resume normal discussion. Trolls will be systematically eliminated, as was Mad Mikey's latest whiney comment.

VICKIE:

If you ally yourself with nazis, and choose to go on doing so, you take your lumps with them. YOU choose to continue calling yourself a Repukelickin', not me.

If you care so much, then quit the Party, or kick the nazis out of it. They're your problem, not me. Taking the side of those mass-murderers, Constitution-shredders and vicious slanderers makes any protests at being "bashed" kind of laughable.

If the Party of Lincoln and conservationist trust-buster Teddy Roosevelt ever returns to their principles, and stops welcoming racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Corporatist war-mongers, and championing their agenda, I'll take another look.

Until then, to the non-Repuke seventy per cent of us who have to watch and listen to the endless attacks on everyone else by the 'Pukes, you're all Jesus-freaks, gun-nuts and closet-Klansmen.

As to the "courtesy" you would extend potential fathers, doing so would amount to direct legal control of a woman's body by a man. Once the kid is born, fine; full parental rights for any good father. But not before birth. The biological realities of human reproduction transcend any claim to equal parental rights for the fathers of unborn children: Physically, it ain't HIS kid till it comes out.

Or would you like to see women forced to come to term by a court order from their husband, boyfriend, contractor, abuser, rapist, "right-to-life" group, nosey judge, or whomever? Should every pregnancy then be subject to a court order? Should all women be required to register every fertilization? Should men be entitled to a court order terminating a pregnancy THEY don't want brought to term?

The right to choose is a woman's right, and it can't be fudged without ultimately making her a mere incubator, and not a person at all. That's what your Party doesn't seem to get. Or care about.
.

I'm sorry but I have no interest in continuing this discussion with you. You represent the other extreme to whom I alluded. I have no respect for somebody who is going to judge me based on the principles of a party to which I subscribe but may not necessarily agree with. You have no idea who I am, what I believe, and what I stand for. I am not a blind partisan. I obviously do not agree with Mad Mikey. I offered a dissenting opinion of your angry commentary; I am not interested in venomous exchanges.

.
VICKIE:

I will assume you are addressing me, though you did not show me the courtesy of using my name, as I did yours.

"Venomous exchanges?" Your Party specializes in them. But that's OK with you. Even when they tar an entire "race," gender, sexual preference, religion or nationality, trying to stir up hatred for craven political purposes.

Even when it results in deaths of innocents on a massive scale, as in Iraq.

I don't blame you for not wanting, or being able to defend what the Republicans stand for today. But don't claim I've insulted or attacked you personally when all I've done is point out the foul words and deeds of the Party you continually choose to identify yourself with and defend. If the shoe fits, wear it. But don't blame me if it pinches. It's your shoe, your choice.

Parties stand for something. That's all a political Party is, or does. If you choose to identify yourself with them, you're signifying that you stand for the same things. Exactly what is it that you DO agree with them on? "No new taxes"? First of all, it's a lie. And second, is it worth what they're doing to your country? To our entire world? Exactly how much has Dubya saved you in taxes, in a time of war? I'd like to know the current price of freedom, in your estimation.

And, by the way, there are no Left-wing extremists in this country: The Government regularly rounds them up, kills them, or drives them underground and out of the country. Always has. This country is so far Right of Center, that people here mistake the true Center for the Left. A blue-dawg Democrat would be a mere Liberal in England, a moderate Gaulist in France, or a Christian Democrat in Germany.

Take a look at the democracies of Europe: All free, fair and open, and most with Labour, Socialist and/or Communist Parties participating in good governments. Try running on their platforms here, and you'll have the FBI following you around. Some "liberty." Some "freedom."

If you think I'm some sort of Left-extremist, you don't know the meaning of the term. Try the Shining Path, or those murderers in Nepal. They're MILES left of me; farther away from me than you are, ideologically. Don't sling around your venomous Republican political slanders until you educate yourself as to their true meaning.

You're the one who's getting personal here, not me. So, I guess you really are a good Republican: When you can't argue the facts, slander your opponent. Then pretend to be taking the high road. Nice try.
.

Cosa, I understand your point here, but I think Vickie has been extremely cordial and hasn't gone out of her way to cause offense, so perhaps we can refrain from beating the dead horse. She's always made an effort to be very respectful.

I don't think a berating is necessarily in order.

.
MARIA:

That wasn't my intention. My argument is with her Party, not her. I apologize if she took it any other way. And I thank you for allowing me to post here. If I'm too passionate about some things, blame the times, which are exxxtreme, dude. I'll belt up, now.
.

S'cool man ;o) Just tryin to be a bit of a moderator. These threads can get wound up like a clock in a heartbeat! Now Mad Mikey, he deserves a berating. I have a mind to go over to his place and leave a turd in his comments for once.

I will try and offer a new perspective. This one particularly aimed at Vickie.

One of the biggest problems with this issue is the simple fact that too many emotions are involved. We are a passionate people. Too many times using our emotions instead of good logic to make decisions. And too often using bad logic and no emotions in making decisions.

