Okay, this isn't going to be about US politics. This post is going to cover politics of the internet - specifically speaking, rude people on the internet - to get more specific, the "Didn't you read page 946 of the manual?" attitude. If you've been on the internet long enough, no doubt you've participated in, or at least heard of, message boards and email lists (such as Yahoo groups). If you've participated in those things enough, no doubt you've noticed something. A "newbie" comes on and does the unthinkable. They ask a question that has already been answered to death. I say it's the unthinkable because there are some people who seem to think that the newbie should know that the topic had been discussed before, or maybe there are some help files, or whatever, that they didn't look through. The response they get may look something like this: "We've discussed this subject to death already. It's getting boring. Go look through the help files." Gee, what a nice response, huh? I mean if you're new, and let's say you think of a quick question, and maybe you're a little short on time at the moment, you might decide to make a quick post asking your questions. Maybe you don't realize that the help files or search feature exists. Or maybe you just don't have the inclination to sift through the forums or list archives to find what you're looking for (really, who wants to just spend all their time looking through archives to find an answer to something?). So you post that question and go off to do something that takes precedence over searching for the answer. You then come back later to find a response that basically amounts to: "Didn't you read page 946 of the manual?" Come on guys ... would you honestly appreciate the response, as well meaning as it may have been, if it was just a post shrugging you off telling you to check the FAQ's or run a search? Especially considering that in the time it takes to lecture people about the FAQ's or search feature, you probably could have answered their question. Am I saying never mention the search function or help files, etc.? Nope. Not at all. But put it nicely, and be sure to answer the question while you're about it. Something like: "You can add emoticons to your post by clicking on the smiley from the list that you want to use. By the way, for future reference, the answer to this, and similar questions, can be found in the FAQ list. There is a link at the top of the forum." And what if it's not a newbie you ask? Still don't be rude about it. Maybe it is a regular member who seemingly should "know better" than to ask the question. Well, maybe they're having an off day and didn't think to run a search or check FAQ's, and instead put up a quick post. That happens sometimes. And so what if the subject has been "talked to death"? Really, how long does it take to answer a question? Probably, in most cases, no longer than it would take to write a snobby "this question is getting boring. We've discussed it before. Go do a search or check the help files." Which sounds like the more appropriate way to handle the situation? If you're online, you're either old enough that you are an adult, or you're old enough to at least act in a mature manner. If you can't just answer a question without a 10-year-old "this is boring" attitude, then maybe it's best if you just don't respond at all.

Dear Mr. President,

There are some things, that, as President of the United States, I figured you might want to know. There are some things that concern Americans find troubling about how you handle things. I'm not quite sure where to start, but here we go.

First, the Iraq war. You claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and we needed to go in there and take care of that before they used their WMD's on us. Well, we've been in there a couple years now, Saddam has been deposed, and we still haven't found the WMD's. Not only did we go in without UN approval (which is illegal, and we really don't like partaking in illegal wars), and not only were reports of WMD's falsified (we also don't like waging war that is justified by a lie), but just in case you're a little confused and have trouble seeing the obvious, if they had that big stash of weapons of mass destruction that you have purported, we would have known by now. Saddam is no longer in office, so really, SOMEBODY would have said SOMETHING if they were harboring that big stash.

You also said we needed to free Iraqis from Saddam. Sure, Saddam did some horrible things, but is what's going on now any better? At least under Saddam, they were able to live a somewhat normal life. If they got on Saddam's bad side, life would be miserable, but now they can't even walk out of their homes without life being miserable. How would you feel if every day you woke up and had to fear getting shot down the minute you walked outside? Frankly, Mr. President, Iraq was better off under Saddam. At least he kept things under some control. Now, thanks to you, Iraq is pretty much torn to pieces. Great job (and just so you know, that was sarcasm. It's really not a great job).

Now I understand you are looking to possibly go into Iran. Please Mr. President, we don't want that. We've caused enough damage. We've ruined enough innocent lives. We've sent enough soldiers to their deaths. We don't need to do that any more. Not to mention, what about trying to get Osama bin Laden? Since he was the mastermind of 9/11, don't you think we should be more concerned with finding him, than making up ridiculous reasons why other people just might be a threat? That's what most of America is thinking right now.

And what about the tax cut thing? Basically more money goes to the rich (who don't really need more money). You wonder why the economy is bad? I would think this would have something to do with it. Not to mention any other way you manage to put money where it isn't best used. Not sure if you've noticed this or not, but most Americans don't want or need a President who can't even keep the economy decent.

