Scared Monkeys Discussion Forum

I am thinking tonight. I know it is said we should never discuss religion or politics, but I've been happy we have the Political Forum.

Before and after the recent election, it almost seemed like people who I got along with very well on the board, suddenly acted like they hate me because I'm a Democrat, even though I've said that I will vote Republican if they present a good candidate. And I voted for Arnold twice.

I think it's a human problem that people want others to agree with them.

I'm still hopeful and confident we can debate in a constructive and open minded manner without tearing each other to pieces. Can we please debate in a constructive and open minded manner? (jm)

We can each talk about our candidate with rules such as not criticizing another candidates and/or attacking other candidates or each other. We should not be here to convert people from their religion to ours.
 
The main thing about almost all of the posts is the writers are so angry and have such a need to convert others to their point of view.

I could not agree more LV. I have basically stopped posting in this forum because I did not like the way it was turning out. I'm not sure how we can have a civil debate about politics.

I think A's fever expressed it best, it's too early for anyone to be pushing everyone else to support their candidate. I thought we could brainstorm and share, but only some do and others simply want our stamp on their candidate and no debate and heaven forbid if one challenges their candidate's positions or affiliations for then it's a personal attack?

pdh, you're a bright person, maybe you can devise a better way? I frankly give up.

I have yet to understand why anyone thinks I am uncivil or angry because I have asked about a bilgallion times for the answers to questions I have.

I want to know:

What do y'all think about the IMAM Cleric opening the invocation at the DNC winter meeting?

What about what the Australian Prime Minister said concerning Obama?

I have asked these questions over and over... and all I get for an answer is that I am angry, or that I am (implied) racist, or some other slam....

but no one will just tell me.  I have also stated who so far I like and why....


I have yet to see anyone give me a reason to or not to vote for anyone... and that is what debate and questioning is for.  If that is angry or hateful then how are we supposed to learn about the candiates?

Well, Mrs. REd, I will say that I've noticed in some circles, if you do NOT agree with a certain viewpoint, you are immediately slapped with a "label". This quite nicely shuts down differing of opinions...subtle, covertly hostile tool that is much used in our society of late, I'm afraid.
Also , usually followed up with an elaborate apology, except , the insults just keep coming, don't they? ANd, then, more apologies and the lame attempts at guilt shifting.
Notice, all this takes away from positive dialogue and the hope by some, is that the original question is forgotten.

Much of our society has lost the ability to think critically and therein lies the problems we have of late.

I too, have been awaiting the answers to your very important questions. And, they ARE important.

I don't think it's possible, unless you have two threads....one for conservatives, and one for moderate to liberal posters. That way, if you don't agree with a certain political candidate or position, you can stay out of the thread and not be annoyed. But then you'd have someone come in and stir the pot, so that may not work either.  It could be worth a try, I don't know. Everyone seems to want everyone else to agree with their viewpoint, but that's not what a debate is meant to be. SM is blessed with intelligent posters who are passionate in their beliefs, but sometimes posters get carried away, and feathers get ruffled.
I remember several incidences in the LCD thread that ended up with some posters leaving and others threatening to leave. I could see this one heading in the same direction, and I have no desire to participate in all the drama. People have different frames of reference, and different levels of comprehension of what they read. It's very hard to control the controversy without mutual respect from both sides for differing opinions.
I have seen little of that in this particular forum.

Once again, what I see is that when one side asks questions they are not answered.  I have posted about several issues wherein I disagree with the Bush administration's handling of illegal immigration or other issues.  

I have asked two important questions that I want to hear the answers about and it seems like I am all of the sudden speaking Greek.

How is asking questions disrespectful?

Mrs. Red,

It is not disrepectful to ask questions.  But this is no longer a safe place to answer questions, especially when the answer does not agree with the majority.  I have questions too, and one post in particular I would like to respond too, but I don't dare post, because I risk upsetting people.  

The Political Forum has become an unfriendly place, and we can no longer chat here in a friendly manner as in the Lounge.  We've all been slammed at one time or another, and it takes its toll.

And it is unfortunate, because we have so many intelligent and insightful monkeys.  Just my 2 cents as I see it . . .