I have two children. Personally, abortion sickens me. Once you have children of your own, make the initial bond with a new born baby who looks into you eyes and you realize that is the thing that was kicking inside of mommy for all of those months, how could someone decide to rip it out of themselves and dispose of it? How could you not have your heart touched by that picture of the child reaching out from his mother's womb and grabbing onto the finger of a doctor? Like I said, for me and my wife, we could never do it.

But, that is our choice. We choose to be and feel that way. We will try and raise our children that way. Hopefully having them realize the sanctity of life. For our son, teaching him to be a good man who will treat a woman with respect and if he happens to have sex, that he takes great responsibility when doing so. For our daughter, we will teach her that the right moment will be with someone she loves and he loves her right back and treats her with dignity and respect. We will teach her not to take up with any fool. But, their decisions will be theirs when that time comes. Hopefully, we will have given them the right upbringing and tools to do the right things.

That is our choice. Just as our next door neighbor's choice may be to have an abortion in an unplanned pregnancy. Whether we agree with it or not, whether our emotions make us feel different, that is their choice.

It would be just as wrong for us to take away their choice based on our emotions as it would be for them to take away our choice.

The fundamental problem that comes into play is not the fact that aborting a pregnancy past the beginning of the third trimester (I challenge anyone to find my a clinic or a doctor that would do it). But the problem is all of politics and business. The republicans want to paint it with such a broad stroke, that it would make it damn near impossible for a woman to have an abortion without a presidential approval as well as make it completely uncovered by insurance (from procedure to aftercare). Here is a question to my conservative friends - what is wrong with making a law that any woman past 24 weeks of pregnancy will not be allowed to have an abortion, but services will be provided by the government for that child to be placed into an adoptions agency as well as aftercare for the mother.
It really is as simple as that. That is what many democrats have been asking for for years. But, the republicans want to play back door policy making sliding not just "religious rules" into their bill, but more importantly for them and their pocket padders, rules that will exempt insurance companies to have to pay for anything.

It is both disturbing and sickening to see a party pan to the emotions of people such as Vickie who I truly believe she is passionate and real about what she stands for, but the party she is supporting could really care less. For them it is doing favors for their fatcat buddies in big business. That is the true reality behind this whole argument that people tend to ignore. Be it democrat or republican, it is always about what is doing best for big business.

Wow. I just got done reading some of Mikey's "posts" over at his website and all I have to say about him is if he does not represent the caveman mentality, or have what some of us call the "archie bunker syndrome" than I don't know who does.

One post he wrote about involving the use of aids drugs to treat people initially exposed to HIV through rape, his response to that is:
I got an idea:let's reduce/eliminate the need for this by doing the following:

Deal with convicted rapists in a new manner:blow their brains all over the pavement on television.

When anyone starts getting that gotta have me a pice of that feeling when looking at a woman, maybe the vision of seeing someones head evacuated in living color might deter them.

Good ideas Mikey. End violence with more violence. And an even better idea - lets not let those poor neglected insurance companies have to pay for the drugs in order to treat the victims.

As for the rapists. I have as much tolerance for them as I do Nazi's. However, it is not as simple as showing them an execution of someone who has done the things they want to do. It is as clear as the hand in front of my face that you have ZERO knowledge of how mental illness works. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, you show sigsn of having "archie bunker syndrome" so I am sure you are one of those folks who think that mental illness is "all in your head" (sorry for the pun).

Do you have any inkling, Mikey, of how a sexual offender's mind works? These aren't just criminals Mikey, but very VERY sick people. Just as you have a serious physical aliment, rapists have a very serious mental illness. In fact, studies have shown that people with serious mental illness do have a different chemical makeup in their brains than those with mild or no mental illness. We are not talking about people with mild depressions. When talking about a rapist, conventional thinking goes out the door. One of the problems, Mikey, with people like you, is you approach everything from a "my way or the highway" attitude. You are clearly not someone fit for a career in the medical field.

Mikey, a rapist is not a person who wakes up and decides "I think I am going to force my dick inside of a woman who doesnt want it today" or as you put it "i have to have me a piece of that." There are several "triggers" involved that need to take place before impulse takes over logic. It is the power of the deep subconscience mixed with an already chemical imbalance in the brain that casues one to act on impulse. The fact is, we all have pretty sick thoughts. Every one of us has thought of doing the unthinkable be it raping someone, robbing a bank, killing ourselves, etc. These are very normal and natural thoughts to have. However, very few of us ever act on any of those thoughts for many reasons being socio-psychological. Most of us have the ability to surpress our impulses. But those who don't, have pretty good reasons for such, and the unfortunate realities behind that is there isn't much we can do about it.

I will not go into the long explination of what generally makes up a rapist, but I can tell you it does start at early childhood. Perhaps when I am feeling up to it, I will try to give a lay synopsis of it.

as it is right now, I don't even feel like spell checking.

