Liberals always talk about tolerance. Below are a few examples of their tolerance.
Email Rantings Editor
rantings@theconservativevoice.com
On October 24, 2006, Lisa - tiger_3@charter.net wrote:
Subject: The Conservative Voice - Irresponsible Column! ("Republicans
deserve to Lose")
Hello,
I like your newsletter a lot - but I think it's very irresponsible for you
to include the column below in your newsletter and on your website just 2
weeks before the election - I agree with a lot of his points but this
article should have been included on your website AFTER the election.
Also, Chuck Baldwin paints all Republicans with the same brush and that is
unfair - there are a lot of really good Republicans (like my Congressman)
WHO WE NEED TO KEEP IN OFFICE! The congress DID try to do good things
like pass strong bills against illegal aliens but the Democrats and a few
RINOs were enough to stop those bills. And the Republicans in Congress
are not responsible for the what Pres. Bush is doing (or not doing) - in
fact they have stood up to him admirably on items like illegal
immigration.
A better story would be about kicking all the obstructist Democrats out
(especially in the Senate) so that the Republicans could do what they need
to do. Do you REALLY think we'd be better off if the Democrats win? If
you do you need to come to my state and meet the Socialist Chuck Baldwin
wants us to vote for. There is one thing I do admire about Democrats - at
least they stick up for their party and not try to help their opponents
win!
Our response:
Lisa,
Your comments are welcome, however you might find it more rewarding to comment directly to an article by joining our forum. You can then respond to any article by clicking the link at the bottom of every piece.
Once again, we must reiterate, however, that the views presented in posted articles are the viewpoint of the individual author who is soley responsible for the article's content, which may or may not reflect or represent the position of The Conservative Voice, or its editors and staff.
On October 17, 2006, JoshuaJBP@aol.com - JoshuaJBP@aol.com wrote:
Why does everyone have to respect the "Christian" points of views when the "Christians" want their point of view to be the ONLY point of view?
I would wipe my a** with your "paper" if it were in print form.
Our response:
Gosh, Josh...
You seem quite offended by the fact that there exist some people out there for whom there are ABSOLUTES rather than pure relativism and situational ethics!
Christians respect the rights of others to hold whatever viewpoints they want... but they do not appreciate having their values mocked and anti-Christian bigotry promoted. And they'll say so.
Your final comment once again makes our case that the sphere of opposition to the conservative viewpoint is heavily populated with people who behave like zoo primates - unable to think rationally or commucate effectively using language, they hurl their own feces to express displeasure.
If you find our publication so distasteful, you are welcome to NOT read it!
On October 15, 2006, Jesse Alton - jalton82@yahoo.com wrote:
Before you try to defend yourselves by saying im just another liberal, i know alot of "conservative republicans" who agree with me on this one. I want to bitch about you nutcase christians that are making a big deal about the Madonna concert special that NBC is in fact airing in November. Why do you feel the right to try to babysit our nation and bully a network into not playing something simply because a handful of extreme religous nutcases find it offensive? If you are offend by the message of hope and love that Madonna is trying to show for very poor nations in Africa, then just dont watch it, but dont try to stop others who want to view this beautiful message. You are not my mother, you are not my father, and I am a grown adult capable of making my own decisions on what I want to watch. I do not need you freaks to tell me whats not appropriate to be on my TV.
Thanks
Jesse
Our response:
Jesse,
So, were all those Mainstream Media outlets being bullied by religious extremists when they failed to publish the Mohammed cartoons a few months back? What happened to the "public's right to know"? Are your positions consistent?
If we must be "sensitive" to a "handful of extreme religious nutcases" in the case of the cartoons, shouldn't we extend the same sensitivity to the sensibilities of a PEACEFUL religion that over 70% of the population of our nation claims at least a nominal attachment to!
By the way, I don't believe Christians are saying that NBC doesn't have the RIGHT to air the Madonna spectacle... just that Christians have the right to spend their hard earned dollars supporting those who are more in alignment with their values, and to withhold their commerce from those who support the undermining of those values.
On October 09, 2006, John Doucette - jdoucette2004@rogers.com wrote:
Always knew you neo-con fascists were gay, but John Lollipop? Wow!
Jack Doucette
Manotick Ontario
Our response:
Jack
Always knew you neo-comm's were intellectually vacant... but WOW!
Once again, there's no substantive point to make - so you resort to a personal attack worthy of a 5th grader: A mutation of someone's name!
Oh, and by the way - before you toss the word "fascist" as some kind of insult, you might want to look up the word. It applies more to todays libs!
On September 30, 2006, George Washington - eris4truth@yahoo.com wrote:
Subject: Regarding Liberal Hysteria.
Dear Editor of Ranting,
I would like to take the time to point out a critical hypocrisy involving the method in which you evaluate and label broad cultural organizations.
I have often noticed that you have a fixation on the generalization of the group you call liberals. You target the few individuals who challenge your position and ideological identity without any intellectual case to support themselves and use their unfortunate statements to make a generalized attack on your 'enemy', the 'liberals'.
In your own words, you "resort to baseless and pointless attacks on the person and the character of the opposition."
Listed are a few examples from just the first quarter of your Rantings page, where you confuse the boundary between individual argument (or lack of) and the diametrical perspective that you struggle with:
"Liberals always talk about tolerance."
"You have once again demonstrated that Liberals have no tolerance for opposing viewpoints, have no ideas with which to debate, and resort to namecalling and ad-hominem attacks rather than presenting ideas or debating them on their merits."
"Thanks for proving that liberals have no intellectual case to make, and instead resort to baseless and pointless attacks on the person and the character of the opposition."
"Thank you for a reasoned debate rather than the common leftist hysteria."
"You have once again proven our assertion (big word... look it up!) that liberals resort to personal attacks rather than intelligent debate in the arena of ideas. Anyone who disagrees with them is a "[expletive] punk"."
"Also, I notice you didn't address any points in the column. Instead you took the traditional liberal approach by attacking me personally."
"Those who take the label "liberal" today (or "progressive") are truly secular, atheistic socialists or worse ... you know that love of God and desire to please Him are hardly the hallmark of this crowd."
Many of those universal statements are entirely false.
From the perspective that I see it in, you would make the same unfounded conclusions and erroneous judgements as the individuals that you criticize, except that you have taken the effort to try and present a clear argument and mask childish attacks behind intelligent use of language.
Do you recognize the hypocrisy in what you say?
Compliments to you on trying to formulate intelligible arguments! It is refreshing. Although I would not make the same ambiguous discussion pattern, it is tiring when I try to have a reasoned debate with conservatives who instead resort to muddy, dull punches and feverishly cling to diseased perspectives and faulty evidence without daring to even critique their own viewpoints, as if their manhood depended on 'being RIGHT!' Are you willing to take a serious look at the way you make your discussion?
I would appreciate a response to this Rant, and I think that we would both benefit if it were posted in your section, to begin a critique of how both perceived political opposites are prone to frustrated generalizations.
Sincerely,
George Washington
Our response:
George,
Thank you for your perspective, and your intelligent and rational presentation. We welcome your "reasoned debate" and are always willing to be self-examining.
While I would agree with you that both the Left and the Right can indeed be given to "frustrated generalizations", I would like to highlight a contrast between our "Rantings" page and our Forum.
Rantings is where we showcase the intolerance and unwillingness (or inability) to engage in rational debate by those who write in simply to oppose conservatism in general. There is rarely even the attempt to engage a specific article, author, or even a specific issue.
The Forum, on the other hand, is where both supporters and detractors of our authors and their articles post their relevant comments and they will often engage in spirited debate in direct response to posted articles and to each other.
You will find that while some (on both sides) resort to occasional sniping, and your assertion that both sides make "frustrated generalizations" can certainly be demonstrated... you may also discover that oftentimes a rational debate of the issues also takes place in that venue. Remember that while moderated for inappropriate content - the forum is an open conversation between our readers, and is not a representation of the position of The Conservative Voice.
For that matter, while the Conservative Voice has some level of general likemindedness with the authors we choose to publish - their articles are their own opinions for which they are soley responsible... and the content of any given article may or may not represent the viewpoints of the management or staff of The Conservative Voice.
You may be interested in joining the Forum discussion. Your perspective would be most welcome.
On September 27, 2006, Dave Frishman - davefrishman@cox.net wrote:
You people are a disaster. Like Bushy you just can't get it right. Take your traitorous stupidity and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
Our response:
Dave
Thank you for your illuminating elucidation of the leftist position, and your demonstration of the Left's intellectual prowess when it comes to debate in the arena of ideas!
You have once again demonstrated that Liberals have no tolerance for opposing viewpoints, have no ideas with which to debate, and resort to namecalling and ad-hominem attacks rather than presenting ideas or debating them on their merits.
On August 24, 2006, Charles Lindsey - chucklindsey@hotmail.com wrote:
Dear Editor,
In the light of your recent article about the apparent guilt of John Mark Karr, I would like to point out that most conservatives are closet homosexuals with fantasies of child molestation.
Thank you,
Chuck Lindsey
Our response:
Chuck
Thanks for proving that liberals have no intellectual case to make, and instead resort to baseless and pointless attacks on the person and the character of the opposition.
On July 18, 2006, Andrew Huard - andrew@budgetonlinesolutions.com wrote:
Thank you for responding to my rant; however, I must say that I disagree
throughly with your response.
I want to go through each of your talking points and discuss them further:
"1) Stem cell research on somatic cells (your own DNA, your own body)
are not opposed by conservatives!"
Research on somatic cells may be supported by conservatives; however,
scientists have found little success with using these cells to
regenerate important tissues. Recent discoveries have revealed that
Adults have some stem cells leftover in the heart and brain, but these
show little promise in providing the breakthrough therapies that
embryonic stem cells may potentially provide.
"2) Embryonic Stem Cells are harvested from HUMAN EMBRYOS (whether
cloned, aborted or otherwise) and there are ETHICAL issues which are not
necessarily religious in nature, though there are ALSO religious issues.
Secular ethicists are also divided on the issue, with a number of them
finding a problem with embryonic stem cell harvesting without their
having a religious objection."
I agree that there is an ethics issue involved; however, wouldn't the
same ethics issues apply to cattle farming? Cattle certainly have a
higher intelligence and awareness than fetuses, which have yet to
develop higher cognitive functions. Conservatives cannot have their cake
and eat it too. Human beings are essentually animals too - there is not
much branching between a human and a cow on the evolutionary tree.
I also think that conservatives ignore the ethical interests of the
patient. How can conservatives say that a five day old blastocyst
deserves life any more than a cow designated for slaughter? If that
blastocyst, which was created with the patient's own DNA and made for
the sole purpose of treatment, then what can possibly be the ethical
rationnal for denying treatment? Ethical decisions are made in hospitals
all the time to the detriment of one party - why would anyone choose to
save a blastocyst over say restoring partial muscle control to a twelve
year old girl with a paralyzing spinal cord injury?