What exactly do you mean by not safe?  Do you think I am going to come to your home and do you harm?   Just because I have strong opinions doesn't mean that I am hateful.... it means I have conviction and I am still just wanting someone, anyone with a differing opinion to answer the questions I have posed...

I get slammed constantly by LV, PHD3 and you.... that is exactly what y'all are doing to me, IMO.  You have all posted about being afraid, not afraid, etc.   but when I ask about the DNC and the Imam how is that personal?  Were you there?  Posting about Nancy Pelosi  is not an attack on any poster.... it is making a comment about a senator, who is a public figure.... it's allowed... after all, Bush has been called stupid numerous times in here.... I don't consider that a personal attack on myself - but neither obviously, do I agree...

When I question Obama or say that I worry that ROME is only 2 years away from being completely Musliem how is that personal?

These are issues that are the questions of our times.... and I want to know what people are thinking...

how is that a personal attack?  I have stated only in answers when I am annoyed...

the idea of being afraid, or not, to be implied as a racist, and unintelligent because of my opinioin is not an attack.. because I disagree with you???? yet it was a personal attack for some when Tyler posted about Nancy Pelosi's teeth... I tend to doubt that any of us talking here are Nancy - so it's not personal... just because I don't like Obama doesn't meant that I don't listen to what you have to say... I have been asking for days now for reasons to change my mind and all I get in response is that I am hateful or this forum is hateful.... this is the election of our times... it will determine so very much of our future and to ask the hard questions seems to be hateful?
 
there is nothing hateful intended or even said... but instead of getting an answer, I keep getting more comentary about how hateful everything is....

how do you know what I will say until you answer my questions... or hell even pose some of your own...

See, Mrs. Red, this is exactly what I am talking about.  I posted what I felt was a general, innoctous post stating what I think has gone wrong in the forum.  

Yet you take it to be a personal slam on you.  I said nothing at all about any of your posts or you personally!!  I answered your question, and I get slammed.  How in the world do you read this as a personal attack?  

Maybe people don't respond to some things you ask because they don't know??  I've seen you post several times about the Muslims in Rome but I don't answer because I don't know anything about it.  I read a couple of Roman Catholic publications but I've never seen the subject mentioned, nor in the mainstream media.  Regarding Obama and the Imam, I am personally not expending any energy on a candidate who may not be around for long.  So I am not going to post about these things.  No expertise here at all.  Not posting answers is not a personal attack either!

Once again, sorry to offend, was not my intention at all.  I wish I had not posted at all and I will be certain not to anymore.  This is exactly what I meant about this not being a safe (safe, synonymous with comfortable) environment to post anymore.

P.S.  -  You get slammed constantly by me???

Invocation by Husham Al-Husainy, Imam of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center, a Shi'ite mosque in Dearborn, Michigan, at the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting.

... In the name of God the most merciful, the most compasionate. We thank you, God, to bless us among your creations. We thank you, God, to make us as a great nation. We thank you God, to send us your messages through our father Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Mohammed. Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. Help us God to liberate and fill this earth with justice and peace and love and equality. And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation. Ameen.

Monday, February 12, 2007
PM JOHN HOWARD ON PRESIDENT OBAMA  

JOHN HOWARD: Once again commentary but I'll address the substance of the issue. The Australian people have always been, when you ask them in a poll, against our involvement in Iraq. I accept that. As one of the answers I give to those who say I'm a poll-driven politician. It was about the least poll-driven decision I've taken in my entire political life but I believed in it; I believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. So, incidentally did Mr Rudd. Mr. Rudd in fact said it was an empirical fact that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. His argument with us was whether we should have tried to get another United Nations resolution but I've got to now look at the current situation, and the impact on the alliance, the impact on the future of Iraq, if we were to get up and go, and Mr Rudd can't slip and slide and have it both ways, as he tried to do this morning. You either go or you stay, you either rat on the ally or stay with the ally, it's as simple as that. And, if it's alright for us to go, it's alright for the Americans and the British to go, and if everybody goes Iraq will descend into total civil chaos ...

LAURIE OAKES: On that very subject,

JOHN HOWARD: …and there'll be a lot of bloodshed.

