[send them an email expressing your extreme disgust with their ignorance and pretentious entitlement, thinking somehow they have a right to show disdain for an election not involving their country.]

You really think the British media doing stuff like that would be equal to some of our media doing that to them? "An election not involving their country," you say -- true, but is it not an election involving their world? The US is the superpower. We're the ones who brought about the invasion of Iraq. We're the ones with the power. You think they don't have a right to show disdain for an event which may impact them in the future plenty, if not just as much as it impacts us?

See, you think that those front pages display Europeans' "ignorance and pretentious entitlement." Totally ok -- your opinion. The front pages they decided to run: guess what? -- their opinion.

Freedom of speech exists in Europe, for European's, too. Believing them to be ignorant and pretentious is one thing; believing they don't have a right to criticize the results of a US election? Not so much.

Now that I think about it, with many British troops serving in Iraq, and many of them dying and being injured, I think that alone gives the Brits the right to criticize the results of our Pres. election.

Henry's totally right.It was a sad day when "President" Bush was re-elected.And he calls himself a Christian man, what a hypocrite.

If you knew what it was to be a Christian, you wouldn't be calling him a hypocrite. This man is a leader and a servant to the people. I'm not sure why you're calling him a hypocrite when everything Kerry was about, or maybe not about, I don't know, showed him the real hypocrite. I'll wait for some legitimate reasons why you can justify our President as someone who says one thing and does another...

Factcheck.org can help you out there.

Only cowards post with a pseudonym. "IagreewithHenry," we'll talk when you can use a real name. And, it doesn't help your side when you state unfounded generalizations that you cannot prove with any legitimate evidence. But that's the liberal way of life: slogans, non sequiturs. So, I can't say I'm surprised.

And a few points to Henry:
1. Comparing me to The Independent or the Daily Mirror is quite flawed, as they have a circulation of hundreds of thousands. I do not. It isn't the same. They have a greater responsibility to the public. I even feel that I have that responsibility for my little readership. So, they're being reckless and deceiving by only reporting opinion rather than fact/truth.

2. Bush didn't send British troops to Iraq. Blair did. If they have a complaint, they should throw it in his direction, not ours.

3. They don't have a "right" to criticize. They aren't US citizens. They have the freedom to do so, however. But they aren't criticizing...calling nearly 60 Million Americans, of which I am one, "dumb" isn't a criticism. It's childish namecalling. Not becoming of British adults.

Henry, one other thing. My statement about Europe being ignorant and pretentious isn't opinion; it's fact. Easily verifiable, at that.

Both Emily and Jon are right. 1. If you can't show evidence of Hipocracy, don't go crying "Hipocrite". Lay down some hard evidence before stating your own opinions (because until you give facts, that's what they are). 2. "IAGREEWITHHENRY", I believe the term is President Bush, not "President" Bush. He won, fair and square...both times. Look it up.

I find it incredibly hilarious that people from other countries just hate our president, and hate Republicans. You can't honestly believe that 54million people are dumb, you believe that 54 million people don't agree with you, therefore they're dumb. They're socialists. They don't like the Bush's principles and moral structure. He believes in God. They don't. I mean, I can understand some of our leftist elite complaining, but these people are in a completely different country, 6000 miles away from D.C. They're not affected by our policides as much as a US citizen is (that is, if they're affected at all). It's just childish that they're complaining about a leader they're not even under. It would be like Californians mocking the citizens of Ensanada, Mexico for electing a new sheriff. Whining does nothing if you don't belong to the country you're whining about. Well, it does do one thing: It makes the whiners look like idiots.

i'll tell you what, those 59,054,087 people aren't going to be reading "The Daily Mirror". Normally, you don't try to convince someone of something by insulting their intelegence, but I could be wrong, well, no I'm not.

Jon - Those 59,054,087 people weren't reading "The Daily Mirror" beforehand, so of course they aren't going to be reading it now. "The Daily Mirror" wasn't trying to convince anybody in the US of anything, so your point is moot.

Emily -

[My statement about Europe being ignorant and pretentious isn't opinion; it's fact. Easily verifiable, at that.]

Verify it -- convince me, and I might find it more factual.

1. [So, they're being reckless and deceiving by only reporting opinion rather than fact/truth.]

I highly doubt that the readers of "The Daily Mirror" don't realize that "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB" is opinion and not fact.

2. [Bush didn't send British troops to Iraq. Blair did. If they have a complaint, they should throw it in his direction, not ours.]

