President Bush Booed At Baseball Game

[BITTAPART2]

Im not sure what else one could do to earn respect than get elected to the highest office in our country.

got a point there, you cant chose your parents!





the guy was born into the presidency like a prince, hes an idiot, I have no respect for him, I have anomosity towards him and I want him GONE, he can go live in Saudi Arabia with his buddies and have naked crude oil wrestling contests.

[Prada]

In the spirit of being booed. He gets no respect either.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Ashcro...E%5D_0404.html

[kfrost06]

It boggles my mind how liberals can function with so much hate and anomosity. Do you guys wake up angry everyday? Do you feel it necessary to spread your hate in everything you say and do. I am sure glad I don't waste my life being so angry, cheer up it will do you wonders!

[SMCengineer]

^^how does that have to do with being liberal or conservative?

[RA]

So your saying we shouldnt show some respect to the President whether they be Rep, Dem, or Ind?

Like I said, I wouldnt have booed Clinton either.

True, but just because you disagree with what someone is saying doesn't make them an idiot either.

[RA]

Well in general liberals have no respect for any kind of tradition, like the couple things I mentioned, and he has a point-every lib I know is terribly unhappy and usually full of hate.

^^how does that have to do with being liberal or conservative?

[SMCengineer]

So your saying we shouldnt show some respect to the President whether they be Rep, Dem, or Ind?

Like I said, I wouldnt have booed Clinton either.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that whether you think the president deserves respect or not is subjective not absolute and obviously those people in the stands didn't think that he deserved it. If people want to voice their dissent, for whatever reason, they should and they're not idiots because of it. In fact, they're most likely doing because of their love for the country, first and foremost, and they feel that the president is doing something they don't approve of. I, personally, have a much greater respect for my country than I do for the politicians who run it.

Like I said, if it was Clinton I would have booed. Especially if it was Hillary. How can you respect someone that wants to do what's she has planned to this country?

[Amorphic]

Well in general liberals have no respect for any kind of tradition, like the couple things I mentioned, and he has a point-every lib I know is terribly unhappy and usually full of hate.

a lot of 'traditions' are out dated and irrelevant in modern times.

i'm a pretty happy liberal, then again, I live in Canada

[RA]

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that whether you think the president deserves respect or not is subjective not absolute and obviously those people in the stands didn't think that he deserved it. If people want to voice their dissent for whatever reason they should and they're not idiots because of it. In fact, they're most likely doing because of their love for the country first and foremost and they feel that the president they think he should. I, personally, have a much greater respect for my country than I do for the politicians who run it.

Like I said, if it was Clinton I would have booed. Especially if it was Hillary. How can you respect someone that wants to do what's she has planned to this country?

If she was elected president theres no way I would boo her..but I was talking about Bill

a lot of 'traditions' are out dated and irrelevant in modern times.

i'm a pretty happy liberal, then again, I live in Canada

#1 Typical lib response. Is there anything a liberal will show respect to? Other than the sierra club..

#2 Ill have to take your word for it..since I only know you on here..

[BgMc31]

So your saying we shouldnt show some respect to the President whether they be Rep, Dem, or Ind?

Like I said, I wouldnt have booed Clinton either.

Maybe we should, maybe we shouldn't. But it doesn't make someone an idiot for not showing him respect.

And Kfrost, expressing displeasure in an elected figure publicly isn't a liberal trait but a human trait. Being 34yrs old, I expressly remember some serious anger expressed at President Clinton during his tenure. Stop being a hyprocrite!

[BITTAPART2]

Well in general liberals have no respect for any kind of tradition, like the couple things I mentioned, and he has a point-every lib I know is terribly unhappy and usually full of hate.

and conservatives always generalize and bunch things together to make it easier to understand things in their own conservative world of illusion. Hate to me is war and greed that involves ruining other peoples lives, that i think is the outrage. you can only push someone so far b4 they push back

[BgMc31]

#1 Typical lib response. Is there anything a liberal will show respect to? Other than the sierra club..