LAURIE OAKES: On that subject, Senator Barack Obama's announced overnight he's running for the Democrat Presidential nomination, and he says if he gets it he has a plan to bring troops home by March, 2008 and his direct quote is "Letting the Iraqis know we'll not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunies and Shiah to come to the table and find peace". So, basically he's agreeing with the Labor Party.

JOHN HOWARD: Yes, I think he's wrong, I mean, he's a long way from being President of the United States. I think he's wrong. I think that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for Obama victory. If I was running Al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.

LAURIE OAKES: If he wins, and you're still there, bad news for the alliance.

JOHN HOWARD: Well I tell you what would be even worse news for the fight against terrorism, if America is defeated in Iraq. I mean, we have to understand what we are dealing with. We're dealing here with a situation where if America pulls out of Iraq in March 2008. It can only be in circumstances of defeat. There's no way by March 2008, which is a little over a year from now, everything will have been stabilised so that America can get out in March 2008. And, if America is defeated in Iraq, the hope of ever getting a Palestinian settlement will be gone. There'll be enormous conflict between the Shi'a and the Sunnis throughout the whole of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Jordan will both be (destabilised), Al-Qaeda will trumpet it as the greatest victory they've ever had and that will have implications in our region because of the link, the ideological link at the very least, between the Al-Qaeda and JI. "
--
UPDATE: In a news conference here, Mr. Obama dismissed the remarks, saying it was “flattering that one of George Bush’s allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced.”  Mr. Obama said Australia had sent 1,400 troops to Iraq, a fraction of the American force.  “If he’s ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq,” Mr. Obama said. “Otherwise, it’s just a bunch of empty rhetoric.”

As an outsider watching these "discussions",  I see opinions instead of facts and emotions instead of reason and it is very disturbing.  Too much anger and hostility for a reasonable debate and to what end? To shut everybody up?  What good does that do to imply to someone "you are wrong and I am right", "I am smart and you are stupid"? Everything being discussed can be researched on the internet to prove or disprove it's validity and you can't argue with the facts.  Once you know what the truth is - then you can form an opinion.   Are there really two America's with the Republican's and Democrat's so idealogically opposed that you cannot find a common ground when you all grew up in the same country that you must love?  You all must want what is best for your country and its citizens.  I think it's time to leave your egos at the door and enter with a will to learn something beyond your pre-conceived notions.  I have. Just remember, the first person to get angry - loses.

my issue was with the word safe... it's safe to say what you think... and I keep reading that there is a need to convert people to one's way of thinking... when I have said a gazillion times that I wanted reasons to vote for Obama.... I do take it as a personal slam when people complain about the forum. How else should I take that?

I have been asking what people thought about some issues... that is not posting to convert... it's asking questions.

Leslie has now graciously brought the whole interview and the Imam's speech into the lounge... what do people think?

reading the face of what the IMAM said seems fine, but when I heard him interviewed on Hannity and Colmes - in my opinion the door was opened to a reality that none of us want.... Republican or Democrat alike...

also, I have said it before and I will clarify again...when I say Liberal.. I am talking about the leftest piece of the Democratic party... I do not mean every single Democrat.....


Leslie to answer your question about the divide.. yes there is a huge divide in this Country right now along political lines and it's partially because our media likes it that way... they have no idea about our lives, yet they seem to feel that they know better than we do.

Thank you for these three posts, Leslie.

Yes, BRAVO!

I'm going to stop posting here as well, but I just have to say this.
I have NEVER slammed anyone, mrs. red. I have objected to Tyler's post, because it was out of line in my opinion.
I have offered my opinions, and disagreed, but I have never attacked anyone personally. I have never been ugly anywhere on this forum. This is the first controversy I've ever been involved in, and it will be the last.
Those of us with more moderate opinions are clearly not welcomed in this forum. It isn't enjoyable, safe or comfortable.
 If someone doesn't immediately answer a question, why is that a bad thing? It may take time to research, or people may be busy, or maybe not interested in that subject. Nothing personal is intended, but there has been something personal interpreted. That's unfortunate.
It's too bad that the opportunity to have an intelligent and meaningful debate about the issues has deteriorated into this.

Leslie says it all!