It just doesn't make sense to me. Besides, how can anyone 'ethically'
make a decision for another person when that person might differ? I
doubt the "rights" of the blastocyst really count in this matter.
"3) Most of our laws have a religious background... Laws against theft,
murder, etc may well have secular backing, but are straight out of the
bible! This does not provide a justification for an atheist to reject
them!"
You have a point. However, these laws have grounds in common sense and
mostly appeal to the golden rule of respecting human rights and dignity.
This is why secularists support them. Besides, I'm sure humanity has had
these rules ever since the dawn of our species. Certain animals observe
these rules as well! Maybe there is an evolutionary reason for
humanity's objection to theft and murder.
"4) There has been absolutely no scientific evidence that embryonic stem
cells offer any more promise for therapies or cures than cord-blood or
somatic cell stem cells."
On the contrary, I feel this statement is absolutely false. While it is
true that cord-blood cells and somatic cells may offer the same benefits
as embryonic cells, the difference is that embryonic cells are easier to
harvest and exhibit the least differentiation. In the case of cord-blood
cells, these must be harvested when the patient is an infant and stored
throughout that person's life. Donor cells would not have the same DNA
as the patient, which raises the possibility of the body rejecting
treatment. Somatic cells, on the other hand, are already differentiated
and cannot be used as germline cells. Embryonic cells are therefore more
flexible than somatic cells and offer better opportunities for research.
This is not to say that treatment cannot be done with somatic cells, but
the possibilities for research are not as great.
"5) Stem cell research has yet to provide a single "life saving therapy"
or "cure" - regardless of the source of the stem cells."
I beg to differ. This article from New Scientist magazine illustrates
some of the breakthrough research that is being done with stem cell
treatment of spinal cord injuries:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8741
Clearly, therapies are being developed. With unhindered research, the
possibilities are endless.
"6) The push for embryonic stem cell research is fueled less by
scientific evidence of value for these tissues over others in the
research than by those whose agenda is to further legitimize
abortion/cloning and who wish to turn the "products of conception" into
a marketable commodity."
Again I beg to differ. There are scientists who want nothing else than
to explore the medical applications of stem cells. This is not to say
that there are some feminist groups that would use the issue, but I
would definitely not say that the late Christopher Reeve used the stem
cell issue to further the feminist cause. OF COURSE NOT! He wanted to
find a cure! Besides, I don't think anyone really wants "more
abortions." You accuse liberals of playing the blame game to further
their ends, but isn't that what you are doing here? (I apologize in
advance if those aren't your exact words).
"7) The argument about cloning one's own body to harvest for therapies
is a slippery slope. What if instead of harvesting stem cells, you
provide this clone oxygen and nutrition enough to become a full term
fetus? Then you kill it to harvest its liver for a transplant. Does THIS
present an ethical problem for you? How about letting it grow and attend
school and have a career and raise a family... all the while being
thought of as just spare parts for you? Sick, isn't it?"
Isn't NSA spying also a "slippery slope?" You have to consider the
greater good here. Cloning a blastocyst is not the same as cloning a
human baby. Sure, it could happen, but what an expensive way of creating
a baby... Why not let the free market work this one out, okay?
Besides, I don't think anyone is really debating the issue of
"replacement-parts-slavery." Once a blastocyst becomes a baby, that is
once it is a fully developed fetus and is born, it is entitled to all
the human rights our civilization has to offer. Frankly, I find it
amazing that you are using this argument to oppose harvesting a blastocyst.
So here you go. Another rant for your rants section. I hope it was just
as interesting as the first!
Andrew
Our response:
Andrew
Thank you for a reasoned debate rather than the common leftist hysteria.
I would still maintain that somatic stem cell research HAS yielded results while embryonic has not... and still find creation of embryos for research purposes reprehensible.
Nearly all polling on stem-cell research deliberately fails to distinguish between the sources of stem cells. When asked, "Do you support stem cell research" naturally the vast majority respond affirmatively. In those few cases where respondants are given a more nuanced question, they overwhelmingly support somatic cell research but are far more inclined to oppose embryonic stem cell research. This information is deliberately quashed in the media which strongly promotes embryonic research as a means to further "protect a woman's right to choose"!
On July 14, 2006, zimmeric - zimmeric@houston.rr.com wrote:
Subject: Your command of English is adequate...
...and judging from photos I'd say you fit the US Army age requirements.
So here's and idea: Why don't you enlist...'ya ph**k'in punk...??
Did you catch that last bit?
RL
Houston, TX
Our response:
RL
If one who is not in the military is unqualified to comment on military matters, then why does the constitution specify a CIVILIAN (the President) as COMMANDER IN CHIEF?
Let me break this down to a level your apparent intellect can understand:
By your reasoning, no one who has never had a role in a major motion picture is qualified to express an opinion about a movie!
And regarding that "last bit" which you thought was so clever that you had to call further attention to it in the sentence immediately following it: You have once again proven our assertion (big word... look it up!) that liberals resort to personal attacks rather than intelligent debate in the arena of ideas. Anyone who disagrees with them is a "[expletive] punk".
On June 29, 2006, BD Nickerson - bdonaldwriting@hotmail.com wrote:
A Conservative Moment - With Nathan Tabor.
I can\'t believe you actually write the nonsense in the "The Conservative Voice".
You write like a gifted sixth grader. What a wonderful state of bliss it must be to display such ignorance!
Your skills at humor are negligible and your journalistic skills are less than negligible.
You better pay off your student loans and start a Walmart Management training program. No! You certainly are equipped for Burger University.
What a joke! This is one of the biggest problems with the Internet generation.
It appears any jerk with a P.C. and the I.Q. of a gnat, can start a movement.
Well Sport! John Kerry's bowel movements are smarter than you!
Go verb yourself!
Very truly yours,
B.D. Nickerson
Your article of this week is the worst example of editorial commentary I have ever witnessed.
You better pay your student loans off fast. I see a bleak professional future for you!
Our response:
It was "moving" enough to make you respond. I did my job.
Also, I notice you didn't address any points in the column. Instead you took the traditional liberal approach by attacking me personally.
Thanks for your tolerance.
Nathan
On June 25, 2006, Andrew Huard - andrew@budgetonlinesolutions.com wrote:
Subject: I have a beaf with conservatives
It seems to me that there are two social ideologies at play. Those that want to choose for people, and those that would prefer people choose for themselves. Unfortunately, neo-conservatives seem to prefer the former.
To me, it seems like a question of ethics.
For example, lets take the issue of therapeutic stem cell research. Who do republicans think they are qualified to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own DNA? If I wanted to make an embryonic clone of myself and then harvest the cells for potentially life saving therapies, how can
anyone tell me that I do not have that right?
Hopefully I am getting this correct - if the neocons get their way, I will not even have the right to do whatever I please with my own body.
I understand the religious argument of conception and the soul and all that jazz. So riddle me this. How can the government ethically impose a religion based restriction on stem cell research even though there is no
scientific evidence for either the existence of souls or even of God himself?
Shouldn't atheists also be entitled to consideration before the establishment of a religiously based policy that would affect them?
Hopefully this rant has been intelligent enough (or not) to grant me a spot on your rants section??
Andrew
Our response:
1) Stem cell research on somatic cells (your own DNA, your own body) are not opposed by conservatives!
2) Embryonic Stem Cells are harvested from HUMAN EMBRYOS (whether cloned, aborted or otherwise) and there are ETHICAL issues which are not necessarily religious in nature, though there are ALSO religious issues. Secular ethicists are also divided on the issue, with a number of them finding a problem with embryonic stem cell harvesting without their having a religious objection.
3) Most of our laws have a religious background... Laws against theft, murder, etc may well have secular backing, but are straight out of the bible! This does not provide a justification for an atheist to reject them!
4) There has been absolutely no scientific evidence that embryonic stem cells offer any more promise for therapies or cures than cord-blood or somatic cell stem cells.
5) Stem cell research has yet to provide a single "life saving therapy" or "cure" - regardless of the source of the stem cells.
6) The push for embryonic stem cell research is fueled less by scientific evidence of value for these tissues over others in the research than by those whose agenda is to further legitimize abortion/cloning and who wish to turn the "products of conception" into a marketable commodity.
7) The argument about cloning one's own body to harvest for therapies is a slippery slope. What if instead of harvesting stem cells, you provide this clone oxygen and nutrition enough to become a full term fetus? Then you kill it to harvest its liver for a transplant. Does THIS present an ethical problem for you? How about letting it grow and attend school and have a career and raise a family... all the while being thought of as just spare parts for you? Sick, isn't it?
On June 22, 2006, w hingerty - hingerty@verizon.net wrote:
Why does the world shrink from a intelligent analysis of the Holocaust and the myriad
organizations who collect money in their name? Why is it unlawful to even question the data? It doesnt add up. There werent even 6 million Jews available to kill.
Israel loves to keep this crap alive to keep the Americans and western Euro fighting their wars.
Iran is right. They should have given the Jews central Germany for a homeland. If it were
true...which I doubt. The tickettakers at Auschwitz know this. They have revised their
numbers..DOWN three times. It has gone from 4 million to less than a mill. Its all Bulls**t. Why doesnt Israel want to talk about USS LIberty or why NO ISRAELIS died on 9-11. I didnt say Jews, and dont call me anti Jewish. I support Jews who are Americans FIRST. No dual cistizenships. I dont trust that. The Zionists have been our enemies and the enemies of Germany since Baruch and his buddies offered America up on plate in exchange for Isrel.(Balfour)READ FOR YOURSELF. You cant be a conservative and
support non-white immigration, and Israeli saber rattling. Let them fight their own wars without our money(2 billion a year)
Our response:
1) Where do you get YOUR data that there weren't 6 million Jews to kill? There is PLENTY of documentation for the holocaust and the numbers involved... and there were 18 Million Jews at the time! Hitler managed to wipe out 1/3 of them.
2) Are you implying that Israel was somehow involved in a 9/11 conspiracy?
3) Since when have WE fought THEIR wars? They've done fine on their own.
4) 2 Billion a year is PALTRY! Take a look at the other foreign aid checks our country writes!
Take off that tinfoil hat and let your brain get some oxygen!
On June 22, 2006, Jim and Terry Titcomb - mail@nonialoha.com wrote:
Thank you for maintaining a great website. I've bookmarked it along with my other favorites, such as FoxNews.com, The Eagle Forum, HumanEventsOnline, and Ann Coulter's and Michelle Malkin's websites.
