Anyone Read Bill O'Reillys Culture Warrior Yet?

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

And while I do get heated about this stuff.

I'm sure glad we are able to freely express these things, while recognizing that we've all got alot more that we agree about (like great ts vacations for one thing) then we disagree about.

Joe,

I'd have to agree with you on that one. Maybe what we ought to do is purchase a few thousand timeshares and give them to some of the people who hate us in the world.

[love2fly Member Find all posts View Profile Close love2fly]

Conservative vs. Liberal, Traditionalist vs. Secular-Progressive, it doesn't matter what your viewpoint is as long as you truly understand it and don't follow the doctrine simply because you always have. Each philosophy has pros and cons. Good parts and bad parts.

It's very similar to the Points vs. Weeks debates we have. Both are good under the right circumstances. And both have unique problems.

Good idea: "do what you truly understand". But to be cynical, how many of our leaders are smart people who "understand" the situation and are they capable of crafting good solutions?

I see too many folks talking on TV and promoting an idea that clearly makes no sense. They simply push the party line, and avoid the truth as much as they can. And this is true for both parties. Rational thought is too rare for my liking.

Regarding "it doesn't matter what your viewpoint is". True within reasonable limits, until your viewpoint impacts others. Similar to "Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins".

Boca, you seem levelheaded, and I look forward to reading your assessment after you finish the book.

[Beaglemom3 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Beaglemom3]

O'Reilly was on Letterman the other night and this book was shown.

It was an interesting exchange.

Unfourtunately for O'Reilly, Letterman really "cleaned his clock", yet again.

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

I read the book on the day of the Earthquake in Hawaii. Had nothing better to do.

The book was average at best. It didn't live up to its hype. No really new ideas. Ann Coulter's book was more shocking (I didn't mind it because it wasn't targeted at me), but it had a lot of new ideas in it that I hadn't considered previously.

O'Reilly's ideas and theories are good and well thought out. But, if you watch the O'Reilly Factor, he is pretty much just packaging up his entire philosophy into a book that provides more insight into why he is fighting this battle. You see it every night in his talking points.

Bill O'Reilly certainly has taken up the cause of exposing bias in the media and what he calls the secular-progressive attempts to move away from traditional values in this country. 10 years ago, I had heard everyone talking about media bias, but I really didn't know what it was. Bill has really defined and clarified it. At a minimum, I understand it better.

I consider myself a non-religious traditionalist. Bill O'Reilly is really doing a great job at fighting for those who believe in the traditions this country was founded upon (or allegedly founded upon if you don't agree). And, at the same time, exposing those who are against them.

You can be for or against his ideas. He is more about pointing out what is happening and illustrating alternate points of view so that you can decide for yourself what's right for you.

I remember a time as a kid when Christmas was a magical time of year. It was my favorite. I NEVER considered it offending anyone that I said "Merry Christmas" and I sang Christmas Carols door to door with church groups and we placed nativity scenes everywhere around town. As soon as I graduated college and moved to New Jersey, I felt that saying Merry Christmas was off limits. We had to say Happy Holidays because there were those who didn't celebrate Christmas. Someone was getting offended. That always felt wrong to me, but I just went along with it. It turns out that really not that many people are getting offended. Only theories that some people may be offended.

Now, I still avoid saying Merry Christmas. I actually resent the fact that I feel guilt about saying it. That is purely ridiculous where this country has gone on this subject. Perhaps Mele Kalikimaka will be easier to say.

The phenomenon of Bill O'Reilly is that, aside from a few outbursts that leaves him steaming made, he is principled and uses logic and a sound traditional values belief system to justify his arguments and conclusions. Interestingly enough, I love when Bill Maher and Bill O'Reilly face off. They both shine bright lights onto both sides of the debate and I therefore understand it better. Some bomb throwing occurs, but more substance than anything else. Bill O'Reilly helps to give a voice to the millions of traditionalists who feel the same way I do about many subjects. That's why I believe he is so popular. Because his messages are believed and embraced by a significant cross section of our country. And, no, they aren't all just uneducated hicks from one of the square states.