They have thrown it in his direction, for sure. But to think that they have no reason to be angry at President Bush, who STARTED the war in Iraq and has gotten Blair to go along for the ride, doesn't work. Bush is the President of the most powerful nation in the world; his decisions are going to greatly affect what the leaders of other countries do.

3. [They don't have a "right" to criticize. They aren't US citizens. They have the freedom to do so, however. But they aren't criticizing...calling nearly 60 Million Americans, of which I am one, "dumb" isn't a criticism. It's childish namecalling. Not becoming of British adults.]

I think they do have a right. If you're going to mince words, and say they have the freedom, but not the right... well, I don't see a big difference. Obviously they don't have a right based on the US Constitution, but that doesn't mean anything.

Now, I'm not familiar with "The Daily Mirror," but perhaps it is a tabloid? If so, it's not surprising that that's the headline of it. Look at the tabloids here. You said it's not becoming of British adults... it's not becoming of ANY adults. But that paper has the right, or, if you prefer, the freedom to express their opinions, and that is what it did.

And this leads me to wonder, what gets you so mad about "The Independent"'s front page? No namecalling on that one. Voicing an opinion through photographs and the simple statement "four more years." Why does that get you so angry, and lead you to, childishly call them "Commie Pinkos"? Because they don't hold your opinion? They have the right -- or the freedom -- to do so. Remember that next time you decide to resort to childish name-calling.

Well, according to Wikipedia:

"The Daily Mirror is a popular British tabloid daily newspaper. For a period during the 1990s it was renamed The Mirror, but reverted to its original name in 2002."

"The Independent is a British newspaper published by Tony O'Reilly's Independent News & Media. It is nicknamed the Indie, with the Sunday edition being the Sindie. Although it claims no political affiliation, it is a de facto Liberal Democrat newspaper. The Independent was named National Newspaper of the Year at the British Press Awards 2004."

At the British Press Awards website, I read this:

"The Independent crowned five months of circulation growth since offering a tabloid version of being named Newspaper of the Year at the Press Gazette British Press Awards."

So both newspapers seem to be unabashed tabloids. Though I'm not certain, I'm guessing that the most respected newspapers and other media outlets in the UK had more impartial and respectful headlines than "The Daily Mirror"'s after President Bush's victory was made certain. Still don't see what the problem with "The Independent"'s front page, was, though -- tabloid or not, it didn't call anyone dumb.

Henry,

Look at "The Independent"'s pictures. What are they of?
1. Prisoners at Guantanamo
3. what appears to be either a prisoner, or hostage.
5. An Oil Pipeline
6. a picture of the president, who looks rather stupid in the photo.

This, with the phrase "Four More Years" seems to be more sarcastic than anything, like saying, "Oh God, please not four more years," not chanting in jubilation.

Oh, that's obvious. It's done in a more clever way than the other one, though. It's not calling anyone dumb, but rather providing a biting opinion of the first four years, and basically implying more of the same for the next four. It isn't offensive -- just biting.

Yes it's biting, i'll agree with you there, but to anyone who's taken the time to figure out what exactly this administration has done, both good and bad, it's very offensive. It would be like me making the same kind of comment because you still love your parents even though they mess up some times(or me making fun of your parents because they love you because you mess up sometimes).

It's hard not to take offense to something that is directed at you/me because we believe in an administration they think is stupid.

I've taken time to figure out what this administration has done, both good and bad. It doesn't offend me. I, like the editors of "The Independent," feel the bad far outweighs the good.

Making fun of one's parents because they mess up? The Bush Administration isn't analogous to my parents. There's not that emotional connection. I look up the the President to do what's best for the country, nothing more, and I don't think he has. "The Independent" doesn't, either.

Their front page was biting, yes. And it's not as though those images were taken from thin air. Those images are the tip of the iceberg, I imagine, of why "The Independent" doesn't like the look of the next four years.

[It's hard not to take offense to something that is directed at you/me because we believe in an administration they think is stupid.]

"Four More Years" and the pictures around it expresses how the tabloid feels about President Bush, not those who support him.

I guess it's offensive to you because you disagree with it, and isn't offensive to me because my sentiments are along the lines of the paper's. I just hope you aren't too offended -- because the pictures on the front page, and the phrase, are all relevant. They aren't underhanded attacks against the President.