There is plenty that liberals show respect to. And there are many traditions libs hold dear in this country. Its the perception of those traditions that we differ on. Libs hold the separation of Church and State dear. Libs hold the freedom of religion dear (not just freedom for Christians like conservatives). Freedom of speech (even if its hate filled or Anti-American). The list goes on and on. So don't try to paint with such a broad stroke.

[BgMc31]

Oh and if I recall correctly there are n awfully large number of conservatives, republicans, and independents who aren't happy with Bush either. I guarantee it wasn't just liberal and Democrats booing him.

[SMCengineer]

Oh and if I recall correctly there are n awfully large number of conservatives, republicans, and independents who aren't happy with Bush either. I guarantee it wasn't just liberal and Democrats booing him.

That's correct.

[Prada]

a lot of 'traditions' are out dated and irrelevant in modern times.

i'm a pretty happy liberal, then again, I live in Canada

Liberal party of Canada or just a happy liberal?

[Amorphic]

Liberal party of Canada or just a happy liberal?

the liberal party is in shambles, Dion's leadership is laughable.

i cant really say i support any political parties in Canada, if it was up to me i would abolish the whole parliament system.

why the hell should my tax dollars pay for a government that is useless in a minority setting? why should these "traditional" parliamentary roles such as 'speaker of the house' etc even exist?

to me the wastefulness and uselessness of a parlimentary system is absolutely nausiating.

canada may be a progressive society (in tolerance, racial relations etc) but we are in the stone ages when it comes to having a government that can actually DO SOMETHING.

[tadpoleboyy]

i think Bush and his awful speeches are very insulting to anyone who is educated to some degree. I dont think it matters if you are lib. or conservative. He is the president, and he should, at very least, know how to compose and present a intelligent speech. Ok- other people write most of them, which is probably why he falters when it comes to answering questions. The things he says are insulting to any intelligent person that he represents. Theres are a lot of people besides liberals that hate him, namely, the rest of the world. Should we show respect to Fidel Castro just because he is(was) in control of Cuba?

[Prada]

the liberal party is in shambles, Dion's leadership is laughable.

i cant really say i support any political parties in Canada, if it was up to me i would abolish the whole parliament system.

why the hell should my tax dollars pay for a government that is useless in a minority setting? why should these "traditional" parliamentary roles such as 'speaker of the house' etc even exist?

to me the wastefulness and uselessness of a parlimentary system is absolutely nausiating.

canada may be a progressive society (in tolerance, racial relations etc) but we are in the stone ages when it comes to having a government that can actually DO SOMETHING.

Yup the liberal party is totally lost. Someone will just replace Dion eventually.

[RA]

There is plenty that liberals show respect to. And there are many traditions libs hold dear in this country. Its the perception of those traditions that we differ on. Libs hold the separation of Church and State dear. Libs hold the freedom of religion dear (not just freedom for Christians like conservatives). Freedom of speech (even if its hate filled or Anti-American). The list goes on and on. So don't try to paint with such a broad stroke.

#1 Libs have twisted the separation of church and state to fit their agenda.

#2 Freedom of speech is certainly not respected by the left in the form of campaign finance reform and the "fairness docterine"..You mean freedom of lib speech.

I paint a broad stroke because it fits brother.

[RA]

Im not sure if anyone told you but Castro wasnt democratically elected...at least in the sense that you and I know it.

i think Bush and his awful speeches are very insulting to anyone who is educated to some degree. I dont think it matters if you are lib. or conservative. He is the president, and he should, at very least, know how to compose and present a intelligent speech. Ok- other people write most of them, which is probably why he falters when it comes to answering questions. The things he says are insulting to any intelligent person that he represents. Theres are a lot of people besides liberals that hate him, namely, the rest of the world. Should we show respect to Fidel Castro just because he is(was) in control of Cuba?

[BITTAPART2]

booooo boooo boooooo

the guys an idiot, please nobody stand up for the dumbest man EVER in office.
have you heard his speeches? the guy has no clue, what other president has books published called "bushisms" with allm the made up words he says.

[tadpoleboyy]

Im not sure if anyone told you but Castro wasnt democratically elected...at least in the sense that you and I know it.

