555....pretty funny stuff, you pinko commie liberal conservative right-wing radical, you!

DKTOS, so can't vote. I'm glad I'm not part of the loony left. I'd much rather be part of the "vast right wing conspiracy". BTW, Johnny D, are you republican or democrat? You always give good comments on liberal and conservative songs, so it is impossible to tell.

Left, right--savage 'em all. Loved the "Winter for Limbaugh and Ann" line.

We need springtime for lefties, because it's mourning again in America. And we've got a hangover. And the only cure for it is regime change in Washington.

Hmm. Methinks a vast right-wing conspiracy exists on this forum. You know, come to think of it, when you think of democratic pols, say, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, Kerry, the word 'intelligent' comes to mind (Johnson was a notable exception to this otherwise infallible rule). Contrast that with Raegan, Nixon, Bush 1 and especially Bush 2. Could you honestly describe any as 'intelligent'? Nixons presidency was humiliated by his insane ramblings (caught on tape too late in the game); Raegan consulted the stars, Bush 1 allowed Margaret Tatcher and John Major to make his toughest decisions and Bush 2 is a complete blithering idiot! At Least Clinton's embarassment was an affair and the worst thing you can say about Kerry is that he is 'boring'

No, the worst thing I can say about Kerry is that he used to be a rapist. And just because certain republicans were stupid (Dan Quayle, for instance) doesn't mean all republicans are stupid. And how is George W. Bush stupid? (Besides his grammar)

John Kerry used to be a rapist? So does that mean George W. Bush used to be a child molester and also slept with Michael Jackson? Where did you come up with that. Name the last republican president who was a Rhodes Scholar? You don't think Dubya is stupid? Have you seen his speeches, his press conferences or his news conferences? Dubya is dumb.

David Wallace, one of John Kerry's war buddies said this. "We tortured people, raped women, burned villages without any reason, that sort of thing." I'm surprised you haven't read this quote already. The article is pretty popular. By the way, what is with you liberals always saying that Bush is dumb AND evil. You can't be both. If he was so dumb, how could he have rigged polls, as almost all democrats claim. So is he dumb or evil? Anyway, once again, I don't think he is *particularly* dumb, just forgetful and grammatically incorrect sometimes. But nothing to affect his presidency. "They misunderestimated me." I wonder if he thinks up of these words for fun. lol

No where is it written that John Kerry raped women. He is dumb, that's a given - really, how can you not see that? I mean he almost makes Quayle(e) look intelligent. Evil - well that's an easy one - he was hellbent on war with Iraq - thousands of innocent lives were taken. Killing is evil. Also, it was his brother and the republican machine that rigged the election.

Dubya slept with himself, so that makes him a self-shrubber.

ywn (you've been demoted to lower-case letters in my book...) You apparently don't know that throwing around unfounded and ridiculous accusations is really not a good way to establish any sort of credibility with folks. Speaking for myself I have to say I consider you sort of a fool. I would venture that the "proofs" you toss out cannot be verified from any reliable source and your slanted questions might perhaps throw a 5th-grader off point but don't have a chance of phasing anyone beyond that. Oh, by the way, to answer your question about what Bush actually is my take is that he is ill-informed and ignorant, but possesses a very well-honed talent for manipulation, much like you will find in any successful con-artist. The other thing is that he does not really recognize the legitimacy of our political system so he has no qualms about playing it to his advantage in ALL situations and circumstances, including military action. Since this has brought about substantial loss of life and injury I believe that crosses the line and places Mr. Bush squarely in the "Evil" category. Before you start slobbering over all this, no, these are not known facts. As I stated, this is my personal take on George W. Bush. But I've been around a while and study and observe things and, unlike you, I don't need anybody else to tell me what I think or believe. Please feel free to address my remarks. I'm certain whatever gibberish you come up with will bolster my points. Enjoy...

I told you, SAVD, that was what David Wallace said. John Kerry even admits to doing these things. He says he regrets it. Anyways, the reason I would NEVER vote for any democrat is the count of abortion. I believe it should be banned. What would Bush gain from killing people in Iraq? If he didn't bomb Iraq for a good purpose, and he had no gain from it, that doesn't make him evil, that just makes him insane. Oil? We've got plenty of oil in Alaska and he could've bombed the Middle East if he wanted to. That has LOTS of oil. If any evil dictator happens to threaten you with WMD, and not let inspectors in, I'm sure you would get uptight too. It doesn't matter that we didn't find any stockpiles. We did find random weapons in various locations, and even if we hadn't, bombing Iraq was still the best decision. Why would Saddam have been threatening us if he didn't have any? Is he insane too?