I was browsing your "rants" section, and I love the surgical precision with which you slice and dice your opponents. But I take issue with your March 31 response to Merideth who, like me, happens to be a vegetarian.
Vegetarianism is not a political philosopy. It is neither liberal nor conservative. It is simply a lifestyle choice.
I know, I know: homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, too. But whether you like to insert
Part A into the wrong orifice is fine with me, just so long as you do it in the privacy of your own home and don't try to teach it to my kids in school, or redefine traditional marriage.
Unlike homosexual activists, we vegetarians aren't trying to change the face of society. We just don't believe it's right to kill and eat animals when it's not absolutely necessary for our survival. I've encountered similar attitudes from fellow conservatives whenever the subject of the environment comes up.
Just because the conservative veiwpoint favors less restrictions on businesses doesn't necessarily mean that the environment isn't worth protecting. And no, I haven't been swayed by Al Gore's ridiculous movie. I believe in Reagonomics, the free market,
supply and demand, but that doesn't mean businesses should be allowed to dump toxic wastes in waterways or discharge them into the atmosphere.
Similarly, just because humans have the ability to kill animals and eat them doesn't mean that it's moral or prudent to do so. God gave man dominion over his children, too. Doesn't mean we should eat them. Thanks
for letting me vent!
Jim Titcomb
Kailua Hawaii
Our response:
Jim
Your venting is quite welcome.
No offense meant to those who choose vegetarianism for health or conscience reasons.
I myself enjoy certain products marketed by purveyors such as Whole Foods Markets and Wild Oats... but you must concede that shopping there IS INDEED an excursion behind enemy lines!
It is neither environmental conscience nor vegetarianism that gets our goat... it is the radicalism of the left that uses "environmentalism" as a front which they then use to attack capitalism and personal property rights.
It is the "animal rights" nutcases like PETA who call for "humane treatment" of ALL animals, yet kills hundreds of dogs because it's less expensive than caring for them and adopting them out. (see www.petakillsanimals.com).
Of course, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, I must ask those who think us carnivores are somehow evil... If it is so wrong to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?
Thanks for your comments and keep reading!
On June 18, 2006, Carlos Gonzalez - csgonzalez@yahoo.com wrote:
i needed a good laugh. christians. you're so funny....
Our response:
There are two absolutes in this world:
1. There is a God
2. you are not Him
On May 12, 2006, Charles Sorenson - casorens@mail.smu.edu wrote:
To: <nathan@nathantabor.com>
Conversation: You are retarded
Subject: You are retarded
Yep, You are profoundly retarded.
Our response:
Charlie,
Where's your political correctness?? The truly profoundly retarded would be highly offended by your politicization of their disability - if someone explained it to them.
I have yet to see a profoundly retarded individual write a book for publication by Thomas Nelson Publishers, nor have I seen one attain a Masters Degree or run for office. Mr Tabor has done all of these.
However, since all you can do is cast invectives at Mr Tabor without raising a single issue for debate or to take issue with - your own intelligence is at least suspect.
Since your email address is from smu.edu - there are 2 possibilities. Both are disturbing:
1) You are a college student. Your young skull full of mush is being thoroughly indoctrinated, and then you will be turned loose on the world. Yikes.
2) You are an EDUCATOR at SMU and unwitting parents are subjecting their young people to you.
On April 28, 2006, Rebekah - roseannemayo@bellsouth.net wrote:
Subject: Conservative my posterior
You call yourselves "the conservative voice" and then you let somebody like Robert Novak write for you! You may be conservative, but you are blind as a bat!!!
Robert Novak is a Democratic plant! He is not a Republican. He is a flaming liberal. He is not a conservative. He claims to be Catholic now, but he's not. He is still as Jewish as he can be. I know a lot of Jews who switch to Catholicism so
they can practice anti-Christianism without being called out on it.
He also trapped Lewis Libby on the Plame affair. It was entrapment, plain and simple. Anybody who cannot see that is blind as a bat!!
As far as his piece on Mitt Romney -- it couldn't be farther from the truth!
Evangelicals are not judging him on being Mormon! We are judging him because of his pro-abortion and pro-homosexual stance!
GET A LIFE ROBERT NOVAK!!! WE CAN SEE THROUGH YOUR LIES AND DECEPTION!!! THAT'S
WHY WE ARE EVANGELICALS -- BECAUSE WE KNOW THE TRUTH -- YOU CANNOT FOOL US!!
Our response:
To once again reiterate:
"The opinions expressed by our authors are their own and they may or may not represent the opinions of the editors and staff of The Conservative Voice."
Feel free to create an account in our forum, and comment directly on the articles. You can join in discussions there as well.
On April 28, 2006, Bob Page - BobLPage@comcast.net wrote:
Perhaps you'd like me to forward you the e-mails I receive from uneducated right-wingers (forgive the pleonasm) as balance to this obviously prejudiced
section of "rants." Then again, the only "balance" the Christian evangelist movement is interested in is the same type exhibited in your beloved Fox Network's "fair and balanced" presentation. What's that? Oh, you won't print this? Well, thanks anyway.
Our response:
Huh?
Well, we printed it. Thanks anyway.
On April 12, 2006, Fritz Head - headfritz@earthlink.net wrote:
Subject: Your right!
Nathan,
why do you have to be such a dumb-ass. Do you really think that Liberals hate God? Just because you have liberal view doesn't mean you hate God. As you, there are liberals that take thing to far, just
as there are people, like you, who take thing to far. You know you can be a liberal and love this country, and Love God! DUMB ASS! and stop hating people for different view and beliefs. it make you
look bad.
Our response:
it make you look bad when you don't capitalize and punctuate
it make you look bad when you defend liberal love of God, then call someone a dumb ass.
Perhaps one must define "liberal". The classic liberal of the 60s would today be considered a conservative! Those who take the label "liberal" today (or "progressive") are truly secular, atheistic socialists or worse. "Liberals" like Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy or Johnson would be appalled at the "Liberals" of today. If you realize that today's "liberal" is exemplified by Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durban and such... you know that love of God and desire to please Him are hardly the hallmark of this crowd.
On April 06, 2006, Warren Ogren - warogren@cheqnet.net wrote:
This Nation is on the slippery slope of chaos and bankruptcy
The citizens of this country have lost control of Congress
There is a Solution - Term Limits
The founding fathers of this nation supported term limits
Thomas Jefferson believed strongly in the "rotation of office."
George Washington insisted on stepping down after two terms.
John Adams stated that "without term limits, every man in power becomes a ravenous beast of prey.
George Mason, one of our ablest jurists, and who was responsible for what was the basis for our Constitutional Bill of Rights, wrote, "Elected representatives should be subject to a periodical rotation. For nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his constituents as the certainty of returning to the general masses of the people from whence he was taken and where he must participate in their burdens.
Warren Ogren
warogren@cheqnet.net
Our response:
Warren, you just may have a point!
But I'm still mad at George Mason for not making it to the finals (and LSU too!).
On April 05, 2006, premier broadcasting - premier1@consolidated.net wrote:
Subject: Not Another Clinton Presidency
i'm voting for hilary
Our response:
Are you voting for Hilary or Hillary?
Some friendly advice: Sentences in English usually begin with capitalization, and end with punctuation.
On April 05, 2006, Steve Thomas - stevethomas@thegleaner.com wrote:
Subject: Re: Not Another Clinton Presidency
Quit your whining.
It would beat the hell out of three miserable Bush presidencies.
Our response:
1) Bush isn't running in 08, but Hillary might be.
2) The subject of the article was Hillary's candidacy.
3) Can you give a single positive reason to elect Hillary (or any democrat) without resorting to the failed Kerry strategy of "I'm not HIM" or "Anybody but..."
Does the expression "Yellow Dog Democrat" apply?
On April 01, 2006, Matt - rocketmen2k5@yahoo.com wrote:
Subject: Lessons From Germany
I can't wait to "Sieg Heil" or "Heil Hitler (W)."
Our response:
Another spurious Nazi reference from someone who obviously has no concept of what Naziism was, but who knows it was BAD and therefore President Bush must be that!
On March 31, 2006, Meredith Weiss - meredith@niilo.ca wrote:
Subject: Peta.
I just wanted to say that I am glad Peta has that ad up. The quote in your article is correct though, you can NOT compare the suffering of black ancestry to the slaughtering of a cow. One is still practised for almost every dinner table. At least black people weren't eaten after they were tortured.
Meredith Weiss
Our response:
I suppose that you object to predators eating prey too?
Hmm, since that's what they were CREATED to do... and they'd starve if they didn't - I guess you have a dilemna. Either you torture the predators by starvation, or the prey by being killed and eaten. Either way, one of your precious animals suffers.
Of course, PETA would rather lions, sharks, polarbears and the like became vegetarians... but that's against their nature.
I wonder why they can't accept that humans are omnivorous.
Hey Meredith? What are your shoes, belts and handbags made of? Any leather furniture in your house? Use any collagen products?
On March 23, 2006, Eugene Groysman - e_groysman@hotmail.com wrote:
Subject: Un-Patriotic Republicans
The Republicans have been spending ten's of thousands of dollars to propagate a myth about Sen. Russ Feingold (D) WI. They say he is not patriotic. Well I say the Senate majority leader is no better then the terrorists this country is fighting, because he is an alarmist and a liar who wants nothing that represents the truth, he is only interested in making you afraid of it and lying to you who is to blame for it. I say the Republican Right is un-patriotic and feeble minded. Not only do they share one brain in the form of George Bush, but that brain has a collective IQ of a walnut.
Americans no longer support Bush, the war in Iraq, and no amount of time that Bush spends stumping around the country looking like absent minded professor, will help. This country was founded on liberty, the belief that government can't do what it
pleases without the approval of the people. Who represents the people, well congress does. Congress never gave the "ok" for Bush to break the law, lie, cheat nor steal. If anything Bush has broken the law and needs to be held accountable for what he did.
Eugene
Our response:
1) No better than folk who kidnap and behead people trying to rebuild their country?
2) If Republicans share a common brain with GW, then why are so many of us UPSET with GW for not representing the Conservative Cause on so many issues?
3) Since Bush was shown to have earned better grades than your candidate, Kerry - and earned a post-graduate degree while Kerry stopped after his Bachelors - I wouldn't be tossing around IQ invectives.
Bush's poll numbers are down NOT because there are more people sympathetic with leftist thought. There will ALWAYS be 38-42% of the population that is leftist democrat. These people rabidly hate Bush (but would feel the same about ANY Republican).
Bush has lost the support of his BASE - the Reagan Conservatives. They are disappointed because he is NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH. These people are not finding fault with Bush because they believe the leftist line. They are fed up with Bush's growth of government, spending like a drunken sailor, failure to secure the borders, support for a guest-worker program and the like.