Though I continue to read, I too have quit posting in here, as there is alot of uncivil posts on both sides.  I read only the posts that state 'facts', such as Anna's for example.  It IS a shame our country is so divided and that it can be so clear on even a friendly forum such SM.

Leslie wrote:
As an outsider watching these "discussions", I see opinions instead of facts and emotions instead of reason and it is very disturbing. Too much anger and hostility for a reasonable debate and to what end?



Here are two examples of being called hostile and angry.... and if that isn't a slam because I posted my opinion then what is?  It is carried out throughout the other threads of discussion as well.  

To say that this is the election of our times does not make me mad or hostile.... and when I say that I hope that someone is right, it is not an angry comment but rather one of saying that if they are, then this election is just another status quo election and our entire worlds won't change.  

I am done though - I am sick and tired of being called angry and hateful.  I am sick and tired of asking questions to which no one is interested in or doesn't want to research.  I am sick and tired of hearing how this forum sucks so bad when no one wants to discuss anything other than how bad the forum is -so I am finished with it. I am tired of trying to get past the characterization that it isn't safe... which is beyond insulting,btw.  Some how it's safe enough to make sure that anyone that isn't "moderate or liberal" is called angry and hateful but it's not safe enough to actually talk ... well then so be it.

Tyler's post was not objectionable in my opinion - because she did not call anyone out, she stated that there are those in this country she fears... there are those in this country I fear too..for me, it's the media... I don't think they show us half of the reality and wish to promote their own agenda.  I also think they would sell their grandmothers for a story. . . this doesn't mean any of you.

 Also, Tyler hasn't posted anywhere on SM for almost a month - she left so to keep brining her into this is a shame. JMO.... and when LV attacked her over Pelosi, somehow that wasn't an attack to most of you... but LV seems to be able to post that Bush is stupid and insane and that's ok...

I have said that I disagree with that characterization but until Tyler was attacked I never said she couldn't post that kind of thing....but if one doesn't want some politicians slammed then none of them should be.

If you want to impose rules play by them...

have a great day ladies... it's been an eye-opener. thanks for the lessons!!

Mrs Red:  I was talking in general terms about many posters and many threads and I am not trying to start a war or make rules.  I have noticed that many discussions get derailed when someone posts something and another person gets hugely affected by it.    I am interested in US policies and how they effect the world we all live in.  All you American voters hold immense power that affects our planet for good or bad.  Your country has huge wealth, military might, technology, etc.  The US is so powerful; it is scary.   I would like to be a part of the discussion because I have some (foreign) insight and a lot of questions.  I am a truthseeker.

Leslie-

One poster wishes to rule all posts in this forum, not Mrs Red, so I disagree with your rationale for intimating that Mrs Red was the issue.

It concerns me you are terrified of the US when the greatest harm that might ever come to you and your country from our country, is from the radioactive winds northward post the nuclear blasts from those determined to blow us off the planet.

I didn't intimate that Mrs Red was the issue; that was her impression.  She quoted Louise Vargas  "The main thing about almost all of the posts is the writers are so angry..." and me " Too much anger and hostility ...
in her response "Here are two examples of being called hostile and angry.... and if that isn't a slam because I posted my opinion then what is?"
My posts are straightforward and I am not responsible for what people choose to read into them. If they find insults when none were intended, I do not feel the need to apologize.   There would be no point to try to diffuse anger with more anger.  Considering the topic is "Accord" it would be silly of me to start a dispute under that title.  
I don't feel that any poster wants to rule the forum and with all the different threads; how could one writer have that power?  If you really believe that is true then start a new topic and ignore that poster.
I wrote that the US is so powerful that it is scary. I don't live in fear of all the calamities that might happen, because that would be a sad existence.  More people had died in car accidents than in nuclear blasts but that doesn't stop people from getting behind the wheel.  
My concern is that the US government does what it wants and doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks.  That power should be in the hands of intelligent, rational people who are elected by a population of intelligent, rational citizens who have knowledge of the facts.   That is what the debate is about; find out the truth and discuss it.

Leslie-

Some of us tried to bring the facts forth, we could of course just abandon the war now in Iraq as Clinton did Afghanistan and then regardless of what you feel now - you'd find out what radioactive winds look like and smell like. Yes mistakes were made but certain posters don't want to examine any made by democrats but only republicans? I'm not even a republican but I can clearly see the bias here.