The United states is not a democracy, it is a form of republic. Our president is not actually voted into office democratically either, as the electoral college shows. The majority of the population could vote for a candidate and still not have him elected if the electoral college chooses to vote the other way. Remember that next time someone says that every vote counts.

[NATE0406]

The United states is not a democracy, it is a form of republic. Our president is not actually voted into office democratically either, as the electoral college shows. The majority of the population could vote for a candidate and still not have him elected if the electoral college chooses to vote the other way. Remember that next time someone says that every vote counts.

so true.

[Tock]

It boggles my mind how liberals can function with so much hate and anomosity.

Huh . . . you've never been to a Republican Party convention, have you?
The hatred toward Bill Clinton here in Texas in the 1992 and 1996 elections was impressive . . . Lots of his campaign signs were torn down or defaced with the words "Draft Dodger." Bush's campaign signs did not suffer the same problem -- at least, not here in Texas.

[Tock]

#1 Libs have twisted the separation of church and state to fit their agenda.

Not "twisted." Just enforced.
Liberals don't think that tax money should be used to indoctrinate public school children in the ways of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. What's so bad about that?

#2 Freedom of speech is certainly not respected by the left in the form of campaign finance reform and the "fairness docterine"..You mean freedom of lib speech.

What's so terrible about the FCC Fairness Doctrine? All it does is make the publicly owned airwaves available to responsible parties representing opposing points of view on controversial topics.

Rush Lim-baugh and all the other caustic-tongued right-wing talk radio jockeys don't like this sort of thing, because it means that when they say something incredibly stupid on an important topic, then the broadcaster has to make free time available to an opposing point of view. That costs them advertising $$$ time, too.

Since right-wingnuts monopolize talk radio, and they don't want to share their air-time with knowledgable liberal spokesmen, they're the ones harping against the FCC Fairness Doctrine. Well, screw 'em. They're the biggest supporters of the Bush Crime Family and the Iraq War. They're the ringleaders of the dumbest people in the USA.
Screw 'em all.
The airwaves are PUBLIC PROPERTY and do not belong to US Corporations. The airwaves belong to AMERICANS, and as such, Americans deserve to hear opposing views on important topics of public interest.

[SMCengineer]

What's so terrible about the FCC Fairness Doctrine? All it does is make the publicly owned airwaves available to responsible parties representing opposing points of view on controversial topics.

Rush Lim-baugh and all the other caustic-tongued right-wing talk radio jockeys don't like this sort of thing, because it means that when they say something incredibly stupid on an important topic, then the broadcaster has to make free time available to an opposing point of view. That costs them advertising $$$ time, too.

Since right-wingnuts monopolize talk radio, and they don't want to share their air-time with knowledgable liberal spokesmen, they're the ones harping against the FCC Fairness Doctrine. Well, screw 'em. They're the biggest supporters of the Bush Crime Family and the Iraq War. They're the ringleaders of the dumbest people in the USA.
Screw 'em all.
The airwaves are PUBLIC PROPERTY and do not belong to US Corporations. The airwaves belong to AMERICANS, and as such, Americans deserve to hear opposing views on important topics of public interest.

While this "sounds" good, it logically and economically doesn't work. Even though the airwaves are public, it's still a business to run a radio station and the owners are in it to make a profit. Consequently, the cost of possible legal fees and loss of advertising leads to self-censorship of controversial subjects. How is that not suppressing freedom of speech? or Do you think limiting freedom of speech is justified when it's suppressing the opposition? Don't be fooled, in the past, the "fairness doctrine" has been used by both the left and the right to silence political opponents.

[RA]

Arguing semantics..off topic

The United states is not a democracy, it is a form of republic. Our president is not actually voted into office democratically either, as the electoral college shows. The majority of the population could vote for a candidate and still not have him elected if the electoral college chooses to vote the other way. Remember that next time someone says that every vote counts.

[RA]

Not "twisted." Just enforced.
Liberals don't think that tax money should be used to indoctrinate public school children in the ways of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. What's so bad about that?