Nothing the Left does offends me because I believe they all think with their emotions rather than their brains. You could at anytime in history choose four pictures (make sure they are controversial), plaster them on the front of a magazine, and then blame the sitting president for them. So what? It's meaningless; it just incites people's emotions.

It is the people on the left who are writing articles about "an act of God" against the President (NYT, Dean E. Murphy), getting trauma therapy for losing the election (Florida), and calling everyone "dumb" who voted for Bush. These are emotional children. They need to grow up and get a life.

Read Christopher Hitchens' piece on Slate.com...this guy used to be completely anti-Bush, anti-war...somewhere along the way he began to "understand" what was going on and changed his mind. Pretty revealing piece coming from a liberal magazine.

Oh, goodness yes, I am guided solely by my emotion. I don't use my brain at all.

No, not at all.

Still, better to be guided solely by one's heart than one's brain. Maybe if more people did that, the world would be a better place.

Well, then. What's there to debate. We all know only reason and logic is debatable, so anything that the left says cannot be taken seriously in debate, right?

If we were guided solely by our hearts, everyone would do as they pleased because they feel like it. Think about it, what would that lead to? No one would take responsibility for anything because doing something wrong feels bad and no one wants to feel bad, so they blame someone else. We would have a nation full of lazy whiners. Wait a minute, 48% percent already are!

Go get a job, contribute to the economy you so fervently proclaim is going to hell in a handbasket, and do something about all of the problems you think there are out there instead of trying to convince other people there are problems at all! That's compassion for you.

Think about it. Being guided 'by your heart' is the same thing as being led by your emotions. Having compassion is important, but it must be undergirded by some foundational values and principles.

When I see a homeless woman with her children begging in the parking lot, my emotions tell me to empty my wallet for her. My brain, however, says, "buy her several bags of groceries, then refer her to Fred Jordan's Homeless Mission in L.A."

I followed your advice, Dee, and thought about it. I'll tell you in no uncertain terms that everything that the "Left" does is not guided solely by emotion. Why can I tell you that? 'Cause I'm a liberal, and I have a brain, and I use it.

Saying that the world might be a better place if all people used solely their hearts... a little bit of unrealistic idealism, what can I say? I'm a dreamer.

Jon, please don't drag out the partisan stuff again! -- I mean, I was really thinking there wouldn't be any more of that around here. At least, that's what my heart was telling me. Silly me.

48% of Americans are whiners? That's almost as outrageous as calling 51,054,087 people dumb.

I don't know why, but I'm starting to not like what the Right is saying about me. I'm sure I'll soon enough figure out why, though -- 'cause I'm going to think about it.

How do you explain the need for trauma therapy in Florida. I don't remember people offering therapy to Republicans after Clinton won in '92. Do you think for a second that if Kerry had won, Republicans would be seeking THERAPY?!?! No thanks.

Partisan? Don't call me partisan. We have been getting nothing but partisanship from the left for the last four years! They call the President a "divider", but it's really the left who will not work with him! Look at Ted Kennedy. He and the President worked together to put out the No Child Left Behind Act (of which Kennedy did the most work on), but when it was finished, Kennedy stabbed him in the back by saying it was a terrible job the President did on it, all the while Kennedy enacted all the liberal educational policies he originally wrote. All in all, the President gets the blame for a "bad" educational act, while Teddy continues to hack away at an Act he himself wrote, making Bush look bad to the uninformed American. Then you have people like Tom Daschle, who thank God was ousted, who would philibuster a bill if a Republican signed it, no matter what the bill said. Let's talk about partisan!

Yes, let's talk about partisan:

[We would have a nation full of lazy whiners. Wait a minute, 48% percent already are!]

Generalizations, generalizations, offensive generalizations. That's partisanship for you.

You want to unite the country? Don't call the people who voted against President Bush whiners. That's a start.

wow henry, sounds like we hit a sore spot.

And the same goes for you. If you think the liberal left wanted to unite the country so much, why do you think they call us dumb? Why do you think people like Michael Moore exists and thrive? Why do you think the likes of George Soros are able to give roughly $87 million to 527 groups, but when $200,000 is given to the Swift Boat Vets, it's an outrage? Explain all the bad things you think this president has done. I wanna know, though it's not like i already don't know the pros and cons of this administration. I wanna know what makes you think the way you do. You've already gotten a dose of mine and all my righty friends here.

