« Are You Prepared to Live to 100? - Part II | Main | Who Hates America? »

Comments

Fewlesh

The greatest star trek like invention we take for granted:

Cell phones.

Instantanious communication to anyone anywhere in the world.

If you look at the adoption rate of the cellphone it was incredible. I think there are more cell phones than any other consumer electronic device, except maybe for TV, but I think it past TV this last year.

My parents just don't grok cellphones though. They never keep them charged, they never bring it with them anywhere. It is almost a waste that they even have it. But they are also pretty backward when it comes to the internet. They come from a book generation. Both of them read a +500 page book a week. If it's not in books, it doesn't really happen for them.

I there are going to be the usual critisms of cellphones, but on the whole, a technology that went from nothing to everywhere before your eyes.

GK

Yes. And the best is yet to come. The Impact of Computing ensures it. Think about the 'rice on a chessboard' concept.

There will be more and more things that appear to go from zero to everywhere in very little time. Robots, wearable computers, HD displays, RFID tags, Smart dust, etc.......

Enigma

I think the historical comparison is very fascinting. Today's poor live much better than ancient kings.

Whenever I hear stories in the media about poverty or health care issues, I can't help but to think that all of Solomon's wealth could not buy for him the most basic items we take for granted today. Not that we shouldn't address such problems today (we should), but I think the historical perspective is something important to always keep in mind.

Kosha

I think the notion of "ignorance is bliss" is very applicable here. Sitting in 2006, it is quite presumable that most of us (though not all) would rather be an average citizen in today's times than a wealthy one in 1920.

Forget all the material conveniences you talk about in this article, but even things like human rights and gender equality (i.e. even as a wealthy woman in 1920 I wouldn't have had the right to vote, which I interpret as a right to have an opinion - a birthright, imo).

Addition this dimension to the question doesn't change my answer, but only makes it clearer. Of course I would rather be an average citizen in 2006 than a wealthy but inconsequential one in 1920.

However, if I had lived in those times, would non-elastic underwear have even occurred to be an inconvenience to me? Would my tastebuds have even craved a chilled coke, when they had never tasted anything like it before?

Likely not. Which is why I think this question, being inherently intertwined with hindsight, isn't an apples to apples comparison.

GK

Kosha,

This is true. Even today, there are countries where women have no rights, and slavery still exists. The comparison here is from citizens at the very top of privilege vs. average people today. Sure, things like elastic and Coca-Cola were not imagined, but demand for these conveniences still existed in terms of 'need', just not in enough detail to envision the product itself.

Leonardo da Vinci envisioned cars and airplanes even back in the 15th century. Of course, the details were off, but the basic principles, and the vision for what these could be used for, were already imagined by him.

That is why the context of the article, and the projection into the future, are important. Consider that by 2030, there will be things that will make the world of 2006 look boring and tedious.

Always note the accelerating nature of progress as well. The changes over the next 25 years will be more than over the last 100 years, which itself were more than the preceding 5000 years.

Kosha

This is true. In other words, I perceive "needs" today that are still ways off - like how to preserve the way I look and feel now (i.e. young) forever.

Or, wishing there could be a way to travel around the world in 10 minutes - as I love to travel but the time expenditure of it makes it hard to realize with working life.

So once again - it confirms that I would rather be an average citizen in an advanced society than a top citizen in a relatively unadvanced society, any day.

Its kind of like the classic "big fish in small pond (limitations) vs. small fish in big pond (opportunity)" debate.

GeneThug

GK - Thanks for the link (I got here from WoC.). In this vein, you may find the Cato report, "25 miraculous trends from the past 100 years" useful. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa364.pdf

Often, people who would like to attack western society, do so on the basis of the idea that "everything is getting worse here" - a very ahistorical view, IMO.

GK

GeneThug,

Thanks for the link. There is plenty to be optimistic about (a notion that leftists are becoming increasingly averse to), as many new innovations to make life more fun, convenient, and productive will soon emerge.

GeneThug

GK,

> a notion that leftists are becoming increasingly averse to

That's certainly been true in my experience. For many Leftist positions to have relevance, things must be getting worse over time (more pollution related illness, a poorer, increasingly exploited population, etc.). If in fact the opposite is true (the Cato report shows a linear decrease in race/gender wage disparity over time, increased purchasing power/longevity, etc.), Leftists do not want to hear about it.

