# Who loves President Bush???



## Jon Blaze (Jan 21, 2006)

Because I do!!!  


Honestly I think he's mediocre..... The comedy about him is funny though!!!! 

View attachment Bush's America.jpg


----------



## 1300 Class (Jan 21, 2006)

I don't care much for american politics, its a big joke whoever is in charge.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Jan 21, 2006)

How can I love someone who doesn't think I'm good enough for equal protection under the law as a bisexual? How can I love someone who would falsify evidence to start a war and kill both Iraqi and American innocents for greed's sake? Can I like someone who pardons spying on private citizens? Nope. On top of this, he tries to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the right wing, Crazy Conservatives for Christ. He makes me ill.


----------



## 1300 Class (Jan 21, 2006)

> On top of this, he tries to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the right wing, Crazy Conservatives for Christ.


Thats politics for you. But whoever is in power pleases their supports and section interests and displeases everyone else. Its how politics will always work.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 21, 2006)

I love President Bush. I just don't love what he does. But sure, he's alright I guess.


----------



## BBW Betty (Jan 21, 2006)

I wouldn't say I love him. I try to understand why some things have gone the way they have, but it's not easy.

I don't pretend to be complete up on all the political stuff. I've always considered myself socially liberal, but morally conservative--depends on the issue at hand.

I personally don't think Bush is smart enough to have done all the BS deliberately. We have to remember that the media as a rule usually presents all problems as a direct result of whoever is in office at the time, so I take all news with a grain of salt.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jan 21, 2006)

I still believe in the theory that he lives in a kind of bubble, relying alot on Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.


----------



## Cheryl05 (Jan 21, 2006)

I admit it - I voted for George Bush. Do I love him? No. 

In fact I'm angry at his deficit spending, emphasis on tax reduction when we're fighting a war, and his blind side on emvironmental issues. And I think he isn't the deepest and swiftest boat in the water when it comes to understanding the real world. I frankly wonder how many hours a week he spends on serious reading. I was raised in a conservative anti-communist family in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, so am to the left of my family becausae I have social and environmental concerns they lack. Still I can tell you that they share with me total disdain for the neo-con thinking of Bush's advissors.

So why do I, and they, still support Bush?

Because today's official Democrats are so dominated by extreme leftists that I have no other choice. Their entire agenda is based on hostility to those they regard as different from them, class warfare and protecting what they regard as the "gains" of their socal agenda. They officially oppose any recognition of a fetus as a human being, ignore the Judeo/Christian roots and values of this country, and their think tanks are even more out in orbit when proposing real solutions to our problems than the neocons. 

For some examples, where is their answer to the Social Security question? To illegal immigration? To confronting Islamicfundamentalism? To reducing our dependance on foreign oil? To solving the trade deficit? To solving the health care deficit foir the poor? All they can do is point out deficiencies in the Republican plans - but they have nothing better to offer.

I support Bush for three reasons -- he can be depended on to stop judicial activism, fight terrrorism, and do better than the alternatives I see.


----------



## BBW Betty (Jan 21, 2006)

EtobicokeFA said:


> I still believe in the theory that he lives in a kind of bubble, relying alot on Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.



I'd believe that.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jan 21, 2006)

Is this how most Americans see the Democrats now?

View attachment combs.jpg


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 21, 2006)

Cheryl05 said:


> Because today's official Democrats are so dominated by extreme leftists that I have no other choice. Their entire agenda is based on hostility to those they regard as different from them, class warfare and protecting what they regard as the "gains" of their socal agenda. They officially oppose any recognition of a fetus as a human being, ignore the Judeo/Christian roots and values of this country, and their think tanks are even more out in orbit when proposing real solutions to our problems than the neocons.



Can you give some examples of the way Democrats have demonstrated a hostility towards people different from them or how they have ignored Judeo/Christian roots and values in this country? This is not meant as a challenge or to start an argument. It's just that I hear this said often and I'm curious to hear what specifically is being referenced. The Democrats have not been my favorite people of late but sometimes I hear people say things that seem to take things to extremes. Like that they have an agenda to restrict religious freedom in some way. I am also lead to believe that they are more inclined to support the life of the mother over the life of a fetus which really isn't the same as being baby killers. It's like calling Republicans Mommy killers which I don't think is fair either. Do Democrats have plans on the table fashioned to restrict or deny religious freedom?


----------



## Jane (Jan 21, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> Can you give some examples of the way Democrats have demonstrated a hostility towards people different from them or how they have ignored Judeo/Christian roots and values in this country? This is not meant as a challenge or to start an argument. It's just that I hear this said often and I'm curious to hear what specifically is being referenced. The Democrats have not been my favorite people of late but sometimes I hear people say things that seem to take things to extremes. Like that they have an agenda to restrict religious freedom in some way. I am also lead to believe that they are more inclined to support the life of the mother over the life of a fetus which really isn't the same as being baby killers. It's like calling Republicans Mommy killers which I don't think is fair either. Do Democrats have plans on the table fashioned to restrict or deny religious freedom?


Thank you, Lilly. I spent 15 minutes writing a response to this and finally just gave up.

You have been thoroughly indoctrinated, Cheryl, and need to turn off Fox News.


----------



## Jane (Jan 21, 2006)

12 Core Values of a Democrat

Belief in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights as a
Living Document of Inclusion not Exclusion

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for All

Fairness and Equal Opportunity for All

Protection of the Environment

Quality Public Education

Economic Justice for All

Living Wage Jobs

Social Security

Fiscal Responsibility

Workers’ Representation and Collective Bargaining

Affordable Health Care, Housing, Utilities and Food

Homeland Security and Strong National Defense

_I apologize, Conrad. I know it's political, but I didn't start the thread or the party bashing._


----------



## MissToodles (Jan 21, 2006)

I feel disenfranchised from the Democratic party. They have had many moments to seize power, bring real issues at hand but instead they pander and kowtow to the right. Most aren't left but centrists anyway.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jan 21, 2006)

BBW Betty said:


> We have to remember that the media as a rule usually presents all problems as a direct result of whoever is in office at the time, so I take all news with a grain of salt.



Great advice.


----------



## Jane (Jan 21, 2006)

MissToodles said:


> I feel disenfranchised from the Democratic party. They have had many moments to seize power, bring real issues at hand but instead they pander and kowtow to the right. Most aren't left but centrists anyway.


Boy, I understand that. That's why many of us are getting up and fighting to get the party back.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 21, 2006)

Jane said:


> 12 Core Values of a Democrat
> 
> Belief in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights as a
> Living Document of Inclusion not Exclusion
> ...


Thank you for posting that, Jane. 

The way I see it, the Democratic philosophy is "Let's see how far we can go if we all work together". The Republican philosophy is "Every man for himself".

That's why I'm a life-long Democrat.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 21, 2006)

MissToodles said:


> I feel disenfranchised from the Democratic party. They have had many moments to seize power, bring real issues at hand but instead they pander and kowtow to the right. Most aren't left but centrists anyway.


Then do what I did - get involved. Go to local party meetings. Meet the local candidates. Help out on campaigns. Let people know what you think.

I got involved in the Party a few years ago, after a lifetime of just voting. Today, I'm a precinct co-chair, member of the Central Committee for the county Democratic Party, and have served as a delegate at the last two County Assemblies (which is how candidates get nominated here in Colorado).


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 21, 2006)

Cheryl05 said:


> I support Bush for three reasons -- he can be depended on to stop judicial activism, fight terrrorism, and do better than the alternatives I see.


The three main reasons I'm against Bush.

All Bush is doing is substituting CONSERVATIVE judicial activism for liberal, and using the "war on terrorism" to attack his enemies (meaning anyone who opposes him). All he's interested in is power.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 21, 2006)

MissToodles said:


> I feel disenfranchised from the Democratic party. They have had many moments to seize power, bring real issues at hand but instead they pander and kowtow to the right. Most aren't left but centrists anyway.



