Not surprisingly that was not what anyone "here" wanted to hear, hence the vitriol in the responses that I have received notwithstanding how open minded and unbiased everyone "here" claims to be.

I'm sure all of Maddows's 26 viewers appreciate your post.

show it.

What would you expect when you compare apples and oranges. I believe the differences between the two events were pointed out. Second if the author referenced Hanity or some conservative opinion show, your video might have been warranted (if not for the flawed comparisons). You just wanted to stir the pot, I believe everyone here knows that.

I beleive he stated as much (slumming).  That is why I do not take him seriously, or factually.  Neither of them are capable of critical thought, just talking point rhetoric.

In posting that video, Mumblefratz, all you have done is shown that both sides are being hypocrites to which I agree.  I haven't seen you state in this forum that you also see the left being hypocrites as well.  Heck I remember the left screaming bloody murder about Bush because he continued to read from the book he was reading to a group of school children on 9/11 after being told about the plane crashes. 

Maybe it's just me but it seems to me that you are more interested in defending Democrats rather than admitting that really both parties have a bunch of hypocrites in them.  Am I right?

RE: On the matter of MF's "open-mindedness."

MF, like anyone else, has his/her share of bias, partisanry, and so on - he's human. (Welcome to the club man! \s) I did not intend to imply that MF is the be all and end all of open mindedness; no one can be, because bias is a fact of life.

Unfortunately, both due to my lack of detail on my original comment, and, I would venture to say, some folk's bias and "openmindedness," my comments were taken/understood contrary to what I meant.

My point, simply, is that MF has shown in what little I've seen here, to be more openminded than others. Again, I am not saying he/she is "the most openminded man in the world!!!" as a few have taken it. I guess in some ways it wasn't hard to not be more openminded, but then again - this is just my opinion.

~AJ

What if - hypothetically - there is a problem in the US ( ) and all options have been laid out. That said, with all the options looked at, and option A is found to be the best one - would you then reject it as a matter of ideology - versus accepting it because it will indeed solve the problem we face, if it had elements of socialilsm, or was totally socialistic.

Abstractly/hypothetically: I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but it's bugging me so I'm going to get it out. Purely based on hypotheticals, abstract, and wide, open thinking - lets look at the concept of socialism.

Is it only the concept of socialism that is bad, or more so the government's implimentation of it? We are mixed economy, which has socialism in it (fact). History has shown that when the government manages things well (oxymoron right?), things work. It's when government gets corrupt - that problems happen. (We saw it in the USSR with their attempts at communism; we saw it with various other events) Again, history has shown that pure socialism cannot work due to human nature.

Purely in a hypothetical world - where socialism would work - would you support it? What I'm getting at is looking at whether you are an individual who is soley an idealogue (i.e. I will only support what I believe is right, my way is the only right way, etc.), or someone who is willing to truly work (i.e. bend) toward the common goal of the management of america. My assumptions are pointing me towards the former.

Me? I'm the type of person who - while I have my principles and areas where I just will not bend - I am more than willing to compromise (give/take) in order to work toward (real) solutions; I'm willing to take a little bit here (conservativism), a little bit there (liberalism), and a dash of this (libertarianism) - if the end goal is something that will work.

I'm not sold on blind ideaology. (I try...)

Isn't one of the basic tenents of conservatism a balanced budget where taxes are low and spending is down - so as to balance the budge and be fiscally responsible? I  believe it is. That said (and I'm not intending to bash him or go with talking points ) - but didn't you support Bush?

As far as I know, Bush spent a lot of money, raised the natl. debt, which totally seems contrary to conservative ideaology.

(And yes, Obama has increased the national debt and so on - but the point is NOT to point fingers, pointing fingers gets us nowhere. I'm trying to look into the principles of the matter.)

~AJ

To be partisan, to me, is to completely and blindly accept your party (or ideaology's) beliefs and not: 1) Think outside the box you live in. 2) Be willing to work together (Not: I want it this way (90% their way) before I accept it - which would lead to the other party's support to bail...etc. Ex: I want a health care reform bill that has reform taken out of it...). The opposite of that, what I believe in - means essentially, that your loyalty and duty is not to idealogy, party politics, re-election, etc. - but to managing the US and doing what it takes to really make it work. Not, work the "republican" or "democrat" way.

I'll finish replying to the other points later; I have to head to bed so I can get up for classes tomorrow.

Nite and take care, ~AldericJourdain

I (big, dark-haired, bearded) always get searched when leaving Tel Aviv, probably because of my broken Hebrew (I don't live in Israel and rarely speak Hebrew in normal life).

I also have a talent for being searched in German airports. But they are trying to avoid searching Muslims and I now start each search with showing them my prayer book. Once they see a foreign-looking prayer book, the search ends. Every time. Weird.

How do Muslims feel in an aircraft when they haven't been searched and EVERYBODY thinks they are potential terrorists?

Yes socialism is bad because there is always someone that doesn't play nice, by the rules. They don't want equality, they want power. When this occurs, the peons have no say and usually no way to force the issue with their elitist overlords. This administration is making you dependent on it in order to survive, or have any semblance of a decent living.  The hypothetical you describe is not possible due to human nature. The only way to keep an alcoholic from getting drunk is to keep him from getting any or at least enough alcohol to succeed. You're optimistic to the point of naivety. Be optimistic, it's a good trait, but keep the whiskey out of the hands of the drunk. It's too late once he's loaded and beating your ass.

Bush lowered taxes. Those cuts will expire this year (the bottom tax rate will increase from 10% to 15%, so much for Obama not taxing the poor). I and many conservatives here, did not support the TARP payments (half of the 700 billion was given to the Obama administration) I believe you do not understand what tax and spend means. It's when money is raised via new taxes to increase the size of government through entitlement programs. Bush did allot of spending when the Democrats gained power in 2006, because they attached earmarks to everything that went before him. Democrats don't mention that now, it's all a revisionist history. Democrats wanted TARP badly (and the first stimulus, remember that one?), now they blame Bush for starting the spending, as they surpass what he spent like it was nothing. Bush was wrong then and the current madness is wrong now.

I supported Bush's foreign policy, the wars. certain education initiatives, including vouchers (look up the program that was removed in DC so kids have to go back to public schools, unlike the Obama children). BTW You might be surprsed to know, I never voted for Bush.

That's politics, and it is effective. We are seeing this administration making identical mistakes (in addition to new ones) to the last administration. Unfortunately shame and embarrassment seem to be the only way to get their attention, because they are not listening to the public.

That depends if they can detonate their bomb or not.

I did - both times.  I recognized Gore for what he was back then (why are all dem VPs such assholes?) and of course would never vote for Kerry because of his lies.  I voted enthusiastically the first time, but grudgingly the second.

Yeah, didn't vote for Gore or Kerry either.