If the left wants to unite the country, why does the Canadian immigration website have more hits from US Citizens in the past week than it's ever had in its existance? The left wants to unite the US, no doubt, but they want unity under their terms: Socialism. Read about what exactly socialism is and you'll find out that most of what liberal politicians say comes straight from either the Socialism for Dummies, or Communism 101. Now look at the Conservatives. What do we say and promote? We want Capitalism. We love capitalism because we have a free market system. Anyone can have their own busines...it's their right as an American citizen. Why do you suppose all the little computer stores are run by either vietnamese or korean americans? Because they're not given those freedoms in their own countries. Because their countries are socialist or communist, where the government is the end-all-be-all. The government controls the economy, healthcare, welfare, everything. Sound familiar? That's exactly what the liberals want. Will they settle for a compromise? Nope, not a chance. How do i know this? Look back at history. Look back at what the Republicans in office have tried to do to appease the left, then look what the liberals did to the reps. They didn't want to settle.

Look what happened to Reagan when he wanted to defend our country and proposed the STAR WARS Missile Defense system. The Dems shot it down (pun intended). Look what's happening with Bush's Missile Defense system. The liberals want to shut it down. When Bush proposes his welfare reform bill, i'm guessing the liberals are going to shoot that down, too, as with his Torte reform bill.

The liberals have a long history of not wanting to defend our country; a long history of isolationism. But you have to remember, we're in the age of the Internet. There is no such thing as isolationism anymore. A country cannot be a world superpower one day, and shut itself off from the world the next, but that's what the Liberals want. That's what they meant by "A Stronger America" (Which should have read, "A more pacifistic, 'Kick-me', Socialist America").

"If we don't learn from history, we're doomed to repeat it." If you google that phrase, you'll find alot of sites asking that question to themselves when looking at other countries. Isolationism brought us into both WWI and WWII. Just because we're not out fighting, doesn't mean no one will want a piece of us...and right now, the radical muslims want a biiiiig piece of us.

just think about it.

I'm thinking about it, which will please you.

Of course it's a sore spot. Almost everything you and other posters have said to me has hit a sore spot. Because so much of it is simply the kind of stuff that liberals could charge against conservatives like you.

[If you think the liberal left wanted to unite the country so much, why do you think they call us dumb?]

It was a British tabloid that explicitly called you dumb. But I'm sure many people here in the US have called you dumb. Just like many conservatives have called liberals dumb, or "dick heads," as someone on Todd's site so eloquently said. It's a two way street, and that's what I never see you or any of the other posters on this blog acknowledging.

[Why do you think people like Michael Moore exists and thrive? Why do you think the likes of George Soros are able to give roughly $87 million to 527 groups, but when $200,000 is given to the Swift Boat Vets, it's an outrage?

I don't know who thinks one is an outrage and one isn't, but I know I don't. They're both equally outrageous. This is what I, a liberal, feel. I'm with you on that one. And I don't like Michael Moore at all. I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11, but I understand that a lot of the stuff in it just isn't true. I find that despicable. With this President, he can't find enough true things to make a movie out of? To me, that just means he's lazy, or egotistical, or something.

But what I don't get is why you and others on this site are so quick to cite Michael Moore as though he's a regular liberal. Not all liberals are like him, not at all. So he can't be used as an example of the average liberal.

[Explain all the bad things you think this president has done. I wanna know, though it's not like i already don't know the pros and cons of this administration. I wanna know what makes you think the way you do. You've already gotten a dose of mine and all my righty friends here.]

I think you've gotten more than a dose of why I don't like President Bush's performance. Look back through the posts, really -- the bungled job in Iraq, his use of scare-tactics as a political tool, his distortions and lies used as political tools (I think the Bush Administration has, on the whole, been more negative, and done more distorting, than the Kerry campaign ever did)... there are more reasons, too, believe me. But these I (think) I've talked about on this blog a lot already.

[If the left wants to unite the country, why does the Canadian immigration website have more hits from US Citizens in the past week than it's ever had in its existance? The left wants to unite the US, no doubt, but they want unity under their terms: Socialism.]

This is just more of the same. You're generalizing! You're labeling all people as one thing! There are tons of Democrats who are so angry/lazy/whatever that they aren't looking for unity. But the same can be said for many Republicans. President Bush, I think, uses the divided state of the country to his advantage.

[Look what happened to Reagan when he wanted to defend our country and proposed the STAR WARS Missile Defense system. The Dems shot it down (pun intended). Look what's happening with Bush's Missile Defense system. The liberals want to shut it down. When Bush proposes his welfare reform bill, i'm guessing the liberals are going to shoot that down, too, as with his Torte reform bill.]