I think that may be one of the biggest problems the Dems face as far as 'seizing power' goes. No one knows what to believe anymore. Information has been slow in coming from the White House. Replies to direct questions have been vague if at all, citing executive privilege and national security. No one knows for sure what's going on behind that curtain or if anyone is telling the truth. There's still this kneejerk reaction to give the benefit of the doubt and the White House has benefited from this doubt from the very beginning. No one knows exactly how many worms are in that can or what kind of mess will ensue if they try to force it open. 

One thing that has me a bit uneasy: aside from the stricter security measures in place to get inside my office building to go to work I haven't noticed anything at all being done to insure national security around here. Most places, including our airports, still get a D grade as far as homeland security is concerned. I hear Republicans talking big about how the President is much more aggressive as far as National security is concerned but is this actually true or is it a myth? I've seen nothing to indicate that except for laws on the books to make it easier for them to look into your dirty laundry basket.


----------



## BBW Betty (Jan 21, 2006)

I've always tried to figure out which party offers the "lesser of two evils" at election time. Sorry, but I see very few centrists on either side. 

*For me personally*, one of the biggest issues is abortion. I am adamantly pro-life, so that is a strike against the Dems. However, I don't think the Republicans do anything more than lip service to saving unborn babies. And if the Republicans would focus on everyone making a living wage, I think that fewer pregnant women would feel pressured to end their pregnancies. There's enough blame to go around on this issue and many others.

On the other hand, another issue I hold dear is affording college, and financial aid is rapidly disappearing under the current administration. The Democrats are more willing to help out here, where Republicans tend to be more elitist.

I could never bring myself to becoming a strict follower of either party.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 21, 2006)

Vote Chippy 2008!


----------



## Boteroesque Babe (Jan 21, 2006)

Jon Blaze said:


> Who loves President Bush???


Laura
The Twins
His mama, maybe
Pat Robertson
Haters love him
Defense contractors
His high-fivin' oil buddies
Osama Bin Laden and his posse (maxin' n' relaxin')
80% of the inmates in federal penitentiaries, white collar crime division
That blonde Country music singer guy with the '70s gay porn mustache
Saudi King Abdullah, who took his hand, laid him down in the Crawford wild flowers, and made sweet, sweet love to him, Brokeback Mountain style
Fox News
Chuckie Heston
"Brownie"

(His daddy and the family dog who cowers and quakes every time he's near both asked to be removed from this list.)

Other than that? Hmmm.... drawin' a blank.


----------



## 1300 Class (Jan 21, 2006)

Jane said:


> You have been thoroughly indoctrinated, Cheryl, and need to turn off Fox News.





Cheryl05 said:


> Their entire agenda is based on hostility to those they regard as different from them, class warfare and protecting what they regard as the "gains" of their socal agenda.


Well, maybe there is something in that. :roll eyes:

Jane seems to perhaps typify that, blaming indoctrination and the mass media, rather that accepting that different, personal views are in play.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 21, 2006)

Boteroesque Babe said:


> Laura
> The Twins
> His mama, maybe
> Pat Robertson
> ...



you forgot 62,040,003 voters


----------



## Boteroesque Babe (Jan 21, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> you forgot 62,040,003 voters


That was before they'd consummated the presidency. Love fades when a man, y'know, falls short.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Jan 21, 2006)

BoBabe, ya slay me. Thanks for adding humor to what can easily become a nasty, partisan discussion.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 21, 2006)

ah I wouldn't know that problem  VOTE CHIPPY!


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 21, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> VOTE CHIPPY!


Ah, yes - a chipmunk in every pot!!!!


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 21, 2006)

with a side order of cheetos!


----------



## Jane (Jan 21, 2006)

Australian Lord said:


> Well, maybe there is something in that. :roll eyes:
> 
> Jane seems to perhaps typify that, blaming indoctrination and the mass media, rather that accepting that different, personal views are in play.


You obviously are not completely immersed in the the American propoganda machine.


----------



## Jane (Jan 21, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> you forgot 62,040,003 voters


Or the Supreme Court....geez how could I forget them?

Yet, I may be swayed to vote Chippy!!!!!!!!


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 21, 2006)

2 Words

Rule of law.


----------



## Tina (Jan 21, 2006)

BB:


> (His daddy and the family dog who cowers and quakes every time he's near both asked to be removed from this list.)



You noticed that, too? The times I've seen them together, or when he's calling Barney, Barney seems to almost always cower away from him.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 21, 2006)




----------



## 1300 Class (Jan 22, 2006)

Jane said:


> You obviously are not completely immersed in the the American propoganda machine.


Well so far so good, though I do sometimes watch fox news for a good laugh.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 22, 2006)

BBW Betty said:


> *For me personally*, one of the biggest issues is abortion. I am adamantly pro-life, so that is a strike against the Dems. However, I don't think the Republicans do anything more than lip service to saving unborn babies. And if the Republicans would focus on everyone making a living wage, I think that fewer pregnant women would feel pressured to end their pregnancies. There's enough blame to go around on this issue and many others.



Something interesting I read over a year ago that has given me some food for thought BBW Betty:

_*Pro-life? Look at the fruits *

by Dr. Glen Harold Stassen 
I am a Christian ethicist, and trained in statistical analysis. I am consistently pro-life. My son David is one witness. For my family, "pro-life" is personal. My wife caught rubella in the eighth week of her pregnancy. We decided not to terminate, to love and raise our baby. David is legally blind and severely handicapped; he also is a blessing to us and to the world. 

I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency. There is no single source for this information - federal reports go only to 2000, and many states do not report - but I found enough data to identify trends. My findings are counterintuitive and disturbing. 

Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies). 

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened. 

I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease). 

Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction. 

How could this be? I see three contributing factors: 

First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed. 

Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of the 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001, and in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises. 

Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency - with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million - abortion increases. 

The U.S. Catholic Bishops warned of this likely outcome if support for families with children was cut back. My wife and I know - as does my son David - that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical insurance, special schooling, and parental employment are crucial for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the Blind, as well as several schools for children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as well. We have two other sons and five grandchildren, and we know that every mother, father, and child needs public and family support. 

What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers. 

*Glen Stassen is the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, and the co-author of *_*Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, Christianity Today's Book of the Year in theology or ethics.*


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jan 22, 2006)

Since we are on the topic of politics. Does anyone care that most of the US debt is owned by China?


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 22, 2006)

It's an interesting point, but one that may prevent China from becoming hostile to the US...lest they don't get the $ back.


----------



## Tina (Jan 22, 2006)

Excellent article, Lilly. Do you happen to have a link for that?


----------



## adam (Jan 22, 2006)

He isn't the brightest guy in the room...any room...I think he did too much cocain and whatever else while he was in the Texas Air National Gaurd...though he was only alledgedly in the military service...I don't think they actually ever found a record either way to say if he was or not...anyway...I hate him...as I hate all professional politians, regaurdless of which party they are affiliated with...they all suck just the same.


----------



## Cheryl05 (Jan 22, 2006)

First of all, for Tina, although I'm not Lily here's the link to the article you requested -- itsthe third heading as you scroll down on the page:

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action...y&issue=041013

For the record I agree that much abortion is economic based and that anyone who is pro-life logically has to address the questions of how you deal with preventing unwanted conceptions and what you do with unwanted babies who are not easy adoption candidates. I agree with Chief Justice Rhenquist that Roe vs Wade was wrongly decided bast on reliance upon faulty medical opinions, but that doesn't mean we can just stop there.

Now, to the people who think I'm brainwashed because I can't see voting Democratic with their current leadership, here's what I mean about wrong headed judicial activism - which goes far beyond whether abortion is a State or Federal issue, a private or a societal matter, etc.

Example #1 -

In Indiana, as in Congress and elsewhere, it has been traditional to open legislative sessions with prayer by a local chaplin. He might be Christiasn, Jewish Islamic or whatever. The ACLU last year decided to sue over it - and a local judge went along. The legislators are now taking turns oprenng sessions with prayer themselves. They want to ignore the judeo-Christian heritage of this country and have not just freedom of religion but freedom from religion. For the courts to endorse this approaxch, as they have beginning with a 1947 dedcision embracing ACLU suggested language is something the liberal wing of the Democratic party supports.

