I spend a lot of time in different forums and I still feel the same. Commenting on a blog or forum is NOT the same as texting or emailing your BFF. People who take the time to carefully and professionally write accurate and interesting stories and columns that they then allow others to comment on should be treated with more respect and care than people some people obviously show when emailing and texting their BFF. Do we as humans occasionally make a spelling or grammatical error? Of course but that doesn't mean we have free license to intentionally mangle the English language, aside from attempting to get around software filters, which anyone who's been on this site knows a lot about.
Actually I have, and those mistakes by a professional are inexcusable, but when compared to the almost daily butchering of the English language I see by some on here and the Gazette's site, the mistakes in the stories pale in comparison.
It just goes to show that spell check isn't foolproof and proofreaders aren't as expendable as some would like to think.
Whether anyone speaks up about your intentionally bad spelling and grammar or not many who read comments that look like yours likely think the person writing them is an ignorant, uneducated fool. I know I do. And while the comments here appear on a blog, they're still in response to a properly written and reported on story and thus should show the same respect in their appearance as the writer of the story shows when writing their piece.
Not propagandizing here. I do see plenty of that on here though. The tea movement is just that, a movement. It is not a "party" and shouldn't pretend to be such unles s and until it stops hiding behind the GOP, only endorsing GOP candidates and instead holds its own convention, sets up its own platform of is sues (not just what the GOPbelieves, which is largely what the tea movement stands for right now), fields its own candidates and wins elections with its own third party/non GOP candidates. Then and only then can the tea movement call itself a bona fide "party." Plenty of Obama and Democrat bashing on here so I stand by my as sertion that a lot of people on here DO march in lockstep, if not with the GOP then with each other. Your suggestion I head elsewhere is further proof of that. I have been paying attention and reading plenty of posts on here that I don't respond to that prove my point. I'm not out to change those minds, just calling it like I see it. Nor will I back do wn from my opposing views and convictions just to appease someone. Your definition of "patriot" is not everyone's. People can be loyal to their country and still tolerate others' views. I'm not on here to change any minds to fit my views but your suggestion go elsewhere tells me at least you want to change mine to fit the overwhelming agenda of most on here. As for getting along? Your last paragraph suggests you have no intention of any such thing.
I've said my peace. Respond if you like but I've said all I plan to say on this thread.
I don't "idolize" them, I said there are a few I still like today, mainly the two aforementioned Maine senators who aren't afraid to break from the GOP establishment and vote their convictions and not just march in lockstep with the rest of the GOP sheeples. They are examples of how moderate the GOP can be, instead of the far right machine it has become. I also once admired the GOP senator from my state, until he turned completely partisan, as well as a former GOP rep from my state, who was also more moderate in his views.
You may not agree with me, and that's fine but I don't back do wn from my views or my convictions. I also don't aim to change any minds on here.
"Lying under oath." Refresh my memory here...lying about what specifically? That he had an affair while POTUS? That's a personal matter between he and his wife, not an impeachable offense. So I say again, if that's all Newt was impeaching Clinton for he was wr ong to do so. Nixon was impeachable, not Clinton.
Seriously, you don't see the religious influence over the GOP? Give me a break it written all over their agenda, what they back, don't back, who they endorse and don't endorse. The GOP tries to inject religion into almost everything they do in Congres s, from opposing same sex marriage to wanting to overturn Roe v Wade. Don't even get me started on Glenn Beck and his preacher wannabe event recently or his invoking God as often as he can while bashing the left. It's one reason I refuse to listen to him on Fox Entertainment or his radio show. That doesn't even begin to cover how they have been able to pretty much elect whomever they want in the south because they pander to people in the Bible Belt with the aforementioned is sues. I don't see the Dems calling for prayer in public schools or for creationism to be taught in public schools, do you? All those things and more that I don't want to waste the space here detailing more than tell me the religious right has hijacked the GOP. I'm not trying to change your mind or anyone else's on here but personally I believe in a complete separation of church and state. That means no prayer in schools or any other public place unles s it's someone praying to themselves and keep the religious practice confined to places of worship, the home or specific groups (ie Bible study groups). Keep religion out of policy making (ie quit invoking the sanctity of life according to God and the Bible when arguing Roe v Wade or stem cell research). I don't care what party anyone in Congres s is in when they're elected but the need to check their personal beliefs at the Capitol door and do what the greater people tell them they want, not what they personally want to do when making policy, etc. Where I live a predominantly conservative state supreme court correctly read the state Constitution and overturned a state legislative ban on same sex marriage. Religious grousp and the GOP religious right here are screaming for their heads over what they say was a court making law. That is false, they idd what any court does and interpreted the law, correclty I might add. The state constitution here does NOT say marriage is only between one man and one woman and so allows, and has always allowed for, same sex marriage. The people until now just never realized that. That is how the religious right in the GOLP operates in this country. They're the ones trying to impose their religious beliefs on people who want no part of them through laws they want pas sed.
As for the light bulbs, that's called conserving energy. I realize global warming isn't a conservative platform but it is real and honestly, having to buy a more energy efficient, albeit slightly more costly, light bulb should be the least of anyone's worries. If someone sees that as more control over their life then they need to lighten up because that's nothing compared to the power over peoples' loives places like Iran exert.
I never said I wasn't upset about Bill and Monica, it was wro ng. What I find repugnant though was that Newt impeached Bill for something (an affair) he himself also did and while he may have technically been impeaching Bill for reasons other than that affair (whatever those reasons were are lost on me since he made such a spectacle of Bill and Monica's affair) with Monica it's pretty clear (to me anyway) one of his chief motivations for impeachment was the affair, and nothing else. To me that should not have been reason enough for impeachment. Nixon was deserving of impeachment, not Clinton. The reason I have always been harder on those in the GOP who have affairs than I have been Democrats is because the GOP has made no secret of running on a family values platform and has been (IMO) quick to judge those who have affairs while doing the same themselves, in some well publicized cases. Kind of a "do as I say, not as I do" statement of hypocrisy to me. The Democrats, to my knowledge, have never run on such a platform and therefore have no illusions that it can and does happen, no matter how wr ong adultery is.
i liked the conservatives of old, before the GOP was hijacked by the religious right. There are a few I still like today who can reach acros s the aisle when needed (ie Sens Snowe and Collins of Maine). Once they let the religious right take over their party they veered too far to the right and stopped being the centrist party they were and still could be. It's fair to say some Democrats are too far to the left as well but I can't say it's because of religion in that case.
Actually Islandsox I'm a proud lib eral and completely against the id ea of Sharia law in this country. However, because of our Constitution I don't believe anyone could institute something such as Sharia law here if they wanted to because, IMO, it would mean somehow overturning the freedom of religion guaranteed by the founders or flat out overthrowing this country's sovreignty. What I do strongly dis agree with is pretty much anything Newt has to say, aside from this one thing. I just flat our have no respect for someone with his morals (sleeping with another woman while his wife was ill) or politically conservative leanings. That doesn't mean I abhor all conservatives because I certainly don't...just him and his type.
Talk about painting a broad brush Stinky. I've said I don't watch Fox Entertainment but I wouldn't speak for anyone else and I don't think it's really fair for you to as sume everyone who hates Fox doesn't watch it.
For those who really don't watch Fox but know so much about their shows and hosts it's not hard to figure out how that network rolls when one does a little research and the fact that a lot of them (ie Beck) also have radio programs. Lastly, read two seconds of anything you post on here and it's clear what kind of network Fox is and how it brainwashes most of its viewers.