So much for your "unified mind" theory!
On the other hand - one thing he's done right is try to defend us against domestic terror, and it has never been shown that the NSA program was not within Bush's constitutional authority.
On March 01, 2006, Benjamin Claus - bpclaus@hotmail.com wrote:
Subject: I am Ashamed
I am greatly appalled by the idea of wasting precious fuel for 1/4 mile around a
track that has no destination (NASCAR and any car racing) this is a fuel (gasoline
from oil) that we have sacrificed many great men and woman, one of them being my
brother. The idea that there are people who have no idea what it is they are doing
in a greater sense of society is intolerable to me. When an American dies at WAR, it
should be for a goal that is supported by the society they fight for, and we are
wasting the community they fight for. Every gallon of gas used is another gallon of
blood spilled by an American !!!!!!!!!!!!!!It sores my soul to think as men like my
Brother die for the oil that fuels these wasteful cars diving in a circle. I simply
can't forgive this
waste, of our US military and our freedom for such a wasteful sport.
Take care and God bless
Our response:
It's come to this... Now NASCAR is an unforgivable waste of our blood!!
(A gallon of gas = a gallon of blood??? That's all the blood in 2 of our guys for every trip I take to work!)
No offense, Ben... but I think your argument is one that I might expect from a 6 year old who still believes in Santa (no relation, right?) than from a thinking adult!
On February 28, 2006, Siddique Minhas - Msiddiqueminhas@aol.com wrote:
Subject: Is Spreading Hate Still Aloowed
The article by Warner Todd Hudson is testamony to the fact that there are people who do not believe in freedom of religion and people like him cause
caos and instigate trouble. Please discontinue his hateful outbursts.
Thank you.
Siddique Minhas
Maryland
Our response:
Siddique
Religious freedom is a cherished right and I don't believe Mr. Huston (not Hudson) is opposed to that freedom.
It would, however, go much further to foster trust and tolerance between different faiths if those who use their religion as a justification for violence and terror were to be more universally condemned and distanced from by the remainder of the adherents to that religion.
Defending the indefensible, whether Muslims defending suicide bombers or Christians defending abortion clinic bombers, is not constructive in enhancing coexistence between the faiths.
This, rather than Mr. Huston's articles, is a great cause of chaos and trouble instigation.
On February 26, 2006, William F Harrison, MD - wharri3365@cox-internet.com wrote:
Subject: the forgotten victim
Say what? Fr. Frank, I think you have gone bonkers. Being in line to become the next St Francis (or the first St. Frank) seems to have gone to you head and made you whackoo and whackie.
William F Harrison, MD, FACOG, NAF member
Our response:
A well reasoned and lucid argument from a respected member of the medical community.
Thank you for so clearly elucidating the pro-choice viewpoint from such an objective scientific viewpoint.
On February 21, 2006, Pete Peterson - putty@optonline.net wrote:
The Right versus the Left: Do you really think that there is a difference? Is the Left more corrupt than the Right? Does the Right want to help the U.S more than the Left? Is Bill Clinton a worse president than Bush? Is the U.S. going to hell because of the Left? Did the Left start this war with no end? Did the Left speak about "supporting our troops and then cut the V.A. Money? The difference between the two is not a big one. They are both out to make sure that the rich get richer and the poor get empty promises.The Right hides behind the bible and the flag and the Left hides behind empty words and phrases. What was a great and noble experiment in subduing native people and expropriating their land has now degenerated into invective filled backbiting and racial hate. You claim to be the sole possessors of the truth but the Left also has slanted opinions and claims to speak the truth. By the way do you think that a unarmed fifteen year old boy should be shot and killed while fleeing from a burglary? (Your boy Mr. Right wingAlito does.) You claim to be speaking the truth but a truth is verifiable and yet you strongly state your opinions as truth.You need to live more, read more and grow more. While this will not help you and the others of your ilk as much as I would like it may add something to your life if you allow it. The childishness of your opinions shows a lack of anything that might pass for wisdom.
And as the discourse in this country denigrates in babble it is people like you on both sides who contribute only noise and more heat than light. Pat B and Bill O and Norm and the rest of you crew are as sad as M. Moore but you believe so strongly that your side is right that you ignore their lack of intelligence. Once you take a stand it is difficult to change but that is a sign of real intelligence. From reading your writings I see no evidence of any. Perhaps you have advanced degrees but so does Bush and he is not what you would call educated. "There are none so blind as those who will not see"
Pete Peterson
Our response:
To answer your first 5 questions, YES.
Incidentally, the inability to organize one's thoughts into paragraph form also raises the question of "intelligence".
One question back to you: Do you think the age of a violent and dangerous perpetrator should determine whether deadly force is permissible in stopping their threat to the public?
If a 10 year old is standing in the center of the mall with an automatic weapon and intends to fire, refusing to respond to commands to put it down... I say take his head off. The innocent bystander hit by one of his shots won't care whether it came from a 10 year old or an adult. He'd be shot just the same.
On February 13, 2006, Barton Grimm - bluemetro@comcast.net wrote:
Subject: Mr. Meekins
Your Mr. Meekins would be well served by being taken from his home against his will and held captive for the viewing pleasure of others. To say that animals in zoos live "a pretty good life" is merely a comparative statement.
Yes, Mr. Meekins, I guess it is a pretty good life if compared to being hunted and killed. I'm quite sure, though, that hunting is something that you have absolutely no qualms about. I suggest you take a moment out of your self-indulgent, self-centered, human-happiness-at-all-cost life to reflect
on the pain and suffering calloused people like you perpetuate for the other "citizens" of this planet. Shame on you and all like you who still refuse to
and/or cannot put something besides your own self interest in the forefront of your thoughts. It is exactly your "type" that should be considered the
actual "sinners" of the would. I use that term because your ilk seem to try and justify all the horrors you visit on this world in the name of your God and, perhaps, you might understand my point when referenced in your backward terms.
Barton Grimm
Beverly Hills, MI
Our response:
Zoo animals are now "planetary citizens". I'm sure Ed Asner will be pleased to see the increase in the membership.
Zoos have contributed more to more human understanding of animals and their habitats, and have been responsible for more preservation of species than all activities of all the tree-hugging enviro-wackos combined.
If it were not for zoos, Giant Pandas, Bengal Tigers, White Rhinos and numerous other endangered species would have been extinct some time ago.
On February 04, 2006, Hockey 1 - vze88adz@verizon.net wrote:
Subject: Misuse of My Name
To Whom It May Concern:
It seems that my personal e-mail account was used by my ex-wife in response to
something she read on your website.
The comments under kevinkalnok@verizon.net dated September 3, 2005 are not mine.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Kevin Kalnok
Our response:
The original offending mail appears below. It emphatically was NOT written by Kevin Kalnok... apparantly his ex-wife sent it from his email account without authorization.
On September 03, 2005, the FORMER Mrs. Kevin Kalnok, C. Ontinas wrote:
Subject: You Are ...
... nothing but a infantile group who live in a world based on superstition and fear. How many of you have ever left your state, let alone this country? Ignorant lot, that's for sure.
Oh, and you call yourselves followers of Jesus? Trust me, if Jesus comes back, a visit to y'all will not be on his agenda.
May you find the light before you die
On February 02, 2006, John - liquidcourage@comcast.net wrote:
Subject: Chafee
Why do you people always eat your own with such discontent and hate even if Chafee didn't vote for cloture.. Seems Adam Gramm is a Republican first and American Second...What a shame..I am now boycotting your words and eveyone I see advertise..Good luck. Buy the way..the words News and Commentary should not be put together like peanut butter and jelly.
John
Our response:
We don't eat our own... we point out when those who are RINO'S... Republicans in Name Only... demonstrate their disunity with conservative ideals.
Our site contains both news, and commentary. We proudly state so. And we distinguish between them.
The Mainstream press is also broadcasting news with commentary... but they are solute and solution - so intermingled as to be indistinguishable... and they don't acknowledge the commentary and opinion.
We offer a jar of peanut butter and a jar of jelly. You can eat one or the other.
The MSM offers a sandwich but doesn't label the contents.
Enjoy your "boycott". We'll miss you.
On February 01, 2006, John Miller - bronx607@yahoo.com wrote:
Subject: Why Peta kills animals? Conservative values not good enough?
Why don't you just advertise what the site is really about? Upholding conservative values? Are you ashamed of it or using death is truly fun for you republican death hoarders?
John Miller
Bronx, NY
Our response:
I could give a better response if I had any idea what you are talking about!
We uphold conservative values.
We are pretty clear about "advertising" this.
Peta DOES kill animals and we point out their hypocricy. But if you want to take issue with the people raising this issue - you ought to check out www.petakillsanimals.com
On January 31, 2006, George Sovak - geojazz46@earthlink.net wrote:
Subject: Michael Gaynor!!
To whom it may concern-
Is Michael Gaynor delusional!!
What planet is he living on!!
His latest rant in The Conservative Voice is shameful and at best, ill-informed!!
Bush's dismal ratings are his own g**da**ed fault- the man is an idiot and a tool!!
He was appointed, not elected, and the sooner the"right" figures it out, the better the world will be!!
His impeachment will be hailed throughout the world!!
He is the most despised "president" the country has ever produced and Howard Dean is on record as calling him the "worst president" he's ever seen in 30 years!!
As the Republican party goes down in flames this fall, I would be very interested to read Gaynor's op-ed the next day!!
Will he blame the demise on the liberal media- most likely!!
You're all such paranoid idiots!!
Yours in truth- George Sovak
Proud Liberal Retired educator
Our response:
WE'RE paranoid? MIKE's delusional?
Thank goodness you're a RETIRED educator - lest you continue your rants before the young skulls full of mush in our schools today!
Let's see:
Bush's dismal ratings ARE his own fault. He's too much in the middle! The left HATES him just because he's a Republican and he WON... and the right is disappointed that he's not conservative ENOUGH!
Appointed? He WON. Get over it.
Dean called Bush the worst president in 30 years? Hillary called him the worst EVER. Hey, remember Carter? Nixon? Hoover? See: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/11718.html
Impeachment? Dreamland!
Frankly, I'm looking forward to November. PLEASE log in and read all our posts "the next day"!
On January 30, 2006, Fred & Barb LeClaire - bnflec@verizon.net wrote:
Subject: bush
Bush has got to be removed from office.
He is NOT presidential material - never has been - never will be!
Bush and his crew need to LEAVE OFFICE WITH "GREAT VIGOR."
S.G. Le Claire
Our response:
He won. His term runs three more years. Deal with it.