Example #2 -

The Constitution explicitly acknowledges that there are rights and powers bnot covered in the orioginal document, but delegates the responsibility fordefiingandadmionistering them torthge states. This was not a racist move to perpetuate slavery as some today assume, it was part of a compromise to resolve issues regarding big vs little states and strengthen Federal authority in a very limited manner because the Articlesof Confederation weren't working. There was also provided an amendment procedure to change things as time required - but various groups have turned to the judiciary rather than the amendment process to change this balance. As a result we have a Court that now cites international law and practice rather than the constitutional precedents.

I cite these two examples to show that I have done a bit more homework than some name-callers assume. I think the maintaining Federal/State balance and striving for the minimization of government at all levels are good ideas. This requires more of a striuct constructioist judiciary. Even uttering that statement would cause Senators Shumer and Kennedy to have a fit if I were a nominee for the bench; many Republicans would applaud.

With this said, I would support a process wherein there would be periodic automatic convenuing of a constitutional amendment convention on a regular basis, such as once a decade.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 22, 2006)

The tone of your response (especially the anti-ACLU rhetoric and the reference to Supreme Court Justices looking to international law) indicate to me that you did your research at mainly right-wing websites and sources. I see a lot of that nowadays...



Cheryl05 said:


> First of all, for Tina, although I'm not Lily here's the link to the article you requested -- itsthe third heading as you scroll down on the page:
> 
> http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action...y&issue=041013
> 
> ...


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 22, 2006)

Here is more information about that Indiana case, involving the State Legislature. Not that the ACLU did NOT sue on their own, Cheryl - they brought suit on behalf of Methodists, Quakers, and Roman Catholics - none of which are outside "our Judeo-Christian heritage". Suits like these serve to remind people that the Constitution si intended to assure that the majority doesn't trample on the rights of the minority.



> *Indiana Court Upholds Challenge to Houses Exclusionary Sectarian Prayers (11/30/2005)*
> 
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> CONTACT: [email protected]
> ...


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 22, 2006)

EDITED IN: disclaimer I am a pro-life/pro-choice registered Democrat that voted both times for Bush.

as a statistic studier, I can tell you most abortion statistics are faulty. Not long ago a study came out with the thesis that due to abortions becoming legal 33 years ago, the number of voting Democrats has gone down, therefore the Roe v Wade decision helped Bush get elected both times. The point was more liberal mothers have abortions therefore less liberal kids in the population: a very flawed concept as abortion statistics are assumptions to begin with, and now you add in the assumption of who gets abortions.

An interesting theory but one based on tons of assumptions. Remember the reasons and demographics of abortions are unknown due to patient privacy rules.

As for the overall number, this study above is looking at increase in % of number, not increase of % of population, a much more reliable feature. Nevertheless the 11% increase in Michigan is substantial. However the other increases may also be due to population change. The context was not explained properly and what may very well be valid data needs further explanation.

That being said, I did investigate one state in the article Kentucky had an increase of 3.2% in abortions between 2000 and 2003, the population went up 1.9% in that time. So points like that do validate the stats given for that state.

The most interesting idea of the article is the linking of the abortion rate to the economy, and perhaps one link that hasn't been studied much, perhaps because there are no solid figures. However from the estimates I did find, there seems to be no correlation. Yes there were high increases year to year in the 70s but this is due more to the new legality of the practice and the development of better statistic gathering. Since then the only years where you had a statistically relevant change (I will use +/- 2.5%) between years were:

1980 + 3.75%
1990 + 2.66%
1991 - 3.24%
1994 - 4.82%
1995 - 4.45%

source: Alan Guttmacher Institute Statistics; 1973-2002 

Again note that this is a simple number, not a percentage of the US population, but being I put in that 2.5% buffer it adds significance to these years.

I will point out one more thing from this source (considered by most to be a widely accepted estimate of annual abortions). Abortions/ year between 2000 and 2002 have gone DOWN from an estimated 1,312,990 to 1,293,000. 2002's numbers were the lowest since 1976.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 22, 2006)

Tina said:


> Excellent article, Lilly. Do you happen to have a link for that?



Yes. I read this article online somewhere back in November of 2004 and saved it on one of my blogs. I originally found it on a site belonging to the Archdioces but it is no longer available there. A full copy of it can be found at the National Baptist website however. You need Acrobat Reader to be able to read/open it:

http://www.nationalbaptist.com/images/documents/148.pdf


----------



## Ryan (Jan 22, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> The tone of your response (especially the anti-ACLU rhetoric and the reference to Supreme Court Justices looking to international law) indicate to me that you did your research at mainly right-wing websites and sources. I see a lot of that nowadays...



Are you saying that no Supreme Court justices have looked to international law for guidance?


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 22, 2006)

Ryan said:


> Are you saying that no Supreme Court justices have looked to international law for guidance?


No - not at all. But that's one of the "talking points" that has permeated right-wing talk radio ever since the Court ruled it was wrong to execute juveniles.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 22, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.



Were the financial situations of that two thirds of women actually verified? 

Some people have different ideas of what they can and can't afford. To some people, being unable to "afford" something truly means there is no way they can actually pay for it. To others; being unable to "afford" something means that they are too busy spending money on other things that could be sacrificed if necessary (fancy cars, vacations, etc.).


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 22, 2006)

The legislature still opens in prayer, that has not been taken away. Just the propensity to favor one religion over another which is unconstitutional. You may want to bar judges from getting involved in the freedom for the states to decide what is best but what's to happen 100 years from now? You live in a time when your beliefs and convictions are in the majority but what about your grandchildren? What about THEIR grandchildren? What happens when the majority is someone else and they think G-d is something else and they want to bring THEIR clergymen in to open the legislature and they want to amend the constitution in their favor? They may let your grandchildren have their pastor show up *just* enough to keep up appearances in accordance with the law. If your decedents feel oppressed where can they go? Where can they turn? Who will listen? Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 22, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> No - not at all. But that's one of the "talking points" that has permeated right-wing talk radio ever since the Court ruled it was wrong to execute juveniles.



If it's true that the court has looked to international law (and it shouldn't be, since the Constitution is supposed to be the basis of our legal system), why did you bother bringing this up? Whether you agree with the execution of juvenile criminals or not, it should be obvious that basing judicial decisions on anything other than the Constitution is improper.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 22, 2006)

Ryan said:


> Were the financial situations of that two thirds of women actually verified?
> 
> Some people have different ideas of what they can and can't afford. To some people, being unable to "afford" something truly means there is no way they can actually pay for it. To others; being unable to "afford" something means that they are too busy spending money on other things that could be sacrificed if necessary (fancy cars, vacations, etc.).



.... and birth control. Don't forget that. Most people dripping with diamonds and fancy cars with a vacation villa in Paris can cough up the scratch necessary for the the pill or to have an IUD installed. The poor women with no healthcare benefits, no job and no car - they would be the ones most likely to find themselves in an unwanted pregnancy situation in the first place as the data has shown for many years now.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 22, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> .... and birth control. Don't forget that. Most people dripping with diamonds and fancy cars with a vacation villa in Paris can cough up the scratch necessary for the the pill or to have an IUD installed. The poor women with no healthcare benefits, no job and no car - they would be the ones most likely to find themselves in an unwanted pregnancy situation in the first place as the data has shown for many years now.



That's true, but it doesn't really answer my question as to whether or not the financial situations of these two thirds of women were verified.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 22, 2006)

Ryan said:


> That's true, but it doesn't really answer my question as to whether or not the financial situations of these two thirds of women were verified.




No, not really. You can assume it's wrong or assume it's right, whatever your pleasure. But it doesn't do much for the numbers.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 22, 2006)

To answer that, no they were not.

As in the study I mentioned that the majority of abortions are done in liberal households, there is no verification.