"Venomous exchanges?" Your Party specializes in them. But that's OK with you. Even when they tar an entire "race," gender, sexual preference, religion or nationality, trying to stir up hatred for craven political purposes."
First of all, I already explained twice that I do not necessarily align myself with all of the principles of the party. Isn't that being a partisan? Isn't that what you're arguing about, people who blindly follow like sheep? Is there something psychologically wrong if somebody associates with a particular party and not all of its principles? Do you find that morally reprehensible or something? THAT is an extremist mindset; THAT is what I was talking about, and your quote above demonstrates to me the extremist attitude. And THAT is why I cannot or will not have a discussion with either end of the extremist spectrum because their minds are shut. To say "there are no lef-wing extremists in this country because the government has killed them or driven them underground" is beyond the scope of comprehension. I can't even go there. I can't even begin to try to grasp having a discussion with somebody who says this.

You tell me I'm a good Republican because when I can't argue the facts, I slander my opponent. If you would kindly point where I slandered you, I'll apologize. As you pointed out to Maria in backing up YOUR commentary, that was not your intention, to berate me. Mine was to point out that I was not interested in debating extremist commentary.

Maria, I know much of what this party represents is reprehensible to you. I respect that your opinions differ from mine in many ways. I don't have a problem with any of that because the debate seems to flow easily as in the above opinions regarding whether men have the right to an opinion regarding birth/abortion. Anyway, thanks for allowing me to comment on the topic . At any rate, I know you're from NY near me, in CT; I was wondering if you were interested in a posting regarding Michael Ross and his stay of execution here in CT. Just thought it might be an interesting perspective on the other end of this discussion.

.
Being a partisan, by definition, means aligning yourself with a political Party.

OK, so what Republican "principles" do you align yourself with?

I find it morally reprehensible when a political leader lies to get us into an unjust war, and slaughters over 100,00 innocent civilians. I find it morally reprehensible when a political leader uses a great national tragedy as an excuse to shred the Constitution; racially profile and imprison hundreds of people for years, who are later found innocent of any terrorist acts; and conduct a campaign of torture and terror against helpless prisoners of war, while denying all personal responsibility for it. I find it morally reprehensible when a political leader singles out and scapegoats a minority as a target for hatred and discrimination, in a cynical and obvious ploy to win the votes of homophobic Americans. And on and on.

I find it morally reprehensible when people support this political leader, George Walker Bush, of Connecticut, and say and do nothing about his morally reprehensible acts, as if some other "principle" or policy excused them all.

That's all.

Calling me an extremist is slander. You obviously know nothing about political extremism. You seem to think it means anything that challenges your views. They need to be challenged.

Political extremism isn't talking about your views and arguing political points. Political extremism is refusing to talk about them, and locking out all dissent. That's what this Party you support is doing, consistently, systematically, single-mindedly.

In case you haven't noticed, we're in a national crisis. Sitting there primly and saying, oh, my, we mustn't act as if anything out of the ordinary were taking place is just plain weird. Again, exactly what is it about Bushco that you do support? And how do you excuse the rest of it? Without resorting to erroneous and politically ignorant labelling of myself or anyone else? Try reading a political history of this country in the Twentieth Century, especially of the Left, and terrorism against them by the Right, and then get back to me about extremism.

Your claim that, "Well, I'm a Republican, but I'm not a Republican," just makes absolutely no sense at all. And once a Party veers so EXTREMELY to the Right as yours has, it requires reassessment, and a reaction. If you're still just going along for the ride, regardless of how far Right they go, you're one of the homophobes, etc, and that's just a natural fact. As long as you insist on identifying yourself with that Party, you are tarred by their actions. If you were to stand up to them at this late date, you'd be isolated and invited to leave the Party. The question is, why would you want to remain, when their direction is so clear?

Towards your political education, some history of your own country, real radicals and how we treat dissent:

"The Ludlow Massacre"

"Eugene Debs"

"The Blacklist"

"Medgar Evers"

"Bill Ayers's Fugitive Days: A Memoir"

"The Greensboro Massacre"

"Abbie Hoffman"
.

Vickie,

If I may comment on your statement about extremism as far as party is concerned. First, let me say, I am not affliated with any party. I detest the Democrats as much as Republicans but REALLY detest the libertarian mind set.

In my many years, especially doing independant study of ones personality as related to their party affliation, I have come to notice that it isn't the leve of extremism that concerns me particularly in the republican party, but the wide and broad specturm on which they place those beliefs. As mentioned above, the fact that a typical republican can say in one breath how all life is precious thus abortion should be banned, and in the same breath talk about war and how we should rip the arms and legs off of terrorists, bash rapists on TV, and vehemtnly defend a corrupted and imbalanced justice system that executes people without reviewing all of the data, to me represents the worst sort of person.
To use lay terms, I just don't get it. That is partly because I never have enough time or money to really do a real case study on these type of folks, so scientifically, I could not give you an accurate answer. In my heart of hearts though, I realy believe these types of people are highly influenced because they feel a need to follow a certain dogma - being a religion, a party affliations, etc. They sort of "latch on" to an ideal and defend it to the death. The problem is, they do not realize the sheer hipocrasy nor do they ever really get all the information to make informed and judged decisions.

