Does it make any difference

Dear Fox

You picked the wrong forum here with this topic. I'll just move over, and I suggest you duck.

TRUTHHURTS

I'm new, so what do you mean

I may be wrong but my guess is there are not a lot of conservitives that blog here. That's just a guess, don't beat me up and hurt me folks

TRUTHHURTS

If you want to learn about conservatism, Google and read up on William F. Buckley

TRUTHHURTS

thank you for the info., sad that he recently died, hopefully some of the bloggers are a part of the over 60K republicans in this county, if not i may be murdered at the march 7 social.

You'll be ok, just open your ears listen and learn.

But remember there are two sides to every story, and somewhere in the middle is the truth. Only you can determine your own truth.

 Read up on Ronald Reagan also.

TRUTHHURTS

Thump, thump, (slower) thump then silence. The next thing you hear is "We want to see your papers.

Those who give up freedom for security have neither. 

Foxx,

There is no true conserative left in the race.  My suggestion is to vote for McCain.  We may only agree with about 60% of his stances on issues, but thats more than the 0% we agree with from Hillary or Obama.  Take the 60% now, and us conservatives will fight for the rest later. 

Steven P Munsey A+, MCP, IASO Orange Park | Green Cove Springs munsey13@comcast.net

Smuncey, et al,

You may believe it, you may not.  I was sorry to hear that WFB Jr. died.  I used to watch him in the 70's.  I agreed with some of the things he said, some, not.  But there still remains a few questions.  What is the defining characteristic of a "true conservative,?"  Who defines it?  How is it substantiated?  How many conservatives will agree?  Is it realistic to expect one person to have the all qualities that are defined? 

Let's be realistic.  With all the rhetoric that has been thrown aroung since the campaigning started, no Republican has been graced with the title of a "True Conservative."  I'm not even sure if any of the Democrats have been graced with the title of a, "True Liberal."  Regardless of party identity, I doubt if one could get complete agreement from more than a handful of people.  JATFUR.

RichK 

Steve;

Finally, something we can agree on. McCain for President? Works for me! Probably not for the same reasons but that's OK.   

Mike Heemer

To me,and this is just my opinion means the following.

In this modern contemporary U.S.

Being a conservative, is a political Philosophy that seeks to limit the role of goverment in domestic affairs and encourages traditional social values and relationships.

In foreign affairs, favor high levels of defense spending and hard line foreign policy.

In a Nut shell thats how I would describe it.

I could be wrong thats just my opinion.

TRUTHHURTS

I'm not so sure that liberals support high levels of defense spending, not that you sid that, clinton practically eliminated the air force, but dems have certainly managed to be in charge during all of the last major wars, except the persian gulf and iraqi freedom.  As far as a hard line foriegn policy, it was isolationalism and seclusion from world war affairs that have screwed us in the past, suchas F. Roosevelt to which if we had been involved in the war from the beginning, pearl harbour may not have taken place.  In the case of Sept. 11, i feel that if clinton would have taken a harder line with his foriegn policy and made some type of meaningful retalliation to the two terrorist attacks during his administration, sept. 11 may not have taken place.  Regardless both major attacks took place due to a democrats failure on hard line foriegn policy (my opinion).  While McCain may have his reservations with iraq, he would still be the most powerful choice as far as security and hard line foriegn policy is concerned, all clinton and obama wish to do is isolate and take care of the wealthiest most successful country on earth.

Democrates can be hawks regarding hard line foriegn policy as well.

Off the top of my head I think of Jimmy Carter in his 1980 state of the union address where he announced an extension of American military commitments in what was known as the "Carter Doctrine" His thoughts were any attempt from outside force to gain control of the persian gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the US, and such assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

But I don't see any of the current Dem. nomonees being hawks.

On the flip side of the coin, my opinion on the meaning of liberalism is, those which favor a more expansive use of goverment in economic management and the promotion of more public welfare services..

Thats just my opinion I could be wrong.

TRUTHHURTS

His only accomplishment, besides quaisi peace in the region.

Way to go Jimmy!

You said that not me "DUCK"

TRUTHHURTS

I doubt the hostages that were held by Iran for 444 days would agree that he had any accomplishments.

Throw in the ill conceived poorly executed rescue attempt and you have a complete picture of his entire time in office.

His last desperate attempt to save his administration and he blew it miserably and cost the lives of some very fine military men. That fiasco completed the process of making us the laughing stock of the world 

He forgot the 6 Ps principle of any endeavor. Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. 

