Who thinks...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I was taught by my father that you should always vote for your party. It's the party that rules the country. There are things that I like and dislike about both the Republican party and the Democrat party, but either way, I'm going to vote for the Republican candidate for President because I made up my mind that I was a Republican and that's how you show your support. Basically, it's either one or the other.

I disagree with that. I think you should always vote for the person and not the party. There are bad people in both parties. I'm not going to vote for someone I don't like just because he's in one party. I would never vote for that idiot Bob Goodlatte or whatever his name is. He's a republican congressmen in Kentucky or somewhere in that part of the country. He was the guy who was responsible for the bill that would try to outlaw most forms of internet wagering. In addition, he was leading the opposition against the bill that would stop them from sending horses to slaughterhouses. That guy is the worst. I don't care what party he is in.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I disagree with that. I think you should always vote for the person and not the party. There are bad people in both parties. I'm not going to vote for someone I don't like just because he's in one party. I would never vote for that idiot Bob Goodlatte or whatever his name is. He's a republican congressmen in Kentucky or somewhere in that part of the country. He was the guy who was responsible for the bill that would try to outlaw most forms of internet wagering. In addition, he was leading the opposition against the bill that would stop them from sending horses to slaughterhouses. That guy is the worst. I don't care what party he is in.

Thank you Rupert. Finally, something we can agree on in this thread...A true voice of reason!!!

[Danzig]

i took a survey back during the last presidential election, it was supposed to tell you if you were a dem or republican. i came out 60/40 towards republican. but i often vote across party lines, no way i could go strictly by R or D--for instance there's a guy here in ark running for lt governor. he's a staunch ultra-conservative right wing religious zealot. no way i'd vote for him. he even has the fish symbol on all his campaign signs, which is a bit weird to me...but hey, whatever. people like him scare me, as he only sees things in black and white. it's not always that easy.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Jessica, I hope you don't think that I "attacked" you. I did say that the Patriot Act is a non-partsian law that is recognized by lawmakers in both party as essential. It passed the Senate the first time by a vote of 98-1 or something like that. It passed the Senate the 2nd time by a vote of 89-11. I assume you know that the Senate has around 52 republicans and 48 democrats or something like that. So practically everyone in both parties in the Senate agree that the Patriot Act is absoluletly necessary. I was saying that if you don't think the Patriot Act is necessary, then I give up, you are "hopeless".

I wouldn't really call hat a persoanl attack. If someone said they don't think Bernardini is a good horse, I would say the person is pretty "hopeless". That's not really a personal attack. That would be a fact. If someone thinks that Bernardini is not a good horse, that person is beyond help.

No, Rupert, I don't think that you attacked me because I think that the Patriot Act was absolutely necessary. However, I do think that some are taking that act a little too far, although I don't know for sure. Almost everything is just speculation and opinion about everything going on in the government right now.

Also, I think that you may have used the word 'hopeless' out of context in this instance. It is set in stone that Bernardini is a good horse because we have all physically seen him and just what he does. However, we cannot possibly see for a fact everything that is going on in the government right now and what is right or wrong, and if they are abusing powers or not. Like I said earlier, everything is opinion and speculation. Nothing is set in stone. The history books won't be finished for many years on what is going on right now in this current government, because it is very complicated. History could totally rewrite itself. Who knows, it could all be some huge conspiracy theory!? Now, I don't think that this is the case, but none of us who aren't in the government don't know for an absolute fact, do we?

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i took a survey back during the last presidential election, it was supposed to tell you if you were a dem or republican. i came out 60/40 towards republican. but i often vote across party lines, no way i could go strictly by R or D--for instance there's a guy here in ark running for lt governor. he's a staunch ultra-conservative right wing religious zealot. no way i'd vote for him. he even has the fish symbol on all his campaign signs, which is a bit weird to me...but hey, whatever. people like him scare me, as he only sees things in black and white. it's not always that easy.

