Its an editorial, presumably the editor will take responsibility for it and will have at least approved it (although this being Fleet Street he may not have actually written the thing).

And as far as angry sulking goes I think theres a time and a place, and if this isn't it then I don't know what is. This is one of the biggest defeats for rational and progressive forces for years. I don't agree with the racial slurs in the article, but most of whats there is actually political - and that I tend to agree with. I think, for the most part, that this article is fair comment.

I have less respect for anyone who voted for Bush, and I have no problem saying so. And if anyone can somehow construe that as an attack on the country as a whole then well done to them, it take some logical wrangling...

yep, looks like you'll be getting all the moral values you wanted. imo all those values bush supports discriminate against others not on his red team. he has no sense of uniting this country, he will divide us further. already he has begun pursuing an amendment to ban gay-lesbian marriages. this clearly discriminates and imo unconstitutional. another 4 years i must bear. don't get me wrong. i'm not mad just very concerned, cerek. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>To be honost, <font color=red>Jonas</font>, I'm more than a little worried about Bush myself and even now, a small part of me wishes Kerry would have won. I didn't feel I could vote for him in good conscious, but even if I had, my vote would not have changed the results.

I saw a news clip this morning that many of the Christian supporters of Bush are now taking him to task and pushing for him to follow up on the promises they feel he made - including the pursuit of the Marriage Amendment. But Bush has made it clear that his #1 priority is dealing with Social Security, so the Marriage Amendment is being put on a back burner for now. Personally, I really doubt Bush will ever actually attempt that - or if he does, the Amendment will be worded in such a way that Congress is sure to defeat it. This would actually give Bush the best of both worlds. He can claim he tried to keep his promise and can blame it's defeat on the Democratic liberals in Congress.

Even if he DOES actually pursue the Amendment, and DOES manage to get Congress to approve it (a situation I consider more than a little unlikely - but the Repubs did gain even more control of Congress than they had before), I believe the next President will move to have it repealed. I honostly just do NOT see that Amendment being passed and made a permanent part of the Constitution. Maybe I'm wrong and just being naive', but that's my gut feeling on the situation.

I also have similar reservations about the Patriot Act and hope to see it either repealed or at least greatly reduced in the power it grants authorities.</font>

Its an editorial, presumably the editor will take responsibility for it and will have at least approved it (although this being Fleet Street he may not have actually written the thing).

And as far as angry sulking goes I think theres a time and a place, and if this isn't it then I don't know what is. This is one of the biggest defeats for rational and progressive forces for years. I don't agree with the racial slurs in the article, but most of whats there is actually political - and that I tend to agree with. I think, for the most part, that this article is fair comment.

I have less respect for anyone who voted for Bush, and I have no problem saying so. And if anyone can somehow construe that as an attack on the country as a whole then well done to them, it take some logical wrangling... </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>No "logical wrangling" is necessary, <font color=lime>Barry</font>. You made it very clear that your lack of respect is reserved only for those that supported President Bush and - according to the election results - that is only equal to about 56% of Americans.

Of course, since it does also include several members of this forum - including myself and the webmaster of this site - your post might be considered as a direct personal attack and (therefore) a violation of the TOS. But that's not my call to make and I'm personally not offended by your lack of respect - so it doesn't matter to me either way.</font>

Note, having "less respect" is not having "no respect." The two are quite different. All things factor into whether or not we respect each other. Voting for Bush also went as a mark in the negative column from my point of view too, Cerek. Just as I'm sure my stance on some issues go in the negative column regarding your view of me. It's inevitable.

Groj, ROTFLMAO, Thanks for posting the article, feel free to PM me any more of this kind of thing from the Mirror, or any other source you want along the same lines. I laughed so hard I damn near wet my pants. ;)

<font color=plum>Very true, <font color=tan>Timber</font>. And I pointed out that I was not offended by the remarks. I merely pointed out that the remarks could be considered a personal attack on many IW members (since there are several who supported Bush).

As I said before, it's not my call to make nor does it matter to me which call is made.</font>

Well Barry that's what makes the world go round, each of us having our own thoughts, beliefs, opinions, feelings. More power to you, sing from the mountain tops, just remember actions speak louder then words, and the action was President Bush was re-elected by our laws. Lordy scream it from on high, but unless there is somebody willing to put troops in the field to effect a change, it's 4 more years.

I really wish I had a hybernating machine, so you people could wake up in 4 years. ;)

LOL,that reminds me of Ross Perot, JD, who made the fatal mistake of addressing the ACLU (or was it the NAACP?) as "you people." Rarely have I ever seen anything smart be said in a sentence that included the phrase "you people."

Certainly the political arguments in the article deserved to be aired, so thanks for posting it Grojlach. There are a lot of home truths amongst the article's more radical frothings of the mouth. People in the America should be aware of the damage that Dubbya has done to their international reputation, and if you mentally excise the expletives and the derision then the author spells out the reasons pretty well.

Let's take this down a different tack. Tell me - when each of you was at school - was the biggest meanest nastiest bully of your class universally loved and respected? Do those of you with children admire and respect the bully that picks on your kids?

Can I get a "Hale No"?

Thankyou.

Bepends on how you define respect, while we are asking questions how many of "you people" messed with the bigest meanest, nastiest bully? ;)