On January 23, 2006, Noll, Robert J CIV COMNAVREG NW - robert.noll@navy.mil wrote:
Subject: Re: You people
"Noll, Robert J CIV COMNAVREG NW" <robert.noll@navy.mil>
You people are dangerous!!!
Robert J. Noll
Code N44133B
E-Mail: robert.noll@navy.mil
Phone: 360-476-8375
FAX: 360-476-0477
Our response:
I was quite distressed to see your comments coming from a navy.mil address... till I saw that you're a civilian contractor. I didn't think any real NAVY man would find us so dangerous!
Still, it's a shame to see our tax dollars going to someone working for the military, who holds your views.
The fact is, the LEFT is dangerous, giving aid and comfort to the enemy and emboldening them, leaking classified information to our enemies etc. The right is simply dangerous to Democratic Power.
On January 15, 2006, Russell Scott - coolcar@texas.net wrote:
Subject: tolerance
Who is tolerant? Intelligent design? Why would I want bible toting
zealots running amuck in school halls and boards? We have enough on
the teaching/learning slate as there is. Find the funding and
schooling should take care of their own. Domestic spying? If you look
up someone's butt long enough you are bound to find some crap.
Conservative judges? As long as the facts are allowed to be presented
fairly and honestly, the laws should apply equally to all including
the executive. Lobbying? Privilege and class distinction went out
with the industrial revolution. Greasing palms is a mafia/thug thing.
Prosecute, prosecute, fine, and confine. Suits don't make the man.
Neither does pray, scripture, and your pious attitude. America is no
higher on God's blessing list than any other country either. If
nature strikes a balance the extreme left can only be countered by
the extreme right. Does that make you right? Never.
Russell Scott Austin, TX
Our response:
Maybe switching to decaf would help you stay on a single issue long enough to build a case and make a point?
On January 10, 2006, Graham Smith - flagelect@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Subject: A word of advice
Hi there.
After reading a few articles on your web site, I thought it prudent to pass
on some concerns I have about the Political and Religious right in the US.
From the viewpoint of the majority of people in the world, you are starting
to sound like a bunch of crazed zealots.
Clearly, you cannot dominate us by our consent, so I suppose you have the
choice of admitting you are wrong, or forcing us all to capitulate.
Ho-hum, not hard to guess what you will do.(Bear in mind what happened to
the Romans.)
All the best,
Anon
Our response:
Dear Anon (Graham)
1) You read "a few articles" and are already ready to pass judgement on the entire conservative movement. I call that "prejudice".
2) If you want to look at the "majority" of the "people in the world" - you're talking about the Asians/Chinese. Your ISP's domain indicates you're in Australia. How did you arrive at such a global conclusion?
3) Who's attempting to "dominate", and what do you mean by that?
4) We're not wrong. And if there is one group of people more defending of self-determination rather than domination, it's the US Conservative movement!
On January 07, 2006, Karl Priest - Kcpriest@aol.com wrote:
Subject: In Case You Missed This
Following are facts extreme evolutionists don't want the public to know.
1. I am a recently retired public middle school mathematics teacher in West Virginia with over 30 years experience as an educator and administrator.
For the last five years of my full-time career (with the full knowledge of State, County, and ACLU officials) I have demonstrated to my students that mathematics proves beyond the shadow of doubt that evolutionism is nonsense. The students saw that the evidence clearly shows that every item associated with humans, animals and plants are Intelligent Designs and Intelligent Design is science because it is observable by billions of people trillions of times, always has been, always will be. I always let them figure it out for themselves and allowed them to believe what they chose, but at least they were exposed to the scientific facts that extremists want to censor from the minds of public
school students. After the lesson a student from an atheist family said, "Evolution is silly."
2. Currently, as a substitute teacher, I have contact with more public school students than ever and take advantage of every opportunity to provide them with the facts described above.
3. Evolutionists are bluffing when they say their beliefs are scientific. Be sure to look at the list of evolutionists who refuse the debate challenge from my friend Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. See the list at http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/ Click on the
Life Science Prize at the bottom.
Sincerely,
Karl Priest
Our response:
Presentation of BOTH sides of ANY debate and permitting the hearers to discern between them is always appropriate and enlightening. It is usually when one side fears the the persuasive power of other that the presentation of the opposing viewpoint is, in fact, opposed.
On December 25, 2005, Mark Rhoads - Mark.Rhoads2@verizon.net wrote:
Subject: More on Al Gore assistance in "creating" the internet
This may get confusing so let me go slow. My name is Mark Rhoads and I
live in Virginia. My name is spelled exactly the same way as a poster from
Colorado who is not related to me and who is also named Mark Rhoads and who
wrote about Al Gore and the internet on Dec. 12, 2005. My middle initial is
Q. for Quentin. I think I know of the other Mr. Rhoads because he might be
the one who has often posted on AOL and on other issues in other forums and
I have often been asked why I posted such and such. The spelling of our
name is so unusual that I have only identified about ten people living in
the country with that name.
The reason I am sometimes asked about posts from the Mark Rhoads in
Colorado is that I was Vice President of the United States Internet Council
in Washington, DC from 1996 to 2001 and still serve as caretaker acting
president of the low-funded shell group with little activity since the dot
com bust and serious illness of the CEO some years ago. I was a co-editor
of three State of the Internet reports in 1999, 2000, and 2001.
Now as to Al Gore's claims regarding his involvement in the creation of
the Internet, I will take the other Mark Rhoads quote verbatim and
de-construct it. Here is the quote from Gore which I also think is
accurate:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in
creating the Internet."
That is still a breath-taking claim of very broad credit for the
relatively minor role of a Senator or Congressman in perhaps lending one's
name as a sponsor or co-sponsor to some bills over the years that may have
facilitated some appropriations or infrastructure improvements for the
National Science Foundation. By the same token, there are other members of
Congress who could have made a similar claim if they had been so inclined to
brag. I know slightly and greatly respect and admire Vint Cerf (cited by
the other Mr. Rhoads) who knew as much as anyone about the early evolution
of what the internet has become. But if you parse his remarks carefully and
know Vint you can see that he is being typically generous to former Vice
President Gore who did have a sympathetic ear on some technology issues.
A more realistic appraisal is that Al Gore was one of a few dozen federal
lawmakers who were eager to put their names on technology bills as sponsors.
He made no more or less extraordinary effort to push those bills than many
other sponsors. Al Gore was still in college when the ARPANET was created
in 1969. When Bill Clinton took office in January 1993 with Al Gore as his
Vice President, only about 90,000 Americans had access to the Internet. By
the time Clinton left office in January 2001, there were about 100 million
users worldwide or an increase of more than 1,000 percent.
What drove that increase was the invention of the browser, graphical
interface, the world wide web, and the growth of content offered by an
explosion of Internet Service Providers in the private sector. The Clinton
Administration, and its Internet czar Ira Magaziner, deserves some credit
for staying out of the way while the medium grew, but government per se
played a modest role in the evolution of what we now know as the web.
Vint Cerf once told me he regretted very much that Jon Postel at UCLA and
others allowed for plain English language letter representations of the
numerical URL addresses because it might have made the internet too popular.
Early Internet pioneers naturally took a proprietary and somewhat elitist
view of their toy and I think several of them regretted the
commercialization and rapid expansion of the net.
When Don Telage performed due diligence for SAIC in the early 90s before
they took over a very small Network Solutions, the primary goal of SAIC was
just to raid a few programmers to work for them. Even in 1994, Telage and
SAIC never really thought the registry of domain names would be a profitable
business when NSI was the subcontractor for NSF. My point is that in the
middle 1990s, none of the founders of the Internet accurately predicted how
fast the net would grow and I think it took them by surprise so much that
they wished the newcomers would go away because they were a nuisance to the
"serious" net users at the universities and in the government.
You have to look at Al Gore's statement above as part of a pattern of
resume inflation that seemed not to know when the boundary exaggeration and
hyperbole had been crossed. Recall that Al Gore also once suggested that
his romance with Tipper might have been the model for the movie "Love Story"
by Erich Segal in 1970. Other than the fact that Al's college friend Tommy
Lee Jones made a cameo appearance in the film, people familiar with the
evolution of that film are hard pressed to find an inspiration coming from
Gore to Segal. Gore's amazingly brief tour of duty of only four months as
an information specialist for an engineering company at Bien Hoa in the
Republic of Viet Nam from late January to late April 1971 was portrayed on
his campaign web site with an "in country" photo actually taken at Fort
Rucker, Alabama the previous year. Contrary to regulations then and now, Al
Gore wore his class A Army uniform in a political commercial for his father
aired on TV in Tennessee in October 1970. None of these things were
outright lies, but all were certainly exaggeration or misrepresentation.
Mark Q. Rhoads (Mark.Rhoads2@verizon.net)
Our response:
Thank you, Mark. Despite the potential for confusion with your name, you have done much to CLEAR UP confusion about Gore's internet comment.
On December 17, 2005, Steven Dentalus - the_shortest_fuse@yahoo.com wrote:
So you have this whole ranting page devoted to showing how intolerant liberals are.
Then why is it that you keep trying (and failing) to stop me from posting to your
website?
Is it because I said that I bet Paul Harvey j***s it to German scat porn? Because
that was funny. I mean, you have to admit. Damn funny.
Oh well, if you want to litter your site with "post deleted" comments because you
can't take the pressure, so be it!
Have A Nice Day :)
Our response:
You are welcome to post opposing viewpoints, challenging points made by columnists. Intelligent debate and discourse are not restricted. If you keep the vulgarities out of it and remain on topic, your posts will be permitted.
Dissent is acceptable. In your own words, "anarchy" is not. We will continue to delete posts deemed simple harrasment and flame. If you have something salient to say, the fact that it is in opposition to our column would not cause it to be deleted. We permit dissent here. But it is civil.
Keep your comments salient, civil, and without the vulgarities, and we'll permit them to post.
On December 16, 2005, Daniel Stillwell - djsinsd@yahoo.com wrote:
I don't consider myself a liberal or a conservative.I am more middle of the road.But
there were some articles here that caught my eye as being rather silly.Whether that
means I am a liberal or not is for you to decide, but I think attacks on gays and
non super supporters of Bush are just going over board in some effort to be
extreme.I don't think gays should be given the right to marry-right away.But I also
don't see why there is such an issue with making policy about making sure they can't
marry.Who's marriage is going to be affected?Will your wife leave you if gays got
married?And how about Bush?Is your devotion to your conservative Republican views so
blinded that you can't see that Bush may not be doing as grand a job as you may
think?