Cool Danzig..I can agree with this too! Take care, and goodnight. I'll chat some more about this in the morning.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Sorry, but the personal attacks won't make me shutup or go away. It's called integrity, and nope I haven't been warned about people with different opinions, but I do know that when I start presenting them with facts and they start personally attacking, that I am winning the argument. Thin-skinned...I don't think so. Am I acting like I'm thin-skinned? No, if I was thin-skinned I would have given up a long time ago. No real world experience...let's just say that my own mother has said that I have had a tough enough life for three or four people. Some here know what I am going through, and some of the things that I have gone through. Many would have fallen into extreme depression, but I keep plugging away. I live in the real world and am not naive. You know nothing about me.

just keep in mind that many people have stories they could tell, a lot of people have things rough. and of course it's how you handle any tough luck that comes your way that decides the type of person you become. so, you may have had some tough stuff to deal with. you may be surprised how many others could say the same. and believe me, living life will change you, will alter your beliefs.
my daughter has made the comment before that she wished she knew as much as me. i told her that would never happen. she's 22 years behind me, she'll never catch up! lol she learns more every day, but i do too!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

No, Rupert, I don't think that you attacked me because I think that the Patriot Act was absolutely necessary. However, I do think that some are taking that act a little too far, although I don't know for sure. Almost everything is just speculation and opinion about everything going on in the government right now.

Also, I think that you may have used the word 'hopeless' out of context in this instance. It is set in stone that Bernardini is a good horse because we have all physically seen him and just what he does. However, we cannot possibly see for a fact everything that is going on in the government right now and what is right or wrong, and if they are abusing powers or not. Like I said earlier, everything is opinion and speculation. Nothing is set in stone. The history books won't be finished for many years on what is going on right now in this current government, because it is very complicated. History could totally rewrite itself. Who knows, it could all be some huge conspiracy theory!? Now, I don't think that this is the case, but none of us who aren't in the government don't know for an absolute fact, do we?

I think our government has done a lot of things wrong. I agree with you that they should secure the border. I don't understand why they don't do that. I think that invading Iraq was probably a mistake.

But with regard to civil liberties, I think most of the criticism is unwarranted. For example, I think that obtaining wiretaps is an absolute necessity. If they catch a terrorist over in Pakistan and they get his computer and cell-phone and see that he has been in contact with someone in this country, I think the government should absolutely put a wiretap on this person's phone and make sure that the person is not a terrorist. That is the way the government catches most of these guys. That is our main defense against the terrorists. When we catch one of them and we get their computer and cell-phone, we see who they have been communicating with and that's how we catch their associates.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think our government has done a lot of things wrong. I agree with you that they should secure the border. I don't understand why they don't do that. I think that invading Iraq was probably a mistake.

But with regard to civil liberties, I think most of the criticism is unwarranted. For example, I think that obtaining wiretaps is an absolute necessity. If they catch a terrorist over in Pakistan and they get his computer and cell-phone and see that he has been in contact with someone in this country, I think the government should absolutely put a wiretap on this person's phone and make sure that the person is not a terrorist. That is the way the government catches most of these guys. That is our main defense against the terrorists. When we catch one of them and we get their computer and cell-phone, we see who they have been communicating with and that's how we catch their associates.

Yes, Rupert, I agree with what you said. The only thing I don't agree with is that they may be taking it a bit too far, in that they are wiretapping and checking emails of most or all of the calls coming in and out of the U.S. At least, that is what I have heard. There is also some speculation that they are looking at student college records too. Of course, I don't have anything to hide, and I don't know why they would be looking at student's records, but I don't know how I would feel about them looking at mine.

Also, the Supreme Court ruled against Bush's legislation to disregard Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. Other GOPs are really starting to talk out against Bush, and say that he is going too far with these things. This is a topic of huge debate right now, and you can find it in many different articles.

On a lighter note, they actually are making a really smart move in Baghdad in that they are going to build trenches around the city and are going to start controlling traffic coming in and out of the city...checkpoints like those we have by police officers here in the U.S. I think that will be very helpful.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

just keep in mind that many people have stories they could tell, a lot of people have things rough. and of course it's how you handle any tough luck that comes your way that decides the type of person you become. so, you may have had some tough stuff to deal with. you may be surprised how many others could say the same. and believe me, living life will change you, will alter your beliefs.
my daughter has made the comment before that she wished she knew as much as me. i told her that would never happen. she's 22 years behind me, she'll never catch up! lol she learns more every day, but i do too!

Right Danzig, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Living life has already made me alter many of my beliefs, and I know that while some people haven't had it as tough as I have had especially to be as young as I am, some people have had it a lot tougher than me.

Yeah, I agree with that last part as well, unless your daughter is a Ken Jennings and has an incredibly higher IQ than you do! LOL! For most people, when relating to their children, I'm sure they could say that because they usually pass on the same amount of intelligence to them. However, you couldn't say that someone such as John Nash, or James Watson, or Rosalind Franklin couldn't catch up to you in they were 22 years younger...at least, not in certain subject areas.