GK

Genethug,

I have an article about how the economy is strong, and the average unemployment rate of Bush's 5 years has been just about the same as it was for Clinton's 8 years. Leftists who insist the economy is bad are inhibiting their own success in this economy, through risk aversion, discouraging themselves from pursuing better jobs, etc.

http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/02/the_us_job_mark.html

seguin

Nice points. Another reason why people shouldn't measure their wealth by what they don't have, but by what they DO have. Count your blessings.

Anthony

Antibiotics.

Calvin Coolidge, not a poor man by any measure, lost a 16-year-old son to an infected blister from playing tennis. A poor person today would have to be quite negligent to suffer the same tragedy.

Linh_My

I think that you miss a point. Having spent a fair amount of time in a more or less 12th century environment during a war, Viet Nam as an American military advisor, I can see that the 12th century has its advantages, especially for the rich and powerful.

Power over people is one of them. Of course it can be almost as destructive to the powerful as to the oppressed.

Society's telling one who they are is also very comforting to many people. Look at the typical American teenager struggling to find identity.

To answer the obvious question, do I want to live in the 12th century? NO! Do I think that it is important to understand that some things about the 12th century can be attractive? Yes, otherwise how can we understand how to fight and defeat those who want to force all of us into that lifestyle.

GK

Linh My,

Well, life expectancy alone is a huge datapoint in favor of modern times vs. the 12th century even for monarchs).

A few top monarchs or warlords in the 12th century had many things that most cannot dream of today, but we are talking about the average people of both eras. The average people today had things that even Genghis Khan, Edward I, or Saladin did not have.

mrsizer

I enjoy laughing at the "simpler times" people. They've obviously never farmed. Subsistence farming is grueling work - I like my fresh fruit in the middle of winter at the local supermarket.

When talking about this sort of thing I tend to use order-of-magnitude by 5s: 5 years ago there was no Internet (as we know it - it existed). 50 years ago there were no Interstates. 500 years ago there was only animal power. 5000 years ago writing was being invented. 50,000 years ago agriculture started.

It's pretty amazing. More people should think about it.

mrsizer

Interesting related post over at the Chicago Boyz.

K T Cat

Terrific post. Allow me to suggest a one word proof that things are better. "Advantage." It's a liquid that when applied to the back of a cat's neck once a month ELIMINATES ALL FLEAS. Glorious! What a wonderful time to be alive!

TP

I happen to be a "leftie" and I find the comments by GK a little counter-intuitive. It is the "righties" who must convince us that the past was soooo much better than now. I mean, gays are "everywhere" and liberals are pushing the Bible out of the school and "forcing" Evolution on our unsuspecting youth. Conservatives are forever crying how things used to be in the "good-old days" before rock and roll and sex and violence on TV.
Yeah, we in this country live better than anyone in the history of the earth, as far as we know, and yet we still find it difficult to provide health care to our neediest children and find a way to stop war. Me, I'll take an end to war over a cell phone any day!

GK

TP,

First off, you assume that just because someone favors low taxes, capitalism, and believes in American exceptionalism, that they must be a White Christian.

It appears you think Bush supporters are 'dumb' and 'rednecks'. Then why are they the majority of all middle-class and high-income people?

This is the typical ignorance of uninformed leftists, who seek to caricature and stereotype those who don't subscribe to their illogical and unpopular ideology.

I'm actually not white, you know. So why is it that my views are not like yours?

As far as 'stopping war', note that war is provoked by AL-Qaeda and their ilk, who are the ones who reject modernity. America, the country that has saved hundreds of millions of lives the world over, is also the country that produces the most new technology.

