I agree - "rights" has become an overused and abused term.  By both sides.  It is a shame, but unfortunately most of the electorate do not understand this, and so they are about to lose many of them.

Because those opposed to the war imply that American lives matter, but no other lives do.  And you are right - we did not spend a trillion invading chicago - just trillions trying to clean it up (and counting).

Do you want to retract that statement before being made a fool of?  Perhaps you meant "First world country", in which case you are just displaying a snobbish contempt for the other 3/4 of the world's population.

Oh, you are poor?  All your neighbors, friends and relatives are destitute?  Wow.  Did you really lose everything with bad investments, stupid decisions, and irresponsible living?  I can see why you want a nanny to take care of you then.  Would a 6 o'clock pacifier be ok with you?  DO you need your soiled diapers changed?

A reflection of the MSM and their propaganda, a lackof understanding on what America is, and lack of information on what is going on.  I am glad you posted that.  It refutes all the rhetoric that we hear daily about how the rest of the world is so much more informed about America.  They are not.  They are just as ignorant (perhaps more so) than Americans.  They just dont know enough to know they are ignorant.

No, but it does demonstrate you dont know your history.  YOu jump to an erroneous conclusion based in part on ignorance I am sure, and a failure to understand the point being made.  And a prejudicial hate of probably one of only  presidents you have ever lived under.  For you, the sad part is going to be growing up and realizing how immature and foolish your rantings are, especially when you look at the early 21st century as "the good old days".  Lack of freedom tends to do that to people.

IN answer to the previous question about why only American lives count, I think this poster just made the statement of why. Either that, or he loves Brutal and deadly dictators.

Some people can lie convincingly.  Others are bad at it, just like you.  I doubt you are over 30, or you would know that Nixon ended the war that Kennedy and Johnson started.  But then from your rantings, you seem to have a lot of hate, and no real facts.  Carter, 30 years later, is still regarded by many historians, as one of the worst presidents of the 20th century.  History has a way of removing the firery rhetoric of the day and replacing it with calm analysis and reasoning.  And Carter still fails.

Um, no we did not.  Why do you spout talking points instead of facts?  Truth:  The soviets were the power behind Saddam.  The US gave him nothing except intel during the Iraq-Iran war. And then not a lot.  DO you even think before repeating talking points?

edited....hehe, I going to reply in a sec

The real difference here is not whether you think Bush is wrong or right or whether you think McCain is going to cut your taxes more than Obama, or if Obama is better suited to correct our world image.  The foundation of our convictions come from a belief of what role do you want government to play in your life.  It goes back to Locke and Hobbs and their theories of what government should do what it does and how we should react to it.  Hobbes believed that the state of nature is chaotic, and in it life is “nasty, brutish, and short.” In a state of nature, everyone is afraid of everyone else and people are very uncooperative in communal efforts. He believed that the state of nature is so crazy because human nature is to be greedy, selfish, and vain. Hobbes thought men are motivated toward war out of competition and mistrust of other people, but at the same time, desire peace and hope for safety.  The reason we want to leave this state of nature, Hobbes would say, is out of a fear of a violent death and a desire for security. Once we leave the state of nature, the only way to ensure security is to give lots of power to a sovereign. This sovereign keeps things peaceful by making people too afraid of repercussions of disrupting the peace to start any conflicts, and not only by a physical threat but by guilt and self pity.  It shows by the having the need to have the government manage and guide the people.

John Locke is much more optimistic about people than Hobbes. Locke saw the state of nature as cooperative, and saw people as interested in their own needs, but were not necessarily as war-driven as Hobbes thought. People banded together to get rid of “degenerates” and were able to mostly keep their own peace. Thus, Locke’s reasoning of why we leave the state of nature is based more around the lack of politics rather than a lack of security.  Locke thought everyone needed to form a society together where there is a system of checks and balances. The main problem in the state of nature, Locke would say, is that there aren’t any impartial judges and there’s no clear interpretation of law. Creating a society solves these problems. He also felt that the people should elect a series of representatives to keep things in order, not place all the power in the hands of one.

http://jim.com/hobbes.htm

Which side are you on?

this one shows the problem....Nixon's War.....you've got no idea what you're talking about..............Kennedy got us into Vietnam, Johnson screwed the pooch and Nixon got us out........but that needs a rewrite so the liberal left can take the moral high ground

Or maybe, Dr Guy...we actually CAN see the forest for the trees.