There are no demographic stats available due to patient privacy laws. We cannot assume anything other than the AGI's numbers of OVERALL abortions have gone down to their lowest levels since 1976. Going more specific, the data just isn't there.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 22, 2006)

Ryan said:


> If it's true that the court has looked to international law (and it shouldn't be, since the Constitution is supposed to be the basis of our legal system), why did you bother bringing this up? Whether you agree with the execution of juvenile criminals or not, it should be obvious that basing judicial decisions on anything other than the Constitution is improper.


Show me where the Constitution says it's proper to execute a 16-year-old.

I see nothing wrong with reviewing the practices in other countries to gain perspective when making a decision. That's called making a decision based on facts.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 22, 2006)

I would agree with Wayne on this. I'm for the strict letter of the constitution (meaning, in today's climate, more power to the legislature, less to the judiciary and executive). However what do you do when a case comes up and there is no law on the books to interpret. Guidance is needed there. As for instances where international guidance is used to interpret already existing laws, that's a no no.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 22, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> The legislature still opens in prayer, that has not been taken away. Just the propensity to favor one religion over another which is unconstitutional. You may want to bar judges from getting involved in the freedom for the states to decide what is best but what's to happen 100 years from now? You live in a time when your beliefs and convictions are in the majority but what about your grandchildren? What about THEIR grandchildren? What happens when the majority is someone else and they think G-d is something else and they want to bring THEIR clergymen in to open the legislature and they want to amend the constitution in their favor? They may let your grandchildren have their pastor show up *just* enough to keep up appearances in accordance with the law. If your decedents feel oppressed where can they go? Where can they turn? Who will listen? Be careful what you wish for.


That's a basic concept many on the right seem to miss, Lilly. No one is saying that Christians, for example, can't hold the religious beliefs that they choose - they just can't use the government (or taxpayer money) to impose their beliefs on others. That's why courts have consistently ruled against sectarian prayers in public schools, government meetings, and over the PA system at high school football games.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 22, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> Show me where the Constitution says it's proper to execute a 16-year-old.



Show me where it says it _isn't_ proper. 

And, for the record, there are plenty of things the government does that aren't specifically allowed by the Constitution (gun control, bans on same-sex marriage, outlawing drugs, foreign aid, affirmative action, welfare, scientific research, etc.). 



Wayne_Zitkus said:


> I see nothing wrong with reviewing the practices in other countries to gain perspective when making a decision. That's called making a decision based on facts.



I see nothing wrong with examing practices in other countries for the sake of perspective, but not for precedent. The Constitution alone is supposed to be the basis for our government and legal system.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 22, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> However what do you do when a case comes up and there is no law on the books to interpret.



You would do what American leaders did 200 years ago. Decide how to best approach the situation without exceeding the proper role of the government or violating the Constitutionally-protected rights of the citizens.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 22, 2006)

Ryan said:


> Show me where it says it _isn't_ proper.
> 
> And, for the record, there are plenty of things the government does that aren't specifically allowed by the Constitution (gun control, bans on same-sex marriage, outlawing drugs, foreign aid, affirmative action, welfare, scientific research, etc.).


But it's the case concerning juvenile executions that has caused the most vocal protests from those on the right. Bush and his croneys talk big about creating a "civilization of life" - it just looks like they want to choose who lives and who doesn't.



Ryan said:


> I see nothing wrong with examing practices in other countries for the sake of perspective, but not for precedent. The Constitution alone is supposed to be the basis for our government and legal system.


And that's what Justice Kennedy GOT from studying the practices in other countries - perspective. Something that Justices like Scalia and Thomas appear to lack, because they're hopelessly locked into a rigid agenda.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 22, 2006)

I think the problem the far right has is there is no defined constitutional statement banning govt moneys towards religious usage.

There are two religion based lines in the constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

and

"...no religious tests shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"

What is needed is a clarification after all these years that specificially addreses the following

- govt funding by religious groups
- use of govt land/property by religious groups

By the literal letter of the law, one should not be forbidden to use a tax-dollar paid PA system to say a prayer, after all part of my taxes went to buy that. Should I not be able to use government paid-for roads to travel if the intent is preaching at the destination?

Furthermore, the clauses above are on a federal level only...what the states do is up to them, but read that first one again CONGRESS can't MAKE A LAW etc. The executive branch is not addressed under the clause, and this branch includes people such as school officials.

So as the law stands, I should be able to do a religious chant or something in a public park (permit required of course). The law most definitely needs clarification to get rid of the grey areas.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 22, 2006)

Ryan said:


> You would do what American leaders did 200 years ago. Decide how to best approach the situation without exceeding the proper role of the government or violating the Constitutionally-protected rights of the citizens.



Correct. I would research other similar incidents for guidance but make sure the final verdict was within the United States' own rule of law.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 22, 2006)

Ryan said:


> You would do what American leaders did 200 years ago. Decide how to best approach the situation without exceeding the proper role of the government or violating the Constitutionally-protected rights of the citizens.


And they ruled that letting juvenile offenders not be executed is a Constitutionally-protected right. Period.

Again, I see nothing wrong with reviewing laws in other countries for perspective and to see what is going on in other countries. And as long as the final decision is Constitutional, it should stand.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 22, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> But it's the case concerning juvenile executions that has caused the most vocal protests from those on the right. Bush and his croneys talk big about creating a "civilization of life" - it just looks like they want to choose who lives and who doesn't.
> 
> 
> And that's what Justice Kennedy GOT from studying the practices in other countries - perspective. Something that Justices like Scalia and Thomas appear to lack, because they're hopelessly locked into a rigid agenda.




The justices in this country I believe need to be more rigid to the laws on the books. That's their job, not to overrule something that the legislature has constitutionally made into a law. Now if a justice finds something unconstitutional THEN says in lieu of the law we need to do this, that's fine.

Perspective is good, but not when it overules something that's set in stone.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 22, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> But it's the case concerning juvenile executions that has caused the most vocal protests from those on the right. Bush and his croneys talk big about creating a "civilization of life" - it just looks like they want to choose who lives and who doesn't.



But why are those on the right allegedly protesting? Because the court's decision was based at least in part on something other than the Constitution?



Wayne_Zitkus said:


> And that's what Justice Kennedy GOT from studying the practices in other countries - perspective. Something that Justices like Scalia and Thomas appear to lack, because they're hopelessly locked into a rigid agenda.



Again; perspective is one thing. Precedent for a decision that is supposed to be based solely on the Constitution is another.

Just out of curiousity; how would you feel about the courts using perspectives from places like Saudi Arabia on a ruling regarding same-sex marriage?


----------



## Ryan (Jan 22, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> Again, I see nothing wrong with reviewing laws in other countries for perspective and to see what is going on in other countries. And as long as the final decision is Constitutional, it should stand.



There is nothing wrong with being curous about what goes on in other countries, but I don't think laws of other countries should influence court decisions here. Courts are to interpret the law, not make it.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 22, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> Perspective is good, but not when it overules something that's set in stone.


Just remember - segregation was set in stone until the Supreme Court's "Brown vs. Board of Education" ruling in 1954.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 22, 2006)

Ryan said:


> Just out of curiousity; how would you feel about the courts using perspectives from places like Saudi Arabia on a ruling regarding same-sex marriage?


Being as the Saudi Arabian system of government is religion-based (and ours is not), what they do would have no bearing whatsoever.

Why? Do you want to see public beheadings here, like they do in Saudi Arabia?


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 22, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> Just remember - segregation was set in stone until the Supreme Court's "Brown vs. Board of Education" ruling in 1954.



segregation was never set in stone as it was fundamentally unconstitutional.

it just took the supreme court a while to overturn it.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 22, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> Being as the Saudi Arabian system of government is religion-based (and ours is not), what they do would have no bearing whatsoever.



So foreign perspectives should only count if you like the way that society is run? _Now_ the Constitution matters?



Wayne_Zitkus said:


> Why? Do you want to see public beheadings here, like they do in Saudi Arabia?



Did I say or imply that I did?