More of the same, yet again. As with the isolationism charge. Don't you get that what you're saying is something that a Democrat older and wiser than I could say about the Republicans? I don't mean specifically, but I'm saying that it would be easy for Democrats to come up with things like that to be said about all Republicans.

Here's the thing -- it's not black and white. All liberals aren't evil; I'm guessing most liberals love their country as much as you do, and aren't looking for it to be undefended. You focus on specific cases, specific people... you fail to see that that can be done with Republicans, too! You can't generalize, you can't apply specifics to the whole bunch. It doesn't work, because it's not true.

That's why it hits a sore spot. All I hear from you and other posters is "partisan" and "liberal left" and this claim and that charge and this outrageous belief and that horrible lie.

IT'S A TWO-WAY STREET. Sorry for the caps, but there's no way to bold this stuff. It's a two-way street, and YOU CAN'T GENERALIZE and you must acknowledge that neither the Republican Party/conservatives nor the Democratic party/liberas is evil, just as neither is perfect.

That's what I'm trying to get through to the people here. That's why I keep coming back here. I figure, if I can't get the people on a blog to see that they're being just as biased and one-sided and narrow-minded as some of the people they're complaining about are, then there's no hope. I want this country to be a united one. Doesn't mean we all agree, of course. But I want Democrats and Republicans alike to see how most of the other group are people who aren't evil, aren't dumb, aren't anything close to that. You are all patriots, as am I. Disagreeing is fine; it's normal, obviously. Debate is great; it's what this country runs on. Disagreement and debate based on generalizations that aren't relevant to the main point of it all -- making this country and world a better place for everyone -- are not fine, not great.

That's what I've encountered at this site. It's depressing, especially as it keeps on coming. Reading some of the posts here makes me think the country may never again be truly united in spirit. That's both depressing and worriesome.

{[Look what happened to Reagan when he wanted to defend our country and proposed the STAR WARS Missile Defense system. The Dems shot it down (pun intended). Look what's happening with Bush's Missile Defense system. The liberals want to shut it down. When Bush proposes his welfare reform bill, i'm guessing the liberals are going to shoot that down, too, as with his Torte reform bill.]

More of the same, yet again. As with the isolationism charge. Don't you get that what you're saying is something that a Democrat older and wiser than I could say about the Republicans? I don't mean specifically, but I'm saying that it would be easy for Democrats to come up with things like that to be said about all Republicans.}

Um....no Democrat could ever say a Mainstrem Republican wanted Isolationism more than anything. Again, look at history. In 1941, when Congress was pretty much an even split, the vote to go to war was passed by only 1 vote. Now, i don't think i have to tell you who was on what side, but considering Isolationism is a main point on the DNC docket, it's kinda self explanitory.

As with the Dems going to Canada...i'm talking about millions of people here, not just a few thousand. I'm not generalizing either, but, it's still a point to be mad. Republicans are mad, yes, but not so much that we don't want a united country. I've never seen that happen. Even with a Rep. hopping mad at the Dems, they still try to make Peace...IE Reagan, and GW Bush. Bush is trying his hardest to unite, but with people like Kennedy, Algore, and Almost every other Democratic Primary hopeful calling him a "liar" and a "traitor to this country", you tell me who's trying to unite. I've never once heard a republican get away with such words aimed at a democrat. A Democrat can get away with murder, a republican would be exiled for blinking in the wrong direction.

With Iraq:
Alright, how should it have been handled? NO ONE KNOWS! "There's no right way to eat a Reeses". The problem with Iraq is that it's surrounded by ENEMIES! Iran hates us, Jordan isn't much better because they let the jhihadists roam free. Saudi Arabia is only our ally because we buy their oil. I mean, there's no right way, only Wrong ways. That's the problem. We're not an Empire, nor do we have Imprialistic training. We're not occupying the country, as we're letting them hold their own elections without US Intervention (save for security and everything). Everyone criticizes, no one helps.

Dumb Reps.:

THK called anyone who doesn't vote for her husband an "Idiot" which was followed by loud cheers. On another occasion, she stated that Bush supporters were "Morons"...again, more cheers. that's all.

While you guys hash it out, I'm gonna go sip my latte and watch TV. There are plenty of more important things to do than to write page-long commentary on a blog! I figure none of us are going to sway to either side, so we might as well agree to disagree. But fighting about it is going to get us nowhere.

