I would sooooo like to post here, but I don't have time at the moment. I'll be back later............in the meantime, I would like to point out that it was c.i. who brought up the farting. Not that the women might not have................wanna say more.......don't have time.
Okay, I am the "couth control" officer here! Enough of farts and cat fights and lets get serious...
How many are very worried that evidence will be manufactured or enhanced to back up the administration's position? With so many people against a pre-emptive war, including some moderate Repubicans, generals, former administration officials from Poppy's term, the nagging fear for me is that something will be "hatched up."
I wouldn't say I'm worried about it so much as I wouldn't put it past the Bush team. Wait, I guess I am worried about it.
Have previous Presidents and previous adminstration officials lied? Did Rumsfeld (or whoever it was) make a happy public announcement a while back about the shiny new 'Ministry of Disinformation'? Does a tendency towards Fort Knox level of secrecy suggest that the citizens are probably better left out of the information/decision loop?
Dear Couth Patrol: welcome and nice to see you vietnamnurse! It has been a while.
I haven't been participating in some of the political threads because it seems like ongoing arguments from the same five or six folks. When there is alot of long-winded quotes, well that turns me off, too. I would like to suggest that to keep threads going with the same title is not productive when the current posts have obviously changed in focus. Perhaps we could start more new threads, rather than have some superduper long ones? I have a dial-up now, so there is a question of loading time. Anyway, I do read the political threads, and did not vote in the poll because none of the answers were close to mine. I'd have selected :"I post occasionally in political threads"
cobalt
Phoenix...I was just kidding about the "Couth Control!" I think that what is manifested on the MOSTLY MALE threads is a sense they are taking themselves too seriously. Now I didn't mean Blatham, and c.i. and GWLightwizard, or..... :wink: At any rate, it was just me trying to be funny too!
Hi Cobalt! Good to see YOU again also! I am fairly new here...I haven't started any threads of my own yet. I might get up the gumption...who knows?
Overblown egos are like gas balloons -- easily pricked (sic) with a pin.
If women are to be encouraged to engage in political discussions, is there some SANE reason why they have to repeatedly attack President Bush?
I realize that the majority of Americans on this site are liberal Democrats, but wouldn't it be nice to hear something from the conservative Republican side?
WHy? Well, I for one, attack Bush because I think he's a <BLEEP>
And there are conservatives. Fishin's the bright shining light (in my eyes) in terms of intelligence and fairness, but there's a few.
New Haven, I'm not a democrat, but find GWBush to be a danger to this world. He not only changed the cause for war with Iraq several times, but has not shown to the people of this world why the US should preemptively engage in a war with Iraq. I think those are reason enough to question his leadership. c.i.
Is anyone being arrested for attacking President Bush? You can only attack his agenda, his actions and his words. And who was the favorite target for conservative attack during the Clinton administration?
ehBeth
You posted a question on the other thread...you got four answers. What are your thoughts on them?
it should be pretty obvious by now that everyone here is insane but we enjoy each others company (an so do i)
Hey dys, Speak for yourself. I really don't understand what you mean by "obvious." c.i.
newhaven
From a Canadian perspective, to hear complaints from Republicans regarding 'attacks' on Bush after what was done to your last president is too laughable for words.