----------



## Cheryl05 (Jan 22, 2006)

OK - I confess. I do listen to some right wing talk show hosts. I also listen to Air America, which is the Liberal counterpoint. And I read a lot of other stuff too - probably more than our President. 

I think by getting sidetracked onto abortion and the Supreme Court we have successfully hijacked the origial thread. Jon Blaze asked why people support Bush and the Republicans despite some of the stupid stuff they do. Its not that we love Bush; its that the rantings andagenda of the present Democratic leadership gives those of traditional values no present alternative. 

As to the situation here in Indiana I have to disagree with Lilly. If the arguement were over just one faith being allowed to say the prayers instead of the giving of prayers themselves I would say "let the Buddhist monks, Hindu Swamis and Islamic Mullahs join the Pastors, Rabbis and Priests - no legitimate religous group should be excluded." But that isn't the choice - its part of the greater argument as to whether there can be prayers in the legislature and affirmations of our Judeo/Christian heritage, period. 

Its the same thing with gay marriage and homosexual rights. If Massachusets or any otrher State wants to recognize civil unions andcreate protected EEOC groups (why not fat people while we're at it?), fine. I think acity in California has protection against discrimination for the "ugly" (whatever that means). Our elected representatives can do this and we the people can boot them and change things back if enough people are upset about it. But such matters are not for Courts to determine - that's the Conservative view and also the tradituional American one with which a lot of people, including potential Democratic voters whoelected Bush, agree. 

As for Brown vs Education on segragation and the earlier Dred Scott decision on slavery, even black historians agree that they were technically legally correct decisions with an undesirable result. To the shame of our forbearers the country didn't take stock of the implications and do what it did when it was obvious the "noble experiment" of prohibition wasn't working. That's why the Warren Court (people forget that Warren was a Calornia Governor who as Attorney General interned the Japanese, then saw the courts overturn Latino/Anglo segregation in the firties) did what it did.

(For those unfamiliar with history, people outragedwith trhe unworkability of Prohibition changed the Constitution, bypassing the WCTU-dominated state legislatures in favor of local state by state conventions instead (the only time, I believe,.that approascxh has been used). I suggested earlier, and will repeat here, that a more proactive amendment and ratification procedure is preferable to an activist judiciary. The reason the Republican Eisenhower and Republican Warren did what they did is because the South was then 100% Dixiecrat and the Republicans impotent.)

(Still think I'm just a neo-con pawn Wayne? Sorry - I wish for a pox on boith groups and a revival of understandinbg by both Liberals and Conservatives of the concepts of our founding fathers. This is the valuesvs hedonism battle for minds that the conservatives I know feel they are waging.).


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 22, 2006)

Oh so THAT was the original thread hehe sorry I jumped on later..

I agree tho. I'm a democrat. I'm much more liberal than conservative. That being said the Democrat Party drives me nuts. No coherent message, a blame blame blame mentality, no gameplan/alternative. I'm from Missouri...SHOW ME an alternative not "I'm not Bush".


----------



## Tina (Jan 22, 2006)

Ryan said:


> That's true, but it doesn't really answer my question as to whether or not the financial situations of these two thirds of women were verified.



How does one verify that, Ryan?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 22, 2006)

Cheryl05 said:


> But that isn't the choice - its part of the greater argument as to whether there can be prayers in the legislature and affirmations of our Judeo/Christian heritage, period.



But didn't you just say that prayers are said in the legislature? Please be clear because I don't know, I'm just going by what you say because I'm too lazy to look it up. Is someone arguing that prayers NOT be said AT ALL before the legislature?



Cheryl05 said:


> But such matters are not for Courts to determine - that's the Conservative view and also the tradituional American one with which a lot of people, including potential Democratic voters whoelected Bush, agree.



But what if the decision made by our elected officials is illegal? Are you saying that they should be allowed to break the law without questions or protest?


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 22, 2006)

I still say VOTE CHIPPY and we will sort this out  Lily can be my secretary of um the interior (flowers fall under that right?)...Tina on the NEA, who wants to be the VP?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 22, 2006)

Interior decorating yay!! Wait... do I have to clean toilets or windows?


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 22, 2006)

lol no you get to be in charge of the park service amongst other things 

ill put disgraced politicians on the cleaning detail


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 22, 2006)

Oh well in that case, wider swings and slides so that fat people can play too.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 22, 2006)

*signs that bill* NEXT!


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jan 22, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> It's an interesting point, but one that may prevent China from becoming hostile to the US...lest they don't get the $ back.



Well, atleast not from a military stand point. But, what about an invasion from a economic stand point?


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 22, 2006)

definitely possible to try, but then you will see Congress do tarriffs etc to compensate.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jan 22, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> definitely possible to try, but then you will see Congress do tarriffs etc to compensate.



Well, how much of your stuff is made in the USA?


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 22, 2006)

my own personal stuff? quite a bit. i buy alot of local things. when it comes to multimedia (DVDs CDs), no clue there where its made, all of my furniture is USA. TVs/DVDs etc are RCA however. Daily Driver is a Ford. 

Although a "Made in .." problem is so many things are made all over, its where the revenue goes ultimately that the question should be now. The Toyota made be made in the USA now but that $ goes to Japan.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 22, 2006)

I just bought a few items from WalMart. I'm sure an item or two was made in a small village in Bangladesh but the profits from it only benefit the execs at WalMart.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jan 22, 2006)

Another question that we should ask is when we have a choose between two similar products one from the US and the other made somewhere else, but half the price. Which one are most Americans going to choose?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 22, 2006)

EtobicokeFA said:


> Another question that we should ask is when we have a choose between two similar products one from the US and the other made somewhere else, but half the price. Which one are most Americans going to choose?



I would choose the one least likely to fall apart the moment it leaves the store or burst into flame within a month of usage. Just because something is cheap doesn't necessarily mean it's a bargain.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 22, 2006)

> Being as the Saudi Arabian system of government is religion-based (and ours is not), what they do would have no bearing whatsoever.





Ryan said:


> So foreign perspectives should only count if you like the way that society is run? _Now_ the Constitution matters?



You are employing an apples-and-oranges argument, Ryan - the standard response whan a conservative has no other arguments to make.

We are a law-based representative democracy - Saudi Arabia is an Islam-based monarchy. What they do has no bearing on us - the only thing we seem to share is that Bush's family and the Saudis are business partners.



> Why? Do you want to see public beheadings here, like they do in Saudi Arabia?





Ryan said:


> Did I say or imply that I did?


No, you didn't - I used that to show how ridiculous your feeble attempt to change the subject was.


----------



## Jane (Jan 22, 2006)

I'll be VP if I can bring my 2x4.


----------



## 1300 Class (Jan 22, 2006)

The fact is that what happens in Saudi Arabia or anywhere in the middle east (including Iran), is deeply important to the United States and has a tremendous bearing on the US. Oil crisis of the 70s? Remember that? Current oil prices ring a bell? The United States and the West are depedant on the middle east for oil and investment.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 22, 2006)

Australian Lord said:


> The fact is that what happens in Saudi Arabia or anywhere in the middle east (including Iran), is deeply important to the United States and has a tremendous bearing on the US. Oil crisis of the 70s? Remember that? Current oil prices ring a bell? The United States and the West are depedant on the middle east for oil and investment.


True - but their legal system has no bearing on ours. That's why I considered Ryan's to be an apples-and-oranges argument.

The only reason we're so dependent on Middle East oil is oil men who sold us out in order to line their pockets - men such as Dick Cheney and George W. Bush's father.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 22, 2006)

Australian Lord said:


> The fact is that what happens in Saudi Arabia or anywhere in the middle east (including Iran), is deeply important to the United States and has a tremendous bearing on the US. Oil crisis of the 70s? Remember that? Current oil prices ring a bell? The United States and the West are depedant on the middle east for oil and investment.