Mike Heemer

Good points and well said I agree with you on this one

TRUTHHURTS

Quasi, not perfection or anything close.  And you're right his administration was a complete and total piss poor performance, please, don't by any means think i'm an advocate of jimmy who.

Laughing hard here, I should have made the disclaimer "he thought he was a hawk" My bad.

Now look at your current presidential candidates and think about who will better handle the war on terror, and the threat of Iran becoming a nuclear power.

TRUTHHURTS

I've been sitting back a bit & reading the great book.  Funny thing.  Not one example fits the meaning of conservative, not even the political definition.

Now I will have to agree some what with what Truth said @ the current presidential candidates.  I even thought back to this morning when in the news, Hillary had one of the best quotes I've heard yet.  (No, I haven't decided  for whom I will vote)  She said, in effect, that it took a Clinton to clean up the mess that the first Bush made & it will take another Clinton to clean up the mess that this Bush has made.  I also thought of the program, "The 70's Show."  BURN!!!!!!

I thought it a pretty good line, accuracy & all.  Regardless of who wins, I don't envy at all the humongous mess they will have to clean up.  I especially don't envy the children, grandchildren & great grand children who will be strapped with paying for the economic disaster that this administration has made.  Kind of makes me glad that I'll be dead.  Living through this American nightmare the last 7 years has been bad enough.

RichK

RichK

Rich

The last Book I read on American Goverment if I am not mistaken, I am getting old here, is The American Polity-The People and Thier Goverment By Everett Carl Ladd.

If my memory serves me, conservative and liberal is defined there.

TRUTHHURTS

Solovoce,

You better stock up on the ambien and go back to sleep because the real nightmare will be when another clinton gets into office.  Another four to eight years of seclusion from the world will cause another major attack on our soil and the clinton's have already proven that all they'll do is wimp out launching a few cruise missiles into enemy territory calling it a day.  At least bush is making an effort to fix the problem and yes it cost alot of money, but it cost alot of money to fix your car when there is something seriously wrong.  I'm not some rich nineteen year old born with a silver spoon in my mouth, but i'm willing to pay in dollar form down the road if the problem can be fixed today.  And in this senario, mccain fairs a whole lot better than the coward clinton and barack hussein osama or whatever his name is.

 Foxx

I find it very inspirering to see such a young person interested in our world and country. You keep the faith, and keep fighting the good fight. When all is said and done it's your future and your world, mold it good.

Personally I agree that McCain is better equipted to deal with the global and domestic issues of the day, out of all the candidate choices. I do wish he was a tad more conservative though.

Pesonnally I miss Ronald Reagan, I wish he were here today.

Thats just my opinion I could be wrong.

TRUTHHURTS

I'm not sure how this thread is going. The thoughts and definitions seem too vague and at odds with one another. Strictly speaking from my point of view, I don't see a hairs width of difference among the three candidates. If pressed to cast a vote, I think i would be paralyzed trying to choose between McCain and Obama so much to the point that I very well may skip it. This is disturbing to me becasue I so wanted McCain 8 years ago and really feel he has betrayed the country with some of his votes.

Obama at least is a clean slate. I note that historically, most presidents whether ready or not have risen to the challenges of the office. At least in the distant past. JFK really had no business getting elected but when faced with missiles in Cuba, rose to greatness and made Kruschev blink. There have been many failures of presidents, the worst (again strictly my opinion) was Jimmy Carter. He was completely out of his league. Merely as an aside, I find both Clinton's completely devoid of either a soul or honor.

So Obama or McCain. I guess I am leaning towards the new guy and hoping for greatness to be thrust upon him. So does conservatism matter? I would like it to but realistically, conservatism is not in the race and we must play the hand we are dealt.

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

I have no idea where this thread is going, i never intended for it to go in one direction.  i wanted to know or hear many opinions and thoughts which is why i asked so many questions in the beginning.  As far as obama is concerned, while he is fresh and new at the age 47 (i think), so far i have heard no substance from him.  He virtually talks about nothing in his speeches, however, he very motivational.  Though this isn't the motivational speaking arena or the feel good arena, this is presidential politics and i've heard nothing imporant from him, at best he and joel osteen would make a phenominal motivaional ticket.

I think conservative/liberal is an issue, and definable.

On one side (conservative) you are going to see less domestic spending on domestic social programs, less taxation, less goverment involvement in your personal life, and a hawkish attitude toward foreign affairs and the war on terror (keep fighting until the battle is won).

