The Liberal Thread #2 - No Debate Please

[crcormier]

Didja see John McCain refuses to support the new GI Bill?

Support the troops! (But only in words!)

 

[wvrevy]

Nobody deserves that kind of treatment.

Career bureaucrats are not supposed to be hired and fired based on political affiliation. Needless to say, suspected sexual orientation shouldn't be a valid reason either. Are you saying she brought it on herself because she worked for the Government during a Republican administration? Gee, so does my rabidly Liberal DH. He likes to joke that George Bush is his boss. I don't understand your confusion.

I'd give her some slack. Jobs aren't easy to find these days and sometimes people have to turn a blind eye. One thing I will say though is that she shouldn't be surprised at their tactics. I'm sure she knew what they were capable of. Doesn't make it her fault though, imho.

You're blaming the victim. She has no culpability in this. She has every right to expect fair treatment regardless of which moron is in office. That she didn't get it is a reflection on those who fired her and not on she who was fired.

Put the blame where it belongs or else you run the risk of starting to sound like a Republican who blames the victim for losing their job, their pension, and has sunk into poverty with the excuse "they should've planned better".

From the article:

Goodling's conversation with Scott focused on whether Republican Party loyalty factored into her hiring decisions. But by all accounts, Hagen was a GOP loyalist.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to feel pity for someone that supported these kinds of policies...but only when they were applied to other people. If she had been a non-political person or someone who had gotten in trouble for protesting the politicization of the justice department, then I'd be the first one in line to protest. But the article basically says she's a "loyal Bushie", so as far as I'm concerned, she brought it on herself.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Sorry, but no, I don't pity someone like her. Was it wrong she lost her job? Absolutely. But karma's a *****, ain't it?

 

[eclectics]

Didja see John McCain refuses to support the new GI Bill?

Support the troops! (But only in words!)

Words are cheaper than adequate body armour and decent pay.

 

[punkin]

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to feel pity for someone that supported these kinds of policies...but only when they were applied to other people. If she had been a non-political person or someone who had gotten in trouble for protesting the politicization of the justice department, then I'd be the first one in line to protest. But the article basically says she's a "loyal Bushie", so as far as I'm concerned, she brought it on herself.

So if a Democrat gets elected in November, would you advocate firing all republicans who hold office? I guess I just don't get your apparent lack of concern in this case. Some things are wrong no matter who the victims are.

 

[chris1gill]

Didja see John McCain refuses to support the new GI Bill?

Support the troops! (But only in words!)

Does anyone know what the new GI Bill would have provided for? I haven't seen details of it, I'd like to know exactly why he refused to support it.

 

[Planogirl]

So if a Democrat gets elected in November, would you advocate firing all republicans who hold office? I guess I just don't get your apparent lack of concern in this case. Some things are wrong no matter who the victims are.

I agree. I don't agree with those on the Right but I support them having jobs and being treated fairly. I don't agree that she somehow deserved to be treated this way.

Another thing, there are Republicans who are more fair when it comes to social issues. They're not all like the fundamentalist bunch.

 

[wvrevy]

So if a Democrat gets elected in November, would you advocate firing all republicans who hold office? I guess I just don't get your apparent lack of concern in this case. Some things are wrong no matter who the victims are.

I agree. I don't agree with those on the Right but I support them having jobs and being treated fairly. I don't agree that she somehow deserved to be treated this way.

Another thing, there are Republicans who are more fair when it comes to social issues. They're not all like the fundamentalist bunch.

1) No, I wouldn't support firing all Republicans. I'm just not shedding a tear for this Republican who has, after all, been there through the politicization of the office, and apparently has not objected to that. Sorry, but yes, I look at anyone under the Bush administration that is described as a "loyal Republican" with suspicion. If she did express concerns about said politicization and it just isn't known, then I hope she files a discrimination lawsuit against them an wins millions. Wait...that's right, she can't.........because the people that she's loyal to have no problem with discrimination against gay people.

2) I'm well aware that not all - not even most - Republicans are like the current bunch of nuts in power. But how often do you hear those "rank and file" Republicans complaining about the group in power? The fact is that Republicans make up about 50% of this country. Current polling shows that 29% of this country still supports Bush and think he's doing a "heck of a job." So, unless you think that there are a lot of Democrats in that 29%, that means that well over half - about 58% - of that party still supports Bush and his cronies. So while I may be a little cynical about Republicans and their motivations, chances are that I'm going to be right more often than I'm wrong.