What's so terrible about the FCC Fairness Doctrine? All it does is make the publicly owned airwaves available to responsible parties representing opposing points of view on controversial topics.

Rush Lim-baugh and all the other caustic-tongued right-wing talk radio jockeys don't like this sort of thing, because it means that when they say something incredibly stupid on an important topic, then the broadcaster has to make free time available to an opposing point of view. That costs them advertising $$$ time, too.

Since right-wingnuts monopolize talk radio, and they don't want to share their air-time with knowledgable liberal spokesmen, they're the ones harping against the FCC Fairness Doctrine. Well, screw 'em. They're the biggest supporters of the Bush Crime Family and the Iraq War. They're the ringleaders of the dumbest people in the USA.
Screw 'em all.
The airwaves are PUBLIC PROPERTY and do not belong to US Corporations. The airwaves belong to AMERICANS, and as such, Americans deserve to hear opposing views on important topics of public interest.

First the separation of church and state was meant to keep govt out of church business, not the other way around as the left would have you think.

And second, libs hate it that conservatives are winning the war when it comes to talk radio and they are attempting to silence conservatives with this pile of crap "fairness docterine" Its only fair to them because no one in their right mind wants to listen to a lib spewing his/her hate on the radio. So dont give me this "they need alternate viewpoints" Theyve tried libs on the radio....theyre ratings are in the toilet!



..anyway, I guess this is off topic too.

[BITTAPART2]

First the separation of church and state was meant to keep govt out of church business, not the other way around as the left would have you think.

And second, libs hate it that conservatives are winning the war when it comes to talk radio and they are attempting to silence conservatives with this pile of crap "fairness docterine" Its only fair to them because no one in their right mind wants to listen to a lib spewing his/her hate on the radio. So dont give me this "they need alternate viewpoints" Theyve tried libs on the radio....theyre ratings are in the toilet!



..anyway, I guess this is off topic too.

can anyone say Rush Limbaugh? talk about spewing hate, ann coulter anyone? so shock jocks like limbaugh with riiculous opinions expressed as fact are now teaching people things? oh god thats a scary thought, they are all about beating the system not playing by the rules of the system.

[RA]

Beating the system? Hes got the highest rated show on radio. There isnt any system to beat...

And dont claim that he spews hate unless youve actually listened. Because if you did you would realize he doesnt do that at all.....

can anyone say Rush Limbaugh? talk about spewing hate, ann coulter anyone? so shock jocks like limbaugh with riiculous opinions expressed as fact are now teaching people things? oh god thats a scary thought, they are all about beating the system not playing by the rules of the system.

[kfrost06]

Beating the system? Hes got the highest rated show on radio. There isnt any system to beat...

And dont claim that he spews hate unless youve actually listened. Because if you did you would realize he doesnt do that at all.....

He(Rush) is actually very entertaining and funny. The left tried to imitate his show but with a liberal biased instead of the right biased and it failed miserably. If you ever had the displeasure of listening to it(Al Franken, et al) it was pure hate. They would spew venom and end up yelling about revolution and how much they hate this country and everything it stands for. I think if they did something more along the lines of John Steward it would be much more successful. I like listening to both sides but you take away the humor and fill it with hate you're just not going to get much of an audience.

[tadpoleboyy]

i dont associate with any party, but i think think Bush is a poor choice to represent this country. Im happy people voiced their displeasure. People follow politicians too much, and eat up what they say. You all should be very suspicious of anything they say, especially any facts, data and statistics is easily manipulated. Even though Bush sucks, its dumb to really say this and that about him sucking, because there is a lot more than one man pulling the strings, and usually it boils down to money and power (oil). He is from a wealthy powerful family. I would love to see a president in todays world get elected that has come all the way from poverty (or even simple middle class). Of course that will never happen.

[BgMc31]

First the separation of church and state was meant to keep govt out of church business, not the other way around as the left would have you think.

And second, libs hate it that conservatives are winning the war when it comes to talk radio and they are attempting to silence conservatives with this pile of crap "fairness docterine" Its only fair to them because no one in their right mind wants to listen to a lib spewing his/her hate on the radio. So dont give me this "they need alternate viewpoints" Theyve tried libs on the radio....theyre ratings are in the toilet!