Nah, voicing my opinion feels good. It's hard to find civil discussions nowadays. Plus, i'm all about truth-of-fact, not truth-of-emotion.

[Um....no Democrat could ever say a Mainstrem Republican wanted Isolationism more than anything.]

Read what I said! I didn't say anything close to that. I did say "Don't you get that what you're saying is something that a Democrat older and wiser than I could say about the Republicans? I don't mean specifically, but I'm saying that it would be easy for Democrats to come up with things like that to be said about all Republicans." What I mean by that is Democrats could spout out a line such as "Republicans have a history of being greedy, wealthy businessmen who care more for themselves than for anyone else." And that would, I'm sure, work for many Republicans in the past. Not all, though. As with your isolationism charge.

[Bush is trying his hardest to unite ... I've never once heard a republican get away with such words aimed at a democrat. A Democrat can get away with murder, a republican would be exiled for blinking in the wrong direction.]

Sadly, none of that is true. You think Ann Coulter is trying to unite? You think Rush Limbaugh is trying to unite? You think President Bush, or President "Massachusetts is so liberal it shouldn't be a part of the country" Bush is trying to bring the country together? Not at all.

[Alright, how should it have been handled? NO ONE KNOWS!]

YES, THEY DO. You think it's a coincidence we're launching a major assault on Fallujah days after Bush is re-elected? He should have done this months ago. He should have realized that we wouldn't be handed roses by every Iraqi after we invaded their country. He should have brought more troops over from the get-go. He should have had more troops from other countries. I don't care if the "Coalition of the Willing" (a nice insult to all who weren't willing to go along with President Bush) had 90 countries in it; if all those countries offered barely any troops, it means nothing.

[The problem with Iraq is that it's surrounded by ENEMIES!]

The problem with Iraq is that we didn't have a clear plan to win the peace. No clear exit strategy. Not a good understanding of what it would be like after Saddam was gone. Well, that's in the past now; I get that. But don't pretend that Iraq has always been a focal point for the war on terrorism! Don't try to seige Fallujah just because you were re-elected and don't have to worry about the public's view of it! That's not in the best interest of the country. But the President didn't seem to care.

[We're not occupying the country, as we're letting them hold their own elections without US Intervention (save for security and everything).]

We most certainly are occupying the country. Holding their own elections doesn't mean they aren't being occupied.

[Everyone criticizes, no one helps.]

Alas, President Kerry wasn't to be. Everybody criticizes... because there are things to be critical about. No one helps... because they aren't the President, they aren't a high-ranking general... what do you want me to do? Get a plane ticket to Iraq and take out all the insurgents one-by-one? Everybody criticzes, because there are things to be critical about and because that is one of the few things they can do -- make their voice be heard, in a free society that champions having voices being heard.

But I'm getting too involved here... read my stuff on Iraq on this blog and Todd's.

Dumb Reps.:

THK called anyone who doesn't vote for her husband an "Idiot" which was followed by loud cheers. On another occasion, she stated that Bush supporters were "Morons"...again, more cheers. that's all.

I again cite the eloquent poster on Todd's site who is angry at the "liberal dickheads." IT's A TWO-WAY STREET.

I'll say it again (since I don't know how else to say it)...

All liberals aren't evil; I'm guessing most liberals love their country as much as you do, and aren't looking for it to be undefended.

It's a two-way street, and you can't generalize and you must acknowledge that neither the Republican Party/conservatives nor the Democratic party/liberals is evil, just as neither is perfect.

I want this country to be a united one. Doesn't mean we all agree on how to do it, of course. But I want Democrats and Republicans alike to see how most of the other group are people who aren't evil, aren't dumb, aren't anything close to that. You are all patriots, as am I. Disagreeing is fine; it's normal, obviously. Debate is great; it's what this country runs on. Disagreement and debate based on generalizations that aren't relevant to the main point of it all -- making this country and world a better place for everyone -- are not fine, not great.

That's what I've encountered at this site. It's depressing, especially as it keeps on coming. Reading some of the posts here makes me think the country may never again be truly united in spirit. That's both depressing and worriesome.

Henry, I'm sorry you're depressed. I've found that Prozac is highly helpful in times of sorrow. However, it's unfair to attribute that emotion to my site. I don't have posters on this site who name-call. If Todd wants to call liberals names, that's his prerogative, and it's his site. But I've never called names the way that liberals do, and I never will. I won't stoop to that level, and I don't believe those who comment on my site will either.