As for your contention previously that some post as if they are smarter than everyone else, IMO you have always posted in that manner. I never found reason to attack you and I will caution you not to attack me nor patronize me.

I haven't seen any debate in here other than about anger, so I quit. I will move on to other threads and continue to post my absolute support for my country. I think the Candian government does what it wants to protect it's citizens, so why shouldn't the US?  It's absolutely astounding to me that all the money and aid we send around the world goes completely unnoticed but woe to us if we don't send that aid. So if we need to be the ones to stand up and take terrorism seriously, so be that too.
That is my opinion.

hello?  that comment is agian stating that I am angry... what else can be read from that?

I like this guy; Congressman Ron Paul.   He is a Republican from Texas.
http://www.house.gov/paul/

I think he is dead out wrong - I do think it is worth what we do there.  Of course, my opinion is formed from talking to soldiers that are serving there and what they tell me is happening.

I also think just liberating suppressed women was well worth the fight.  I don't want to ever hear of women getting stoned to death, being denied educations, and raped at will.  If women were so unimportant as this terrorist regime makes them out to be then, they would just be left alone.

So if we underfund the troops and that gets them killed is that ok?  Why do you care, Leslie about our tax dollars?  You aren't paying taxes to the U.S. - I mean other than you want the war to go away...

 Tell me what solution you have in mind for the Iraqi people?  Does it not encourage you that Hamas is coming to the table today with at least a begninning of an agreement? They may or may not honor it, however it is a beginning.  I think that these are very important issues  - I don't know you, perhaps you don't agree that terrorism is dangerous, or perhaps you buy into the myth that Americans are terrorists... ???? However, what is the answer to leaving and creating what happened in Vietnam, the killing fields? Should we just pull out and leave those people to their fate?  Why?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070215/ts_afp/mideastpalestinian_070215184722;_ylt=ApJQnr7S.F1tjwHV7PPpXG0UewgF

Leslie, Nonesuche, Mrs. Red,

If you all are talking about me trying to rule all the posts in the Political forum, I'm very sorry you feel this way. That is certainly not my intent.

Who the "F" am I to be so important? Of what real importance are my posts? I do not understand.

I'm just a person posting my thoughts on the Scared Monkeys board. That's all I'm trying to do.

Wow, quite a little discussion you all have been having.

I do have a couple of thoughts on this.  I, for one, do not appreciate being called "angry" just as Mrs. Red doesn't.  For one thing, it makes me become VERY angry for a person to do that.   :D

It trivializes my thoughts, opinions and rationale by implying that it is ONLY in anger that I speak.  It is saying that what I say should count for less because I am angry, being emotional and not rational, have some sort of person interest in an outcome.  There is the implication that I do not have every right to be angry in the first place, something that I just do not accept.  Anger is a valid emotion and a normal response to what one perceives as a very unjust, treasonous or illegal act by a politician, for example.

It is very frustrating to try to post facts only to have someone come along and try to steer things to emotionality, their personal feelings, etc.  I do not think that one poster as pdh3 did should say another should not post or that they are over the top unless that person has named them personally in an attack.  Louise has done that with me before, if you will recall, actually named me.  Maybe one reason some of us seem angry is that we are targeted by others, something not done in the reverse.

  And Louise stated even that her mysterious friend disproved my posts while offering absolutely no proof of this.  My position has been borne out by the now-concluding Libby trial and is factual, certainly not based on any anger or emotion.  I am still awaiting how this friend disproved any of the FACTS I ever stated.  Instead, I get posts on MY anger as though that is the problem instead of the claims that my posts were disproven.

It is not those of us stating facts who are the ones trying to make everything from teeth to fake covert operatives personal.  And it does get weary.  And some situations do call for anger as a normal response.

There is nothing wrong with righteous indignation but it should be directed at the events and personalities being discussed, not other posters.  To constantly call those who do not agree with you angry is not a debate, it is a personal attack.  Instead of addressing the issues, the perceived or imagines emotion of the poster is responded to and they are then put on the defensive for what someone thinks is their emotion at the time of posting.  This is just nuts!  Ad hominem attacks are not responses nor any kind of discussion.