You guys are right...NOBODY should be fired for their sexual orientation, EVER. But I'm not going to shed too many tears over a Republican that gets caught in a trap that the Republicans set. If she thinks her firing was wrong - and it was, nobody is disputing that here - then maybe she ought to rethink where she puts her loyalties.

 

[eclectics]

You guys are right...NOBODY should be fired for their sexual orientation, EVER. But I'm not going to shed too many tears over a Republican that gets caught in a trap that the Republicans set. If she thinks her firing was wrong - and it was, nobody is disputing that here - then maybe she ought to rethink where she puts her loyalties.

Putting this specific case aside for the moment, in general, I never got the Gay Republican thing at all. How can someone support a party who's official platform, at best, is hardly welcoming in it's acceptance of Gays? And at worst, downright discriminatory.

 

[punkin]

Putting this specific case aside for the moment, in general, I never got the Gay Republican thing at all. How can someone support a party who's official platform, at best, is hardly welcoming in it's acceptance of Gays? And at worst, downright discriminatory.

Ask Dick Vader's daughter.

 

[eclectics]

Ask Dick Vader's daughter.

One has to wonder about her "real" feelings and not what she feels she has to say and act in public.

 

[punkin]

DH works with a gay republican so they do exist. Maybe they like guns and tax breaks for the poor. I mean, I don't agree with the democrats on everything either.

 

[eclectics]

DH works with a gay republican so they do exist. Maybe they like guns and tax breaks for the poor. I mean, I don't agree with the democrats on everything either.

Yeah, but the Democrats aren't indirectly saying you're a second class citizen and your equal rights are not worthy enough to fight for, if not condemning them outright.

 

[JARNJ3]

I think this was this year:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/295.html

 

[eclectics]

I think this was this year:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/295.html

Ouch. It must hurt when even the Baseball fans turn on you.

And yup, that was a couple of days ago.

 

[NewJersey]

Yeah, but the Democrats aren't indirectly saying you're a second class citizen and your equal rights are not worthy enough to fight for, if not condemning them outright.

It's amazing how some get so upset if their right to bear arms are taken away but many of them see no problem taking away government marriage rights to American citizens.

 

[Planogirl]

One has to wonder about her "real" feelings and not what she feels she has to say and act in public.

I just wondered about that too. After all she might want to support her Dad but it was must be awfully difficult to just keep quiet.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

I just wondered about that too. After all she might want to support her Dad but it was must be awfully difficult to just keep quiet.

Frankly, I've wondered why she didn't 'spike' his coffee ~ at least with exlax!

 

[JARNJ3]

Ugh. I can't stand this guy. Though he could split the Republican vote in half .......

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia is inching closer to seeking the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party, and plans to shed some light on his plans at a weekend party gathering in Kansas City.

Two sources familiar with Barr’s deliberations say it is their understanding he will make clear he is ready to seek the Libertarian nomination if there is evidence of significant support within the party. Both sources are active in Libertarian politics and spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity.

Barr is scheduled to deliver the keynote address at a regional Libertarian Party gathering this weekend.

Contacted Thursday evening in Atlanta, the former congressman confirmed he was considering such a campaign, but would not discuss the specifics of what he planned to tell the weekend meeting.

“I am planning to address the delegates and I will say I am not planning on wasting their time,” Barr said in a telephone interview. “I am planning to have something fairly significant to say.”

 

[Planogirl]

“I am planning to address the delegates and I will say I am not planning on wasting their time,” Barr said in a telephone interview. “I am planning to have something fairly significant to say.”

Huh? I wonder what that's supposed to mean. Oh well, we get Nader and they get this guy.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Well, I suppose this may be what John McCain meant when he said we could be in Iraq for 100 years:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/world/middleeast/04iraq.html?ref=world

More Than 1,000 in Iraq’s Forces Quit Basra Fight

By STEPHEN FARRELL and JAMES GLANZ
Published: April 4, 2008

BAGHDAD — More than 1,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen either refused to fight or simply abandoned their posts during the inconclusive assault against Shiite militias in Basra last week, a senior Iraqi government official said Thursday. Iraqi military officials said the group included dozens of officers, including at least two senior field commanders in the battle.

The desertions in the heat of a major battle cast fresh doubt on the effectiveness of the American-trained Iraqi security forces. The White House has conditioned further withdrawals of American troops on the readiness of the Iraqi military and police....