My sister leaves for boot camp for the navy on Monday. I'm really going to miss her. She is like me. One of the reason that she is going into an intelligence position in the U.S. Navy is that she wants to know what is going on inside the U.S. government. In other words, she wants to see if the people are being screwed or not. She also wants to see the world, and there are some real benefits from going into the service. She'll do fine because she is very tough. If I wasn't engaged, didn't have rheumatoid arthritis, and didn't have severe sciatic nerve damage (I don't even have reflexes in my left leg!), I might have joined with her. I don't even know if they would accept me, and I don't think that I could ever make it through boot camp. The only physical activities that I can really engage in are running and riding horses. When I get thrown from a horse, it takes a week before I can ride again because I hurt so bad. Luckily, I don't get thrown very often. Knock on wood...LOL

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

just keep in mind that many people have stories they could tell, a lot of people have things rough. and of course it's how you handle any tough luck that comes your way that decides the type of person you become. so, you may have had some tough stuff to deal with. you may be surprised how many others could say the same. and believe me, living life will change you, will alter your beliefs.
my daughter has made the comment before that she wished she knew as much as me. i told her that would never happen. she's 22 years behind me, she'll never catch up! lol she learns more every day, but i do too!

Hee hee-- that makes me think of Mark Twain's famous line: "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Here's what I'd like you to do ...

... save all these political threads on which you've participated ... put them on a disc and/or print them out ... and put them in a drawer or box some place ... with a little note that says ... "Do Not Open Until 2030." And don't lose the box.

When you open the box ... and read what you said here 23 years ago ... you'll be in for quite a shock.

Then contact me on the "Remember When There Used To Be Something Called Thoroughbred Racing?" website ... and we'll have a few laughs.

You're probably right BB, but then again, you may not be.

I hope Thoroughbred racing is still around in 23 years!!! Although, I am worried about the direction in which this sport is heading too.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Hee hee-- that makes me think of Mark Twain's famous line: "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

I keep telling that to my kids....

[GenuineRisk]

Holy cow; so many good posts I can't keep them all in my head... my first thoughts...

I don't think you get searched at the airport; I think you get searched as you go on the plane. I've never been searched entering an airport. So I don't quite buy the "searched in a public place" argument you presented to Kentucky, Rupert. I asked myself about getting searched in museums, but you pay to go to museums, so I'm not sure where that falls...

BB, I cited in my earlier post the names of the two main authors of the PATRIOT Act. If you find different info, indicating someone else were the main authors, please post it, rather than saying mean things about me.

I find it odd that anyone would think the Iraqis should be "happy" about our intervention. Whatever Saddam did in the early '90s, 43,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the invasion. Mothers, fathers, children. Do we really think, regardless of what the long-term outcome may be that they are "happy" about 43,000 (and that's a lowball estimate) of their people dead? Whether this Iraq thing will turn out to have been good or one of the US's greatest follys, I don't know. But I don't expect the Iraqis to be happy or grateful for 43,000 dead because of US intervention, regardless of the outcome.

Cajun, I hope at some point you reconsider your voting principles-- the danger in choosing a party and sticking to it is that political parties have a way of going in directions you might not have expected, and by being unwilling to cross a party's line a voter can put people in power who do things with which she disagrees. When the Republican party began, it was the party of liberals-- ending slavery was a VERY liberal move (as was the 8-hour workday, safety regulations, Social Security, votes for women and all the other things that make BB mad. Not all put in place by Democrats, but all pushed for by liberals). Remember, conservatism, at it's core, is about keeping things the way they are- you're conserving. And it's a valid political stance, and if you were a conservative in the 1860's, you'd have been voting Democratic. The parties switched-- Dems became the party of liberals and Repubs that of conservatives, but one finds liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. And what makes one "liberal" or "conservative" changes, too. In the 1950's, for example, both parties were to the left of the mainstream today. Party values are made up of the people who comprise them, but if you choose to vote for someone purely because he wears the label you want, and not because he stands for the things you want him to stand for, then he may wind up voting for laws that you hate and despise. Treating your political party like you do your sports team-- you stick with them through thick and thin-- is dangerous and can lead to zealots of either ilk (left or right) in charge and making decisions for you. If you are unhappy with what your party does, the best way to get them to knock it off is to not keep them in power. Then the party has to regroup and actually earn their votes.