Yeah but we're talking about viewing their policies as a precedent for our own. For example, Iran has a very low crime rate - one of the lowest anywhere. In Iran you can leave your wallet laying open with $500 in cash in a public square and it will still be there when you go back to retrieve it. You can leave a $60,000 vehicle in front of a shopping mall with the doors open, the engine running with the keys in the ignition and no one will touch it. This is because in Iran if you are suspected of stealing anything the punishement is mandatory that you have your hand cut off in a public assembly. Children grow up with the vision of watching a man have his hand chopped off as a public example and a warning to all, and it works. 

But no one here is interested. Well, hardly anyone. If you've ever been robbed or had property damaged by vandals you may wish to consider it but the laws in the Middle East are not widely embraced here despite our ties to them.


----------



## Cheryl05 (Jan 22, 2006)

The reason we're dependent on mideast oil is because of Dick Cheny and Bush's Father?

Just a minute. The United States today is still the world's third largest oil producer, even if British Petroleum (by buying Standard of Indiana and Arco) has title to the Prudhoe Bay portion of it. Cheney and Bush didn't sell the Bay or anything else. In addition, we have plenty of offshore and Alaskan reserves that we're not using plus (if we're willing to pay the price in dollars and pollution) in Rocky Mountain oil shale to last for 1000 years at present usage rates.

The reason we're dependent on foreign oil isn't Bush and Cheney. We as a nation aren't willing to use our reserves, pay the price, cut back on consumption or commit to using alternative sources like we could and ought to. If we're honest with ourselves "we have met the enemy and it is us!" You can fault Bush and Cherny if you want for overspending, lack of leadership and an unwillingness to set priorities and I'll agree - but where is the better Democratic alternative? 

This ongoing visceral blame and hate message with nothing else constructive is the best of all worlds for an otherwise rather weak Republican slate Unfortunately its not really good for my generation 'cause what needs to be getting done isn't. Give me a Democrat with a plan, no judicial activist social agenda and logic instead of venom towards conservatives and I might be persuaded. Constant Bush bashing won't work - he's gone in thirty months anyway.


----------



## olivefun (Jan 22, 2006)

The question was "who loves george bush?"

My answer is :






Not me.


Olive


----------



## Ryan (Jan 22, 2006)

Tina said:


> How does one verify that, Ryan?



At the very least by asking for clarification regarding the women's financial situation. What their income and expenses were, etc.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 23, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> You are employing an apples-and-oranges argument, Ryan - the standard response whan a conservative has no other arguments to make.



No, I'm proving why your position on this issue is wrong. You either believe that foreign laws have a place in our court or you don't. If you believe they do, you really aren't in any position to use Constitutional principles to pick and choose the country of origin for these laws since you're already demanding that our courts act in a manner that is contradictory to Constitutional principles.

Also, I find it hilarious that my belief that the government should be required to obey the rules gets me labeled as a "conservative"...because I'm not. Thanks for the insight into the liberal mind, Wayne.



Wayne_Zitkus said:


> We are a law-based representative democracy - Saudi Arabia is an Islam-based monarchy. What they do has no bearing on us - the only thing we seem to share is that Bush's family and the Saudis are business partners.



What you seem incapable of understanding is that no other country's laws should have any bearing on how courts operate in America. Our law is based on the American Constitution. In principle, there is no difference between a court using Saudi law to justify a verdict and using British law. The fact that British law may be similar to ours in many respects - or at least more similar than Saudi law - doesn't change the fact that it _isn't_ American law.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 23, 2006)

Australian Lord said:


> The United States and the West are depedant on the middle east for oil and investment.



Actually, I'd say that the United States and the Middle East are dependent on one another. If they don't sell us oil, they don't get any money. I don't think that many Middle Eastern countries have much industry other than oil, so their economies would basically collapse.

I believe that we need to be exploring alternative sources of energy as well as drilling into the oil reserves right here in America. More electric/hybrid cars on the road will be better for environment and the greatly decreased demand for foreign oil will likely result in the oil produced in the Middle East being sold to us at a much lower cost.


----------



## Sandie S-R (Jan 23, 2006)

Cheryl05 said:


> .... Sorry - I wish for a pox on boith groups and a revival of understandinbg by both Liberals and Conservatives of the concepts of our founding fathers.....



Here are a few of our Founding Father's concepts that I found rather enlightening...

"The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion." * 
--* George Washington in the Treaty of Tripoli

"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it." ** --* Adams in The Jefferson-Adams letters 

"I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature. It has made
* one half the world fools, the other half hypocrites." 
--* Thomas Jefferson


Interesting comments. And yes, I think it would behoove us all to understand the concepts and intentions of our founding fathers better than we do. I so enjoy reading their thoughts on such matters.


----------



## Sandie S-R (Jan 23, 2006)

EtobicokeFA said:


> Another question that we should ask is when we have a choose between two similar products one from the US and the other made somewhere else, but half the price. Which one are most Americans going to choose?



Good question. You may find some answers here...


http://www.buyblue.org


----------



## Ryan (Jan 23, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> I would choose the one least likely to fall apart the moment it leaves the store or burst into flame within a month of usage. Just because something is cheap doesn't necessarily mean it's a bargain.



I agree with Lilly about product quality. But if two products are of similar quality, I'm willing to spend more to buy the one that is made in America.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 23, 2006)

Sandie S-R said:


> "The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion." *
> --* George Washington in the Treaty of Tripoli



Here be the full context: 
_As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries._

Remember, that this treaty was written, in part, to keep any Holy Wars from escalating. Also the Founders previously openly described America as a Christian nation yet they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment therefore leaving religion to the individual States. Thus though one may read that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.

President John Adams (the actual author of the quote) backed this up with: "The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation." when he signed the Treaty himself. 



> "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it." ** --* Adams in The Jefferson-Adams letters



Another out of context quote. This is Adams recalling a conversation between others:

_ "...The Parson and the Pedagogue lived much together, but were eternally disputing about government and religion. One day, when the Schoolmaster had been more that commonly fanatical and declared if he were a Monarch, He would have but one Religion in his Dominion. The Parson cooly replied 'Cleverly! You would be the best man in the world, if you had no religion.'

Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, 'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!' But in this exclamatic I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell..."_




> "I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature. It has made
> * one half the world fools, the other half hypocrites."
> --* Thomas Jefferson



I have been unable to find this quote's source anywhere. I have a book with all of his letters so perhaps it's in there somewhere. Yet Jefferson said the following:

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781]

“It [the Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
[Jan 9, 1816 Letter to Charles Thomson]

so those three are quite a bit different than the quote in the box.

I firmly believe that the majority of the Founding Fathers were religious (alot more than I, thats for sure)..just not zealots like the far right today can be...and it was with this difference that they wisely realized the need to keep religion out of the Federal government, leaving it to states.


----------



## Cheryl05 (Jan 23, 2006)

The Tripoli story is an interesting one indeed. Some have disputed whether the quote is even legitimate -- the surviving Arabic copy omits it. But best evidence (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html) indicates that is was in fact in the documnt approved by the Senate. But notice the context - the objective was to assure the Islamic Tripoli negotiators that the United States was not a politically "Christian" nation in the same way as the European signatories who had State established religions.

America's founders wanted freedom of practice relative to religion - they did not want formal recognition of a particular "brand" or denomination. This was because different religious faiths predominated in different colonies and they had all seen the havoc created in the Catholic and Protestant causes in Europe. Both had killed their opposites claiming to be doing God's will.

Freedom from establishment of a State religion acknowleged, they believed in acceptance of generic religious practice and training. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, personally financed bibles for Washington DC sschoolsd. Numeroius proclamations acknowledged God and scriptures adorned buildings early on. Separation of Church and state did not mean to them nor was it practiced as some libertarians advocate today.

A prime example of what I regard as silliness is the campaign in Southern California (where Sandi lives) to remove a small cross from the seal of the County of Los Angeles which depicted the mission heritage of the area. It had been there for decades until the ACLU decided to make a fuss. The ACLU also tried (and failed) to ban voluntary religious groups from forming among students in high schools. Why such hostility in a country supposedly based on religious freedom?