We are clearly a country heavily divided. We've been that way for more than 6-8 years. I, for one, am tired of it. We all have far more in common than we appear to have in print and on television. The nasty ads are everywhere. We amplifying it here on this board.

As a kid, I was a devout Catholic. I was an altar boy and I was confirmed. At 14, the priest asked me to join the priesthood. It was at that point that I quit my religion. There was NO WAY I was going to be a priest and I only went to church and catechism because my parents made me. As I became more educated, I turned my back on my religion. I felt that the "rules" didnt make any sense. I concluded with a vengeance that religion was about controlled me rather than inspiring me. I spent the next 15 years completely rejecting all religion and becoming very secular in my belief system.

Over the past 10 years, I have been rethinking that again. I am still non-religious. But, I do resonate with many of the values that religions promote. In fact, my son goes to a Christian Prep school and it shocked me when the chaplain recently opened the conference with a prayer. I kept thinking the police were going to jump out of the rafters or a violent protest would break out. Oddly enough, that didnt' happen. And you know what? I felt peace.

[Arkansas Winger Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Arkansas Winger]

O'Reilly was on Letterman the other night and this book was shown.

It was an interesting exchange.

Unfourtunately for O'Reilly, Letterman really "cleaned his clock", yet again.

Letterman didn't clean anyones clock. He just made a fool of himself as he always does.

[ArtsieAng Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close ArtsieAng]

Jim,

Bill O'Reilly and my son, went to the same Catholic High School.......Chaminade. Because of this, we get lots of literature from him, and, although I don't agree with a lot of it, I do read it.

As far as saying Merry Christmas is concerned, I'm not sure that I ever really understood what all the fuss was about. Here on LI, where Bill comes from, our schools and towns, openly celebrate Christmas, as well as Hanukkah. I feel that is how it should be since we have a large population of both Catholic and Jewish people.

I do not believe that acknowledging Hanukkah, or any other holiday, diminishes our Christmas. In my family, we have strong traditional, and religious beliefs that are not affected by what others say or do.


No one has ever stopped me from saying or wishing anyone, anything that I choose.
However, if I am unaware of a persons religion, I am uncomfortable wishing them a Merry Christmas, or Happy Hanukkah, when they may not be celebrating either. I have always felt that it is kinder, and more meaningful, to say to that person, have a wonder holiday.

Maybe a lot of this depends on where you live, I am not really sure......

[Beaglemom3 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Beaglemom3]

Letterman didn't clean anyones clock. He just made a fool of himself as he always does.

http://www.pkblogs.com/farleft/2006/...y-part-ii.html

"In a war of words, he was an unarmed man"






Below is the transcript from tonight's interview between Letterman and O'Reilly:

read the rest...
Letterman: Bill O'Reilly is here, ladies and gentlemen. The Fox News - um host of The O'Reilly Factor, weekdays at 8 o'clock and he has a uh brand new book out. It's called Culture Warrior. There he is - Bill O'Reilly, the culture warrior. And it's interesting - the last time Bill O'Reilly was on the show, there was a bit of uh - a bit of a dust up. He was saying things that were - that uh didn't make sense to me. I didn't think they were true, and of course I'm not smart enough to be able to prove that anything is true or not true. So, I just said, "Oh I think you're lying." And then he got, I don't know if he got upset or said something to me and then I said, "Oh yea?" and the next thing you know we had our shirts off and we were rolling around. Remember that, Paul? I was embarrassed. Anyway, he's back tonight and we'll see what fun transpires tonight.

...

Letterman: I'm secretly hoping that when Bill O'Reilly comes out here tonight, I'll have opportunity to call him a bonehead.

...

Letterman: Our first guest is the author of this current best selling book. It's entitled, uh, Culture Warrior. Ladies and gentlemen, here he is - Bill O'Reilly. Bill, come on out.