Listen, Paul, I don't believe that Bush is the best president. Certain things like Homeland Security, in another words, invading people's privacy with government are a big no-no in my book, not to mention unconstitutional. But it was under his presidency that we found Saddam Hussein. Usually, when I tell this to democrats, they say, "Oh well Saddam wasn't THAT bad. In fact, I'd vote for him in the elections if he ran. Communism is actually a good idea!" Not saying that you believe this, because I don't know your take on communism, but if anyone knew what Hussein made people go through, they would change their minds in a hurry. Another good thing was tax cuts. I know leftists say 'Well, why are tax cuts only beneficial for the wealthy and not the hard-working?' I wonder if anyone considers HOW someone acquires wealth, besides receiving obscene amounts of welfare from liberal government who got it from working people. Work=Money. If someone expects to receive welfare, they at least have to have a job at a fast food restaurant, instead of sitting on the couch, and checking the mail.

ywn - finding Hussein was not accomplished by George W. Bush, our military checked under enough rocks and finally came up with him, and yeah, good riddance. I don't condone Hussein's actions in any way, shape or form. He was a bad guy - yes, extremely Evil. This single accomplishment in no way justifies the invasion of Iraq or the complete lack of a coherent plan for the occupation after a successful initial military campaign. It's not like no one was asking what we would do once we had dispensed with Hussein. The neo-con ideological fools who pushed this fiasco apparently believed everyone would immediately love us, throw flowers, toss away their religious and ethnic differences and sit there while we installed Ahmed Chalabi (another con-artist, by the way) as their leader. Chalabi had not lived in Iraq since 1957, when he was 13 years old. He was wanted in Jordan for, guess what, that's right, con-artist type stuff (embezzlement). It should have been rather easy to see that he would be resented by those Iraqi folks who had stayed and suffered all those years while Chalabi was getting fat kissing up to American politicians and feeding them full of self-serving BS. So now we are there in large force - basically draining our military capability while our soldiers try to sit on this powderkeg and keep it from exploding. Guess who get's hurt when that happens? Yeah, soldiers who are doing their duty. I don't know how you feel about that but I think that kind of sucks. Hmmm...let's see...Communism....what are you talking about? I don't think it has anything to do with the subject, but ok...Communism doesn't work because of human nature. It sounds good on paper but it does not work. Tax cuts? Let's see...Uhh...first, your example is absurd. You could have thought of dozens of better examples and arguments that perhaps would have made me think a bit, but you chose to parrot some of that foolish, ignorant Talk-show crap. I thought I straightened you out on that in the last note. So ignoring that ridiculous scenario let me just point out that giving huge Tax Cuts while engaged in an expensive war has NEVER been done by any American President in our History - until now, that is. You want to guess why that is? No? OK, first, it costs a lot of money to be in a war. Right now the Federal Deficit is skyrocketing at an alarming rate. If Bush's further Tax Cuts were implemented that rate would accelerate even more quickly. Believe it or not, this does have consequences, even beyond the immorality of deferring the costs of today’s actions and choices to the next generation of Americans. For instance, with the debt soaking up so very much of the available currency less is available for business for expansion and growth. That is just one example and that's all I will give you here. This is not an Economics class and I am not a teacher. If you want to know more about what out-of-control deficits can do perhaps you could turn off Talk Radio for a few weeks, cast off the bonds of ignorance and read some books on basic economics. Then you could come to your own conclusions and perhaps even make rational statements bolstering your points. It would be a lot more interesting to engage in discussion with you if you would just do this. Bye...

Amiright comments are truly educational. Here's a summary of what I've learned recently:

(1) The Bible never contradicts itself. In those instances where it contradicts itself, it really doesn't.
(2) From the second a sperm cell unites with an egg cell, it's a baby, so any interference with the subsequent cell division is murder. (But killing squirrels is OK.)
(3) John Kerry is an admitted torturer, rapist, and Klansman. Everyone knows this.
(4) Al Sharpton is the worst bigot in history.
(5) Democrats believe in Communism AND would vote for Saddam Hussein if only given the chance.
(6) You can't be both dumb and evil.

Hmm...Something makes me doubt that last point.