..anyway, I guess this is off topic too.

In regards to your 1st point, just for clarification, are you saying its ok for the church to get involved in govt business but govt can't get involved in church business? What kind of ass backward thinking is that?

I do listen to both Hannity and Rush, as well as Heidi Harris (all conservatives) and they all spew a bit of hatred themselves. But not nearly as much hatred as Mark Levin and 'the Savage Nation'. If you conservatives are going to villify some liberal for spewing hate, there are many more conservatives talk shows spewing hatred than any liberal on Radio or TV.

But Blome is correct both sides are guilty of trying to silence opposing views.

But I guess this is a bit off topic. I'm still trying to figure out how booing the president makes you an idiot...

[RA]

In regards to your 1st point, just for clarification, are you saying its ok for the church to get involved in govt business but govt can't get involved in church business? What kind of ass backward thinking is that?

I do listen to both Hannity and Rush, as well as Heidi Harris (all conservatives) and they all spew a bit of hatred themselves. But not nearly as much hatred as Mark Levin and 'the Savage Nation'. If you conservatives are going to villify some liberal for spewing hate, there are many more conservatives talk shows spewing hatred than any liberal on Radio or TV.

But Blome is correct both sides are guilty of trying to silence opposing views.

But I guess this is a bit off topic. I'm still trying to figure out how booing the president makes you an idiot...

#1 Prayer in school etc.

#2 I would agree on Levin and Savage..not on Rush.

#3 I dont see any conservatives trying to silence libs. Please point that one out.

#4 Hes the elected President of the US. He should be shown some respect. Like I said before, to a lib its probably like Im speaking greek.

[juicy_brucy]

Respect is earned.

Agreed. President or not, Respect is earned...

[BITTAPART2]

listen to a republican debate and then a democratic one....how many more issues were talked about in the democratic one? seriously check youtube out and watcht the debates, i have. Dems talk about soo many more issues that are relevant to americans than republicans do. not just iraq this and no taxes that. its things we are missing that we used tom have like education and health care reform and poverty and feeding our children etc.

and as far as the conservatives owning the air waves....why is it then when I tell people I saw this or that on the news and it happens to be negative things about conservatives or peoples actions within their party, do you say that the media is leberal? whatever suits you at the time I guess. make the rules up as we go along.

[kfrost06]

listen to a republican debate and then a democratic one....how many more issues were talked about in the democratic one? seriously check youtube out and watcht the debates, i have. Dems talk about soo many more issues that are relevant to americans than republicans do. not just iraq this and no taxes that. its things we are missing that we used tom have like education and health care reform and poverty and feeding our children etc.

Feeding our children?

we need to stop feeding our children, have you seen those fat pigs

Thats the funny thing, you listen to the democrats and they'll have you believe that our children are actually starving and we need more government to feed them, pathetic that people are gullible enough to believe that stuff

[RA]

Yes, and every time a Democrat talks my wallet cries. Ever lib candidate has the santa claus syndrome. Guess what bro, we have to pay for all that shit! In Mass they have healthcare for everyone and guess what? It takes over a year if you want to just get a physical. Its been proven that more money isnt the solution for education its the unions but you wont have any democrat touch the teachers unions. You want me to keep going? They give good lip service to issues but the only change they would make is from good to bad.


Im not sure what your second paragraph is trying to say. We were talking specifically about radio. You want to discuss tv?

listen to a republican debate and then a democratic one....how many more issues were talked about in the democratic one? seriously check youtube out and watcht the debates, i have. Dems talk about soo many more issues that are relevant to americans than republicans do. not just iraq this and no taxes that. its things we are missing that we used tom have like education and health care reform and poverty and feeding our children etc.

and as far as the conservatives owning the air waves....why is it then when I tell people I saw this or that on the news and it happens to be negative things about conservatives or peoples actions within their party, do you say that the media is leberal? whatever suits you at the time I guess. make the rules up as we go along.