If you have ever had to try and have a debate with a religious lay person, lets say about Evolution v.s creationism - they know very little about the scientific facts, don't want to know the facts, and because their belief "just is" there is no argument about it. This is the same way with most republican mindset people. They make poor excuses when comparing abortion to war. You say to them "how can all life be precious but yet you support war and death to the worst criminals" and they have the cannned response you used above "This is an innocent life and they have no choice, where as terrorists and criminals do have a choice..." end of discussion. The problem with that argument is, doo the latter really have a choice? Are the civilians dying everyday as "collateral damage" innocent? Do they have a choice? Are the criminals who committ these henious crimes "choosing" to do they things they do? The first is easy to answer, even the most pig headed can see there is no argument there - but for the criminals - if you have never worked with them in a mental capacity, then you have no right to judge them based soley on their crime.

Like I said, personally, I am against aborition, but I am for the right to choose. I am for the death penalty, but *ONLY* if all of the facts and data is inconclusive and the system that brought it there is unbiased and balanced. Death to those deemed mentally ill should be banned. This would require an overhaul of the justice system. The first thing I would spend money on is a department and facilities to process these cases once convicted - dna, case evidence, mental evalutations, a non-paritsan, non-judicial or non-fraternal group reviewing the evidence (let's face it, DA's have their own agenda, many cops are borderline criminals themselves). Yes, this would cost money, taxpayer money, but it would be money well spent in that when we do use the death penalty with dignity and respect and a good clean conscience.

In my years I have come to the conclusions that the republican party and its supporters are ridden with many double standards and a very weak platform to stand on. The democrats are spineless and toothless on this issue and tend to gravitate to whatever they think the public wants from month to month. Libertarians are the most selfish and egotistical and tend to have the most psychological issues of any party I have studied.

" have to offer a dissenting, women's opinion on this one. It is NOT a WOMAN's decision. It SHOULD be a woman's AND her partner's decision. It took both of them to create the fetus. Why should the man not have a right or an opinion to what happens to his contribution of sperm? It does bother me that too many people say it is a woman's decision to do what she will with her body, all the while apparently ignoring the fact that she didn't get that way on her own."

- Vickie

I have little to no regard for men in this process Vickie.

Sorry but I stand by my premise. If you'd like to wait around for the greater percentage of males who think nothing more of "getting it wet" than they do feeding their faces you go ahead. IMO, men generally have no investment in consequence of actions. It's for that reason I feel that since the woman is given the entire responsibility for productivity phase that can result from of the act of fucking, it becomes her SOLE responsibility (as shitty as that is) from a gender standpoint.

Therefore.. the men can simply STFU.

Sorry for my tone Vickie. I feel very strongly about this. You see I know men. I am one.

"Venomous exchanges?" Your Party specializes in them. But that's OK with you. Even when they tar an entire "race," gender, sexual preference, religion or nationality, trying to stir up hatred for craven political purposes..."

- the ever-eloquent Cosa Nostradamus.

Man. I like how you think (and write).

Bravo bravissimo! Che uomo forte!

" By that very same logic that I offer, however, it seems to me that at during the first trimester, this fetus is not a human being because it is incapable of sustaining life on its own. Therefore it is incapable of being described as a "person" yet. It is a bunch of cells reacting to its mother's life".

Were you not a human being during the first trimester of your mothers pregnancy? A newborn is incapable of sustaining life on its own, as is a five year old. Life begins at conception and abortion is murder. Tell yourself all the lies you want. Children are messy, troublesome little creatures and a life not touched by them is not a life at all. Your smart, right? Think about it.

If my mother had killed me during the first trimester of her pregnancy, I wouldn't think a thing about it, ya know? Doesn't make a difference. I have never seen such an attachment to life on one side of things and such a disregard for it on the other, all wrapped up into one little tiny mindset. Innocent Iraqi children being blown to smithereens is collatoral damage, just a little detail that comes with war, while the removal of a lump of living cells during their first trimester is MURDER. As they say here in NY, Get the fuck outta here!!!

America did not put the Iraqi children in the position of being "blown up". The Iraqis let a madman take over their country and the bill has come due. All life is sacred. As a Veteran who has served this country, I was prepared to lay down my life for your freedom. This is what has made America free from the start. Lot's have died so that you may express your irrational ideas freely. That " little lump of tissue" will develop into a fully functioning human being, such as yourself. Watch your language. A female shouldn't speak so.

Any anonymous comments in the future will be removed.

America did not put the Iraqi children in the position of being "blown up".

That's the most ignorant thing I've read so far today. And I gotta tell you, that's saying A LOT. Spin it however you want. Every single person who supports this war is responsible for the deaths of every single man, woman and child killed in the course of the war. You don't like to own it. But it's yours.

As I said before, Get the fuck outta here. And take your antiquated chauvenistic bullshit with you.

"Calling me an extremist is slander. You obviously know nothing about political extremism. You seem to think it means anything that challenges your views. They need to be challenged." - Cosa

Calling George Bush every name in the book that you can think of is slander. Calling him a Nazi, an born-again Hitler, a murder of the masses, and whatever else you called him is slander. My referring to you as an extremist speaks for itself and is not, in my opinion, slanderous. Your words speak for themselves.

RAWdeal: I appreciate your commentary. Made me rethink a couple of things, actually.

PS Cosa: Note that Maria and RAW's opinions disagree with mine. I do not find their tone or attitudes extremist. I also do not find them challenging. Ergo, by definition, they are not extremists, imho.