As a rule, I stay away from political parodies/discussions...simply because it's a big fat personal deal to me...so...I keep those opinions to myself. HOWEVER...I want to say this...Mr. Robinson...just because Your Worst Nightmare has a different opinion than you do...doesn't mean you need to "demote" him to lowercases. He's got every right in the world to have his own opinions...and if anything, I personally think he deserves a PRO-motion...because he's gutsy enough to say what he thinks. (I've already admitted that I won't discuss my political and social views in this type of a forum...I'm a wuss...I admit it. Perhaps the cutest and most clever wuss this side of Heaven...but a wuss none the less.) Oh...back to Your Worst Nightmare...Good for him!! If my memory serves me correctly, he's only like 12 years old...(is that right??)...and he's taking on a site ful of grown ups. Tell me you made an effort to develop a political stream of thought when you were 12...not to mention presenting it to a group of people who are SO VERY likely (given the general content of their political parodies) to disagree with you...and I will shut up. But I don't think you did. Secondly...I think the "you can't be both dumb & evil" point is VERY valid. I think if a person is honestly EVIL...(and that is a hell of a qualifier)...AND they are successful in their evil plots...they need to be pretty damned smart to make it work out. Sure...there are lots of evil people who are idiots...(i used to work with one of them...she was the devil in a quilted skirt and a grandma hairdo...but luckily, she was as dumb as a stick)...but they don't usually get their way. I think if you're Evil...AND Dumb...AND Successful...you just got lucky...because evil or not...supposed world domination takes some freaking brains. None of you have to agree with anything that YWN, or I, or anyone else, is saying...and I'm not saying you shouldn't argue, either...ARGUE ON...but something about the "demotion" comment got to me. I really don't like it when people try to make people feel bad for their personal beliefs. Disagree if you want to...but that's all you really need to do. Politically, I'm not choosing sides here...but give the guy a break...seriously. Don't talk to him like he's 5...he's 12, dammit...and he's standing up like he's 30...so leave him alone. Thank you very much. And...good night.

And somehow I missed the freaking GIBBERISH comment! And the bit about him not being able to form an opinion without someone telling him to believe it. DAMN PAUL!!! I can't believe you're being such a freaking jerk. If you want to talk ignorance, how about believing that anyone who doesn't see things EXACTLY the way you see them is a gibberish spouting fool?!? You're shoving your opinion down his throat just like his supposed puppet master is...(yes...I think stating your opinion is different than saying "you're stupid if you don't agree with my opinion.")...but there's nothing wrong with that, right? Because you're the smartest man in the world and whatever you say is okay. Is that it?

Paul Robinson - I'm starting to get disgusted with Bush. Not to say Kerry is better though. I just saw a presidential campaign by Bush, saying that you should vote for Bush because he invades people's privacy. It said Kerry agreed, but changed his position, because some other people didn't like it. Now back to our discussion. Bush did not cut taxes in the middle of war. Cutting taxes was one of the first things he did when he became president. I also never listen to talk radio. I prefer watching the news.

Pro-Thought -

1. The Bible has never contradicted itself. Give me one example where it had.

2. I, do, in fact, believe that human lives are more valuable than squirrels. Especially since squirrels are likely to form conspiracies and kill off people. See my parody, "Attack of The Squirrels". http://www.amiright.com/parody/2000s/avrillavigne208.shtml

3. No, everybody does not know about John Kerry's past, which I would probably forgive, but still not vote for.

4. Al Sharpton may not necessarily be the *biggest* bigot in history, but a bigot, nonetheless.

5. Let me take back what I said earlier. Many democrats believe that Saddam Hussein wasn't exactly all that bad, and they were better off. Not that he would make a great president. I was thinking of the Communist party that has uprisen in America, and I included their thoughts in the Democrat party. I apologize for that.

6. I just don't think you can be both dumb and evil. At least, one wouldn't do a good job of being evil. I've heard so many liberals saying, "Oh, that Bush is the most evil man on the face of the Earth! He plotted this and that, has plans to take over the world...and, oh yeah, he is incredibly stupid." That doesn't make sense. If I had to pick one for Bush, I would say dumb. I'm not sure he always thinks things out to the full extent before taking action. The same for his speech. However, he is most certainly not evil. He has very good intentions.

Arwen - I think you're taking things a little too seriously. I think Paul Robinson was making a joke, when he talked about "demoting" me to lower-cases. You spoke of him promoting me. What form might that take, exactly? Perhaps he should call me Y.W.N. AKA Your Worst Nightmare AKA YW-Nightmare, Gutsy Guy. lol Anyways, it is common for anyone to disagree with someone, and I don't see why Paul Robinson couldn't put his spin on my spin, spinning my spin in the opposite direction, resulting in several spins, until eventually we all got dizzy. And about the age thing. I turned 13 last week. I wonder how silly everybody would feel if they found out they were discussing politics with a 13 year old. LOL! I imagine if I didn't always talk about these matters on the Internet, and, say, I don't know, any random place, people would pat my head, or something else demeaning, and say , "You're too young to understand". Anyways, thanks for standing up for me! ;-)

Arwen, I seemed to have missed that too. I can't find it in his comments, but I'll take your word. So Paul, I can form an opinion without someone telling me to believe it, thank you very much. You told me your opinion, but do I believe it? No, I don't. So BACK OFF. On a different note, happy belated birthday to your brother. I guess that sounds really weird next to what I just said. lol