But again, I have the right to be angry at what I perceive are horrendous acts of treason being committed by the current sitting congress, done in violation of the Constitution and their stated limitations of power.  A person who perceives their actions this way and does not react with anger is the one who should frighten you.  They are the ones lacking in normal responses.  Saying and doing anything to get along never works and I do not expect nor really care if others on this forum agree or disagree with me.  I just resent your stating I do not have the right to post as in the case of Tyler if you don't like it.  Or making wild claims of having disproved my posts when you have not even begun to do so.

And no matter what facts are posted, there are those who what to make it some sort of touchy, feelie personal things when I have no such desires.  I am just posting where I come from and why.  End of point.  I welcome any dialogue on any posts or facts I make except those that do not back up their claims with the facts themselves or seek to control my emotions or rationale behind my positions.

I can't exchange information or debate an issue based on what others perceive as my emotional state for that has nothing whatsoever to do with facts.  And I reserve the right to be angry at what I perceive are tremendous injustices and acts of betrayal.  I would be an absolute fool not to feel angry at these things happening.  Why some seem to think otherwise or that it is their business if I am angry or not is what I consider over the top and out of line.

For example, a person might post that they do not think the personal appearances of a candidate are valid campaign issues but not that Tyler doesn't have the right to post them or that her doing so is out of line or over the top, present an opposite argument of the facts, not attack the poster.  There is a big difference, you know.

Leslie, I am sorry you are so fearful of this country.  If it makes you feel any better, please know that I fear the Appeaseniks of Eurabia far more than anything this country could ever do.  There are those such as your own Canadian Mark Steyn (with whom I am in love if you prefer emotionality  :D ) who say that Europe is already lost as it will contain a large enough contingent of Muslims within a very few short years that with their resolve and the lack of resolve of the original populations, it is too late to stem the tide of their going over totally Muslim complete with Sharia law, etc. in little time.  While I adore him, I do hope is is wrong about this but that is what he says in his Prologue to America Alone, his most recent book.  

And yes, I share the sentiment that a person or a country should do what is right regardless of what other think of their doing so.  I only wish our allies still believed in bringing representative government to all who desire it or would benefit from having repressive dictators replaced with any form of democracy.  When the Canadian government has to issue a warning that PUBLIC stoning of women is unacceptable, I am very afraid.  Guess we will just have to continue to scare each other.  

With the large number of socialist in our congress right now, I fear socialists all over the globe as I think they cannot compete with our capitalist gross domestic product rate and so will strive to bring down this nation as the sole remaining super power.  There is a very good reason why we are just that, the sole remaining super power,  and it is not because of any socialist scheme afoot.  It is because of capitalism pure and simple as far as I can determine for there is no other difference.  And just as President Bush just pointed out, we have done a better job of controlling our own greenhouse emissions that those who signed the Kyoto Treaty and we did so through our capitalist system of free enterprise without anyone making us do so, further proof that it works.

But in order for the socialist countries the world over to appease their own populations, they do not need to have the glaring example of our success a the forefront.  Ergo, the move to bring the U.S. into line with their own bankrupt governments with their high unemployment rates, etc.  And we have now in our congress far too many all too happy to oblige, being citizens of the universe first and American far last.  Their fist loyalty is to other leftists/socialists before any national interest.

I am one for America going it alone if need be but am thankful for the allies who chose to stand beside us as well.  I do not appreciate the likes of a two term senator presidential candidate insulting one of our most loyal allies as Obama recently did with John Howard.  Now that is audacity and he certainly does not speak for me in his doing so.  Obama can't have it both ways.  If he is for totally surrender in Iraq as he claims, then he should know that of course Al Qaida is going to support his candidacy and Howard was right to point this out.  Sorry but that's the way that works.  But calling Howard only an ally of Bush and not of the U.S. is over stepping his authority as no one has elected him yet and he does not dictate foreign policy.  He is still just a senator and has no right  to be attempting to interact on an international level with anybody.