On the other side (liberal) you will see more goverment spending on domestic social programs, increased taxation, more goverment involement in your personal life, and a dove attitude toward foreign affairs and the war on terror (pull out the troops).

I think these are real and valid distinctions, which hold real and valid consequences.

On one hand you are going to have a person with extensive political experience, knows what it's like and what it means to be a soldier on the battlefield.

On the other hand you will have a person with much less political experience (and hope they become a JFK), and have no emotional/personal understanding as to what it's means to being a soldier on the battlefield.

The fact is there is no JFK or R. Reagan here in this race. I wish there were, but what you see is what you get.

Personally I think McCain will be the better choice for the current domestic and global climate.

Personally I want less goverment involvoment in my life, a strong military, more money in my pocket, and to win the war on terror.

Thats just my opinion I could be wrong.

TRUTHHURTS

Truth;

I'd agree with most of that. The only real issue I have with McCain is his age. This is one of the few times I'm really interested in who is going to be running in the VP spot. I think this is going to make a huge difference in this election if McCain is actually the Presidential candidate.

The other one is the 'win the war on terror' thing. What does that mean? When can we declare victory? I don't have a lot of issues with what we are doing; I just want someone to define victory.

Win the war on drugs. Win the war on terror. Win the war on poverty. All nice words but I don't see any substantive mile markers. How do we know if we are making progress? How do we know if we are spending our money in the right places?

Two of those three 'wars' we don't have any chance of 'winning'.

Mike Heemer

 Mike

Great questions.

I too have wondered privately the age thing and who the VP may be. My gut feeling is he can handle it, but this is one of those things that history will need to play out, I wouldn't discriminate in making my choice based on age. I personally would'nt mind seeing Hucklebee being VP, but one minute I like, one minute I don't, so I guess I am really not sure yet.

The other question, define winning the war on terror. Very tough question. I believe we are winning, and we have not been attacked since 9/11. I believe this situation/condition is going to last a very long time. In saying that I do believe we will be able to scale back military presence in Iraq as thier goverment becomes more and more stable, and they can handle all thier military/policing issues on there own. At this point we may be able to enjoy a small scale military presence. Look how long of a presence we have had in Euroup even to this day. How long did it take for the Berlin wall to come down. The simple answer is, there is no simple answer, this threat will be around for a very long time. We just need to keep them unstable and running, and take the fight to them all around the globe. I wish I could give you a better answer this is also something that history will need to just play out. 

TRUTHHURTS

To me a conservative holds positions on issues which are in line with christian principles while a liberal tends to lean more towards socialism.  A conservative wants less government intrusion, parental control of their children, high moral standards and responsible money management.

We always thought Reagan was a conservative until his last days in office.  The UN Genocide Treaty had been on the Presidents desk for more than 30 years waiting for signature.  None would sign it until Reagan. 

Yes, this thread has expanded into a variety of topics.  Seclusion, (isolationism)presidential comparisons & expectations & conservative V liberal.  Interesting & thought provoking.

Of particular interest was the comparison between conservative V liberal.  I'm not sure that having a hawkish attitude towards foreign affairs is the way to go.  After all, look where it got us now.  Conservative fiscal policies?  Yes, I guess some might say that we have that now, but I seriously doubt that the next few generations who will be stuck paying the debt will have that view.  Oh yes, I almost forgot.  Borrowing because we had the war, uncle Rich.  Yes, I forgot that little detail.  But I didn't forget who got us in this war, the manner he got us in, (preconceived ideas, deceptions) the lack of direction for exiting the, (sorry, I have to stop calling this a war.  Only Congress has the authority to declare war.)  debacle.   Besides, has anybody been reading the news, business sections, labor stats or stock figures lately?  Apparently not.  We've got the experts wondering where the line is drawn so that we can say that we are, in many cases, in a, you may insert the "R" word here.

Personally, I would rather see a more hawkish attitude for protecting our borders.  As stated before, I don't put the blame on Bush or any other conservative.  The problem has been going on for at least 150 years regardless who was in office.  But perhaps if more attention would have been paid, the SAUDI terrorists who flew the planes, not Iraqi, might have been stopped.  After all, we were warned.

Less involvement in your personal life?  Does that include illegal, warrantless wiretapping of innocent Americans or collecting massive data bases on the same?  Does that include the suppression of 1st Amendment rights?