So you want a rant and I am trying to give you one.I hope I was able to articulate
my rant better then the rants that come from the ultra Conservatives or for that
matter the ultra liberals.I really wish we lived in a middle of the road society
where there was no discrimination of anyone and politics existed to make society
better rather then pit each other apart.But if I had to pick sides I would lean
more liberal since I don't feel a sudden urge to hate any certain group and I am
all for an open and inclusive society.Something Conservatives, ultra Conservatives
anyway, can't seem to grasp.everything has to fit in their own narrow vies...-Dan
Our response:
Dan
Your comments are not "rantings". This is a legitimate dissenting opinion which can be debated intelligently. Please see our FORUM section.
If you are responding directly to a specific posting, you are welcome to click the link at the bottom of the article to post a response - which will appear in our FORUM.
You will probably find articles and authors that you tend to agree with more than others, and some with whom you will take issue more often than not. We are home to a diverse bunch of writers.
On December 15, 2005, David Brands - dbrands@cox.net wrote:
Your site is dripping with the kind of drivel that¹s going to get your side voted out next year and 2008. Thanks for being consistent though, it helps the liberal cause!
DAVID BRANDS
San Diego, CA 92103
Our response:
We're dripping drivel? Quick, get me a towel!
Yup, we're consistent. And as to the 2006 and 2008 elections, that remains to be seen - doesn't it?
On December 12, 2005, Mark Rhoads - rhoadie@comcast.net wrote:
Subject: A small correction...
Greetings from Colorado!
I stumbled across your site today from an article on Google News.
While I don't necessarily agree with all of your contributors, I find
your site's articles generally well-written and accurate. I was curious
about the "Rantings" link, so I read several of the posts. Some were
hilarious, some were disturbing, and some were childishly simplistic.
Your reply to the 3rd rant from the bottom of the page, however, left
me cold:
"On August 17, 2005, Thomas Shefchik wrote:
Subject: Liberals Hate Freedom <remainder snipped>
Our response:
Well, didn't Al Gore invent the internet?"
No, Al didn't invent the internet, nor did he ever claim to have invented
it. His actual statement, in a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, was,
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."
This is not a claim of invention, merely a statement of fact.
According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom
who's been called the Father of the Internet, "The Internet would not
be where it is in the United States without the strong support given
to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current
role and in his earlier role as Senator."
The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with
making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's High
Performance Computing Act. The University of Pennsylvania's Dave Ferber
says that without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is today."
Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University,
claims that Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the
importance of networking the country.
Links:
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/10/05/gore_internet/index.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/
Of course, being a fair-minded conservative, you would be willing
to put aside the "footbal team" mentality of modern politics and
admit to simply resorting to the type of character assassination
and implied name-calling you seem to despise, right?
Mark Rhoads
rhoadie@comcast.net
Our response:
Mark,
As a matter of actual substance - you are not incorrect, and we accept your kind rebuke.
You must admit, however, that in much the same way that Dan Quayle's spelling of potato with an "e" (which, incidentally, was an older, but still correct spelling) resulted in ridicule -- the phraseology and general impressions left by Gore's statement DID leave him open to some level of facetious retort.
Incidentally - another father of the internet, Bob Metcalfe, who invented Ethernet technology and founded the 3Com corp, had the following response when I asked him about Gore's "assistance" with the creation of the internet. "I don't know how much he helped personally... but we all know the net does run on Al-Gore-ithms!"
On December 10, 2005, Steven Dentalus - the_shortest_fuse@yahoo.com wrote:
Subject: RANTING!!!
Awesome, could I get a ranting please? I would like my email to be read by the
literally tens if not hundreds of readers of The Conservative Voice! Please, hold my
email up for predictable smug scornful comments! It makes me hot!!!
Our response:
Glad to oblige, shortest.
As readers of the Forum know, your postings are perfect examples of what we call rantings.
On December 09, 2005, connor bourke - cjb100au@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Subject: Reasoned debate - sure
I have been browsing through your website. I have not
read it all - there is a lot on there, but in your
rantings section I noticed, even in response to
reasonable criticism, you revert to an unsubstantiated
claim that Liberals shy away from reasoned debate and
revert to name calling. OK then bring it on! Let's
debate. I am unashamedly liberal, and have opinions on
most major issues, and mostly differ with the opinions
stated here. I am not an expert on all of these issues
will gladly back up my view point on any. If, it turns
out I am wrong on something I will have learned
something.
Looking for a place to start - there is an article on
you site about celibate homosexuals joining the
priesthood. I am not religous, nor do I believe that
there is anything wrong with being homosexual, but
assuming there is, surely the strongest argument goes
something like this....
We are all tempted to sin in many ways. If engaging in
homosexual sex is a sin, then surely being celibate is
a resitance of that temptation, and surely resisting
temptation to sin brings one closer to god. There are
many things listed as sins in the bible -and most of
us commit many of them every day, and are tempted to
commit many more. Why should the church blackball
those who are tempted toward, but restrain from
committing, one particular sin?
Connor Bourke
Our response:
Welcome, Connor.
Since you are new to the site, a little background: The rantings section is where we highlight the examples of intolerance, anger, hatred or ridiculous rantings we receive from some liberals. We do indeed occasionally hear from reasoning liberals as yourself. Most commonly they post a response directly to the relevant article by clicking the link at the bottom of the article. I would encourage you to engage any article with reasoned debate utilizing this process. The reasonable and civil exchange of opposing viewpoints is not only welcome, some would even find it enjoyable.
As to the debatable question you raised I'd like to make 3 points.
1) There are some who feel that anyone with the propensity toward homosexual orientation are unqualified to be priests. There are others who would feel comfortable with your point - that behavior rather than orientation should be the deciding factor. You will find BOTH points of view within the sphere of conservative thought. Common misconception notwithstanding, conservatives are not always in monolithic lockstep!
2) The Conservative Voice, as a publication, takes no position as to whether a celibate homosexual priest should be eligible for the priesthood. That is a matter for the hierarchy of the church to determine for itself. You will likely find a unity of thought here that would oppose a PRACTICING homosexual's eligibility for priesthood, however.
3) Please bear in mind as you read this site that the opinions expressed are those of the individual authors, and may or may not represent the position of The Conservative Voice.
On December 06, 2005, Alan Weissburg MD - IlanBarak@aol.com wrote:
I define myself as a Progressive, neither Liberal nor Conservative. I do,
however believe that true Conservatives and their noble point of view are
being ruined by an alliance of medieval minded religious fanatics, and
corrupt, and/or power-mad aggressive ideologues, hypocritically posing as
devout Christians to enlist the support of the first group.
William Howard Taft and Barry Goldwater must be rolling in their graves.
Ask yourself honestly, would these great men, embodiments of the
Conservative philosophy, respected and even loved by people from the entire
range of the political spectrum, have approved of this administration? Of
Dick Cheney, of Karl Rove and his dastardly, dirty methods, of Tom Delay, of
William Frist, of Jack Abramoff? I understand that this publication must
stand for the perspective of the right, of the conservative, as well it
should, but in private, behind closed doors, I have no doubt whatsoever that
you men and women of good faith know that true conservatism, the political
point of view that provides balance to the legitimate point of view of the
left, has been stuck an egregious blow by these dishonest, cynical men.
The Democratic party should be a coalition of the strong left to the
moderate left. The Republican party should be a coalition of the strong
right to the moderate right. The moderates of both parties should not
overlap but may be close. But most importantly, they must be able to fight
like gladiators on the legislative floor and then be able to go out and
enjoy lunch together. Like civilized honest Americans who know with utter
certainty that all have the best interests of the country at heart.
We must get back to this. If we don't, we shall continue down the path of
the Romans which is plain for us to see and learn from, even as we descend.
Please continue to show me my political opinions are not always right. God
bless Barry Goldwater for keeping my eyes open so many times. Those of us
on the moderate left know full well we are in need of colleagues on the
other side of the isle to keep us thinking clearly. And vise versa!
Have a fine holiday. Help us help you. We need you so badly.
Alan Weissburg MD
Providence, RI
Our response:
Your tolerance and openmindedness is refreshing, and so rare these days. And your comments are so measured and thoughtful as opposed the the usual rancor. This is a hopeful sign. One day, perhaps, even your fervent secularism will soften under the warm glow of reasonable people of faith.
As we all know, loony bombthrowers can be found on both the left and the right. Refreshing it is to find some discourse between those who find themselves on opposite sides of the spectrum, but within those extremes.
On November 30, 2005, Mike Howard - mhgoldwing@cox.net wrote:
Subject: How to shut liberals up
Are Liberals Lazy, or just Stuck on Stupid?
For several weeks now the liberal left has been calling "W" a liar regarding
pre-war intelligence. The "W" bashers who write editorials have exercised no
original thought, simply repeated the bullet points from MoveOn.org.
For the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct that the President
lied and convinced all of the Democrats and mainstream media that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction. If that's the case then I have questions:
1. When the Democrats were making speeches proclaiming the danger of
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction prior to Bush's presidency, who lied to
them then? The Clinton administration?
2. Since "W" first ran for governor of Texas the liberal left has screamed
long and loud that he was the epitome of stupid. They have kept up this
theme ever since. If he's so stupid then how was he able to fool every
brilliant Democrat in Congress? I would hate to admit that the most stupid
man on the planet hoodwinked all my guys.
3. If the Democrats did believe "W" was so incredibly stupid, then why
didn't they dig deeper at the time and question the intelligence? After all,
they do have access to the same information the President does. I would hate
to admit that my guys were so lazy about such an important issue,
particularly in light of the fact they knew they were getting information
from such a dunce.
So, which is it? Are the liberal Democrats who are screaming that the
President lied to them just lazy, or stuck on stupid?
Our response:
Every once in a while, we get a letter that just deserves to be read. This one could have served as OUR response to some of the comments found here in Rantings.
Thanks Mike.
On November 28, 2005, CURTIS DAY - cday@prodigy.net wrote:
Subject: Liberal Tolerance, personal testimony
Since you cited some posts as examples of Liberal Intollerance, I thought I would
give you my own personal testimony. Being a religious conservative, I am now an
extreme moderate politically speaking. I have attended 2 liberal activist groups,
one of them being moveon.org. I agreed with them about the war but was not shy in
sharing my prolife(I believe abortion is an option only when the woman's life is in
danger) and religious conservative viewpoints. How did they respond?
It was a very warm welcome with respectful discussing on points we agreed with and
points we disagreed with. Never did I feel attacked or put on the spot.
What I have found is that those who are more conservative or more liberal share is
that they tend to be reductionistic in thought. That is they try to define complex
problems with only one issue. For example, the more pro-choice people are, they tend
to define abortion only in terms of the woman's right to choose and the more
pro-life people are, they tend to define abortion only in terms of the unborn
child's right to live. In reality, one must consider both issues though one is not
confined to finding a middle position between the two.