Here's a link to some interesting, some infuriating, some funny editorials by assorted prominent Republicans on why they hope the Democrats win this year. None of them have any intention of giving up on their own party, but they feel the current crop has got to go. Which they won't unless the members of their own party look beyond the title "Republican" and into what they want their representatives to stand for. I promise, the articles are a fun read. And God help me, I even find myself agreeing with Scarborough...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...610.forum.html

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

[quote=Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Just curious, but what do you consider "the top?" I would say making the Olympic team would be the top of the equestrian world. Have you done that? If so, I'm impressed.

If you kept up with the Olympics, it's rules, who competes, how it works in the equestrian disciplines, and the history of the Olympics, you would know that I have not ever ridden in the Olympics. I'm only 21. You also aren't easily impressed. I am impressed with many horses and riders. Sure, the Olympics and the WEG are the top echelon of horse showing in which only like 0.001 riders ever compete there. However, there is much, much more than international competition. I'm impressed with young riders and juniors that win the Maclay Finals, and the Big EQ classes like them at all of the prestigious A-AAA shows. Those are the future Olympic riders and stars.

Just for the record, when I referred to back to the top, I meant just being able to RIDE and compete in my respectable show divisions because I haven't been able to compete very much this yearIn fact, I have only been able to go to schooling shows because I haven't had the time to get my horses prepared to win at any other type of show. I don't like to go to the more prestigious shows unless my horses are working right, and I think that I have a good chance to win. I haven't even been able to keep my show horses in shape. Back to the top also referred to the clients that I once had, and the money I was making off of training. I can't even compete in the A/O classes anymore because I am considered a professional since I have made money off of it in the past. I have to show against other professionals. What I meant was back to the highest level that I had ever competed in. Of course, I will get better and go further after I get out of college because I will have the resources. Financial resources were the only thing that was holding me back. Yes, you may very well see me competing in international competitions for the United States one day.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Yes, Rupert, I agree with what you said. The only thing I don't agree with is that they may be taking it a bit too far, in that they are wiretapping and checking emails of most or all of the calls coming in and out of the U.S. At least, that is what I have heard. There is also some speculation that they are looking at student college records too. Of course, I don't have anything to hide, and I don't know why they would be looking at student's records, but I don't know how I would feel about them looking at mine.

Also, the Supreme Court ruled against Bush's legislation to disregard Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. Other GOPs are really starting to talk out against Bush, and say that he is going too far with these things. This is a topic of huge debate right now, and you can find it in many different articles.

On a lighter note, they actually are making a really smart move in Baghdad in that they are going to build trenches around the city and are going to start controlling traffic coming in and out of the city...checkpoints like those we have by police officers here in the U.S. I think that will be very helpful.

Jessica, I have no idea where you got that information. That is completely false. Our government does not wiretap and check e-mails of all calls that come into this country. First of all, it would be impossible. They don't have the manpower. Anyway, that's irrelevant. Nobody has accused the government of doing that. The controversy was that they were eavesdropping on people in this country who had been communicating with known terrorists overseas. That was what the controversy was over. I can't belive that anyone would have a problem with this. I guess people were upset that they were doing it without getting a warrant from a judge. Our government's argument is that it is a highly secretive program and they don't want to have to get permission from a judge to get a wiretap on a person that they know has been communicating with known terrorists. In addition, I don't think that CIA agents and other government operatives want a judge to tell them how to do an investigation.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Holy cow; so many good posts I can't keep them all in my head... my first thoughts...

I don't think you get searched at the airport; I think you get searched as you go on the plane. I've never been searched entering an airport. So I don't quite buy the "searched in a public place" argument you presented to Kentucky, Rupert. I asked myself about getting searched in museums, but you pay to go to museums, so I'm not sure where that falls...

BB, I cited in my earlier post the names of the two main authors of the PATRIOT Act. If you find different info, indicating someone else were the main authors, please post it, rather than saying mean things about me.

I find it odd that anyone would think the Iraqis should be "happy" about our intervention. Whatever Saddam did in the early '90s, 43,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the invasion. Mothers, fathers, children. Do we really think, regardless of what the long-term outcome may be that they are "happy" about 43,000 (and that's a lowball estimate) of their people dead? Whether this Iraq thing will turn out to have been good or one of the US's greatest follys, I don't know. But I don't expect the Iraqis to be happy or grateful for 43,000 dead because of US intervention, regardless of the outcome.

