Fair enough. Your opinion of Gore has obviously changed in the past 4 years. If you really think he would have launched a global war on terror, fine. Just keep in mind we have operations going on in many more places than Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. They aren't publicized, but they are ongoing, and I do not believe he would have initiated such a global effort.

Now, you were critical of me the other day, so I suppose it's now my turn. You've accused me of moving further right, that's fine. If I have, it's because I have been pushed that way by the liberalism of this Democratic ticket and I have no problem with that, because I feel it's for the better. But, you should go back and read your posts the past few days, and if you can do so objectively, you will see you are sliding further and further left. You've called Bush a liar etc., etc. Next, you'll be sounding like the rest of them saying he was solely to blame for 9/11 for not acting on intelligence reports while saying he is to blame for Iraq because he did act on them. I am more prone to think rather than becoming more liberal, you are more of a bandwagon rider. Perhaps you would be better suited with a star in Hollywood rather than an office on the LSU campus. Your views seem to fall more in line with their's these days. Blame Bush for spending to defend America, blame him for a recession after Clinton's govt. surplus (you know when the govt. has the money, people don't), blame him for cutting taxes to reduce the impact of the recession, the list goes on and on. That's fine, it seems you have a pattern of being for an administration when it's put into office, and against it by the time the next election rolls around. My guess, you'll be right here with me calling for Kerry's impeachment by '07, if not that soon, you'll be riding Rudy's bandwagon in '08. :thumb:

You know what... I am going back to arguing about who are starting QB should be, having read Rex's response I realize we have vastly different views on things and debating them is useless because each of us believe the other one is lost, clueless and hopeless. Your response Rex on some of those, I just dont know what to say.

This is my first visit to the Free Speech Forum and my last, and I just shocked people like Rex really do exist... I always thought it was only the uneducated hollywood types like Cher that preach socialism and actually believe what the Media tells them. Man was I mistaken.


So with that. JR should continue to be our QB...

Don't give up TT, there are idiots all over the world. You shouldn't let them have a say in what you do. That's what the liberal agenda is all about, scream the loudest with their garbage and reasonable people like you will give up trying. Just because you see one cockroach in your house, you shouldn't move. It's time for the silent majority to voice their opinion in opposition to these idiots. When Rex is presented with facts, he runs away and hides. He will only argue things like the Constitution, with which there is no right or wrong side, because it is open to interpretation. He can never be completely wrong (although he can never be right either), except in his twisted mind. That's why we have the Supreme Court, and that's why their individual opinions almost never agree. So by all means, don't give up on the FSA, you make some very good points and I enjoyed reading them. Remember, fools like Rex aren't only on TV, they're on LSU message boards as well.

Yes, when I see there is a better alternative. Until then, I'll stand pat. BTW, I think I saw John Anderson at the MS State Fair one year. He had a big hit with "Just A Swangin'". He hasn't done much since, though. :wink: Heck, I'll even admit I voted for Ross Perot. Thought I was making a politcal statement. As I grew older I learned I was only pissing my vote away.

Notice the Republican responses...

Notice the tone of the Republican posts on this board. So very typical, really.

marcmc99 to red55: I don't like your views, so you don't belong at LSU

Texastigers to Rex: I don't like your views, so I will call you an idiot and run away.

Republicans generally don't like debates because they can't win them. I just presented a case in point: my arguments against the nonsensical one-direction wall devastated his case, so he felt compelled to call me a name.

Unlike Texastigers, I can believe there are opposing points of view out there: ignorant points of view like his. It's quite apparent he's been shielded from the truth of the Constitution's framing, and it's quite likely he's been shielded from a whole litany of things, by his own choice. There is no reason not to expect that he uses the same level of discernment on political matters as he does on historical matters: little more than right wing non-objectivity.

Remember Rex, DUMB + ASS = DUMBASS Which you prove over and over you are. I am not a Republican; I am supporting one in this election. I am conservative, but that doesn't make me a Republican. Kind of like the fact that you are a left-wing froot loop, but that doesn't make you a democrat. I never told Red he didn't belong at LSU, the fact he is supporting Kerry in this election has nothing to do with his ability to do his job, plus he is a huge LSU fan, so why would I think he doesn't belong at LSU? I was merely pointing out that some of the statements he has made over the past few days seem to be more in line with the Hollywood fanatics than his usual arguments. (Just a hunch, Red is a pretty smart guy, and I think he probably thinks you're an idiot as well) So Rex, go ahead and argue the Constitution and religion until you are blue in the face. I've already stated why you are willing to argue the Constitution, religion isn't much different. You attack Christianity because in your mind you can't be "proven" wrong, since it is a "faith based" religion, no one can give you the concrete proof you continually ask for. Continue to avoid any discussion which throws cold, hard facts into your face and will make your opinion look foolish. You'll feel much better about yourself.

Which discussions have I avoided?

Do you mean like your assertion that Sweden and the Netherlands should not be compared to the USA? Do you honestly consider that an ARGUMENT, rather than mere emotional blather?

When you actually present intelligent argumentation, marc, I might feel enticed to engage you in a discussion. But until you drop the childish namecalling that you think passes for debate there's not much hope of that.

That is what you said. I wanted clarification how you can reasonably make such a comparison. The roles of Sweden and the Netherlands in the world are not comparable to the US in my view, for reasons I explained, so I wanted you to tell me how you can compare the economies. If we stop all our foreign aid, we would have money to take care of all the poor in America while the rest of the world falls apart. That used to be the role of the church, but not any longer as people like you seem to think the government should be responsible. So tell me Rex, based on the role the US has been given and has chosen to take in the world, how can you compare these two nations with her?

Isn't it obvious to you, especially after this well-thought out dissertation on your own voting record, that Reagan's 8 years in office and his economics paved the way for your financial success (and hell, the rest of the country) for the entire duration of the Clinton administration?

Clinton's laissez-faire tax-and-spend policies are what has caused the economic problems that we are currently facing in this country. Major changes like the ones that both presidents produced take years to go into effect.

I predict you will see an upswing in the economy during the next president's latter two years in the office, and that will continue throughout the next 8 to 10 years until whichever future liberal president decides to raise taxes again.