Much of 'the rest of the world' sees America as just as much of a threat to global peace as the USSR [was].

Might is NOT right....but it DOES throttle any argument to the contrary.

Never presume YOUR sabre-rattling is God's right...or any other form of 'right'

It isn't...and never was.

I never said healthcare is a right, I said you have the right to healthcare. Healthcare is not denied to anyone in this country. They ususally send you the bill later. But we are not talking about major, $300,000, operations here so don't confuse one thing with another. You have the right to healthcare, what you should nto expect s for someone else to pay for it, that is just plain wrong, unless you are handi-cap.

A wetback is anyone who swims across the Rio Grande river to gain illegal access to our country. In the process of swimming the river ones back gets wet. Any one coming across the boarder is known as a wetback. Granted, most swimmers are Mexicans but let's keep in mind Mexican is not a race. Mexicans come from Mexico. Mexican is a nationality. If I said I hated Englishmen would I be a racist? There are many legit Mexican/Americans in this country, since I live in the South West a lot of them are my friends and co workers. They use the 'word' as much as anyone. It is a word directed at criminals, pure and simple.  

I will not be intimidated. I will not go. Live with it.

OK you only have four more days to figure this out and then we’ll need a decision so speed it up a little. Maybe this will help.

I think I’m starting to change my mind, maybe Obama would be good for our country! OK before you conservatives start jumping me think about this.

First the man is totally slick. The laws concerning donations were nothing for him to get around, prepaid credit cards and anyone could donate just as much as they wanted. i.e. foreign nationals, unions, corporations, etc. Hell his peeps say out of the hundred and fifty million they got a hundred million that way.

Second the man is totally connected. It seems he is friends with just about all the unsavory characters out there and if he’s friends with them and our leader then aren’t we their friends as well? Maybe they’ll start focusing their energy on other countries and our problems will be over.

One last thing I want to point out is how good he is at spending the big bucks. I have little doubt about him spending it all before Tuesday, now if you can spend like that then it should take no time for the economy to turn around. Everyone knows that spending is good for the economy, right?

So you see if you just look at it in the right light it’s all good.

I’m DPCloud and I approved this message.

Shatter your leg and try to get it set in the ER.  It's only stabilized there and then you are sent to an orthopedist.  Believe me, you won't get it worked on if you can't pay up front.  There were recent articles in the St. Petersburg times about a 16 year old boy who's family had no insurance and the boy was turn away.  His leg healed eventually of course but in such a way that he is now partially crippled.  This should never happen in a first world country.

Lest we forget too, campaign promises are just that.  Part intension and a lot of bullshit.  No president can get everything done that they promise.  Right or left both sides have merit and both sides are problematic.  Vote to you conscience.  That being said, I am deeply afraid of the possiblity of Sarah Palin becoming President for what ever reason.  IMHO

Obama is going to fix the health care system, just like Clinton did.

I have Native American family who would claim Caucasians gained access to their (our) country illegally, and that means the majority of us who live in this country are criminals, pure and simple.

Spoken like a true wetback!  

That's a road with lots of potholes, I'm afraid, since those we commonly refer to as Native Americans weren't the first Americans.  They just happened to be the ones resident when the Europeans arrived.  The notion of first is problematic itself.

I did not assume or presume anything.  YOu just assumed I must be dissing non-americans.  I was not, just pointing out that they are people just like americans and really dont know much outside their own borders.  I made no statement about global peace or might is right.  You just assumed those things.  And of course assumed that the perception (note the word please) must be the reality.  It is not and actually rarely is.

You only see the trees.  Just as most Americans do.  But in seeing the trees, you have no comprehension of the forest, so you dont see you are not seeing the forest.

A cynical way of looking at it, but not off the mark.