Cajun, I hope at some point you reconsider your voting principles-- the danger in choosing a party and sticking to it is that political parties have a way of going in directions you might not have expected, and by being unwilling to cross a party's line a voter can put people in power who do things with which she disagrees. When the Republican party began, it was the party of liberals-- ending slavery was a VERY liberal move (as was the 8-hour workday, safety regulations, Social Security, votes for women and all the other things that make BB mad. Not all put in place by Democrats, but all pushed for by liberals). Remember, conservatism, at it's core, is about keeping things the way they are- you're conserving. And it's a valid political stance, and if you were a conservative in the 1860's, you'd have been voting Democratic. The parties switched-- Dems became the party of liberals and Repubs that of conservatives, but one finds liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. And what makes one "liberal" or "conservative" changes, too. In the 1950's, for example, both parties were to the left of the mainstream today. Party values are made up of the people who comprise them, but if you choose to vote for someone purely because he wears the label you want, and not because he stands for the things you want him to stand for, then he may wind up voting for laws that you hate and despise. Treating your political party like you do your sports team-- you stick with them through thick and thin-- is dangerous and can lead to zealots of either ilk (left or right) in charge and making decisions for you. If you are unhappy with what your party does, the best way to get them to knock it off is to not keep them in power. Then the party has to regroup and actually earn their votes.

Here's a link to some interesting, some infuriating, some funny editorials by assorted prominent Republicans on why they hope the Democrats win this year. None of them have any intention of giving up on their own party, but they feel the current crop has got to go. Which they won't unless the members of their own party look beyond the title "Republican" and into what they want their representatives to stand for. I promise, the articles are a fun read. And God help me, I even find myself agreeing with Scarborough...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...610.forum.html

They will often search people when they go through the metal detector at the airport. They will sometimes have you take off your shoes and they will often open your bags and this type of thing. As I said, I think they should do it. It's absolutely necessary.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

They will often search people when they go through the metal detector at the airport. They will sometimes have you take off your shoes and they will often open your bags and this type of thing. As I said, I think they should do it. It's absolutely necessary.

But they don't do that until you check in for your flight-- I can hang out at the Fast Wok at La Guardia (or whatever the Chinese food spot there is) all day without having to take off my shoes. My point is, they don't search you until you check in for a flight. And unless I'm wrong, those flights are run by private companies. The discussion was about searches in public places, wasn't it?

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Jessica, I have no idea where you got that information. That is completely false. Our government does not wiretap and check e-mails of all calls that come into this country. First of all, it would be impossible. They don't have the manpower. Anyway, that's irrelevant. Nobody has accused the government of doing that. The controversy was that they were eavesdropping on people in this country who had been communicating with known terrorists overseas. That was what the controversy was over. I can't belive that anyone would have a problem with this. I guess people were upset that they were doing it without getting a warrant from a judge. Our government's argument is that it is a highly secretive program and they don't want to have to get permission from a judge to get a wiretap on a person that they know has been communicating with known terrorists. In addition, I don't think that CIA agents and other government operatives want a judge to tell them how to do an investigation.

All of this information is available in all kinds of different articles Rupert both right wing and left wing. I don't feel like pulling them up because you will ignore what they say even if I do. I don't have a problem with them eavesdropping in on people who are contacting known or suspected terrorists, but according to some of these articles, they are doing more than that. Our government is doing a lot of things wrong. That is why some of Bush's former strong GOP supporters, such as John Warner of VA, are even starting to disagree with him. This is all over the news.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

All of this information is available in all kinds of different articles Rupert both right wing and left wing. I don't feel like pulling them up because you will ignore what they say even if I do. I don't have a problem with them eavesdropping in on people who are contacting known or suspected terrorists, but according to some of these articles, they are doing more than that. Our government is doing a lot of things wrong. That is why some of Bush's former strong GOP supporters, such as John Warner of VA, are even starting to disagree with him. This is all over the news.

Most of the stuff on the news right now has to do with interrogations and the Geneva Convention.

Nobody has accused them of wiretapping phones of anyone except associates of known terrorists. I challenge you to show me one article that says otherwise.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Most of the stuff on the news right now has to do with interrogations and the Geneva Convention.

Nobody has accused them of wiretapping phones of anyone except associates of known terrorists. I challenge you to show me one article that says otherwise.

This is an article about the wiretapping lawsuit from Law.com, including the list of plantiffs, accusing the gov't of wiretapping them. Including Christopher Hitchens, conservative columnist and Iraq war supporter. Hitchens and the ACLU suing over the same issue. The Bush cabal can make for strange bedfellows, can't it?

Anyway, here's the article you challenged anyone to show you. Warning; it's a law journal, so it's dry.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1157629871242