[O'Reilly hands Letterman a toy sword while holding a toy shield]

O'Reilly: We're armed in combat.

Letterman: Yea, that's cute. That's nice. You come out with toys. Uh, how's it going? Am I right about one thing? You guys over there at Fox News, guys like Rush Limbaugh - uh, you you you guys just know it's all just a goof, right? You're just, you're just horsing around? Am I right about that? You're doing it because you know it will be entertaining?

O'Reilly: What are we doing exactly?

Letterman: You, you, uh - well, see here again you got me because I've never seen -

O'Reilly: See, you don't, you've never seen the show, you don't watch the network.

Letterman: Let me tell you something, I don't even know how to get to your show.

O'Reilly: Right down, you just go straight down, you take a right.

Letterman: But it's on, it's on Fox, I dial up Fox and it's always The Simpsons. And I don't - Where are you? Bill?

O'Reilly: I'm not going to help you out, Dave. I mean, you know, whatever you got we're gonna answer tonight. We're going to be nice, we're going to be friends. People don't know that Dave and I, Dave and I are in the same bowling league.

Letterman: Let's talk about the, everyone's all excited about the, the mid-season's election. How do you see that going down?

O'Reilly: Well, I think that the Democrats will win, uh, improve their situation. Um, the Senate I don't think they'll take, the House could go either way. It's gonna be very close.

Letterman: And uh, the reason for this, now more than ever, is what?

O'Reilly: People are angry about Iraq. And they feel we need a change. And whenever you have a situation where Americans are - I used the word tonight on the Factor tonight, I used the word "depressed." People don't want to watch the news, don't want to hear about Iraq, they don't want to hear about Iran, they don't want to hear about the nutty North Korean guy. They wanna watch Bowling for Dollars, Dialing for uh the Dancing with the Stars, Are you gonna be on that?

Letterman: I'm sorry.

O'Reilly: Are you gonna be on the Dancing with the Stars thing?

Letterman: You bonehead.

[laughter]

Letterman: I had that ready to go.

O'Reilly: I know, I saw it. I teed you right up for that.

Letterman: Well, I mean, it's just, it's more than a choice of what to watch on television.

O'Reilly: I think people are depressed.

Letterman: People are depressed. And rightly so because we have a failed policy and Americans, God Bless them, are over there, volunteering to have gone, to have joined the Army, are over there and giving their lives nearly to the number of 3,000 Americans so far. So yes - people are depressed, but it's not because they want to watch Dancing with the Stars.

O'Reilly: But they don't want to hear about the bad world that we live in. It's an evil world that we live in. Let me ask you something. And this is a serious question. Do you want the United Sates to win in Iraq?

Letterman: Well, you know in the beginning, here is my position in the beginning and I, I think I - I sort of felt the way everybody did, we felt like we wanted to do something, because something terrible had been done to us. We did not understand exactly why, all we knew was something terrible, something heinous, something obscene had been done to us. So while it didn't necessarily make sense to go into Iraq as it did perhaps to go into Afghanistan, I like most everybody else felt like yes, we needed to do something. And as the weeks turned into months, years and one death became a dozen deaths and hundred deaths and a thousand deaths - then we began to realize you know what? Maybe we're causing more trouble over there than the whole effort has been worth.

O'Reilly: Possible, but do you right now? Do you want the Untied States to win in Iraq?

Letterman: First of all, I don't -

O'Reilly: It's an easy question, If you don't want the United States to win -

Letterman: It's not easy for me because I'm thoughtful.

[applause]

Letterman: How 'bout that? That was a good one.

O'Reilly: That was great, Dave. You get paid for those.

Letterman: No, but uh - I, uh, What I would like would be uh, for uh, uh Americans to stop dying. And for there to be stability in that part of the world. Now if that means an American victory, ok. But I'm not sure that you can have stability in that part of the world with or without an American presence now, uh, so I would do whatever it would take to stop Americans dying.

O'Reilly: You think before the Iraq invasion started there was stability in that part of the world? Do you believe that?