Vickie,

Unfortunately there are enough people who would label me as an extremist. Even those in my own field. My ideas are radical but have yet to be disproved.

On another note, I appreciate your thoughts as well. It shows that there can be a difference of thought and yet we can coexist with civility. It shows that when two different be equally intelligent opinions come together, people can begin to see the others point of view. I am glad that some of my words made you think, regardless of whether you agree or disagree.

However, people such as this JMD are exactly the ones I was referring to in one of my "books" as noted above.

Here is a snippet of JMD's commentary:
Were you not a human being during the first trimester of your mothers pregnancy? A newborn is incapable of sustaining life on its own, as is a five year old. Life begins at conception and abortion is murder.

This is exactly the narrow minded unscientific illogical rhetoric that I speak of. It is riddled with emotion but no real scientific or factual information. I shall break it down as an example of how many of these arguments really have no factual argument, just raw emotion.

JMD asks Were you not a human being during the first trimester of your mothers pregnancy? There is some of that rhetoric but I will humor him and answer it from a professional point of view. Firstly, that question really cannot be answered. Logically, it is a question being asked for us to recall a time when we were, well, not really there yet. That also calls into question the philosophical debate of "were we really there." In a nutshell (instead of a long boring drawn out philosophy class explanation, I will quickly summarize) physically, yes we were there. The physical state, we were simply a collection of cells unable to sustain life without physical dependency on our host (the mother). Is a human being still a human being whether they are alive or dead? Whether they are able to sustain life without the need for physical dependency? Sure they are. But that raises the question then are "do not resuscitate" orders immoral. Is it murder to take someone off of life support systems. If one were to go with JMD's and Vickie's definitions, than yes, it would be. This whole summary can turn into an infinite debate with many philosophical corners to turn. Too many for this post, so I will leave you with the question - who gets to decide what is best for that person who is dependant on another object be it a person or a machine, for it to physically sustain life?

Next:
JMD writes newborn is incapable of sustaining life on its own, as is a five year old.

Physical sustenance is no longer the issue here. Once a new born is born and the airways cleared, that new born can sustain life to a degree, all on its own. Nowhere near as much as that 5 year old who is also limited to sustaining its life to a degree as well. We are no longer talking about physical sustenance, but the ability to maintain ones own life its own. That is a whole other topic that really has nothing to do with abortion. So JMD, stay on topic or else your entire argument falls apart (again, this is the narrow mindedness I talked about that shines through in nearly ever person who is anti-abortion. very few of us who have personal beliefs on this actually think of this logically).

Finally JMD writes Life begins at conception and abortion is murder.

Sure it does. By biological definition, technically, life never starts nor ends. The egg is alive. So is the sperm. Therefore, your definition could be applied to masturbation as being murder and birth control pills as being murder.

Now, I will break the entire argument wide apart with this - you also say those Iraqi children had a choice. Did you have a choice of where you were born? By your statement that the Iraqi children who are dying because of this war "have a choice" than one must assume that abused children have a choice to leave their abusive parents. Children born into crime and poverty have a choice to be where they are at.
No sir, the only ones who have a choice in the matter where innocent lives are being lost as a result of war are the people in power in this world who make the decisions to send our troops into war. The generals have the choice as to when and where the bombs are dropped. The pilots and troops have a choice whether to drop the bombs are fire their weapons. They all have a choice whether to be there or not. THEY have the choices. These children do not.
So please tell me how you can sit there and talk about hoe precious life is where an unborn child is concerned but not say the same for children in worn torn countries? It is not only illogical, but insensitive and inhumane.

You know, in the early history of the Church, they were among the first ones to provide abortions to the community (ipso facto, the predecessor to Planned Parenthood), because, like most philosophers (Aristotle, Augustine, etc) Mother Church believed in delayed ensoulment (notably, 40 days for a boy, 90 days for a girl).

The jewish were very anti-abortion and infanticide, but if the baby would cause harm to the mother they believed the mother was *obligated* to abort. Even the church today is pretty careful about avoiding a real answer to the question of abortion.

The only point I'm making with the above is that most people are about making this a morality issue, mostly (though not all) based on Christian ideas and beliefs. I just felt it might help to know that even the church/es itself has had difficulties making the call on this one.

But then again, back in the actual dark ages, the church also had a definitive stand that it was useless to kill witches because witches don't exist, a thing they happily changed in the renaissance with burnings and the whole Inquisition, so apparently, God doesn't use Verizon and the Pope can't hear him now.

When push comes to shove and the panties are down, what I always end up with is the only possession we are granted at the crossroads of life and death is our bodies. That makes it ultimately impossible to legislate. Which to me means that supporting whatever people choose has much more wisdom than dictating their choice for them.

By the same idea that people (slaves, women) are not chattel to be owned by other people (men), which, as I understand, is part of the anti-slavery "democracy" we're spreading over there, I can't very well call myself a "free" person living in a "free" country if I am the property of the state.

I'm not actually sure what your email is so...