Oh, and then there's the issue of your apparent hypocrisy with, among other things, the pro-life issue. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-life myself. I am against abortion, and I'm horrified by the fate of Terri Schiavo. BUT, speaking of the Schiavo case, you had said something like: "when in doubt it is always right to err on the side of life" or something to that effect. While I agree with that sentiment, those words would have meant something, Mr. President, if you hadn't signed a law as Texas governor a few years back called the "futile care law". That law has resulted in the termination of life support on one patient (an infant) last month, has recently sent the wife of another patient scrambling to find a nursing home that would care for her husband (who, from my understanding, is in a similar condition that Terri Schiavo was in), and it looks like another infant is soon to be unplugged under your futile care law. So what was that you were saying about erring on the side of life, Mr. President? Just in case you were wondering, Americans don't really like hypocrisy.

I could go on, but I'm thinking maybe you get the idea. Especially now that approval for you is declining. I'm sure you've noticed that many of the people who have voted for you are now regretting it, right? Anyway, I just thought some things needed to be brought to your attention. Have a nice day. -- An American citizen

Okay, we know that Bush is against abortions, and we all know how, during the Terri Schiavo case, he said something like "when in doubt, it is right to err on the side of life."

This is something, that being very pro-life myself, I totally agree with. However this morning something came to my attention (Click for Article) this morning that reminds us that Bush hasn't always had this idea. Or he only has that idea when it is politically appropriate for him to have that idea.

In the linked to article, a Texas baby is scheduled to be discontinued from a ventilator under Texas' "futile care law", signed by then Governor George W. Bush. Under the futile care law, a hospital ethics committee can determine that further treatment is "futile" and can end treatment for a patient, even remove the patient from life support, despite the family's, or, from what I understand it, even the patient's wishes.

Ironic that the same person to sign the "futile care" bill into law is the same person who, just within the last two months, said that we should err on the side of life.

Make up your mind, Mr. President.

Okay, my theological side is going to show a little bit here. I know it's been said that one should never mix politics and religion, but I don't really give a rip.

I am a Christian, and I am anti-Bush.

There seem to be some people who would think this to be an oxymoron. I'm not sure why. Is it because Bush is a Christian? Now, I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of that, as it is not my place to decide whether someone is or is not a Christian. That's between the person and God and I'm keeping my nose out of it. If they say they are a Christian as Bush has, it's not up to me to come in and say otherwise. HOWEVER, what amazes me is that there are people out there who seem to have the idea that because Bush is a Christian he can do no wrong, and that God wants him to do everything he does. Such people seem to believe that if you're a Christian, you should vote for and support Bush all the way.

Okay, Bush is very pro-life. I can appreciate that. So am I. I can understand why people would be concerned about voting for somebody that is pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia etc. I mean as Christians we should be against that. But do you know what? That's about the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that I like about Bush. But I have real issues with the fact that he's so pro-life yet he doesn't seem to care how many innocents he's killing with his silly war.

Oh I suppose the war is somehow okay because Iraq is a primarily muslim country, where there are non-Christians, and so I guess we should just be killing them off, right? Guess what? There are plenty of non-Christians right here in America. I have a feeling that if someone made the proposal to execute all American non-Christians, that wouldn't go over very well. So I guess it's not so okay to do the same in other countries, since we really shouldn't be trying to govern other countries anyway. \

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't have a problem with someone being a Christian and also being pro-Bush. Sure, it amazes me after all that's gone on that anyone would be pro-Bush at this point, but to each their own, I suppose. What baffles the heck out of me is this: Some people seem to think that if you're a Christian, you must by default be a Republican. Sometimes it seems that there are people who think that Bush is God. Well I've got news for you: George W. Bush is not God. George W. Bush is not God. George W. Bush is not God. George W. Bush is not God. Do I need to say it again? Okay, I will. George W. Bush is not God. Got it yet? Good. Really, I've heard some pretty broad statements. One being (are you sitting down?) that anyone who is against Bush is against Christianity. I'm going to let that assertion stand on it's own merit, because if anybody needs an explanation as to why that statement is problematic, I'd be wasting my time.

What's going on here? Are we on our way to having a new denomination called Bushism? Sure don't know of any Scriptural basis for such an idea, so I have to hope not.

Okay, after all that's gone on, it's really amazing to me that there are people out there who still think Bush is a great guy. Now, I'll admit, I used to be pro-Bush like right after 9/11. From my standing point, he handled the situation pretty well, and I'm sure as heck not calling him a terrorist for going into Afganistan to try and get Osama bin Laden. I mean, a country/group attacks us, why wouldn't we try to get the mastermind of the operation into custody and try to avoid such an attack happening again in the future, right?