Letterman: Well, let me ask you a question. Was there more heinous, more dangerous violence taking place then in Iraq or is there more heinous, dangerous violence taking place now in Iraq?

O'Reilly: It's probably pretty much a tie. Uh -

Letterman: Well, then how can we -

O'Reilly: Oh stop it, Come on Saddam Hussein slaughtered three - four hundred thousand people, so knock it off. Um...

[applause]

O'Reilly: It's, it's a situation that's fluid, but here's, here's the deal - you can object to the policy in Iraq -

Letterman: But that wasn't, that wasn't reason we went over there -

O'Reilly: No -

Letterman: We went over there because there were Weapons of Mass Destruction -

O'Reilly: That's true.

Letterman: But there were no Weapsons of Mass Destruction.

O'Reilly: That's right.

Letterman: Now, what everyone is saying - What about Kim Jung Il? Not only are we guessing that he has Weapons of Mass Destruction, he's saying, "Hey, look at me, we're setting another one off. Come on over!

O'Reilly: Yea, I don't think it's a guess, Dave. I think when he sets it off we got a clue that he has it.

Letterman: Then well why don't we go there? Because he actually has Weapons of mass destruction.

O'Reilly: And why we don't go there and do what? What do you want to do? You want to drop an atomic bomb on them?

Letterman: Well, what were we supposed to do going into Iraq then?

O'Reilly: What we were supposed to do was that the United States Government believed that Saddam had WMDs, ok and they were wrong. People make mistakes in war. Now, Tony Blair was wrong, Colin Powell was wrong, all these people were wrong. So, that's accepted.

Letterman: So, we made a mistake in war and so we stay there and kill as many Americans as we possibly can?

O'Reilly: No, no, no -

Letterman: That's the way you get out of a mistake.

O'Reilly: What you do is you try to maximize -

Letterman: Do you honestly believe, irrespective of -

O'Reilly: Do you even want my answer?

Letterman: I don't care. Irespective of, irespective of what the - Oh sure, help yourself

[O'Reilly drinks from his mug] [laughter]

O'Reilly: We're really friends. This is all an act. We're buddies, we bowl.

Letterman: But irre - irrespective - irrespective of what the United States, let's say to your way of thinking - the United States prevails militarily in Iraq, how long do you think stability in that apart of the world will last?

O'Reilly: It's impossible to say, but -

Letterman: Well, then would it have been worth it?

O'Reilly: Listen.

Letterman: If it's stable for the next thousands years, George Bush is a genius, but is that going to happen? Is that going to happen? Is it going to be stable for another thousand years?

O'Reilly: How do I know? Am I a Carnac here?

Letterman: What's your best guess?

O'Reilly: What I'm trying to tell you is -

Letterman: What is your best guess?

O'Reilly: I don't know. What I'm trying to tell you is this is geopolitics and the world we live in is incredibly complicated. The reason to go into Iraq was WMDS with a mad dictator, okay? That was the reason. It was wrong. If we could go back in a time machine, we wouldn't do it. Alright?

Letterman: But how does staying there, killing more and more Americans make it right? How do you make a right decision out of a wrong decision?

O'Reilly: If you get out -

Letterman: But it looks to me like the country is going to fall apart anyway, regardless of what people do. Do you think stability will prevail over there?

O'Reilly: Look Dave - if you get out of Iraq and leave it in chaos, Iran comes in takes over, alright. And then we basically have a ten times worse situation because the oil then goes under the jihadists in Iran. You want to debate geopolitics with me, do you really?

Letterman: It's all about oil, you just answered the question.

O'Reilly: Absolutely it's about oil. The whole world is about oil.

Letterman: It's all about oil. That's why we're there. Big deal.

O'Reilly: The show's not gonna be on the air - Alright look, do you actually think we're a bad country for doing what we did? And Bush is an evil man? Is that what you're putting forth here?