This reductionistic thinking is probably the reason why both extreme liberals and
conservatives are called simple-minded. I prefer reductionistic because it is a
non-judgemental precise way of describing the kind of thinking involved.
btw, the labeling of someone as liberal or conservative is context dependent. Most
of us would be counted as liberals in a totalitarian communistic country.
Curt Day
Our response:
Curt,
While your comments don't actually qualify as a "ranting" (which, on this site, is described as an example of intolerance, hatred, vitriol or ridiculous ranting), we are nonetheless publishing your comments here, as you raise some interesting points worthly of discussion.
There are, without question, reasonable people on both sides of the liberal/conservative spectrum. You will find a large number of reasonable rational people who both write for and read The Conservative Voice. You may also find such tolerant and reasonable people within more left leaning organizations. It is quite pleasant to have a free exchange of opposing ideas between these folk.
You will also find single issue "reductionists" at both ends of the same spectrum.
Further, you will find wacko "bombthrowers" at the extreme ends of both sides as well.
We find that oftentimes, however, the rational debate of the right is not countered with rational discourse from the left. More commonly the left chooses not to engage the issue with logical counterpoint, instead falling back to the "reductionist" talking points, and when that fails, they resort to ad-hominum attacks and vitriol.
This is not to say that there are no rightwing nutjobs out there. There are some. However the overwhelming propensity is for the Right to favor reasoned, rational, issue-for-issue logical debate in the marketplace of ideas - while the Left by-and-large tends toward One-Liner talking points, name calling and character assasination.
On November 28, 2005, Tom Raccis - tcraccis@yahoo.com wrote:
Subject: Re: blow it out your a**
> stick to wiping your a** and leave thinking about stem cell research to
> someone with a f***in brain
>
Our response:
And you believe YOU have such a brain?
I wonder if you have any knowledge of stem cell research at all yourself. For example, can you tell me the difference between Embrionic Stem Cells, CordBlood Stem Cells and Somatic Cell Stem Cells?
Did you know that NOBODY opposes CordBlood and Somatic Cell Stem Cell research?? Betcha didn't.
On November 26, 2005, LEO DILLYWAN - dogcooper@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Subject: THIS GUY DAN HAEGE NO NEO'S HERE BOY
MISTER DAN HAEGE,
THERE ARE NO NEOCONSERVATIVES ON THIS SITE! LOOK AT THE LIST OF COLUMNISTS YOU TWIT,
PAT BUCHANAN AND ROBERT NOVAK ARE NO NEOCON TUMORS...THEY ARE THE REAL
CONSERVATIVES, CLOSED BORDERS, ANTI-IRAQ WAR, ANTI NAFTA AND CAFTA. THOSE
NAUSEATING NEOCONS ARE MUCH CLOSER TO LIBERALS IN THOUGHT; PLUS THEY LOVE ARIEL
SHARON AND HIS REPULSIVE LIKUD.
SO YOU SEE SIR, YOU ARE VERY WRONG HEADED HERE...PLEASE TAKE BACK THE LIKES OF BILL
KRISTOL AND JOHNNY AND NORMAN PODHORETZ TRUE EVIL SCUMBAGS HIDING OUT IN
CONSERVATIVE WRAPPINGS.
THE DOG,
Our response:
I think Dan Haege ticked off "the dog".
On November 22, 2005, Dan Haege - coachfootballnow@msn.com wrote:
Subject: You are fascist, you don't like freedom.
You people there at the Conservative voice have the right to your opinion (because this is America, a free country) but your ideology and
rationale behind your arguments is really fascist-like, simple minded, and ignorant. Why do you want Supreme Court Justices who will destroy our individual freedoms to live in a free society? We are above all "land of
the free"., we can not have a free country if people such as yourself want to destroy our individual freedoms. The Warren court (our greatest Supreme Court) knew the true meaning and underpinnings of our constitution, and above all they knew that the United States of America is a free country where individual freedom is valued more then anything else. The 4th ammendment protects our privacy, and the 14th ammendment protects the states from having too much power. A state is a form of government, and if
you neo-conservatives had your way we would be living in 50 different states that all have different laws. Isn't that why the north and the south had a civil war? A state is a form of government, and when the states have all of the power this leads to more government control, not less. I do not "like" abortion, no one does. But you, nor anyone else has a right to tell a perfect stranger what they can and can not do with their bodies and with their own personal lives. That is a very personal and private choice. The
neo-conservative war machine is running out of gas, and I would like nothing better then to see Hillary Clinton win in 2008. I don't care who wins in 2008 as long as it is a Democrat, but if Hillary wins it would be that much sweeter. You neo-conservatives are like cavemen in your thinking;
"war good" said the neoconservative Republican, "peace bad." That is the
extent of the rationale and the reasoning behind your thinking and your political arguments. You want fascism, you don't want freedom. I think you fascist like conservatives should move to a fascist country, you don't like freedom and you don't understand the United States Constitution. Vote Democrat in 2006 and 2008!
Dan Haege
Our response:
Constitutional freedom is defined as LIBERTY not LIBERTINE License, Dan. See http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/libertine for clarification of the difference.
Your short treatise contained the term "fascist" or "fascism" multiple times, but I'd bet you can't define the term. If you could, you would know it is not applicable to conservative thought. In fact, probably more descriptive of today's leftists:
"An authoritarian system of government (Big Government) under absolute control of a single dictator, allowing no political opposition, (sounds remarkably like leftists who can't handle the very existence of opposing viewpoints) forcibly suppressing dissent, and rigidly controlling most business, industrial and economic activities. (What party wants to control business, industry and economics?)"
Your understanding of the Constitution and the makeup of our nation is deficient. A clear text reading of the constitution indicates that ALL matters not specifically written into federal jurisdiction by the Constitution are left to the States. In fact, everyplace on earth, outside the USA, the term "state" refers to a SOVEREIGN NATION. The "UNITED STATES", an amalgamation of STATES which are otherwise SOVEREIGN, elected to unify under a FEDERATION for their common benefit. The FEDERAL government was only to exercise authority over a common defense, the coinage of money, regulation of trade and tarrifs, and interstate commerce. CONSTITUTIONALLY, EVERYTHING else was to be a STATE matter, whether YOU like it or not. The original intent of the Constitution has been corrupted. We don't seek an Activist Justice promoting the agenda of the Right and legislating from the Bench (unlike the Liberals). We seek an originalist who will interpret law in the light of the original construction of the constitution. How can you find that so offensive?
On November 21, 2005, Barnaby Wrudge - yehudi@hotmail.com wrote:
Subject: begone from my site
Your horrid little site has popped up on my news page. To befoul myself and my
keyboard by quoting you -
1) Learn the difference between journalistic "reporting" and opinion commentary.
2) The Conservative Voice is unabashadly "biased" toward a conservative viewpoint.
That's the point, isn't it?
Having made your position clear, i think the right thing for you to do is to contact
google news to inform them that you aren't even posing as a news source, as they
seem to be under the impression that you are. Who ever vets news services included
with google news has obviously never seen your rag, or i would not have spent
minutes worrying how many people take your crap seriously. I am generally nauseated
by your kind, and the irony of a backwards culture such as yours employing the
informational tools of science would be laughable if it wasn't seriously disturbing.
Furthermore, i chuckled when i saw the militant ad for free prayer in the sidebar,
and think about how much you fools froth at the mouth whenever someone pulls out a
prayer mat.
personally, if someone wants to to make the international sign for ' i'm a gullible
fool, tell me what to do ' in public, it's at their own peril. threats or
exhortations to the contrary ( that's contrary with two r's ) are also laughable.
finally, it can't be a proper rant without my position being clear. i really and
truly think that the people you (purport to) represent are the most hateful,
selfish, ignorant, destructive and counter-productive people on this planet, who'll
blindly support anything that's wrapped in the word righteous (ie Cheney), and the
only good thing about you lot is that you are conveniently clumped together. Get
your act together khatami, just try not to hit the sides.
BW
Western Australia
Our response:
The Conservative Voice is both a news and commentary site. Our editorial position and our commentators are indeed unabashedly conservative. Our COMMENTARY does not masquerade as news, unlike the left-leaning mainstream media. Our NEWS features are not commentary and appear separately on our site. NEWS was not the focus of the quoted comments.
On November 21, 2005, LostSok0523@aol.com - LostSok0523@aol.com wrote:
Subject: A Letter to Santa Claus
Dear Santa Claus,
Please send something to my "daddy" Dick Cheney this year for Christmas.
He's very sad.
He lost his Scooter.
Sincerabably,
George W. Bush
Our response:
Ok, nobody can accuse us of not having a sense of humor. I laughed at this too.
On November 19, 2005, Greg Loutsenko - greg.loutsenko@gmail.com wrote:
Subject: you need to get out more
Hello
I am from UK and I noticed all of your "reporting" is VERY biased to the
point where your articles are nothing more then angry and hostile opinions
about "the liberals". I recommend reading a little bit more unbiased news,
e.g. www.bbc.co.uk/news <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news>, and try traveling
outside of your trailer park, the world is a big place and self conscious,
intolerant people are in fact in the minority. Maybe that is why you are so
angry!
Regards,
Greg
Our response:
1) Learn the difference between journalistic "reporting" and opinion commentary.
2) The Conservative Voice is unabashadly "biased" toward a conservative viewpoint. That's the point, isn't it?
3) If you believe the BBC is an UNBIASED news source, you're sadly deluded.
4) Intolerace is more the realm of the liberal then the conservative. Liberals are tolerant, until you disagree with them.
On November 19, 2005, Walt Puciata - birdinhand55@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Subject: Liberals
Have you so soon forgotten the english lanuage? The root of the word
liberal, is liberty (freedom).
Soon, your president, will be found out for what he really is.
I leave you with a quote, from the Gospels:
"Are we blind also? Jesus said: "If you were blind, you would have no sin
(missing the mark of who God really intended to be), but now you say 'we
see.' Therefore, your sin remains." John ch 9.
Your days are numbered.
Our response:
Liberal comes from the same root as libertine as well. Here's another quote for you: "By their fruits you will know them."
On November 18, 2005, doug korthof - doug@seal-beach.org wrote:
Subject: You are so screwed up
Get with the program, the Bush war is over.
Our response:
It's over when the mission is completed, Iraq is stabilized and able to maintain itself. The one thing that is demoralizing the troops over there more than any other right now is the prospect of being brought home with the job left unfinished.
Remember, Bush 41 pulled the troops out with the job left unfinished. You don't want to have to go BACK a 3rd time, do you?
On November 14, 2005, Harry D. Fisher - hfisher@socal.rr.com wrote:
You conservatives are so, well, conservative. If something looked like a good idea
200 or even 2000 years ago, then you people cling to it with all your might.