TP

GK,

I said nothing in my post about whether anyone was "White Christian" or Bush supporters or dumb. It shows where your true feelings come from though. They are based on your own ideas on what other people think and then you project that on everyone. You obviously have some chip on your shoulder because I never said anything about race in my post!
The only thing I spoke about was the conservative tendency to make a caricature out of the recent past and claiming that it was so much better than today based on their false memory. It is this nostalgia that is then used to whip up support for hate. Hatred of the poor, minorities, and those that are different.
You said "For many Leftist positions to have relevance, things must be getting worse over time (more pollution related illness, a poorer, increasingly exploited population, etc.). If in fact the opposite is true (the Cato report shows a linear decrease in race/gender wage disparity over time, increased purchasing power/longevity, etc.), Leftists do not want to hear about it."
First off, the Cato Report is a self-serving think tank funded by like minded conservatives bent on proving whatever point they want to make. Just the thing you accuse "lefties" of. This is common knowledge.
Second, here is a link to the Census bureau's numbers from income disparity. It shows that the lowest 4/5ths of the population saw their income decline over the last five years while income for the top fifth went up around 20%. That's a widening income disparity!
Third, the AVERAGE unemployment was the same between Clinton and Bush only because Clinton inhereted Bush I's high unemployment and drove it lower, hence the average was high. Bush II on the other hand took Clinton's low unemployment and drove it higher every year in office. Not trying to say you are dumb, but... well, statistics can be hard for someone to comprehend.
Fourth, my ideology is hardly unpopular. It calls for an end to the war, which right now makes me in the majority by about, ohh 60% against the war to 40% for it.(http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) Hmmmm...
I also believe in low taxes (we already have some of the lowest tax rates on income in the developed world), capatalism (as long as it is regulated) and American exceptionalism (this is a new term I assume means American greatness). I think Bush supporters are mostly intelligent people who have been misled by their leader. He is not fiscally conservative (he has never vetoed a spending bill and has presided over non-military spending increases that would have made President "Great Society" Johnson blush). If you are so much in favor of this war in Iraq, why don't you give all your money to it and then go sign up and deploy. Put your words into action, tough-guy.
Finally, America has done great things in the past. No doubt we are a great country that I love and want to see become even better, but minimizing my views because they are "uninformed" does nothing to support your ideas, it only makes you seem smaller.

GK

TP,

You spend 20 days preparing your reply and this is the best you could do? No wonder you lose elections so often.

You parroted a spoonfed opinion that conservatives 'don't want sex on TV' and 'don't believe evolution'. A mere look through this blog will show you that this is not what I think. Then again, the logic displayed within would be painful to you.

"Third, the AVERAGE unemployment was the same between Clinton and Bush only because Clinton inhereted Bush I's high unemployment and drove it lower, hence the average was high. Bush II on the other hand took Clinton's low unemployment and drove it higher every year in office. Not trying to say you are dumb, but... well, statistics can be hard for someone to comprehend."

You are the statistically challenged one here (then again, if leftists understood math, they would not be leftists). Bush II inherited a recession from Clinton, as proven by the stock market already having crashed before Clinton leaving office. Plus, Bush has LOWERED unemployment rate in the last several years, to the point that it is jsut 4.6% today, the lowest it has been for 35 of the last 38 years.

This is easily verifiable from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"Fourth, my ideology is hardly unpopular. It calls for an end to the war, which right now makes me in the majority by about, ohh 60% against the war to 40% for it"

Then why did the Senate vote 93-6 to keep troops in Iraq? This includes 37 out of 44 Democrats, including Clinton, Schumer, Obama, etc. voting in favor.

It appears you have been fooled by the Democrats. They know that people like you form opinions based on watching 10 minutes of CNN a day, and they can get your votes by telling you something simple enough for even you to memorize, while voting the opposite way. Sucker!

You may be interested to know that almost all Democrats voted for the Patriot Act too. Well, anyone who is not on Al-Qaeda's side would.

"He is not fiscally conservative (he has never vetoed a spending bill and has presided over non-military spending increases that would have made President "Great Society" Johnson blush)."

So you are criticizing him for not being conservative enough? So who are we to vote for, John Kerry? Or are you just a sufferer of Bush Derangement Syndrome, obsessed with criticizing him, even if it means saying he is not far enough to the right?

"If you are so much in favor of this war in Iraq, why don't you give all your money to it and then go sign up and deploy. Put your words into action, tough-guy."
Apparently you don't know that in the US the military is voluntary (which also explains why leftists hate the military. The military reminds you of everything you are not - strong, honorable, determined, hard-working, and heterosexual). Plus, the military voted 70% for Bush in 2004, precisely because of people like you.

Plus, by your argument, you oppose the War in Afghanistan too. Do you oppose the War in Afghanistan? Is anyone who supports the War in Afghanistan a hypocrite for not signing up for the military.

TP

GK


What are you talking about??!!

I didn't say anything about sex on tv or evolution? Do I need to write using smaller words so as not to confuse you? I will also not resort to personal attacks like you have in both of your responses. I work for the military and do not need to justify my willingness to serve or my strength, resolve, toughness (how bout you, tough guy?) As for the heterosexual thing... Come on, are you really going to stoop to an eight year olds level by calling me gay because I am not a hate spewing Conservative? I am starting to believe you are really just a computer program spewing Republican talking points.