Maria: As an aside to earlier things, I'm aware that all I know/hear is from one side, and I never claimed otherwise. If it was still somewhere, I would point out that I was clear about all the info I had being, obviously, conjecture, and the opinions that were actually noted weren't mine. Besides, whatever my personal opinions are, they really are irrelevant, because, you know, bias and shifted history is always a certainty and it being long enough ago that I don't even really care. I do however, apologize for the tone (which made it seem like I was saying things I wasn't). The b*tchy tone was mostly my annoyance at being pulled into all the drama.

Anyhow, if you want me not to post, that is perfectly ok. Just let me know.

Richard - no apology necessary on the tone. I recognize the passion you display for the topic. I also do ultimately respect and appreciate your attitudes and feelings towards the woman's right on this issue. Your attitude towards women's rights, as a man, is a unique one and one I believe worthy of commendation.

I disagree with you, but I completely understand what you're saying.

"Children are messy, troublesome little creatures and a life not touched by them is not a life at all. Your smart, right? Think about it." -JMD

OH I've though about it.. and by-in-large I find them highly over-rated. My life is not "touched" by them (unless you mean the screaming ones under no restraint by their mothers in the grocery store).. and I'm just fine thanks. I'm not living my life vicariously by attempting to mould some little mind into a "mini-me" (so often the result of parenthood).

Acknowledgement noted and returned in kind Vickie.

VICKI:
You said:

"Calling George Bush every name in the book that you can think of is slander."

You can't "slander" a public figure, especially a politician, except by accusing him ot her of something they did not do or say.

"Calling him a Nazi, an born-again Hitler, a murder of the masses, and whatever else you called him is slander."

Using an endless series of Big Lies, Bush, like Hitler, violated the trust of all Nations by invading a sovereign country, in this case Iraq, without provocation. Like Hitler, Bush wantonly slaughtered innocent civilians, men, women, old people, and children. Like Hitler, Bush collectively punished entire cities for the resistance actions of a few. Like Hitler, Bush tortured and abused prisoners in violation of all international laws, which WE wrote or helped put in place. Like Hitler, Bush claims victory even in the face of disaster, and announces the installation of high-sounding ideals like "freedom" and "democracy" in Iraq even when there are none. Like Hitler, Bush misuses our military, besmirching our national honour and betraying our troops. Like Hitler, Bush sends those troops into battle without the plans or training or supplies sufficient to do the job. Like Hitler, Bush throws men into battle heedless of the consequences and indifferent as to their lives. Like Hitler, Bush denies it all and celebrates his "victories" even as more and more men and women die in Iraq, for his original Big Lie to the American people.

I don't use words like "nazi" lightly. I can back up what I say. Can you? Once more, what is it that you SUPPORT about this Presidency?

"My referring to you as an extremist speaks for itself and is not, in my opinion, slanderous. Your words speak for themselves."

The Right-wing's long and odious history of Red-baiting and slander of anyone even slightly to the left of you is well established, as anyone can see from the links I posted, above. So are the terrible consequences, for the individuals targeted, and the nation as a whole, which has now been wrenched completely out of the classic political Center.

Again, educate yourself, before you throw around terms like "extremist." Your clear political ignorance and wilful blindness to the misdeeds of your own beloved Party are "extreme," in the extreme. And yes, my words do speak for themselves, and I can back them up. I don't require your slanderous characterizations of them, based on your own ignorance and prejudices, which have become all too clear.

"PS Cosa: Note that Maria and RAW's opinions disagree with mine. I do not find their tone or attitudes extremist. I also do not find them challenging. Ergo, by definition, they are not extremists, imho."

Exactly my point. I challenge you, therefore I am an extremist. And you do not challenge me, because you know, or dimly suspect that I am right about your beloved Party, on every point. So you stoop to slandering me and evade direct questions, as per Republican doctrine and practise. Don't pretend to be discoursing in a civil manner. You're not.

Whatever or anyone else have to say about public figures or their deeds is fair game and part of our political discourse, here. Whatever you or your extremist Right-wing buddies have to say about me personally, or Maria, or anybody else here is slander, and not fair game. Get it? Address the issues, and defend your political positions, instead of getting personal.
.

"Get it? Address the issues, and defend your political positions, instead of getting personal."

Actually, I did address the issue in my first two posts. I addressed my stance on abortion. I did not get personal at any point other than to say I wasn't interested in debating you any further due to the tone, and obviously I wasn't too adamant about that stance since I've gone on and debated you.

And as well, I never said what you quoted me on: "Well, I'm a Republican, but I'm not a *Republican*". Never said that so please do not quote me.

I'm dropping it, Cosa. I don't care to continue this. I don't feel like getting this any more heated than it is. I would appreciate agreeing to disagree. I am in complete understanding that you despise the Republican party. I have done nothing to make you despise me other than be part of that political stance. You've lumped me in with an entire ideology of bigotry, hatred, and murder. You've said as much. I can't keep talking to somebody who puts me in a generic, sweeping category.

Brilliant post Maria, Bush is God's pimp don't ya know, how else can the pimp be all down with his "Culture Of Life" crusade if he doesn't walk the talk, through a telephone line....can you load paintball guns with ovaries? Hmmm...