On the claims of the candidates, regardless of party, I think if one would ask any of the bloggers who have been around the block for a while, they would agree, maybe grudgingly, that what a candidate promises to do, & what they acually can do if elected, can be very different.  Some roadblocks are the Constitution, (Something W has been good at getting around via the old Texas two step) congress, the press & the American people.  Besides, if presidential candidates were so honest & forthright, I doubt that there would be that  many jokes @ them.  Can McCain, Obama or Clinton actually come through on what they propose?  Hint.  Nobody really knows.  All we can do is speculate.

Seclusion/isolationism.  That is a problem we've had since day one.  There have been times when a balance had been struck, but not often. I'm not that much different than many others when I say that I advocate getting our own house secure, cleaned up & in order before we go sticking our noses & the lives of our people in the business of another country, especially when it's done illegally.

Will we win the war on terror?  It depends on how you define, "winning."  If we keep our borders secure enough to the point where a foreign or domestic group is foiled, then yes, but only in a restricted manner.  One must also think of our ties & responsibilities with other nations.  For that, we need a much better foreign policy than we've had lately.

Yes, right again.  History will tell us.  It is a shame that we haven't paid enough attention to history lately.  We've been paying the price for that lesson & it looks as if we will continue paying unless we start paying attention.  JATFUR.

RichK

WOW

Rich

I think we should send you after the terrorists.

I disagree with just about everything you said in that rant, but quite frankly I am worn out just reading it. I am not sure if I even want to waste my time educating you on why I disagree, and point out where you are going wrong.

Let me take a guess, you are a liberal, and there is nothing anyone can say to change your mind or at least see anything other then your own point of view. Thats ok no worries here, it's your world.

I don't think I will even try. No disrespect, but I just won't waste our time.

TRUTHHURTS

Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.Vote Counts:YEAs77NAYs23Vote SummaryBy Senator NameBy Vote PositionBy Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Solo, notice any dems who voted to declare war, as far as i know this hasn't been reversed, so we are at war.  Are saudis not capable of moving to another country?Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Solo, how does the wire tapping have anything to do with the 1st amendment.

Yeah lets focus on the family and keep to ourselves at the house that way when 4k innocent lives are lost again, we'll have somebody like you to blame.  And generally the president only has 90 days to whatever the hell he wants with the military, we've been at WAR longer than that, because it was authorized.

Yes, the borders need securing, but our foriegn policy has been "you're either with us or you're against us", where do you stand solo?

The only thing that history is telling me right now is that if we listen to idiots like yourself, we get screwed.

TH,

I appreciate the reply.  I would however would ask you to show which of my examples are not factual.  They have been documented in the main line press to the point where they have been commented on by the Pres.  How do you equate listing documented events with ranting?  I will refrain from your presumptuous comment on teaching.  If you wish to guess that I'm a liberal, that is your right & you seem to be good at it.  I had the gut feeling, & I should have listened to it, that it would be a good idea not to get into this thread.  I was right which is why I have avoided the other thread on Con V lib.  Unfortunately, I don't own a pair of hip waders.  This form of expressing opinion weems to be better suited to Mike Rowe.

Foxx,

Who said wiretapping had anything to do with the 1st Amendment?

Re my gut instinct.  I've usually burned myself when I ignored it before, so I'll bow out now while I have the chance.  It's getting just too deep.

RichK

 Rich

 Main line media has been anti Bush ever since he was elected and have been spinning negatively ever since.

God Man wake up. When you what to learn real facts about something or someone you just don't go and investigate the one side, you investigate both sides. Balance out the information you recieve, and listen to all parties with an open unbiased mind then you will find the truth somewhere in the middle.

Push away from the TV set and stop watching so much of "that 70's" show.

TRUTHHURTS

Foxx;

You have got to spend a little more time doing your homework. Notice that it is a measure to use the Armed Forces. It is NOT a declaration of war.

There is a big difference between the two. This country has not declared a war against another country since WWII.

One would think that you would have learned that in HS history.

Mike Heemer

TH,

I'm still waiting for an example from you to show where my examples are not accurate.  It doesn't matter where in the media something is reported, left, right or middle.  The only thing that matters is the accuracy. 

I've been awake since @ an hour before posting this entry & as yet, I have seen nothing from you to back up your POV of disagreeing with my examples.  Of course, I do assume that you DO have something to back up your reasoning. 

You can rant & make claims against me personally all you want.  I don't bruise easily.  But until you can back up what you say with something factual, as I stated previously, you still have the right to your opinion & that should be respected.  The value of your opinion, however, will continue sliding in a downward direction.