However, events have overtaken the past. For example, let's look at the idea of
patriotism. The conventional wisdom says that to be patriotic, American activities
are intrinsically more important, and deserve more support from other Americans,
than whatever might be in the interest of a foreign country. At the state level,
this may still be relevant. But at the individual level, I have much more in common
with a similarly situated person in a foreign country than with, say, Rush Limbaugh,
or William Bennett, or indeed any religious or right-wing American. Primitive
patriotism, while possibly natural a few centuries ago when the countries were
young, is no longer relevant, in my view. The mere fact that somebody else is also
an American does not necessarily benefit me in any way, and cuts very little ice.
I simply do not share the concerns of the religious and the right-wingers. What I
need is for my children to be well educated, and for us to live in an enlightened
society. So you can see how conservative trends in America go counter to what I
find important. Should I extol America's "greatness" in spite of this conflict?
That would be false and unnatural, because in fact America is not great, only
wealthy and very good at propaganda. No country is great that has the world's
highest incarceration rate and the greatest number of prisoners. Even so, it's
impossible to avoid the "home of the brave," the "land of the free," and the endless
self-serving propagandistic yada-yada. It's curious how strong these fantasies
remain in spite of our blood-drenched history.
American exceptionalism stands on two thick, elephantine legs: ignorance and
parochialism. These conditions are pre-requisites for believing yourself special.
Harry Fisher
Los Angeles
Our response:
First, let me thank you for a well composed statement without obscenity or irrational ranting.
I am curious, however, why you took time to come to a site called The Conservative Voice, and even took time to write this epistle, if you are so at odds with the conservative viewpoint?
On the other hand, you seem to be responding more to the very existence of those holding a conservative viewpoint, rather than to any particular issue or analysis presented. Therefore, allow me to extend our invitation to continue to visit and READ the posted articles. You may find you actually agree with points made in some of them, though I would expect more often than not you would take issue. But at least you would be informed as to the actual merits of the debate rather than merely tossing labels.
You refer to "conservatives" and "right wingers" as if we were all some monolithic robots in lockstep. If you've read this site for any time at all, you'd have seen some serious debate AMONGST OURSELVES on the Miers nomination, for example. You'd see much criticism of the supposed "rightwing nutjob" George W Bush. There is INDEPENDENCE of thought within the sphere of conservative idealology. Continue to visit and read. You may come away enlightened.
On November 11, 2005, David Browning - davideep@hotmail.com wrote:
you betcha, junior. it's clear that you folks are the lunatic fringe. Rush
limbaugh is a confused, drug addled clown good for a laugh a minute. you are just
sad because I think you really believe all this conservative crap. but, thanks
again for a perspective that only proves valid our points.
Our response:
Glad to be of service! We'll keep providing that conservative perspective.
On November 10, 2005, David Browning - davideep@hotmail.com wrote:
Subject: Greetings
Greetings from Virginia! where you'll find (contrary to popular belief) that not everyone is a beer swilling, trailer-trash, jesus-monkey waving a "conservative" banner that they could never possibly benefit from or a multimillion dollar silver
spoon white-collar criminal tycoon who got rich on the backs of the less fortunate who would never consider giving anything back. Us normal folks showed up in force to show curious George what we think of him and his crack-head nazi cronies.
up yours! :)
Our response:
You're one of the NORMAL FOLKS in VA?
On November 02, 2005, lhenderson@knology.net - lhenderson@knology.net wrote:
Subject: I came across your website
...and it's one of the most childish, silly, and ignorant rants I've ever seen. Tell me why your young, pretty boy, conservative a** isn't in Iraq walking point? You called Liberals/ Democrats "cowards." So why isn't your prissy sissy yuppie a** over there fighting pretty boy? I can tell by your pic you are in the right age group. Why aren't you over there putting your designer clad clean cut a** in harms way for God and country? You're a spoiled, sissy, rich kid aren't you pretty boy? I use to beat the snot out of sissy Nancy boys like you on weekends just to have something to do. Your web page is s**t. I can't believe your daddy wasted real money on it. Get your ass in the military now "COWARD!!" - L Henderson, Knoxville, Tn.
Our response:
If being a civilian disqualifies one from commenting on our policies, supporting our troops and their mission... then by the same logic no man should express an opinion on abortion... seeing as how he is incapable of experiencing pregnancy!
On October 30, 2005, Harry D. Fisher - hfisher@socal.rr.com wrote:
The Scooter Libby activities remind me of Oliver North's crimes. In the Contra
scandal, we were supposed to believe that a lowly lieutenant-colonel in a White
House basement office came up with Iran-Contra all by himself. Of course, the whole
thing was designed for North to fall on his sword to protect the Big Gypper, the
My-Fellow-Americans trombone, the Great Office Sleeper. This time around we're
asked to believe that Libby came up with outing Valerie Plame all by himself, and
that he executed the plan without the connivance of types like Dick Cheney and Karl
Rove. (I don't know about Bush -- possibly he's too stupid to understand what's
been going on and I doubt they tell him everything. I know I wouldn't ...)
Scooter Libby is simply the fall guy for Dick Cheney. I suppose it was part of
Libby's job description to take the fall for the neocon criminals who got us into
the Iraq war with their damned lies. But I don't blame only the neocon fascists.
The aggressively ignorant American public, groveling to Jesus on its collective
knees and believing in angels, swallowed the fantastic tall tales and lies of the
neocons and their trained ape, George Bush. Anybody who had been following events
in Iraq since Desert Storm knew that the Iraqis could hardly feed themselves during
the sanctions, let alone be able to build nuclear bombs. But that's what happens to
the ignorant: they get dragged into trouble by used car dealers, snake-oil salesmen,
and the despicable, criminal, lying neocon traitors and their Republican admirers
and tail-waggers.
Harry Fisher
Los Angeles
Our response:
Don't forget to wipe that purple mustache when you're finished with the kool-aid.
On October 28, 2005, David Browning - davideep@hotmail.com wrote:
1) this page is just contrary. to sound judgement and clear thinking.
conservatives are just tunnel-visioned, narrow-minded, poopy-heads who only care
about money.
2) your ludicrous rantings are enough reasoned presentation to substatiate the
liberal point of view. hey, thanks!
3) Grades schmades. I'm sure they weren't purchased from the big trust fund or
anything. But - what's he accomplished since? nice job performance, there.
relying on conjecture and outright lies to involve us in a unnecessary war. that's
real smart. Saddam is a despot, but he is their despot. how many of his people did
he kill? he is a bad, bad man. now- how many have we killed? what do you think
their opinion of us is? And don't give me any of that "terrorist" crap. you know
it isn't true. it's been documented there was no connection. And no WMD. W handed
our enemies everything they could have hoped for and more on a silver platter. it's
kind of emarrassing, really - in a silly sort of way.
Thanks again and keep talking! it's exactly what the left needs more of!
Our response:
Thank you for proving our point.
On October 28, 2005, herblynn - herblynn@earthlink.net wrote:
Subject: tolerance
Democrats have tolerance, but, not for ignorance, and the IQ of G W BUSH.
Our response:
1) Democrats have tolerance: This page is evidence to the contrary.
2) Not for ignorance: Where is your rational, reasoned presentation of facts to support what you're talking about?
3) IQ of G W Bush: Bush had better grades at Yale than Kerry. He went on to complete post-graduate work whereas Kerry stopped at his Bachelors Degree. Again, what is your rationalle?
You toss platitudes and cliche but have no facts, reasoning or rational argument.
On October 26, 2005, eric daniels - edaniels31@verizon.net wrote:
Subject: no difference between what Bennett said get over it!!!
You conservatives are so full of B.S., Bill Bennett wanted to exterminate all Black Children in this country and you defend him, calling black people wimps who can't take intellectual critiques. But Dr. Kamau Kambon wants to do the same your race and now I hear all the "bitching and whining" from you neocons. You can dish out racial punishment (Limbaugh,Boortz, Grant, Hamblin, Elder, Horowitz) but you can't take it when a black man who hates you just as much (and wants your total extermination from mother earth)does it back to you. Kinda reminds me of 9-11 when the arabs paid whites back for 50 years of racism and politcal expolitation of their land you people went nuts give me a break. As a black man in america, I would rather be feared by your race than liked. Unlike many African - Americans who beg for WHITE AMERICA'S acceptance based on black guilt and hopes for phony brotherhood.
Our response:
If Bennet HAD said he wanted to exterminate all black children, which he DID NOT (get a transcript and READ IT), he would not be getting defended - Bennet's defenders point to the fact that he DID NOT say such a thing, not that such a thing would be right to say, to think or to believe! Bennet is being defended against having words put in his mouth that he neither said, nor intended.
On the other hand, you ACKNOWLEDGE Kambon's hatred and genocidal attitudes, and defend those!
We don't fear you, Eric. We pity you. You are a sick, twisted man.
On October 25, 2005, Josh Purple - JPURPLE@mn.rr.com wrote:
Subject: Judy Miller Final Notes... Just like Iran/Contra
Okay, Okay! I give up. When Judy Miller starts with the I cant recall defensiveness tactics of Hillary Clinton it is time to stop listening. Everything from that point on is a lie, a half truth, or simple innuendo meant to destroy a reputation without any proof. It is the accusation that counts, no matter how lacking any evidence of impropriety.
...the I cant recall defensiveness tactics of Hillary Clinton ...
Good God.
Do you remember a guy named Ollie North? "The bag man", Poindexter?
I thought you were still high on those guys? Apparently so did Miller, 'cause she went right for it. Like a catfish on a stink-bait. Maybe she thought that you all would nominate her for President, like Kooky Ollie.
Hell, Dumb-ass Bush is even TRYING to elevate that memory in the American Consciousness... and, as an urbanite, I am glad. Anything Bush touches turns to rot, and now he's touching all over your big star, Ronnie ( and the uncanny similarities with Iran/Contra). Everyone should love going back to see just how screwed up the Reagan Presidency really was, and then Bush can ask the press to go right back to the scandal that almost got him booted from office, and we can go back to a realistic picture of how "sleepy" did it, compared to how "Dopey" is doin' it.
Let's see, went to the people to ask for an "Office of Misinformation" and the people said, just what they said to Reagan on his Iran/Contra suggestion... NO!
Just like the Iran/Contra scandal, the Republicans did it anyway... They "privatized" our National Security, and intentionally lied to us, in order to sell a war. Do the American people feel safer?
Our response:
Huh?
On October 25, 2005, kralc - kralc@hotmail.com wrote:
Subject: Fitzgerald Indictments No Longer about Outing of Plame
You are such a blowhard............
Our response:
Believe it or not, this is not an "exerpt". It's the whole message!!
There's no logical case laid out. There