VICKI:

OK. Fine. Let's get one thing straight, though, once and for all: I have nothing against you, personally. I have everything against your Party.

You choose to identify yourself with them. You choose not to offer one good reason why. If there is any "lumping in," you're doing it to yourself, and trying to do to to me. I won't allow that.

I don't know you, and you don't know me. I didn't label you, you labelled yourself. You labelled me. That's illegitimate. If things get "heated," it's because you get personal, with complete strangers.

You can't begin to imagine what I've seen and done in my life, or who I am, or what I am, or what my circumstances are. Nor do I know, or presume to know any of that about you. Presuming so would be rude and stupid, so I wouldn't do it to you. Don't do it to me, either.

If you can't take a legitimate challenge to your positions, don't go getting personal, and then accusing the other person of doing so. If you think my attacks on Bushco are too "heated," then you've never been directly involved in politics, as I have. This is nothing. This is an ice-cream social, compared to the real world of politics.

One of the things I object to most about your Party is their trashing of opponents on illegitimate, false and specious pretexts. In attacking people instead of issues, they are destroying the entire polity. It is becoming impossible to debate or decide issues on the merits, because of your Party's strident, extremist politics of personal destruction.

From Richard Nixon's false accusations of his opponent's "Commie connexions" in his first run for Congress, to Dubya's Swift Boat liars, your Party seems to have lost all sense of justice, decency or fairness at all. They are deliberately driving good people out of politics, and turning voters away from the polls, literally and figuratively. You defend this. Why? You tried to do it to me. Why? Can't you defend your own positions? Are personal attacks your only recourse?

Just give some good reason for supporting Bushco. Just one. Any one. And then maybe you can try to explain how you support all the rest of it. A political Party is not a buffet: You eat the whole, prix-fixe dinner if you buy into their cooking at all.

What would you say to a Chinese Communist today, or a German Nazi in the Forties, if they said, "Well, I'm a Communist/ Nazi, but I don't agree with everything they do." Kind of specious, isn't it? Kinda convenient, too. After the Fall, they say, "Well, I didn't agree with any of it! I was FORCED to conform." You put on their uniform, you put on their guilt. Saluting is meaningless if you don't know why you're doing it, or what you're saluting. If you don't support the Republicans' bad acts, say so. If you go on saying you're a Republican without opposing their bad acts, you're tacitly accepting responsibility for them.

It's not a parlour game, politics: It's real people's real lives. It's life and it's death, especially right now. We don't have the luxury of not being involved. As our government spins out of control world-wide, we ARE responsible. You can stand up and speak out against it, or you can be a Good German and follow along behind it. But you can't remain silent. Either way, you are responsible: For or Against. History will and should look at you in the very same way that we look at the Germans. Their responsibility for their government's actions in the 1930s & 40s will never end. Only those few who stood up to Hitler are exonerated. Perhaps you don't care what history, or other people around you think. But that does not diminish your responsibilty one iota.

Is Dubya as bad as Hitler? Maybe not yet, but in time... It took Hitler some time to build up to WWII and the Holocaust, too. Should we give Dubya more time, just to see what happens? That's what the Germans did with Hitler. And look what happened. Look what's happening here, now.

We're talking about an unprovoked first-strike against another country, for the first time in our history. We're talking about the deaths of over one hundred thousand innocent Iraqi civilians. We're talking about torture and abuse of POWs. We're talking about the selective suspension of civil liberties for one particular ethnic and religious minority; and the proposed suspension for another minority, enshrined in a new Constitutional Amendment, for the first time in our history: A supreme Federal law denying rights to one particular group. We're talking about blurring the lines between Church and State. We're talking about trashing the environment, and ignoring global warming. We're talking about imposing a Corporatist agenda on our country, putting profits ahead of people, in every aspect of our daily lives.

Are you saying you support all this? By identifying yourself as a Republican, and saying nothing about these issues, you are supporting all this. You are responsible for it all, because you never said a word opposing it. Attacking me personally does not change that.

Nothing to say? No points in favour of Bushco? No specific exceptions to the Republican agenda? Not a word? That says volumes.
.

He makes a good point.

II especially like the parallels between Bush and Hitler.

One thing people are not told nor realize is the Germans of the 30's were not stupid people blindly led into a dictatorship. People think Hitler came in as a raving lunatic saying he was going to kill all Jews and take over the world and automatically the Germans blindly followed him.
It was hardly like that. Hitler was a genius. He was a cold, calculated, manipulative individual. Only towards the end, was he maniacal. In the psych community, he is one of the most studied minds of the moderns practice. He is also one of the most complex. It is also a model used to study how the psychology of politics work because it is considered the biggest sham in history.