Letterman: I, I, I don't know that I think he's evil. I think he's misguided. I, I, I think that in the beginning, like I said, we needed to do something. People wanted to feel like we were doing something, people wanted to feel like the attack was going to be accounted for. Well, to my way of thinking, the attack hasn't really been accounted for. And beyond that,

O'Reilly: It hasn't been accounted for in the sense that we - Look everybody says -

Letterman: Terrorism now is a far more - It's white hot where previous to anything in Iraq it was a fact of life. It was a gruesome fact of life. Now it's become a damned intramural sport.

O'Reilly: Hold it, I think it was pretty white hot on 9/11 when 3,000 people were slaughtered on the streets of the city. So, why don't you - what you're doing is you're making the mistake of oversimplifying a pretty complicated situation.

Letterman: Oh, I'm oversimplifying it?

O'Reilly: Yes, you are. We made a mistake on WMDs. That is true.

Letterman: Alright, solve the mistake. Correct the mistake for me. How do you correct the mistake?

O'Reilly: The mistake cannot be corrected. What can happen is, and I pray it is happening, is that we stabilize that situation over there so that it becomes a functioning democracy. It might not happen. But the intent was noble - to make it a democracy, to make Afghanistan a democracy, to put pressure on the Iranians who are causing all kinds of trouble.

Letterman: But why didn't we stay in Afghanistan? Why didn't we stay in Afghanistan. It seems to me that Afghanistan was more directly the source. I mean there has been no tie proven between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, the Taliban, anything. Why didn't we stay there?

O'Reilly: You know what Ansar-al-Islam, do you know what that is? You don't. And I'm not saying this in a condescending way, I'm really not. Okay? I'm not going to call you a bonehead or a pinhead?

[laughter]

O'Reilly: Ansar-al-Islam was the al Qaeda affiliate in Northern Iraq who tried to poison the British water supply with Ricin. They operated with Saddam Hussein's okay. Again, complicated, but it isn't so black and white, Dave. It isn't, "We're a bad country, Bush is an evil liar."

O'Reilly: That's not true.

Letterman: I didn't say we were a bad country,

Letterman: I didn't say he was an evil liar. You're putting words in my mouth. Just the way you put artificial facts in your head.

[laughter]

O'Reilly: We're really friends. Gimme one artificial fact.

Letterman: Where you gonna be for Thanksgiving?

[laughter]

O'Reilly: At your house. We're coming over, as we always do. This is an act, this whole thing is a big act!

Letterman: But I mean honestly - you've raised some points, uh, but the truth of it is a reasonable person can't believe what you're saying.

O'Reilly: No, that's ridiculous.

Letterman: No, no, no, no it is. It is.

O'Reilly: Total absurdity. I have the highest ratings in cable for the last five years.

Letterman: Then how come I can't find the damned show?

O'Reilly: That might be your fault. Ok? That's ridiculous.

Letterman: Oh Golly...

O'Reilly: Did you enjoy Culture Warrior - the book?

Letterman: I haven't read the book.

O'Reilly: You really haven't read it? Come on. You're in the book!

Letterman: I know. I looked at it and I thought, 'What is he? What is this? A book about sailing? And then I said, "No, I don't need that."

O'Reilly: You'll like the book, Dave. It's full of artificial facts. You'll love it.

Letterman: Uh ... Oh gosh, where has the time gone? You know I appreciate you coming over her and indulging me because you know once again I'll just end up saying I have no idea what I'm talking about but I don't think you do either.

O'Reilly: You're entitled to your opinion.

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

I just read the whole text and it appears that David Letterman is a stuttering, bumbling interviewer. Is that just his style? Or, is he really that inarticulate?

His basic premise is that we should exit Iraq because it will be no better or no worse than if we are there and the difference will be that fewer Americans will be dying. That is his underlying thesis.

That could be true. Or, O'Reilly could be correct that Iran could take it over and make it far worse.

I find it very disconcerting that David Letterman couldn't simply say the words, "I want for America to win this war." Given how many people can't say it, I am actually starting to believe that there is a siginficant group of people in our country who really want for us to lose the war. That really blows my mind.