The chart you linked to shows exactly what I stated in my post,so I don't need to address that.

Second, the stock market has little to do with the overall economy. Our economy's strength is based mainly on Consumer spending, not stock market prices. And neither of those things has anything to do with unemployment which was the original point you swiftly moved away from (because you lose there!)
Next, what does the voting on that pathetic partisan political ploy by Senate Republicans have to do with the majority of Americans wanting us out of Iraq (nothing, but it is another shift in the focus - this is a popular shell game by Bush lovers "Don't look at facts...he's a terrorist lover!")
Those who voted for the Patriot Act did so based on lies spouted by Bush and Co. and would no doubt have been different had the truth been told!
Everyone supports the effort in Afghanistan because it went after the people responsible for 9/11!
Look, GK, my only point when I wrote this was to say that YES, THINGS ARE BETTER!! In fact, I think the quality of life in this country is better than any people have enjoyed in the history of the world!! Just like the article states.
I want it to continue to get better. It can get better. It will get better when Republicans are forced out and sensible, strong Democrats are given the chance to straighten this mess out.

GK

TP,

Oh, this is just too easy..

You clearly said on June 16 (just look at your own post) :

" It is the "righties" who must convince us that the past was soooo much better than now. I mean, gays are "everywhere" and liberals are pushing the Bible out of the school and "forcing" Evolution on our unsuspecting youth. "

This shows that you think the 51% of voters who voted for Bush are as you describe above. This makes you an ignorant bigot.

If you knew that I was actually not white, but a person of color, you, as a leftist, might hate me even more....

"The chart you linked to shows exactly what I stated in my post,so I don't need to address that."
So you admit to losing? The chart shows that the average unemployment rate under GWB is the same as under Clinton. You cannot blame Clinton's precessor for leaving him a poor economy, if you will not say the same about GWB's predecessor, Clinton. Try to be intelligent, and not a blind fanatic.

"Second, the stock market has little to do with the overall economy. "
Shows how much you know about economics. Don't Clinton fans like to say how the stock market rose during his time?

Economics 101 : A rising stock market indicates a strong economy, and a drop precedes a recession.

"Next, what does the voting on that pathetic partisan political ploy by Senate Republicans have to do with the majority of Americans wanting us out of Iraq (nothing, but it is another shift in the focus - this is a popular shell game by Bush lovers "Don't look at facts...he's a terrorist lover!")
Those who voted for the Patriot Act did so based on lies spouted by Bush and Co. and would no doubt have been different had the truth been told!"

So almost all Democrats voting to keep troops in Iraq and for the Patriot Act involves Bush tricking them by 'lying' to them? Are they really fooled so easily? Or is it more likely that they know how to get the votes of people like you who learn about politics from the Dixie Chicks and Whoopi Goldberg, while voting in a pro-America manner (after actually reading intelligence reports, unlike you).
Looks like the Democrats have fooled you. Sucker!!

"Everyone supports the effort in Afghanistan because it went after the people responsible for 9/11! "
So why do you say that only people who enlist in the military have the right to support wars? YOU said that, now explain the contradiction.

" It will get better when Republicans are forced out and sensible, strong Democrats are given the chance to straighten this mess out."
But you said they are so easily fooled every time Bush 'lies' to them, again and again. How can they be sensible and strong at the same time?

And you never served in the military. You hate them, not only because the military voted 70% for Bush, but for the other reasons I stated above.

Admit it, you lost, just like in 2000 and 2004. In fact, Democrats have not got 50% of the popular vote since 1964...


GK,

So, now I am an "ignorant bigot"? It is enlightening that you continue to name call in our discussion, but I will again refrain from responding to it. I will simply point out that you have made an issue of being a "person of color" twice now, but you do not know my race or skin color and have made assumptions that make you appear exactly as you accuse me of (that's the projection thing I spoke about before). I think it is wonderful that you were born exactly as you are and are blessed by God! It is also not clear to me how this relates to the quote you posted from me. I said nothing in there about race?

Now, to address your post. I do not "admit to losing", I said you proved my point with the chart you linked to. It shows exactly what I said. During Clinton's time in office the unemployment rate went down continuously. During Bush II's it went up until recently. That's all. If you look at AVERAGES you hide this fact. It makes them look equal when the reality is different. What part of that is not clear?