I hope you're able to, at some point, get over some of the naivete that you possess and truly check out facts with a mind to understand. They're on our side, not yours. In the meantime, I'm sure you'll find plenty of people willing to banter back and forth trying to change your mind.

Good luck with all that. And please..this is a highly optimistic and critical thinking site...not a depressing one.

Oh, and Ziggy, we will continue to shout from the rooftops that Michael Moore is a big, (ugly) horrible liar who sides with terrorists and hates this country. I have no qualms making that statement. I'm just thankful he "got told" by 59 Million people last week. Bush Country baby!!

[I don't have posters on this site who name-call...
But I've never called names the way that liberals do, and I never will. I won't stoop to that level, and I don't believe those who comment on my site will either.]

[And please..this is a highly optimistic and critical thinking site...not a depressing one.]

What comes to mind is Peter's comment of your post "Victory is so Sweet":

[even though Cali is a "Blue" state, i bet LA will be one of [bin Laden's] biggest targets...although i'm sure he'll spare Hollyweird because his biggest supporters live there...]

And then your "Commie Pinko Red Doper Diaper Baby" tends to come to mind.

Critical thinking, optimistic, and mature. Indeed.

What, Hollyweird? That's name-calling? It's fact. Hollywood is out of touch. They think they are so in-tune with the normal society, when the only reason their movies do so well is because they are unrealistic. Nothing happens in real life like it does the movies, hense why they are out of touch. Simple as that.

maybe they should make a movie where nice guys finish last. Then I might be more inclined to watch. Movies are wishful thinking that all of us, myself included, partake in, but know that it would never come to pass because it's too perfect. You can't have it all.

How about the insinuation that Hollywood stars support Osama bin Laden?

About that comment:

It was directed towards the Sean Penns, the Susan Sarandons and Tim Robbins, and the Michael Moores. Both Sarandon and Robbins came out saying "Instead of going to war [after 9/11], we should have planted trees."

Moore and his office came to an agreement with Hezbola to release Fahrenheit 9/11 in the Middle East. Might I remind you that Hezbola is a frighteningly terrorist organization.

Sean Penn went to Iraq in protest of the war.

I never said all stars, but unfortunately a majority of them think that way. They don't want us to follow terrorists. They don't want us to Kill terrorists. But they're pacifists, so i can't really blame them for that. What I don't get though, is that Moore was more that willing to allow a terrorist organization to produce and promote his movie in the Middle East. Technically, he's helping them fund their organization.

How about the "insinuation", or maybe the statement you made, about how Bush lies:

"But to mention that and not mention any of the many lies/distortions Bush came up with during the campaign?".

Like you said, "It's a two way street."

Henry...

[It was directed towards the Sean Penns, the Susan Sarandons and Tim Robbins, and the Michael Moores. Both Sarandon and Robbins came out saying "Instead of going to war [after 9/11], we should have planted trees."]

So... they're supporters of terrorism? They might be wrong in how to fight terrorism, or they might disagree with you... but you can't tell me they're Osama supporters. But that's what you implied. Mature.

[Moore and his office came to an agreement with Hezbola to release Fahrenheit 9/11 in the Middle East. Might I remind you that Hezbola is a frighteningly terrorist organization.]

I've said it once and I'll say it again, Moore is a radical. Radical compared with everyone -- most, if not all, Hollywood stars, included.

Jon...

[How about the "insinuation", or maybe the statement you made, about how Bush lies:

"But to mention that and not mention any of the many lies/distortions Bush came up with during the campaign?".

Like you said, "It's a two way street."]

What was I saying that about?? I said that in response to some one-sided comment about something Kerry or the Democrats had done. I don't know where exactly I wrote that, and I'm not going to look, but if you would please post that in context, you'll see that I wrote it precisely to emphasize that it's a two way street.

Henry,

You keep referring to Moore as a radical, as though that removes any culpability from the Democratic party and their association with him. I beg to differ.

When the DNC seats Michael Moore next to Jimmy Carter (a seat of honor, no less) at the convention, then the DNC is putting their stamp of approval on Michael Moore as one of them, as their spokesman. Period. Kerry said the stars at the fundraiser in NY (in which stars were sickeningly crude) represented mainstream America. Jimmy Carter said Fahrenheit 911 is his favorite movie.