At this point in time, I'm neutral on the subject. But, I am tired of the country bashing our President. If the democrats have a better idea. I'd like to see them give it a try. You may be able to get elected by saying, "vote for me because I'm not George Bush." But, you can't stay there long unless you do something special. I don't think the dems have a better strategy.

Cut and run is certainly the front runner in this race. I'll be happy if it works and I'll be extremely upset if it doesn't.

[Steamboat Bill Banned Find all posts View Profile Close Steamboat Bill]

We need a third party....remember the Whigs? They had four US Presidents: #9, 10, 12, and 13.

However, the Democrats or Republicans have been in power since 1853.

In nations such as Canada and the United Kingdom, there may be two strong parties, with a third party that is electorally successful. The party may frequently come in second place in elections and pose a threat to the other two parties, but has still never formally held government. However in times of minority governments, their support is often necessary to either support or defeat a government which means it can have considerable influence under optimal circumstances.

In some rare cases, such as in Finland, the nation may have an active three-party system, in which all three parties routinely hold top office. It is very rare for a country to have more than three parties who are all equally successful, and all have an equal chance of independently forming government.

[shopgirl Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close shopgirl]

I am a registered Democrat, though I usually vote independently, always based on the issues at hand. I have to say that I am ashamed of my chosen party because they cannot come up with a plan. Their only plan is to bash the President's plan. The candidates here in Colorado think they can win by bashing Bush. When asked during the debates, "What would you do if you had the power to change the direction in Iraq?" All they talk about is how they would make the administration accountable. What kind of plan is that?

I haven't heard an intelligible argument for abandoning the Iraqi people. Our son-in-law is in the Air Force and truly believes that our cause in Iraq is just and good. He has two friends that volunteered to go back to Iraq because they felt they were doing great things. Only a few soldiers are joining in the anti-Bush sentiment. Most feel good about the mission.

All of the Bush bashing is just causing a severe rift in our country between the parties. I can barely talk to my sister anymore because we are so at odds right now. Maybe I am really a Republican. I tend to be a little more conservative than most and much more conservative than my sister. I just love the notion of a country that is united again and would love to vote for the person that has that goal in mind. After 9/11, we had it.

I look at things differently than most of you here. Rick has been a Denver firefighter for 31 years. He was on duty on 9/11 and there were bomb threats all over the city that day, most of which were probably cranks, but nonetheless, it was a scary time for our country and especially for families of cops and firefighters.

The job of firefighter is a dangerous one, whether running into a skyscraper or going to an accident on an interstate highway. One of the firefighters that worked with Rick, Robert Crump, died a few years ago after being sucked into a storm drain. He was walking a person to safety during a severe and sudden rainstorm and got caught in the whirlpool of the six foot drain. He was found in a sewer line 1/2 a mile away. Another firefighter died when he climbed a ladder to a bedroom window during a fire. The occupant he was going to "rescue" was smoking pot and shot him, which caused him to fall off the ladder. Another young man, Mark Langvardt, was trapped in a burning building and could not get out. He died in a similar way to the character on Ladder 49. Our most recent death was Rich Montoya, a wonderful family man who fell down in a very smoky house fire. The house was full of junk and a mattress fell on him, so with all the smoke, they think he was disoriented or that his mask may have slipped enough to burn his lungs. This happened just this past May. We attended the funeral the day before our son was married. These deaths were all recent, all in Rick's district. Rich worked at the same firehouse. He knew every one of those guys personally. Do you know that many firefighters from New York and all over the country came to Rich's funeral? This is a brotherhood and all feel the pain when one dies.

We are supposed to forget what happened on 9/11? We certainly cannot forgive because we have never had an apology.

