[justme]

[quote=zzz]
A LARGE number of woman I know are insecure, I would say the majority of all woman I’ve ever known. They can be smart, beautiful, have a great husband or boyfriend, and yet they still feel insecure. So they cheat because they NEED male attention.
[/quote]

I hate this sexist and one-sided rationalization and excuse that only women get to use. Really, when did you hear about a man that got away with doing something wrong by claiming that “insecurity” made him do it?

Give me a break. When do I get the benefit of being insecure? NEVER. Women should be held to the same standard as men.

PS: I bet one could make the argument that Adolf Hitler was a deeply insecure person. Does that in any was justify what he did? Of course not.

[justme]

Where is Berlusconi when you need him?

[justme]

Where is Berlusconi when you need him?

[justme]

Where is Berlusconi when you need him?

[justme]

Where is Berlusconi when you need him?

[justme]

Where is Berlusconi when you need him?

[justme]

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]

So, if a republican does something wrong, they should be thrown out. But if a democrat does something wrong, we should ignore it? I thought the point of voting out the incumbents that voted for the bill was to toss out the cancer, irrespective of party affiliation.

[/quote]

I never said that, you are putting words in my mouth.

You may think that “voting out the incumbents who voted for the (bailout) bill” is the point. But then your are turning this into a single-issue election called the “bailout bill”, and the Republicans are USING you to their advantage.

Those who want people to vote Republican should just come out and say it. They should stop wrapping themselves in some single-issue flag which effectively means “you must vote republican because more democrats than republicans voted for the bailout bill”.

Such people are trying to confuse the issue. The truth is that if it was not for the republican deregulation push of the last 28 years, no bailout would be needed in the first place.

The correct principle is that people should vote for who they believe stands for the best principles of government, and should NOT vote based on some trumped-up single-issue litmus test concocted by an opportunist political strategist.

And by the way, the republicans have done plenty of wrong, and on a much grander scale than any democrat of the last 28 years.

Don’t cast your vote based on an impulsive desire to punish someone for voting for something that you despise. I am also against the bailout bill, but no way will that make me vote against a democrat.

Look at the big picture.

[justme]

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]

So, if a republican does something wrong, they should be thrown out. But if a democrat does something wrong, we should ignore it? I thought the point of voting out the incumbents that voted for the bill was to toss out the cancer, irrespective of party affiliation.

[/quote]

I never said that, you are putting words in my mouth.

You may think that “voting out the incumbents who voted for the (bailout) bill” is the point. But then your are turning this into a single-issue election called the “bailout bill”, and the Republicans are USING you to their advantage.

Those who want people to vote Republican should just come out and say it. They should stop wrapping themselves in some single-issue flag which effectively means “you must vote republican because more democrats than republicans voted for the bailout bill”.

Such people are trying to confuse the issue. The truth is that if it was not for the republican deregulation push of the last 28 years, no bailout would be needed in the first place.

The correct principle is that people should vote for who they believe stands for the best principles of government, and should NOT vote based on some trumped-up single-issue litmus test concocted by an opportunist political strategist.

And by the way, the republicans have done plenty of wrong, and on a much grander scale than any democrat of the last 28 years.

Don’t cast your vote based on an impulsive desire to punish someone for voting for something that you despise. I am also against the bailout bill, but no way will that make me vote against a democrat.

Look at the big picture.

[justme]

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]

So, if a republican does something wrong, they should be thrown out. But if a democrat does something wrong, we should ignore it? I thought the point of voting out the incumbents that voted for the bill was to toss out the cancer, irrespective of party affiliation.

[/quote]

I never said that, you are putting words in my mouth.

You may think that “voting out the incumbents who voted for the (bailout) bill” is the point. But then your are turning this into a single-issue election called the “bailout bill”, and the Republicans are USING you to their advantage.

Those who want people to vote Republican should just come out and say it. They should stop wrapping themselves in some single-issue flag which effectively means “you must vote republican because more democrats than republicans voted for the bailout bill”.

Such people are trying to confuse the issue. The truth is that if it was not for the republican deregulation push of the last 28 years, no bailout would be needed in the first place.

The correct principle is that people should vote for who they believe stands for the best principles of government, and should NOT vote based on some trumped-up single-issue litmus test concocted by an opportunist political strategist.

And by the way, the republicans have done plenty of wrong, and on a much grander scale than any democrat of the last 28 years.

Don’t cast your vote based on an impulsive desire to punish someone for voting for something that you despise. I am also against the bailout bill, but no way will that make me vote against a democrat.