Again, the Germans did not just buy into a sick doctrine cooked up by some evil leader. Hitler and his Reich tapped into a pulse and knew exactly what to say to get a huge majority to buy into his ideals. His genius shows through when he was able to sell the most disgusting and worst of what humans can be in the attempt to eliminate a race from society. Most Germans for the most part were not hateful, intolerant people. Most of them in fact would have never bought into Hitler's plan had he not wrapped it up in a neat package. In fact, debates just like this one ensued. You had the far left who knew something was not right, and the far right who bought into everything he said as if it were scripture, and then the rest, who milled about in the middle, not so sure what to think but really too busy to spend much time thinking about it. Eventually, Hitler became drunk with his own power, his greed enflamed him and deportation of a people were not enough. He wanted them obliterated off the face of the Earth. Eventually, his sickness consumed him, and by that time, it was too late for anyone to do anything about it.
Believe it or not, there is talk in the psych community that sees much of the same underlying personality traits in Bush as were in Hitler.
Hitler did not like to be questioned much like Bush. If someone questioned him, he would disengage from them and push them out of his circle for good, much like Bush does. If members of his own cabinet disagreed with him, they would eventually be forced out, much like Bush does with his cabinet members. Loyalists to Hitler would always use fear of repercussions from their Furher if they did not go along with his Plans. Much like Bush does.
The only difference (and thank God for it) is Bush is gone in 4 years. But, it would be interesting to see if he had more time, how his loyalists would eventually turn on him. We may get to see it in the next 4 years if he so adamantly peruses this "mandate."
But back to the topic. These similarities, IMO, are not of coincidence. In fact, it would not surprise me to see these think tanks taking a page from the propaganda machine that made the Third Reich so appealing to its people.

.
Bush gone in four years? The Republicans have shown NO respect for our electoral system, and no inclination to reform it. Perhaps their confidence in partisan Republican control of the electoral systems in Florida and Ohio prevented them taking any larger extra-legal measures, like declaring martial law and suspending the elections (as Nixon once considered doing). But I would not assume they would not do something like that if things looked bad for them in Election 2008. Jeb is waiting in the wings, after all.

As to the "Good Germans," alas, there was a strong current of anti-Semitism in Germany before WWII, as in most of Europe. Hitler may not have spelled out his plans, or shown pictures of children being gassed, but he openly promised to "do something" about Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc, etc, etc. That was a central element of his platform: And a very popular one. Don't forget, his Party's misleading name was the National Socialist German Worker's Party, though they were first and foremost an anti-leftist group. But anti-Semitism is, as they say, the Socialism of fools.

In the depths of the Depression, it was easy to scapegoat one of the few visible minorities in Germany at the time: The Jews. Although most were assimilated and quite German-looking, you still had a few who dressed as the Hassidim do in this country today. And those males who were observant went to shul wearing a yarmulka on Friday night, or Saturday; shopped at or ran kosher food stores; bore names they chose, or which the Germans imposed upon them, to identify them as Jews. And, of course, there were the infamous, aristocratic, internationalist Rothschild's of England, France and Germany bane and boon of Rightist conspiracy-theorists since the Eighteenth Century, who were Jews: And bankers, a group blamed for Germany's troubles in WWI and afterwards. I'm afraid the average German was, in fact an anti-Semite, and glad to see the Nazi's "doing something" about the Jews. Just as many otherwise apparently decent Americans are happy to see Dubya "doing something" about Gays.

Postwar revisionism, shock, and revulsion at the realities of the Holocaust have dealt a major blow to anti-Semitism worldwide. But you can't rewrite the reality of wide-spread anti-Semitism before the war in Europe. Any more than you can assume that tolerance will always triumph in this country. Our history says different.

That's why it is CRITICAL to stand up and oppose loudly any attempt to single out or bash any minority, especially the unpopular ones. It is a very short trip to the concentration camps, once you are on that road. If I use "extreme" language, that's why. People need to wake the fuck up. Especially Republicans.
.

AMEN to that.

Anti-Semites, yes. Proponents of genocide, no. Even the majority of Hitler's third Reich was not for using genocide as the answer, and they KNEW about it. Where as the German people did not. Sure they were for a solution to the so called problem. Hitler (like Bush) lied to his nation and to the entire world. Even our president knew of Hitler's proposal to deport the Jews. This is why most nations while not condoning Hitler's actions also did not see enough of a reason to go to war over it. Had people have truly known what Hitler's real intentions were, I don't think there would have been a holocaust.
There is much factual data to back this up. Actually a very good movie based dictation taken at the Wannsee Conference titled Conspiracy is one of the best movies I have ever seen. I suggest you watch it as it illustrates my point perfectly. The leaders of Nazi Germany were anti-Semitic, bigoted hate mongers, even had sick ideas of how to sterilize the Jews, but many of them were not killers.

Again, it was the greatest lie ever told and THAT is the parallel that holds most truth when we speak of Bush. I personally think 9-11 ranks up there with the Greatest Lie Ever Told. My heart of hearts says like the holocaust, 9-11 is a conspiracy. Bush however, in my eyes, is worse than Hitler;. Hitler was passionate about his hatred. So much that he risked everything and had the deepest loathing of a people. Bush does his dirty deeds for nothing but money and power. Bush is more dangerous than Hitler because eventually Hitler's hate and rage consumed him from the inside out. Bush knows better than to go out with all guns blazing trying to hit whatever it is that is moving. He is playing this whole political game perfectly. But, he is just as much of a madman as Hitler because anyone who can kill countless women and children who want no parts of war, and say "it's a tough decision" and sleep well at night, is class a-1 certifiable.