Arwen - didn't realize YWN was 12. I would not have ‘diminutized’(yes, I know that is not a real word) his handle had I known this. I did say that his arguments might work on a 5th grader, and I guess that is about where he would be at 12 - 5th or 6th grade. Arwen, the opinions he expressed ARE childish and now I know why. They are appropriate to his age. Had I known his age perhaps I would have just ignored his remarks. However, if he is going to discuss politics he should learn not to undermine his arguments with gratuitous accusations. And that was my main point here, although I was perhaps a wee bit heavy-handed about presenting it. Otherwise, he runs the risk of not being taken seriously. I assume that since he is taking the time and trouble to post these views he would like to be taken seriously - do you think I am wrong? Since he seems committed to airing his opinion’s NOW then I would say that NOW is the time to learn that. Would you disagree with that? Seriously now, yes, I admit my comments were rather rough. I was chiding someone I thought was an adult for making ignorant remarks. And I'm sorry, but they were ignorant. Frankly, they did sound like Talk Radio drivel or Matt Drudge stuff to me and I was chiding him for buying into that crap. If the young man wants to weigh in on these matters he needs to KNOW something about them to be taken SERIOUSLY. Is it a kindness or a favor to let him think that those remarks about Kerry will be taken seriously by anyone? Sure, I was being rough but if you read it from a different point of view all I was asking is that he EDUCATE himself so that he will be able to hold his own in discussions. What do you want me to tell him when he calls John Kerry a rapist? That he makes a pretty good point? Do you really want me to tell him that? Or let it pass? You can be mad at me if you want but young Mr. YWN made some pretty aggressive statements there and I felt they deserved to be addressed in an aggressive manner. I usually let most of the political stuff go by because I do not wish to dwell on it here, but you only get a free pass so far in my book. I guess since he's only 12 I should just let him air his wild statements and make a fool out of himself. I committed the terrible offense of asking him to make educated statements and logical, fact-based arguments and I promise I will never do that again. Really...hey, I know this is probably going to tick you off but would it really harm him to try having some real facts and knowledge to back up his positions? And, furthermore, all I did was give him a DETAILED reason why the Tax Cuts were a bad idea with an already large deficit and an expensive war going on. Outside of airing my opinion I was DEMONSTRATING making an argument and SUPPORTING it a logical manner. Someone who is committed to engaging in political discussions should be able to do that. Otherwise, why waste the time and energy? You could talk about Sports instead. I do promise to wear softer gloves, though, if we have another discussion.

Paul, I am actually 13 and am going to be in the eighth grade. And ONCE AGAIN, I was quoting David Wallace, who says that he, Kerry, and several other people did horrible things during the war. And don't wear "softer gloves". I believe that is all I have to say.

YWN - That's better! I still disagree with most of your remarks and I do think they are mostly ill-informed, but I'm glad to see you stand up and take me on over it...and disabuse me of an incorrect assumption (that you listen to talk radio). You know, I get pretty steamed when people make uninformed assumptions about me so I guess this would be the appropriate point to apologize for making that assumption about YOU. Your above comments straighten out some of my initial complaints by acknowledging a couple of excessive stretches you made. My point on that was that you should try to avoid making those statements initially if you want to be taken seriously. I think you know that, but you let some of your disdain for the other side take the controls for a moment. On my side, although I think he is a no-good, @#$%^%&, I should not have brought "Evil" into my assessment of Mr. Bush. I have no idea what is in his heart. I DO think he is a con-artist because he behaves like one. I don't know if you've ever met any, they can be very charming and they seduce you with greed or flattery or whatever they sense will make you take your eye off the ball so that you will end up playing THEIR game. Once you are in their pocket you are pretty much dead meat. To address the "demotion" to lower-case. Yes, I was toying with you a bit. As I told Arwen above I was a little rough because I thought your arguments and points were sloppy. I won't have a discussion with someone who can't frame an argument, there's no point. I'm glad you addressed Arwen's remarks the way you did. I made the same point about condescension, albeit in a much windier, heavy-handed manner. Most of my rant could have been summed up with your comment about being "patted on the head and told you were too young to understand". But I thought she would think I was being flip if I made a quick quip and went on past the issue. I understand that she thought I was picking on you unfairly because of your age. I might have been a bit unfair, but it had absolutely nothing to do with your age. If you read the rant you will see I was pretty serious about my point. But anyway, I understand why Arwen was ticked at me, although I disagree about most of it. OK, and finally, you called me to task for saying you couldn't form your own opinions and I plead guiilty to that. I made a flip remark in the middle to that effect and then later this more serious one: "If you want to know more about what out-of-control deficits can do perhaps you could turn off Talk Radio for a few weeks, cast off the bonds of ignorance and read some books on basic economics. Then you could come to your own conclusions and perhaps even make rational statements bolstering your points. It would be a lot more interesting to engage in discussion with you if you would just do this" As I said, I apologize for the "Talk Radio" reference. And, yes, the tone was a little imperious, BUT, I stand by my point here of suggesting a little research into economics. You can read information that discusses both theories of the Taxation issue and form a better informed opinion. You may still come to the same conclusion that you have now, but you will be able to bolster your point with what you have gleaned from your reading. Or you might change your point of view. Whatever conclusion you come to you should be able to back up with something better than an anecdote. I will tell you that this isn't something I always knew. I got knocked on my butt in a couple discussions with a former colleague who used to be Captain of the Debating Team at Yale when I got sloppy with my arguments - it wasn't a lot of fun to sit there and listen to him tear apart my argument piece-by-piece, knowing that I would not be able to refute his contention. By the way, he and I were and still are very good friends. He taught me a valuable lesson and all it cost me was some mud on my face at the moment. Not a bad deal, really. Man, it's good thing I'm in love with my own writing, because I've really used up some space tonight. I think at this point we both have a better understanding of each other. That's a good thing, right? Apologies to anyone this inconveniences...