Actually, I just read back & noticed I said I would drop this thread & I'm backsliding already & that's shame on me.  Provide, don't provide.  It's up to you.  You have already made your case & that is what will represent the quality of your opinion.  Continue making unsubstantiated claims.  You're not the first & will not be the last.

RichK

Passed in 1974. By Congress.

The President can commit American Armed Forces When one of the three following conditions Prevails.

  1) Congress has given a formal decleration of war.

or

2) When Congress has given some specific statutory authorization

or

 3) In the case of an attack on the country, or it's military units, or otherwise in the face of a threat to American citizen lives

 History 101

TRUTHHURTS

Rich

I am done speaking with you of such complex issues it's a waste of time.

TRUTHHURTS

TH;

Thanks. You have made my point. 2 and 3 are NOT a declaration of war. They are only authorizing the President to commit the Armed Forces.

A formal declaration of war gives the President a LOT more power than he now has under this or any other resolution or authorization.

It may be a matter of semantics to some but it is considerably more than that. Declaring war brings in a different set of rules than granting 'war powers'.

I'll stand by my statement: This country has not declared a war against another country since WWII.

Mike Heemer

Now there's a response I've heard before. You are just too stupid to understand such a complex issue.

You'll just have to trust me that I know more than you and have your best interest at heart. Don't worry about it, I'll take care of you and everything will be just fine.

But you do have to understand that if the crap hits the fan you are going to be the one standing in front of it.

Trust me, I'm from the government, I'm here to help.

Riiight!

Mike Heemer

It's nothing more then semantics, thats correct.

Ask any Korean veteran if they were in a war.

Ask any Vietnam veteran if they were in a war

Ask any Veteran if they are in a war.

Read any history book, they never play the semantic game, they are wars.

If the president had done anything wrong or illegal he would have been impeached period.

With all do respect Mike I will think for myself sir, and not take anyones word, "Trust me I know more then you".

TRUTHHURTS

Actually I am a veteran. 26+ years worth. June 1964 - October 1990.

They are all wars as we know war today in that they are armed conflicts between nations. The difference is what the President is allowed to do. I did not say that he broke any laws. I am only pointing out that technically we are not 'at war' with anyone and his powers are limited to the meaning of 'war powers' as defined in the resolution.

For me, I'd like to see a formal declaration of war. The rules would change and we wouldn't be tromping around in all the political clap-trap we see today. We might even have a draft so that we would have enough troops to do the job right.

Mike Heemer

Mike

Thank you for your service, I too am a veteran.

What the President did was perfectly legal, allowed, and correct, He did his job,

I won't disagree with your last comment. Except I am not sure we are at a point were a draft is needed, I think our volunter program is ok for the time being.

TRUTHHURTS

Finder:

That is the scariest statement in all of history. It gives me nightmares.

Those who give up freedom for security have neither. 

WW;

And well it should! 

Mike Heemer

I'm sorry, i had to go to work, been out for while.  So, finder, are we at war or not, i'm not sure i undertsnd your logic, soldiers are still dying, we still have some type of purpose but yet we're no at war.  we are in a conflict, call it what you want we'd still have the same political crap problems just as we did in wwI and wwII, but i'm sure it's been a while since you took hs history or civics as they called it.

Technically we are not. I understand that to the uninitiated it might seem to be a moot point because dead is dead, but it really isn't.

It has to do with the powers of the President, the on-site commanders and the soldiers in the field.

The rules of engagement change and the President doesn't have to keep begging for money to continue the fight.

A formal declaration of war by congress gives them a buy in. That way everyone is pretty much on the same side.

Actually it was called history in my HS. US History 1, US History 2, World History and horror of horrors Geography.

Foxx, I realize that I am old enough to be your Father and perhaps your Grand Father but it would be nice if you were not quite so condescending when talking with me.

I'll try not to insult you or speak down to you because of your lack of life experience as long as you give me at least a modicum of respect because of my 'advanced' age.

Besides having been there done that and got the 'T' shirt to prove it, I do have 7 years more education than a HS diploma.

Mike Heemer

Yes, i realize i have been a particular ass to you, so for someone that i don't even know but know is older and more expierenced than myself, i'll take it easy and do my homework more often, even a nineteen year old sarcastic person like me can realize you and other people of an older generation deserve more respect, i don't apologize because it's useless, actions speak louder than words even on a blog where we can only type.