With a BA in Economics and an MBA, I am not a stranger to Economics. If you read my post, I did not say that the stcok market doesn't indicate a strong market. In fact, the stock market is a great indicator of how the economy is doing. What I said is that it doesn't not DETERMINE the economy. There is a big difference here GK, that I thought was clear. Yes, the stock market soared during Clinton's presidency because he lead the economy so competently. The struggles that we see today in the stock market are a sign of poor leadership. I mean, companies are recording record profits, yet the stock market has just regained the beating it has taken over the last six years. Still, it doesn't explain why, even with continued productivity increases, the average real wage for workers continues to drop? This should worry all of us in the lower 4/5ths of the income range.

"So almost all Democrats voting to keep troops in Iraq and for the Patriot Act involves Bush tricking them by 'lying' to them?" Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.

"Are they really fooled so easily?" Who said it was easy? Bush and Co. worked very hard to manufacture intelligence and twist it to meet Cheney's needs. However, we are starting to see the wheels come off the train now. The truth will come out about everything that was said and done to get us into this mess.

"Or is it more likely that they know how to get the votes of people like you who learn about politics from the Dixie Chicks and Whoopi Goldberg, while voting in a pro-America manner (after actually reading intelligence reports, unlike you).
Looks like the Democrats have fooled you. Sucker!!" This whole section here makes NO sense whatsoever. Maybe what you are trying to say is that the Democrats read these so-called intelligence reports and voted for the war based on these truth and then lied to us later to get our anti-war votes? Okay, well, that would make sense if the intelligence reports had been THE TRUTH, but we know now that they were filled with lies. What part of that do you not understand? No WMD's! No link to Al-Qaeda! If they weren't lies then their stupidity and wrongness were criminal negligence that has costs us over 2,500 American soldiers and untold numbers of deaths of innocent Iraqi's!!

Next, where did I say that only people who enlist in the military have the right to support wars? Is there someone on another board using the initials TP because I said no such thing?

Finally, I serve the military every day. I work for the Army and proudly do so. I stand by our men and women in theater and work hard to support them in every way I can each and every day. I do not "hate the military" as much as your ideology must believe I do and I find it insulting that a person cannot disagree with you here and not be accuse of this. It shows that you suffer from Liberal Derangment Syndrome. I will also point out that of the 38 veterans running for public office this fall, 36 of them are Democrats. How does this fit into your worldview?

Liten, GK, I know that you will come back with another lengthy post and try to refute everything I said here. I expect it. Can we agree on a couple of things? One, we both support our men and women in uniform and want the best for them. Let's not degrade their service for your political smears.

And, finally, on what I originally stated, "we in this country live better than anyone in the history of the earth, as far as we know, and yet we still find it difficult to provide health care to our neediest children and find a way to stop war." This is all I was trying to say when you ripped into me. Peace.

GK

TP,

You did say "I mean, gays are "everywhere" and liberals are pushing the Bible out of the school and "forcing" Evolution on our unsuspecting youth. Conservatives are forever crying how things used to be in the "good-old days" before rock and roll and sex and violence on TV. "

This is bigoted, and you said it.

Average unemployment rate does matter. Under Bush II, it has gone down since 2003, when tax cuts were implemented. It went down continuously during Reagan's years too. This certainly destroys your point that only Clinton had a steady decline.

Again, the average DOES matter.

You did admit that Bush is able to fool Democrats again and again. How does this make them fit to govern at all? If anything, it proves them unsuitable.

Plus, you said "Okay, well, that would make sense if the intelligence reports had been THE TRUTH, but we know now that they were filled with lies. "

So both Bush and the CIA lied? Everybody who disagrees with the memorized points of yours 'lied'? I get it, everybody except that noble, trustworthy saint, Saddam Hussein, lied, in your world.

Apparently you don't know that your hero, Bill Clinton, also thought Saddam had WMDs, hence Operation Desert Fox in 1998. Tony Blair and Vladimir Putin did too. So all of them lied.

Thus, by your own logic, Bill Clinton LIED about WMDs!

Iraq had no links to Al-Qaeda? Then how do you account for Zarqawi? Salman Pak? Osama bin Laden's offering of a truce if America withdraws from Iraq?

Even better, WMDs were actually found.

Getting your political opinions from the Dixie Chicks and Whoopi Goldberg is not going to make you credible to adults.
_______________________________________

Democrats voted overwhelmingly to renew the Patriot Act 89-11 and to keep troops in Iraq 93-6. They have fooled you into thinking they agree with you, while voting in a pro-America manner. You have been fooled, (again) SUCKER!!!!