I guess the point that I am trying to make is that politicians just stand around and argue about things, making fools of themselves--both parties are guilty. It is the people who really put their lives out there, the guys fighting the battles at home and in Iraq, those are the ones that should have some say in the direction our company takes, not the politicians and the namby pamby people that complain about everything the opposing party has to say. We are on the verge of a civil war, not one that will be fought with guns, but one that will divide us into two factions that are so polar that we will never mend the rift. It is happening right now.

I like John McCain. He disagrees with the President but still respects the office. He fought in a war and was a prisoner in Vietnam. He has a lot of integrity. I am not ready for Hillary yet. Maybe in a few years, I will be ready, but not in two years.

When all is said and done, it really is about getting along. I read the book, "All I Ever Needed to Know, I Learned in Kindergarten" many years ago. What a wonderful book and its message is always relevant. It should be required reading before graduating from high school, then college. Before we vote, we should also have to read it again.

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

I am a registered Democrat, though I usually vote independently, always based on the issues at hand. I have to say that I am ashamed of my chosen party because they cannot come up with a plan. Their only plan is to bash the President's plan. The candidates here in Colorado think they can win by bashing Bush. When asked during the debates, "What would you do if you had the power to change the direction in Iraq?" All they talk about is how they would make the administration accountable. What kind of plan is that?

I haven't heard an intelligible argument for abandoning the Iraqi people. Our son-in-law is in the Air Force and truly believes that our cause in Iraq is just and good. He has two friends that volunteered to go back to Iraq because they felt they were doing great things. Only a few soldiers are joining in the anti-Bush sentiment. Most feel good about the mission.

All of the Bush bashing is just causing a severe rift in our country between the parties. I can barely talk to my sister anymore because we are so at odds right now. Maybe I am really a Republican. I tend to be a little more conservative than most and much more conservative than my sister. I just love the notion of a country that is united again and would love to vote for the person that has that goal in mind. After 9/11, we had it.

I look at things differently than most of you here. Rick has been a Denver firefighter for 31 years. He was on duty on 9/11 and there were bomb threats all over the city that day, most of which were probably cranks, but nonetheless, it was a scary time for our country and especially for families of cops and firefighters.

The job of firefighter is a dangerous one, whether running into a skyscraper or going to an accident on an interstate highway. One of the firefighters that worked with Rick, Robert Crump, died a few years ago after being sucked into a storm drain. He was walking a person to safety during a severe and sudden rainstorm and got caught in the whirlpool of the six foot drain. He was found in a sewer line 1/2 a mile away. Another firefighter died when he climbed a ladder to a bedroom window during a fire. The occupant he was going to "rescue" was smoking pot and shot him, which caused him to fall off the ladder. Another young man, Mark Langvardt, was trapped in a burning building and could not get out. He died in a similar way to the character on Ladder 49. Our most recent death was Rich Montoya, a wonderful family man who fell down in a very smoky house fire. The house was full of junk and a mattress fell on him, so with all the smoke, they think he was disoriented or that his mask may have slipped enough to burn his lungs. This happened just this past May. We attended the funeral the day before our son was married. These deaths were all recent, all in Rick's district. Rich worked at the same firehouse. He knew every one of those guys personally. Do you know that many firefighters from New York and all over the country came to Rich's funeral? This is a brotherhood and all feel the pain when one dies.

We are supposed to forget what happened on 9/11? We certainly cannot forgive because we have never had an apology.

I guess the point that I am trying to make is that politicians just stand around and argue about things, making fools of themselves--both parties are guilty. It is the people who really put their lives out there, the guys fighting the battles at home and in Iraq, those are the ones that should have some say in the direction our company takes, not the politicians and the namby pamby people that complain about everything the opposing party has to say. We are on the verge of a civil war, not one that will be fought with guns, but one that will divide us into two factions that are so polar that we will never mend the rift. It is happening right now.

I like John McCain. He disagrees with the President but still respects the office. He fought in a war and was a prisoner in Vietnam. He has a lot of integrity. I am not ready for Hillary yet. Maybe in a few years, I will be ready, but not in two years.