Look at the big picture.

[justme]

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]

So, if a republican does something wrong, they should be thrown out. But if a democrat does something wrong, we should ignore it? I thought the point of voting out the incumbents that voted for the bill was to toss out the cancer, irrespective of party affiliation.

[/quote]

I never said that, you are putting words in my mouth.

You may think that “voting out the incumbents who voted for the (bailout) bill” is the point. But then your are turning this into a single-issue election called the “bailout bill”, and the Republicans are USING you to their advantage.

Those who want people to vote Republican should just come out and say it. They should stop wrapping themselves in some single-issue flag which effectively means “you must vote republican because more democrats than republicans voted for the bailout bill”.

Such people are trying to confuse the issue. The truth is that if it was not for the republican deregulation push of the last 28 years, no bailout would be needed in the first place.

The correct principle is that people should vote for who they believe stands for the best principles of government, and should NOT vote based on some trumped-up single-issue litmus test concocted by an opportunist political strategist.

And by the way, the republicans have done plenty of wrong, and on a much grander scale than any democrat of the last 28 years.

Don’t cast your vote based on an impulsive desire to punish someone for voting for something that you despise. I am also against the bailout bill, but no way will that make me vote against a democrat.

Look at the big picture.

[justme]

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]

So, if a republican does something wrong, they should be thrown out. But if a democrat does something wrong, we should ignore it? I thought the point of voting out the incumbents that voted for the bill was to toss out the cancer, irrespective of party affiliation.

[/quote]

I never said that, you are putting words in my mouth.

You may think that “voting out the incumbents who voted for the (bailout) bill” is the point. But then your are turning this into a single-issue election called the “bailout bill”, and the Republicans are USING you to their advantage.

Those who want people to vote Republican should just come out and say it. They should stop wrapping themselves in some single-issue flag which effectively means “you must vote republican because more democrats than republicans voted for the bailout bill”.

Such people are trying to confuse the issue. The truth is that if it was not for the republican deregulation push of the last 28 years, no bailout would be needed in the first place.

The correct principle is that people should vote for who they believe stands for the best principles of government, and should NOT vote based on some trumped-up single-issue litmus test concocted by an opportunist political strategist.

And by the way, the republicans have done plenty of wrong, and on a much grander scale than any democrat of the last 28 years.

Don’t cast your vote based on an impulsive desire to punish someone for voting for something that you despise. I am also against the bailout bill, but no way will that make me vote against a democrat.

Look at the big picture.

[justme]

Let me try again,

To everyone who is on a tear about “voting against the incumbents”, please stop for a moment and think about what that really means:

1. you will be voting for the Republicans to take over congress.

2. you will be voting against Obama for president if you vote “independent”

Just do the math. Since the Democrats have a majority among the incumbents, you are in effect voting Republican. Is that really what you want to do?

One thing is to vote against the incumbents in a PRIMARY (nominational) election, but it is something different to vote against the incumbents in the GENERAL (real) election.

[justme]

Let me try again,

To everyone who is on a tear about “voting against the incumbents”, please stop for a moment and think about what that really means:

1. you will be voting for the Republicans to take over congress.

2. you will be voting against Obama for president if you vote “independent”

Just do the math. Since the Democrats have a majority among the incumbents, you are in effect voting Republican. Is that really what you want to do?

One thing is to vote against the incumbents in a PRIMARY (nominational) election, but it is something different to vote against the incumbents in the GENERAL (real) election.

[justme]

Let me try again,

To everyone who is on a tear about “voting against the incumbents”, please stop for a moment and think about what that really means:

1. you will be voting for the Republicans to take over congress.

2. you will be voting against Obama for president if you vote “independent”

Just do the math. Since the Democrats have a majority among the incumbents, you are in effect voting Republican. Is that really what you want to do?

One thing is to vote against the incumbents in a PRIMARY (nominational) election, but it is something different to vote against the incumbents in the GENERAL (real) election.

[justme]

Let me try again,

To everyone who is on a tear about “voting against the incumbents”, please stop for a moment and think about what that really means:

1. you will be voting for the Republicans to take over congress.

2. you will be voting against Obama for president if you vote “independent”

Just do the math. Since the Democrats have a majority among the incumbents, you are in effect voting Republican. Is that really what you want to do?

One thing is to vote against the incumbents in a PRIMARY (nominational) election, but it is something different to vote against the incumbents in the GENERAL (real) election.

[Author]

Posts