It is untrue that most Veterans running are Democrats, as you have no link from a credible source. But 70% of active and retired military voted for Bush. It is very painful for you to admit this.

Then again, Democrats support the Patriot Act, voted 2 weeks ago to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, and voted to go to war in the first place. So why would you support Democrats if they do the opposite of what you want (while fooling you into voting for them anyway). I am tempted to say 'Sucker!!' again.

Plus you DID say 'If you are so much in favor of this war in Iraq, why don't you give all your money to it and then go sign up and deploy. Put your words into action, tough-guy.'.

That means you feel the same way about the Afghanistan War too, that only people who sign up have the right to support it. Why else would you set that stipulation, if it does not apply to ALL wars? Or does partisanship matter more to you than supporting the troops (even if you claim to work with them)?


TP

Obviously, sarcasm, when it is not coming from yourself, is hard for you to spot so I will point out that my stating that gays are everywhere, etc was sarcasm. I do not believe these things, I was pointing out how conservatives spout this crap in order to rile up their base and get votes! Man, I didn't think I had to come out and say it?!?

I am not as gifted with posting links in my posts, so I have not done so this thus far and truly, I don't think using facts with you would make much of a difference. You know as well as I do (I hope) that statistics can be manipulated to say just about anything a person wants them to. Everyone with half a brain knows that during the Clinton years the economy soared and during Bush it has stunk (unless you have stock and the stock is in an energy company that Cheney and friends rewrote all the regulations on). Real wages have sunk (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0511-08.htm) and this is the most meaningful indicator of how the average person is doing in this economy. Especially when one considers that productivity (which has been rising) is usually followed by rising REAL wages. Not under Bush though. In fact, unless we get Democrats in office soon, he may be responsible for creating the first generation who do worse than their parents in terms of living conditions in this country!

Thank you for pointing out this WMD were found story because it shows how far into right-wing world you are. That story has already been thoroughly discredited here (http://mediamatters.org/items/200606230008)and here ( http://mediamatters.org/items/200606230005).

By the way, what is it with the Dixie Chick and Whoopie Goldberg? Is that supposed to be funny? I get my information through reading news from here in the US and worldwide and in books. Do you get your information from entertainers and musicians or something?

Thaks for pointing out Operation Desert Fox too. That shows exactly how the pathetic, meglo-maniacal Saddam should have been dealt with. Tactical airstrikes, not sacrificng our men and women to occupy a foreign country. This is where I have a real problem with conservatives who back this war. You have no idea how costly this conflict is and no idea how little it is benefitting this country. There were so many better ways to deal with terrorism than invading a tinpot dictator's country and occupying it indefinitely. Terrorism does not come from a single country! It is an ideology that spans many countries, including our own and needs to be dealt with, but is being ignored right now because our whole focus is in Iraq! I show my support for our troops by working for their removal from a horrible situation, not continuing to cheerlead an awful policy from a president that worked the facts to suit his desire to invade a sovereign nation. I have no problem with removing Saddam from power, but their were other ways to get that job done without sacrificng our soldiers to become policemen for a country now in civil war!! You, sir, are the sucker here. You have been sold a bill of goods called the war on terror and call anyone who doesn't buy into the same delusion as traitors.

The votes on the Patriot Act and the vote to keep the troops in Iraq in no way have any bearing on this discussion. I have already stated my opinion on the Patriot Act as being one that was based on information that has since been shown to be false or of questionable veracity. I really don't feel it necessary to provide links on this because this is now considered common knowledge (at least in the real world of fact and reality, maybe not in right-wing nut o'sphere that you seem to live in). The vote two weeks ago was a partisan political ploy that you seem to hate so much when done by Democrats, but have no problem with when Republicans do it. It was a meaningless statement that was brought up simply to provide Republicans (like yourself) with a talking point, exactly like you are doing now. Democrats did not fall for the attempt to be painted as terrorist lovers (which you so wish they would have) so you've resorted to plan B which is to say "hey, they voted for it too!" This is a tactic that is common on the playground at my child's school. But that is par for the course with Republicans!

Fianlly, I must address your logical fault in this argument about "only people who sign up have the right to support it" remarks. I am saying that, if you believe so heartily in this "war" then perhaps you should do something more about it than sit at your computer and post error-filled rants.

GK, we both obviously feel strongly about this and have