Ok, apology accepted. I do think Arwen went overboard on the "demotion" bit. At least I know somebody is looking for me. Can I be promoted to former and higher status? :-) Another thing I am aware of, is your love of writing. You must have a lot of time on your hands! As a typical 13 year old, I don't pay attention to details on the news, and when I'm debating on this website, people will bring up names in politics I haven't heard of, and I'm just like, "What?....". I also think I MIGHT listen to talk radio, maybe sometime if I got tired of listening to music, if I could ever find a talk radio station, where they talk about something other than music. I think most of them are all on AM. I don't like AM, due to frequency problems, so even when it is a conservative talk show, it sounds like they are saying really vulgar things about Bush. "Well, I think Bush is a real *BRRRANNGGSHHHH* to us all...." Like it is being bleeped out or something.

Nice to see you two are making up. Really. My point...even if it wasn't made well due to the steam coming out of my ears, which in turn impaired my vision/thought process...was this: Generally...in life...there are very few "rights and wrongs." Maybe I was living vicariously through YWN...remembering when I finally got the guts to speak up in my freshman lit. class and tell an entire class of collegiate feminists that I disagreed with them. And nobody talked to me for the rest of the semester. But hell if I wasn't a better person for voicing my opinion. It was a big moment for me...and ever since then...I'm a girl with opinions...strong ones. And they are mine, and they are precious to me. And I assume that everyone would feel that way about their own opinions. And nobody should be made to feel bad...or worst of all stupid...for forming an opinion. That's all. Anyway...like I said...you two both seem to be grown up enough to have taken care of the issue...I said my bit. It can all be water under the bridge...if that's okay with the gentlemen...have a good night.

YWN - Yes, you will see in the previous comment that I reverted to capitalizing your handle. To answer your question, yes, right now I do have time on my hands. At the end of 2003 my job went Eastward (Wichita, KS) as the company I worked for moved the Department I worked in there in order to pay lower wages and avoid California's overtime laws. They are paying approximately 25% less, not counting the overtime savings. However, they flushed about 200 years of combined experience that our Department of approximately 25 people possessed in exchange for that for savings. The group now doing our job has a small number of people who were experienced but for the most part they were all new (maybe 70%). Anyway, I think they made a mistake but they may get away with it. We did Product Support for Income Tax software. To do this effectively one must have at least a working knowledge of Federal Taxation and also understand the different methods of State Taxation. It takes a while to get any good at it. I was there six years. Yeah, I was good at it. Anyway, I had saved up a decent amount of money and was a pretty stressed when the job ended (not just from the job loss, but some personal/family issues, too), and decided to take some time off to relax and also to work on my writing. So that's what I'm currently doing. Let's see now, 13, eh? I was born in 1950 so I was 13 in 1963. I remember quite a bit from then, but my clearest memory is of waiting outside for 3rd period Science class one day in November (the 22nd) and wondering why the Teacher, Mr. Holly, was late. When he got there he told us President John Kennedy had been shot and was in very serious condition. That was sure a long time ago. I did follow politics at the time, too. I was pretty naive about it, though. I really did think that within my lifetime someday we would all get along and that prejudice and discrimination would no longer exist. Well, a lot of progress has certainly been made but I don't think we will ever get completely past those very sad and ugly maladies. From this I have developed a deep resentment of politicians who I perceive to be exploiting "wedge" issues that divide us as a people for their own short-term political gain. It's an ugly, cynical game to play. I believe the current President plays this game and plays it often. So I cannot support him in any way for re-election. Well, that's enough for now, You have a couple of political views that are quite provocative that I'd like to question you about so I can understand why you take those positions, but we can go into that at another time. Thanks. Take care...