[Tock]

While this "sounds" good, it logically and economically doesn't work. Even though the airwaves are public, it's still a business to run a radio station and the owners are in it to make a profit. Consequently, the cost of possible legal fees and loss of advertising leads to self-censorship of controversial subjects. How is that not suppressing freedom of speech? or Do you think limiting freedom of speech is justified when it's suppressing the opposition? Don't be fooled, in the past, the "fairness doctrine" has been used by both the left and the right to silence political opponents.

Most AM, FM, and TV stations are businesses. If the owners of the business can decide to have a controversial fire-brand doing a talk show and espousing radical views on hot topics, then the owners can budget time for opposing views. They can raise their advertising fees however they like to pay for any $$$ they lose; but chances are, they won't lose much, if any at all.
Talk shows run a couple minutes of ads, then a program segment, then some more ads. They could just as easily run an opposing viewpoint between those ads, and the talk show host could use the time to go take a leak.
The ads still run, the station owners get their $$$, the talk show host gets a break, the listeners hear more than one side to an issue, and everybody is happy, except for the folks who don't want the general public to know anything other than what they tell them over the air.
And yes, this applies to both conservative and liberal offenders.

I don't see what the problem is.

[Tock]

First the separation of church and state was meant to keep govt out of church business, not the other way around as the left would have you think.

I heartily disagree.

Inquisitions began way back in the late 1200's, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition and operated by a church-state co-operative process:

1) Someone would be accused of heresy
2) the church would investigate, and when they were found guilty,
3) they would be turned over to the state for punishment.

Convicted heretics had their assets confiscated and divided between both church and state, which also encouraged the tribunals to find the offender guilty. Heretics could (and frequently were) condemned to die.




Witch hunts were not rare in Europe, and in the 1690's Massachusetts had the famous Salem Witch Trials (for a good laugh, check out Rev. Cotton Mather's "authoritative" comments on witches at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/mo...c/Bur4Nar.html ). That sort of madness didn't subside in America until the Massachusetts Governor issued a decree that prohibited "spectral evidence" from court trials.

When the US Constitution was written in 1787, the authors were well aware of what could happen when the secular government joined forces with the church. They were painfully aware of the European witch-trials of the 1600's and 1700's. They were aware of the historical abuse of a church & state combination that robbed many innocent victims of the Inquisition of their lives and property. So, they wrote an important safeguard to to this age-old problem of Christians turning government into a tool for acheiving its goals:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

This part of the US Constitution came in handy for Brandi Blackbear, a student suspended for 15 days from a Tulsa, Oklahoma school for "hexing" a schoolteacher in 1999. (http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools...s20001026.html ),


BTW, the Inquisition is still active under a different name (In 1908 the name of the Congregation was changed to "The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office", which in 1965 was further changed to "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith",) and was recently headed up by the current Pope RatZinger. Were it not for modern laws prohibiting burning witches and heretics (heretics, blasphemers, and witches all must die, according to the Bible, BTW), Christians would still be enforcing their "Turn or Burn" mandate.

So, the US Constitution is meant to keep both the secular government out of the church's business, AND to keep the church out of the secular government's business.



================-
Incidentally, the US Constitution provides other rights to Americans because of the way the Church conducted its "trials."

When a suspected heretic was taken away to jail, they were not told what offense they had committed. Instead, they were simply told to "Confess!" They usually volunteered a long list of minor infractions, which a scribe made note of for later punishment, until they finally confessed to whatever they had been accused of. Along the way, they were subjected to increasingly uncomfortable forms of torture, including "waterboarding."

Because of the abuse from those Christian "trials," we Americans now must be told why we are arrested.

Just a bit of trivia . . .

======================

And second, libs hate it that conservatives are winning the war when it comes to talk radio . . . Theyve tried libs on the radio....theyre ratings are in the toilet!

That's because liberals don't like to listen to narrow-minded nonsense (I can't listen to Air America for more than a short while). Also, liberals are prosperous enough to be able to afford televisions and FM radios and Ipods and computers, so we are not limited to cheap AM radios like y'all are . . .