So, that said, then your party has become officially engaged with radicals. Hollywood included. Your party parades stars like a queen wearing her jewels. Your party no longer represents mainstream America because it has moved so far to the left. Just because you do not consider yourself a radical, does not mean your party represents you.

Henry,

I, for one, am tired of trying to convince you that most of your claims and ideas are baseless. If you really took the time to research all the things you proport with a mind really open to learning, you'd quickly find that you are in the wrong about 99% of the time. I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm stating a fact. I'm tired of answering emotional assertions that do nothing but pit people against each other. You're the one coming on this site and being divisive and then crying when you don't like what the "Right is saying to you." Hey, if you can't take it, don't dish it out. We're merely responding to often inflammatory, and at the very least, highly flawed arguments.

So, please don't call people partisan while you clearly are the most partisan on this page (other than our Ziggy friend; oh, and Ziggy, just for you, I'll repost all that Michael Moore stuff. I stand by it even still.) Do some research other than on the internet. Read books, do interviews, travel...all things I have done to arrive at my conclusions. And in the meantime, get interested in learning rather than arguing. That's a lesson that will stay with you for the rest of your life.

Thanks,
Emily, the compassionate conservative site owner. :)

Oh, and I'm serious about all this. I'm not saying it to open it up for discussion. I'm dead serious about everything.

How am I the most partisan person on this blog? How am I narrow-minded? How am I being divisive? By having opinions that are different from yours? From trying to participate in civil discourse (which my last posts showed is difficult considering some of the things you and posters have said)?

You state as fact that 99% of my assertions are wrong? You haven't proven that to me, and I doubt you will.

What inflammatory arguments have I made? How are they flawed?

You say you have traveled, read books, and done interviews to reach your conclusions. The way you say that makes it sound like your conclusions are set in stone, and once they've been made they're never going to change, even if those conclusions are presented with new information and/or new situations. Am I getting that wrong, or is that how it is?

If you don't want to answer any of those quite valid questions, and would rather me never post on your blog again... fine.

Henry,

Bottom line: you're a high schooler trying to find his way, and that's fine. Just don't hack people to death while you blaze your trail. I've tried many times to point out the flaws in your arguments, and again, since you aren't willing to learn from me, I see no point in continuing that exercise.

I have traveled and read loads of books and have arrived at conclusions that are real and factual. Why would that be a bad thing? Is that not what you feel you have done?

And I've been more than civil to you, I've welcomed your comments, but now I'm asking that you ask yourself some hard questions and try not to provoke people. Discussion and emotional debate are two different things. The former is done with an interest to learn, the latter and interest to conquer. Go with the first, on this site at least. Thanks.

What I'm saying is I have tried to go with the first on this site. Please do not say I'm not willing to learn from you. I could just as easily say the same about you. But in either case it is not true. I have tried to keep an open mind here. Just because I haven't been persuaded one way or the other means nothing about how narrow or open my mind is.

As for the forming conclusions... it's not a bad thing, and it's natural, of course. But what I'm saying there is that I feel that you and the other posters have not even considered any of my points. I guess, as with other things in life, this is a two-way street as well.

Debate, to me, always should contain emotion. It should contain conviction and compassion. And debate inherently involves trying to persuade someone else to come to look at things as you do. That's what I've tried to do, and it's what you and the other posters have tried to do. That's what it's about. Discussion is the same way, to an extent; it doesn't have to involve like-minded people talking about stuff they all agree with.

"Oh, and Ziggy, we will continue to shout from the rooftops that Michael Moore is a big, (ugly) horrible liar who sides with terrorists and hates this country. I have no qualms making that statement. I'm just thankful he "got told" by 59 Million people last week. Bush Country baby!!"

You seem to feel there is some virtue in criticizing Michael Moore because you disagree with him politically. But it is a matter of basic journalistic ethics that you shouldn't comment on a movie you haven't seen. That you are so emphatic about this on so many occasions is a pretty clear illustration of the weakness of your commitment to quality journalism.

Check out "Fehrenhype 9/11", Ziggy. Problem solved.

Also, this article from Dennis Prager is a "must read" for all:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20041109.shtml

So, how about them...oh, what sports do they play these days...oh yes, How about them New York Knickerbockers?

Well, Ziggy, you might be right if I were a journalist or ever proported to be such. But I'm not and darn proud that I'm not a part of a profession full of people that have prostituted themselves to the left all the while convincing themselves that they're important because they interview people who are. As you can see, I have very little respect for reporters. I studied the craft in college but chose to walk my own path, and I've never looked back.