As for this country and its anger scaring foreigners, some foreign countries need to be be scared, in my opinion, they need to wake up to the global jihad taking place and stop thinking that just because they are not under attack at the moment it will never effect them.  Just wishful thinking on my part as I have no power at all to do anything to cause them to do anything let alone my bidding but at least I am aware of this.

As emotionality goes, I can't imagine why ours would be anything compared to what C Span brings us regularly.  After all, they still show the British Parliament if you want to see disrespect and emotionality in politics.  We certainly have nothing that comes even close to that display. :shock:  :shock:  :shock:

Ah, the world could use a Margaret Thatcher about now!  We seem to be long on problems and short on leadership.  But it is global and not peculiar to any particular nation.

And all of this is just my opinion but one to which I feel I am just as entitled as the next person who does not like my anger, emotionality or lack of agreement with those whom I truly believe to be misguided or even dangerously wrong.  It's called freedom of speech.  I seek to speak freely without having to constantly try to appease those who do not agree  with me.  Some are mature enough to handle this and others it would seem are not.

I welcome challenges based on facts and usually provide a link to things I post to allow others to verify my source and ask that others do the same.  Regardless of what some may claim, I am not particularly interested in whether or not I convince anybody on this forum to my point of view as that is not my intent but the exchange of information between parties interested in doing so and only those parties.  Most adults have their own opinions and are not likely to change them and certainly not over anything I might post or not post.  You are welcome to yours but please also respect my right to mine, opinion that is.

I liked your post Anna.  You expressed very well what the phrase about being angry represented to me, you just expressed it so much better than I did.

Just because I don't agree with people does not mean that when I ask a question about what they said or why they are thinking that means that it isn't safe to post here.  The "safety" issue was another very troubling aspect about all of this.  What does that mean?

Does it mean one thinks they will be banned? Does it mean you fear for your physical or emotional safety?   Is asking a question based on my thoughts attacking and not making you feel "safe"?  

I don't understand that concept, and it is quite demeaning to this site, in my opinion.  Being challenged on thoughts and beliefs is what makes us stretch and grow.  I am quite willing to read and think about what people say.  

One of the highest compliments I have recieved on this forum is when in a pretty "hot" thread I stated why I no longer believe in abortion rights - and Louise Vargas acknowledged that it made her stop and think.  She didn't say that I changed her opinion, only that it gave her pause.  That ladies and gentlemen (although I don't see any guys in here) is what it's supposed to be about - expressing opinions and understanding a question or disagreement is not an attack.

So, let's carry on. For those of you who don't feel safe, well I am sorry you feel that way but how do you know what happens if you just come in do a "I don't feel safe" drive-by and don't say what you think.

Leslie feels "safe" to say that the U.S. scares her, and I stated my opinion on that but she hasn't fallen to any "harm".  In fact, I agree with a lot of what she says on the Lively about the Natalee case.  There are going to be things that we agree and disagree on, it's only human nature.

If it helps, just know this... two of my most long standing friendships of over 20+ years are with liberals of whom I disagree vehemently with on the political landscape.  We actually do this on the phone and in person and don't agree on anything... but we have maintained a long friendship.

Dear Mrs. Red,

Just a teensy correction because I was very moved by the movie, The Killing Fields. It took place in Cambodia. Haing S. Ngor (a native Cambodian) won an Oscar for best supporting actor at the 57th Academy Awards in 1985. He played himself in the movie.

Every so often, there is a film that is destined to be talked about and remembered for years to come.

Mrs. Red,

Thank you so much for being so generous to me and posting that statement: "One of the highest compliments I have recieved on this forum is when in a pretty "hot" thread I stated why I no longer believe in abortion rights - and Louise Vargas acknowledged that it made her stop and think. She didn't say that I changed her opinion, only that it gave her pause. That ladies and gentlemen (although I don't see any guys in here) is what it's supposed to be about - expressing opinions and understanding a question or disagreement is not an attack. " Thank you.

We all evolve over time and I try to keep my mind open and consider other things. Since I respect you so much, I am even reconsidering my support for Obama, even though I will attend the rally on Tuesday. I'm almost scared to go because there will be so many thousands of people.

I just want you to know that I'm a newbie on politics. I never knew the information you've provided about democrats. But I'm sure glad you posted information and I'm trying to learn from it.

With love, Louise