Ok, as you all know I try to hold back my opinions (lol - first time I ever used that.). I'm sure most can guess that, given a topic, there's not much that Paul and I would disagree on - except that New York is better than Cal-ee-forn-ya. That being said, I've got to tell ya, if this guy YWM - assuming he is the age he says he is - I've got to give him credit (as I beleive Paul did) - his opinions and beliefs (while wrong) are educated and years ahead of mine at that age. My guess is that Paul is older than I (I'll be 43 next week) and he argued with YWM on a peer-level; in other words, Paul debated YWM as he would debate Guy, for example. So, I've got to give YWM credit for formulating and conveying an educated retort (despite the fact that he's wrong). I also was impressed with his response to SAVD - he quoted and credited the source. With the (radio) airwaves filled with regurgitated right-wing propaganda spewing the untruth, this (liberal) civil libertarian tips his hat to the kid who fomrs and expresses his own (right-wing) ideology, eloquenty. With all due respect - Kid, if you're really a teen, get yourself in talk radio now - you're "outrageous", intelligent, and wrong - but your maturity level in debate is amazing. Your skillful right-wing arguments are more thought-provoking and respected than the right-wing machine propoganda currently being promoted in the conservative-biased media. Don't know where you live, but (from a talk radio "veteran") - you should seek a talkadio show for young fascists now - Hell, if I were still in the "business", I'd give your a shot - your talent is especially demonstrated by your ability to handle and respond to your critics. Speaking from the left, how can I argue with a person who states that he'll never vote democrat because it's the party of pro-choice - I have no problem with a citizen casting a vote based on what they feel is most important to them. Dude, it's too bad you play for the other team - but I'll buy you a beer when you're legal.

Arwen, Thanks. I was hoping there wouldn't be any bad residual left over from this. Glad you found your voice and are willing to stand by it. I happen to admire that. And I really don't mind having somebody I respect tell me they think I've pushed something too hard, as long as it comes from honesty and not to advance some hidden agenda or just to mess with me. You know it did change my perspective to find out his age - it won't lessen my vigilance in examining his contentions, but it certainly will affect my approach. I thought I was talking to a young adult who just regurgitating spoon-fed spin. I find that rather annoying and not particularly illuminating. Discovering a younger person who has reached these conclusions on his own (even though I think some of them are way off track) throws and entirely different light on it. I was very impressed by his responses at 8:25 & 8:32 tonight. Even though I don't agree for the most part there was clearly serious thought given to each point. He also did a nice job of clarifying a couple of items to both you & I - straight-forward with just a little bit of attitude behind it. So I respect the Young Whipper (S)Napper (YWN) for that (the "S" is silent there).

Robert Pag - Yeah, he did well once we got a little of the nonsense out of the way (on both sides). You know, I baited him a bit on the first exchange because I was pretty certain (wrongly) I was talking to an empty head and that it would implode on it's own if given a little rope. By the way, I'm 54, so your speculation on that was pretty much right on. Yeah, I'm not issuing any passes for age when someone enters the arena of political discussion. If you're good enough to play you are welcome - if not, better head back to the sand box because I'm just not in the mood to tell someone "well that was a really special comment" when I think they are just blowing gas. You know when kids get to a certain age and have real ideas I don't see any point in applying a lower standard to them than I would an adult. The only change I consciously make is in my tone. I'm a bit more curious as to WHY they believe something than I would be with an adult I disagree with.

R.P., I guess I'll accept that as a compliment. I understand how you don't agree with me, but don't think I am crud for not agreeing with you. I respect that. In the same way, I do not believe that all democrats are stupid. In fact, most of the ones I've met are bright. And not that all democrats are geniuses either. There are lots of liberals who just change the subject all the time, and they don't make good sense. You probably know the group I'm talking about. I'll talk about any random thing, and if I corner them, they'll defend themselves by saying, "Bush is stupid!". Paul R. didn't act that way. Once again, I want to state that I am not one of those people that worships Bush and agrees with everything he says. I don't like the Patriot Act or Homeland Security. I, do, however, applaud him on some of the actions he has taken, for instance, driving Saddam out of power. While it is true that Paul stated that it was actually American troops that found him and not Bush, if it wasn't for Bush, he would still be oppressing. So you're a libertarian, eh? I hold libertarian principles, too. That's why, when I become a registered voter, I don't know to be Republican or Independent. I think I'm more conservative than libertarian. I believe that the government shouldn't use our money to blow it on anything they wish, and that certain laws, say, wearing a seatbelt, are the driver's decision. If someone isn't smart enough to wear one, that's their problem; Don't arrest them. But things like, making marijuanna legal, I don't support. And one more thing. IT'S YWN!!! NOT YWM!!! (I get a little crazy when people mispell my acronym)