Well, it seems as though Bush had other things on his agenda. What he really wanted to do was attack Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein. Why? Well, certainly not the weapons of mass destruction he claimed. I mean, we've been in there a couple years now. For a good chunk of that time Saddam has been dethroned. As long as we've been in Iraq and with Saddam no longer in power, where's that big WMD stash? I mean surely we'd have found something. But we haven't. And in fact there's evidence floating around out there that the reports that there supposedly were all these WMD's had erroneous, or even fabricated information. So now we know that WMD's weren't the true reason for going into Iraq, and thus, Iraq didn't really pose a threat to the United States. So there goes that rationale for attacking Iraq right down the tubes.

When Bush realized that excuse wouldn't work, he said we needed to go in and liberate the Iraqis from Saddam's ruthless tyranny. A couple of points: First, we didn't have UN backing. Deciding that people need to be liberated is the UN's job, and if they want to enlist the US, fine. Otherwise, as horrible as things were under Saddam, it's not our business to do any "liberating". Secondly, what liberating has gone on here? Seems to me things are WORSE with Saddam gone. I mean if you got on Saddam's bad side, life was made pretty miserable. But now life is miserable, if you live in Iraq, whether you've "gotten on someone's bad side" or not. Why? Because Bush really doesn't seem to give a rip that innocent Iraqis are losing their lives - they can't walk out their front door without fearing being shot down. He also doesn't seem to give a rip that Americans are dying as well, all because Bush lied about WMD's and tried to stick his nose into a "liberation" mission that his nose didn't belong in. And if he really was trying to liberate Iraq, he sure went about it the wrong way, because liberation isn't happening. In fact, what's going on is just the opposite.

Why did he go in? Well, there's the fact that Iraq has all this oil that I'm sure Bush would love to get his hands on. Also Saddam tried to have Bush Sr. assassinated, so I'm sure that caused a vendetta. Neither of which are very good reasons to attack a country and leave thousands of people dead.

And so, I can only conclude that President George W. Bush is a terrorist and a war criminal. Too bad the UN isn't doing anything about it.

Well, actually, I am neither Republican or Democrat. I guess I would consider myself an Independant. I just don't see how having a political party affiliation really is good, at least for me, when there are things from both sides I agree with and things from both sides that I find utterly repulsive.

Example: Republicans are, for the most part, for things such as the death penalty and Iraq war, both of which, for me, go into the utterly repulsive catagory. But the good thing is that they are generally speaking, pro-life, which means they are against abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, etc. That of course scores them some brownie points with me.

On the other hand, Democrats are, for the most part, anti-death penalty, anti-Iraq war, etc., which scores them some brownie points, but for abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, etc., which from where I'm standing can only lead to trouble.

While I realize some people who are Democrat may have an opinion that is more assoiciated with Republicans, and vice versa, the way I am I'd probably fit in a political party all my own, basically.

See, as a Christian, I am very staunchly pro-life. This includes being against the death penalty and against unjust, frivolous wars like what we have going on right now.

Am I against all wars? Not necessarily. Sure, I'd love it if we could exist without ever waging war, but come on. We started the war in Afganistan to get Osama bin Laden (the mastermind of 9/11 and the head of Al Quaeda, which is what, evidenced by 9/11, poses an actual threat to the US). Fine. They attacked us and therefore proved themselves a threat, so that was a war that was at least justified. But then, Bush basically said to heck with Al Quaeda, he had a vendetta against Saddam Hussein, so we should focus our attention on Iraq. Let's make up some crap about them harboring weapons of mass destruction (I say crap, because after two years being there, we would have found something had there been that stash), and by the way, let's start thinking about attacking Iran while we're at it, no doubt making crap up to try and justify it there as well, and forget that Osama is still out there. Anyway, more on my problems with the "war on terror" in a future posting. Back to topic.

That's basically why I can't say I am affiliated with any particular party. There are so many problems with both major political parties that I just can't see any justification in saying "I'm a Republican" or "I'm a Democrat". If I feel that a Republican is best suited for office, that's who will get my vote. If I think a Democrat is best suited for office, that's who will get my vote. If I feel as though the elections are basically a choice between dumb and dumber, as I did in the 2004 elections, I will simply vote for the independant candidate, as I did in the 2004 elections. Even if I'm not sure what that person believes, at least they're not actively mud-slinging like their Democratic and Republican counterparts.

Anyway, that, in a nutshell, is why I do not consider myself a "Democrat" or "Republican".