When all is said and done, it really is about getting along. I read the book, "All I Ever Needed to Know, I Learned in Kindergarten" many years ago. What a wonderful book and its message is always relevant. It should be required reading before graduating from high school, then college. Before we vote, we should also have to read it again.

If you are a democrat, then maybe I am one, too. I agree with you completely.

At this point in time, I want for our country to be united, not divided. I'd like to vote out any politician who is not constructive in their arguments or ads. And, I want politicians who will tell us what they are going to do differently and then hold them accountable for it. We need the news networks to keep a scoreboard.

I'd like to make it mandatory that all politicians write a standard 10 point goals and objectives form at the beginning of each term with measurable objectives. And, I want for that and the progress that they've made against those objectives to be listed along side their name wherever it is displayed. I don't want to hear a word out of them without first seeing their report card.

[VVTrader Member Find all posts View Profile Close VVTrader]

Probably not democrats

The President had all of our support after 9/11. He had the support of pretty much the whole civilized world. Then he went in to Afghanistan and took out many of the people responsible for 9/11. At that point he still had the support of the world.
It was after that, when the lying and conniving started.

Now he has little support anywhere in the world. While Iraqi's didn't have WMD's Korea sure does but us being mired in Iraq prevents our being able to effectively deter the Koreans or the Iranians from securing more WMD's.
Bush went to a bunch of old men to solve a new problem. The only problem was they came up with old plans that didn't work.

Now people are looking for Democrat to figure out an idea to get us out of this mess?
We have probably already lost this war with the terrorists. Just as we bankrupted the Russians by making them spend all their money on defense, so the terrorists have done the same thing.

And to me it's almost Ok. If we're such a bunch of chicken#$%& that we are ready to give up all of the freedom that our forefathers held dear then maybe we should fall.

Let's see we (The Republicans running the country) are OK with torture. We're Ok with taking peoples homes for private enterprise.
We're Ok with pushing our way of life and making our oil needs the most important thing for the world.

I'm a democrat who won't vote for the best person. I'll vote for the best democrat.

Boca, I too was an altar boy who thought about the priest hood. Then I heard that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were just make believe. I think you were on the right path when you realized these storie were all feel good made up things. As we get older we sometimes revert to our child hood and start to fantasize and hope. God isn't dead, God never existed.

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

Boca, I too was an altar boy who thought about the priest hood. Then I heard that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were just make believe. I think you were on the right path when you realized these storie were all feel good made up things. As we get older we sometimes revert to our child hood and start to fantasize and hope. God isn't dead, God never existed.

A couple of things. I NEVER thought about joining the priesthood. Evidently, several priests thought of it for me. One of whom I loved dearly. When I found out, I ran.

Also, I am not an atheist nor am I an agnostic. I firmly believe in God. I just had a bad experience with my religion that took me down the secular path.

I guess I believe more in a God that created the universe and left it alone. More Eastern philosophy than Western, I guess.

[taffy19 Gold Contributor Find all posts View Profile Close taffy19]

I guess the point that I am trying to make is that politicians just stand around and argue about things, making fools of themselves--both parties are guilty. It is the people who really put their lives out there, the guys fighting the battles at home and in Iraq, those are the ones that should have some say in the direction our company takes, not the politicians and the namby pamby people that complain about everything the opposing party has to say. We are on the verge of a civil war, not one that will be fought with guns, but one that will divide us into two factions that are so polar that we will never mend the rift. It is happening right now.

So true and you can even read it here. I dread the TV ads of both parties as all they do is bashing the other one and nothing constructive is being said. Today, I heard two complete opposite stories from our troops in Iraq so who do you believe? One was on TV and the other one on the radio. I was trying to look it up but could not find it black on white otherwise I would have linked to it.

[Steamboat Bill Banned Find all posts View Profile Close Steamboat Bill]

I'm a democrat who won't vote for the best person. I'll vote for the best democrat.

God isn't dead, God never existed.

Are you having a bad day, bad week, bad month, bad year, bad decade, or a bad life?