Paul, so you were 13 when Kennedy was assassinated? I imagine the most shocking thing in my 13 years would have to be Hussein captured. I mean, I thought we would NEVER find him. Another shocking thing was Elizabeth Smart being found. I thought she was dead by then. I can't imagine Bush playing some kind of sinister game. I perceive him as a good man and well intentioned, despite bad actions. Not that I would just let him off the hook for being a nice guy. I know you're probably not going to want to hear my Christian beliefs, but the reason why I wouldn't just let him off the hook is a biblical principle. It was when God said to Saul to kill everything in Canaan, yet he came back with the fattest cattle. God asked him why he disobeyed and Saul said he brought it to sacrifice. God reminded Saul of what he had been instructed and that Saul had disobeyed him. Anyway, if kids my age could vote, I would vote for Bush, because compared to other candidates, I think he's pretty good.

I don't believe discrimination and prejudice will ever end either. I know of many naive pacifists that preach world peace. But you can't make peace without war. If terrorists attack a country, probably because of their religious beliefs, the only way a country can end their terror is to attack them. Whenever I say that war is sometimes necessary, I'll usually be accused of being a war hawk. But if the Revolutionary War hadn't happened, America would still be a British colony. I think that would give most pacifists something to think about.

Arwen, so you are against the feminist movement too? Thank God someone else agrees with me. I don't understand feminists really. Today, women can vote, drive, be payed the same as men, if they have the same job, and do the same performance, anything a man can, so I don't see what their cause is, except to gain superiority. That is why I call them "modern feminists". They don't deserve to be called feminists, because feminists were the courageous group of women much earlier in history that gave women their rights. Modern feminists just seem to hate men. I actually saw a very modern feminist writing, that said, soon there would be a way to make it so that women could give birth without men, and that they could control the gender of the baby so it wouldn't come out male. YIKES! That's just too extreme.

YWN...I agree with you whole heartedly re: the feminist movement. I'm proud to say that I'm from the Equality State of Wyoming...the first state that allowed women to vote, AND the first state to have had a female governor. I'm ALL about equal pay for equal work and blah. I love being a woman and I think women kick butt!! And I clearly have the capability to be outspoken when I feel the urge...but, I have never felt discriminated against because I am a woman. Maybe my views would change if I had that experience. But as for now, I agree with you...I don't think that women today have it bad at all. And...at the risk of sounding SOOOO 19th century, I wouldn't feel bad at all if I ended up at home with some babies and a husband who totally worships me. I know it's a terrifying thought for some...but...yeah...I'd be okay with that. As long as said husband knows that I'm never wrong, and that I can do whatever I want whenever I want...; )...Oh...and I LOVE men. Hating men has nothing to do with "girl power." You seriously rock, YWN...keep up the good work. =)

Thanks! It's these "civil rights" people like the MODERN feminists and black spokesmen like Al Sharpton that annoy me. It is like it is ten times worse for a woman or a black person to be assaulted than a man or a white person to be. Both groups are hypocritical in the sense that modern feminists who claim to be against sexism are sexist themselves, and black spokesmen who are supposed to be anti-racist are racist to all whites. There are even books written by each of these groups, one of them being "White Lies". Anyway, it's been nice chatting with you! :-) :) =) =-) :O) :v)(Pick which emoticon you prefer)

YWN - Actually, I didn't mind your Biblical mention. You get to believe what you want to believe and I respect that. As long as you don't demand that I adhere to the same beliefs or buy into them. In this case I am particularly interested since you use it to form your political beliefs, which I also find interesting. SOMETIMES War is necessary...SOMETIMES it is NOT...extremely important for a leader to be able to tell the difference. A weak point for Mr. Bush in my opinion. Too anxious to spill blood and he was a bit too cocky and smirky about it when things look like they were going well last year. A President should never get cute when he's talking about this hellish human activity. The consequences should demand decorum and dignity when the Chief Executive makes reference to it. Not prancing about on an aircraft carrier like some jackass Movie character would have been a good idea, too. American Revolution, eh? Hmm....folks rising up against an occupying force. Why does that sound familiar? Even though the British for the most part did not treat the American Colonists badly those folks still wanted them to go away. No, of course it's not a direct parallel - just a little food for thought.

Wait....are you saying that this nation never should have gone through with the American Revolution?? Soldiers were allowed to break into people's houses anytime they wanted for shelter, food, and clothing, and King George had abused his power over America. That kind of tyranny is intolerable.