We as a nation acknowlege God in our public buildings, on our currency, in our pledge of allegiance, and in our invocations. This is part of who we, or at least many of us, are as a people - and I think it reflects the wishes and standards of our forefathers. It is not, in my opinion, the job of the judiciary to try changing this.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 23, 2006)

Being Los Angeles is itself a religious name (El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de los Angeles de Poriuncula being the full name, or "The Village of Our Lady the Queen of the Angels of Little Portion"), why not change that? Or San Diego, or St. Louis, etc.

And why didn't the ACLU ask to remove the goddess Pomona from that very same seal of LA County?


----------



## Tina (Jan 23, 2006)

Sandie S-R said:


> Here are a few of our Founding Father's concepts that I found rather enlightening...
> 
> "The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion." *
> --* George Washington in the Treaty of Tripoli
> ...



Sandie, thanks for posting this. I always understood our founding fathers to want freedom *from* religion as much, if not more, than freeom *of* it.

But really, how many legislators, and even citizens, are concerned with what the founding fathers thought about it? Bring up Jefferson's quote about not criticizing the president when he should be being anti-american and Franklin's quote about security and safety and a certain amount of eyes start rolling out of heads, if there is any reaction at all.

ETA: while some of the founding fathers were religious, some were absolutely not. Too tired or I'd do the research. And it's not so much that I have a problem with judges praying, etc., but for me the problem begins when the line between religion and politics blur and we have someone like Ralph Reed giving brochures to pastors to hand out on sunday.


----------



## Cheryl05 (Jan 23, 2006)

I didn't know there was a goddess Pomona on the seal, but apparently because there aren't any Pomona televangelists today it escaped the ACLU's radar.

Seriously, I too looked for the Jefferson quote in vain. All trails led back to an apparently unsourced book called "Salvation for Sale." Its a tell all book about Pat Robertson, foujnder of the 700 Club who some in Christiasnity consider an embarassment. 

The book itself has been panned by several for lack of documentation, adequacy of review by its publisher, and various stories that no one can validate. I can't help but believe that if Jefferson ever really did write such a thing that some atheist or agnostic group would have seized on it decades ago.


----------



## 1300 Class (Jan 23, 2006)

> The only reason we're so dependent on Middle East oil is oil men who sold us out in order to line their pockets - men such as Dick Cheney and George W. Bush's father.


Oil has to be got from somewhere, oil doesn't grow on trees. (Rather dry that), but the american people must either have *viable* alternatives _cheap_ oil. Expensive alternatives are no good because nobody wants to spend extra money, and high oil prices mean a drive to alternatives, which won't work because they will be the same price as the oil. 


> Yeah but we're talking about viewing their policies as a precedent for our own. For example, Iran has a very low crime rate - one of the lowest anywhere. In Iran you can leave your wallet laying open with $500 in cash in a public square and it will still be there when you go back to retrieve it. You can leave a $60,000 vehicle in front of a shopping mall with the doors open, the engine running with the keys in the ignition and no one will touch it. This is because in Iran if you are suspected of stealing anything the punishement is mandatory that you have your hand cut off in a public assembly. Children grow up with the vision of watching a man have his hand chopped off as a public example and a warning to all, and it works.
> 
> But no one here is interested. Well, hardly anyone. If you've ever been robbed or had property damaged by vandals you may wish to consider it but the laws in the Middle East are not widely embraced here despite our ties to them.


Its barbaric cutting peoples hands off and stoning women, they also have church as an essential and fundamental part of state. I am not suggesting its wrong or that the systems in the West or the United States (I like to make the important differation there) are better, but well I believe is wrong. 


> I believe that we need to be exploring alternative sources of energy as well as drilling into the oil reserves right here in America. More electric/hybrid cars on the road will be better for environment and the greatly decreased demand for foreign oil will likely result in the oil produced in the Middle East being sold to us at a much lower cost.


For example, it a Volkswagen Golf is more fuel effecient than a Toyato Prius, but when a prius is compared to a SUV or big pickup it looks alot better. 


> The reason we're dependent on mideast oil is because of Dick Cheny and Bush's Father?


I think you are wrong. Its mostly the decision of the OPEC nations concerning oil supply, but the instability of the middle east adds to this, along with in the case of the US natural disaster and domestic policies.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 23, 2006)

Cheryl05 said:


> I didn't know there was a goddess Pomona on the seal, but apparently because there aren't any Pomona televangelists today it escaped the ACLU's radar.
> 
> Seriously, I too looked for the Jefferson quote in vain. All trails led back to an apparently unsourced book called "Salvation for Sale." Its a tell all book about Pat Robertson, foujnder of the 700 Club who some in Christiasnity consider an embarassment.
> 
> The book itself has been panned by several for lack of documentation, adequacy of review by its publisher, and various stories that no one can validate. I can't help but believe that if Jefferson ever really did write such a thing that some atheist or agnostic group would have seized on it decades ago.




I'll skim my book tonight. I too don't believe he said that. What probably happened is some website got a bunch of out of context quotes by the FFs, including the two by Adams, and said SEE SEE! ignoring quotes like I submitted that indicate that their portrayal of Jefferson at least was highly inacurrate. (like my spelling). If the source in the end is indeed Pat Robertson, then I'm 100% sure it's not a Jeffersonian quote.

Now, fair readers, who said this: "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. "


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 23, 2006)

Australian Lord said:


> I think you are wrong. Its mostly the decision of the OPEC nations concerning oil supply, but the instability of the middle east adds to this, along with in the case of the US natural disaster and domestic policies.



I agree with this...but here's my full analysis. The reason oil prices are so volatile are:

- American consumers do not conserve, be it in normal circumstances or times of shortage

- the goal of the stock market or which ever market sets the price is to get it up to $90/barrell then sell sell sell...in other words commodities brokers are using every minor glitch in the system to jack up prices to line their own pockets. Remember any oil pumped now won't get to market in a refined form for at least 6 months. So why do the prices jump immediately over something as little as a "threat" of something happening? Ask the buyers.

- The US is too dependant on others for every step in the oil-to-gas process, a solution solved by a) opening up new American oil frontiers including Alaska, b) building more refineries, therefore cutting back on the red tape needed to do so c) fostering the creation of new energy sources such as the hydrogen cell vehicle, and nuclear power for the electrical grid


----------



## Jane (Jan 23, 2006)

"Difference of opinion is advantageous is religion. The several sects perform the office of a censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support rogeury and error all over the earth."
(Thomas Jefferson / 1743-1826 / Notes on the State of Virginia / 1781-1785)

This one, at least cited a source.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 23, 2006)

Jane said:


> "Difference of opinion is advantageous is religion. The several sects perform the office of a censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support rogeury and error all over the earth."
> (Thomas Jefferson / 1743-1826 / Notes on the State of Virginia / 1781-1785)
> 
> This one, at least cited a source.



I will have to look at this one again to see if my quote comes before or after this one in the Notes on the State of Va papers.

However what Jefferson is saying here is not to coerce religion, even if it's his own.


----------



## TallFatSue (Jan 23, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> Being Los Angeles is itself a religious name (El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de los Angeles de Poriuncula being the full name, or "The Village of Our Lady the Queen of the Angels of Little Portion"), why not change that? Or San Diego, or St. Louis, etc.


Does this mean I have to stop saying "Holy Toledo"??  

Sue <-- wise ass


----------



## Jane (Jan 23, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> I will have to look at this one again to see if my quote comes before or after this one in the Notes on the State of Va papers.
> 
> However what Jefferson is saying here is not to coerce religion, even if it's his own.


Chippy, (my God, I'm having this discussion with a chipmunk) I just did a quick google of the original you were looking for and came up with this one, which actually cited the source. The other did not.

I'm at work....I'm going with what I have. Work with me. LOL

And Sue, this week you still have rights under the First Amendment. This week.


----------



## Cheryl05 (Jan 23, 2006)

Do you have to stop saying "Holy Toledo?"

Not in a country that embraces free speech - but have you ever been to Toledo?