YWN - Uh, uh...NOT at ALL.. I'm saying the Colonists wanted out of that arrangement even though by comparison to other folks living under an Occupation they were not faring all that badly. I mean it wasn't like they pulled in for no reason, beaten, stripped, starved and forced to pose for humiliating pictures. But still they wanted independence. Oh...you know those "intolerable" things you mentioned. Unfortunately our troops in Iraq are doing quite a few of those things (or at least WERE doing them as recently as a week ago). This again goes back to lack of planning. These soldiers were never trained or instructed in how to behave in an occupation. They were trained as warriors. Anyway, I won't belabor the point further. Again, just a little food for thought to nibble on. Later...

What, soldiers in Iraq are breaking into people's homes? Where is your source?

Speaking of source, allow me to give a retraction. John Kerry did NOT, in fact, rape women, torture people, or burn down any villages. I had misread the article, which actually said that Kerry lied about other people doing that. Sorry!

John the Grunt: Actually, Nixon was very intelligent, but, like Woodrow Wilson, he thought he was so much smarter than anyone else that he wanted what he wanted when he wanted it, how he wanted it, and to hell with what anyone else wanted. And this comes from someone who admired Wilson. Come to think of it, this might be the first really good reason it might NOT have been good to allow Al Gore to accept the Presidency he rightfully won: He was the same way. But that still would've been infinitely better than the man Bill Maher accurately nicknamed "Drinky McDumbass."

Nightmare: Kerry used to be a rapist? I've got news for you: Raising taxes does not constitute rape. (It always comes back to taxes for these numbskulls.) How is Bush stupid? He flunks English, History, Math, Science, Phys Ed (his bike spill), and, considering the Pretzel Episode, he even flunks Lunch! What would Bush gain from killing people in Iraq? Oil, money and power. If you couldn't figure that out, then you just might (I said "might," Chuck) be as dumb as Bush is. And if "Work = Money," how come Bush is rich? And, yes, our Party has Al Sharpton. Your Party has Don King. I'll take that comparison any day of the week and twice on Sunday. The most shocking thing in your lifetime was Saddam's capture? I guess you'll have to wait for the next Bush campaign commercial to hear about this, but something really bad happened in Lower Manhattan when you were 10. There is hope for you, though. I, too, was a Republican at 13. Then Reagan screwed up in Beirut. Then he covered it up two days later with a "great victory" in Grenada. October 25, 1983, the day the Republicans threw away my vote (as soon as I was old enough to give it). I'll chalk up your right-wing comments as a "youthful indiscretion." And I agree with you on squirrels. Can't stand the damn things.

Paul: I also had a Mr. Holly in junior high. Homeroom, but he mainly taught Science. His wife taught Home Ec. Mrs. Holly liked to say, "I take sugar and turn it into brownies. My husband likes to take sugar and turn it into a big black lump of carbon."

Mike, as I said earlier, I was mistaken when I said that John Kerry is a former rapist. I had misread my source, which said that Kerry lied about a group of people and said that they did that. And I don't blame democrats for Al Sharpton being one of them. I think Al Sharpton should have his own party which could be called "The Mega-Left Blacks Only Party". And about Bush and Iraq. 1. Once again, Bush could've attacked countries with more oil if he wanted to. 2. This is not a challenge, but just a genuine question. How do you get money for bombing a country? 3. Although he has power in Iraq, it isn't gainful to him. It is a responsibility. No comments on earlier presidents, seeing as I didn't pay much attention to politics as a little kid, plus, I'm not into history.

It has recently come to my attention that politics means "many blood-sucking creatures" in latin, "poli" meaning many, and "tics", meaning "bloodsucking creatures". Therefore, all we are really talking about is which bloodsucking creature is the coolest. I put my money on the one with big fangs and green skin right there.

Michael P. - I don't suppose your Mr. Holly was a pale, white male with light blond, curly hair, and blue eyes? I believe his first name was "Richard" although I'm not sure and "first-name" familiarity with a Teacher was not something an 8th-grader could have pulled off in 1963. I went to Audubon Jr. High School in the Los Angeles area. I get the impression you are from somewhere quite a bit East of that location. Ahh...Jr. High School...WOW! It's amazing how much I remember from then - teacher's names, fellow students, events...hmmm...had a BIG-TIME crush on my Homeroom teacher, Miss Rappoport. Was bitterly disappointed and crushed when she came back next fall as a MRS. GREEN and soon began developing a large bulge in the belly area, something even a naive 13-year could decipher without a whole lot of difficulty. Let's see - she was a young teacher, probably 25 to 30 then. So she'd be somewhere around 65 to 70 today if that were correct.