Describing it as "Holy" requires a different definition of the word than most people generally use.

But wait - "Holy" doesn't really mean pure or perfect or even special; - just "set apart."

So I guess caling Toledo "holy" actually can be accurate. 

Chippy, if you've been there you knoiw what I mean.


----------



## Cheryl05 (Jan 23, 2006)

I really do appreciate your erudite contribution to this forum. But please do not confuse my quoting of Wayne Zitkus with my own views.

I quite agree with you that oil prices are determined first by OPEC with an assist from the speulators on the spot market. Its not a conspiracy of the big oil companies and certainly not the Bush or Cheny families. Developing countries like China and India with increased demand and disasters like Katrina that reduce supplies are also contributing elements.

Your responses to Chippy and I, however, do not take into account the unique American market. I don't know what gas costs in Australia, but in Europe its close to $8 per gallon. Because the United States blends its own huge production with expensive imports and all sorts of equalizing rules our prices even at the peak of Katrina were never much over $3 and are back below $2.50. As a result we complain but still use oil-based fuels per capita more than any other nation. 

If Americans as a group would use the resources available to us - collecting solar energy in space and feeding it by laser into our power grids (there are blueprints to seriously do exactly this) for instance, incentivizing the use of ethanol instread of sacrificing fields to urban sprawl and developers, allowing utilization of our Alaskan, off shore and rocy mountain reserves, and replacing pure gas cars with hybrids - we could slash our consumption of foreign petroleum based energy in half within ten years. This would reduce or eliminate our trade deficit and help lower worldwide oil prices at the same time.

The problerm is that most Americans aren't focused and concerned enough on the problem to consider the above remedies a priority. And for this I fault our political leaders. Both Republicans and Democrasts have but a single real objective - securing and retaining power to further the agenda of their respective controlling elements. Its sad.


----------



## TallFatSue (Jan 23, 2006)

Cheryl05 said:


> Do you have to stop saying "Holy Toledo?"
> Not in a country that embraces free speech - but have you ever been to Toledo?


Have I ever been to Toledo? I grew up in this fair city and now live in a suburb. Sigh. What's a wise gal to do when nobody gets her jokes? 


TallFatSue said:


> Location: Perrysburg, Ohio 43551 USA (almost wholly Toledo)


But seriously folks, I think the phrase "Holy Toledo" originally referred to Toledo, Spain which was one of the major centers of Christian culture in medieval times. I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition! Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! (Sorry, I'm being a wise ass again. I'll just be going over to the hot cocoa machine now.  )


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 23, 2006)

Jane said:


> Chippy, (my God, I'm having this discussion with a chipmunk) I just did a quick google of the original you were looking for and came up with this one, which actually cited the source. The other did not.
> 
> I'm at work....I'm going with what I have. Work with me. LOL
> 
> And Sue, this week you still have rights under the First Amendment. This week.



Hehe I know. (;


----------



## Cheryl05 (Jan 23, 2006)

Sorry, Jabe, your post confuses me - you say you googled a source (hopefully not the questionable book I found) but I didn't see a link or specificity as to what quote you were referring to.

Could you clarify?


----------



## TallFatSue (Jan 23, 2006)

> And Sue, this week you still have rights under the First Amendment. This week.


Hey, lighten up, everyone. 

It amuses me to see people get all worked up over supposed government evils. As a moderate, I think the only thing wrong with the US government is that it is run by human beings. I am perfectly aware of the issues going on, and most of the frenzy is just whipped up by the media to garner high ratings: yellow journalism. We had far worse scandals during the Grant, Harding and Nixon administrations. If the government could really eliminate our rights, they would have taken them out half a century ago when Senator Joseph McCarthy was intimidating everyone. Besides, the First Amendment isn't under assault by the government, but rather by certain crybaby members of the public who want to impose their views on others via litigation. Fortunately we fat people are above that sort of thing, otherwise Fresno International Airport might need to change its airport code: *FAT*. 

Holy Toledo!

Sue (chocolate ... must ... have ... chocolate)


----------



## Jane (Jan 23, 2006)

Cheryl05 said:


> Sorry, Jabe, your post confuses me - you say you googled a source (hopefully not the questionable book I found) but I didn't see a link or specificity as to what quote you were referring to.
> 
> Could you clarify?


Look above at my post made about 9am.


----------



## Tina (Jan 23, 2006)

There are many sources for Jefferson's Words about religion, or, for that matter, The words of many famous men about religion. It can be interesting to discuss, but ultimately, it means little, because in the end, the people in power don't really care, and the citizens who *do* care only get to choose between two candidates who are removed from the reality of the average citizen's daily life, and who have likely been bought and paid for my contributors.


----------



## Jane (Jan 23, 2006)

TallFatSue said:


> Hey, lighten up, everyone.
> 
> It amuses me to see people get all worked up over supposed government evils. As a moderate, I think the only thing wrong with the US government is that it is run by human beings. I am perfectly aware of the issues going on, and most of the frenzy is just whipped up by the media to garner high ratings: yellow journalism. We had far worse scandals during the Grant, Harding and Nixon administrations. If the government could really eliminate our rights, they would have taken them out half a century ago when Senator Joseph McCarthy was intimidating everyone. Besides, the First Amendment isn't under assault by the government, but rather by certain crybaby members of the public who want to impose their views on others via litigation. Fortunately we fat people are above that sort of thing, otherwise Fresno International Airport might need to change its airport code: *FAT*.
> 
> ...


I thought I was making a funny. Damn we need that :sarcasm: smilie!!!!!!:doh:


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jan 23, 2006)

TallFatSue said:


> Hey, lighten up, everyone.
> 
> It amuses me to see people get all worked up over supposed government evils. As a moderate, I think the only thing wrong with the US government is that it is run by human beings. I am perfectly aware of the issues going on, and most of the frenzy is just whipped up by the media to garner high ratings: yellow journalism. We had far worse scandals during the Grant, Harding and Nixon administrations. If the government could really eliminate our rights, they would have taken them out half a century ago when Senator Joseph McCarthy was intimidating everyone. Besides, the First Amendment isn't under assault by the government, but rather by certain crybaby members of the public who want to impose their views on others via litigation. Fortunately we fat people are above that sort of thing, otherwise Fresno International Airport might need to change its airport code: *FAT*.
> 
> ...



The tricky thing about law, is not what laws are in place, but what laws are enforced. 

Simply, if a president goes against the law, for example he trieds for a third term, there has to be people who are willing, and have the power to stop him.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jan 23, 2006)

When Americans vote in some guys that got rich off of oil, they shouldn't be surprise when they drag their feet looking for alternatives.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jan 23, 2006)

EtobicokeFA said:


> The tricky thing about law, is not what laws are in place, but what laws are enforced.
> 
> Simply, if a president goes against the law, for example he trieds for a third term, there has to be people who are willing, and have the power to stop him.



So who enforces the law when the President declares an illegal, unnecessary, enormously costly war .... based on a premise that has not only been proven false - but it appears that the President knew ALL ALONG that the premise was a faulty one? 

I cannot see one single good thing about this President; everything is, to me, colored by the fact that he invaded a country that was no threat to us; he is, therefore, personally responsible for every death that has since resulted.


----------



## Cheryl05 (Jan 23, 2006)

Your link to a comprehensive list of what Jefferson DID say on rthe subject of religion lemds credence to my suspicion that the quote which is NOT included is spurious.

The one that jumped out me, however, is this one:

"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind." 

With that Jeffersonian statement I have absolute agreement.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 23, 2006)

what do we do when there is "no controlling legal authority"?


----------



## Tina (Jan 23, 2006)

You're welcome, Cheryl. I like that quote, too, but think that so many Christians find that hard to attain -- the Christ-like thing, I mean. I've had some of my most damaging, traumatic experiences because of supposedly good, religious people. Because, you know, the body is a temple and I evidently had defiled my temple due to gluttony, sloth -- and likely other sins and behaviors that made me unworthy of respect.  

I think I agree most with Abe Lincoln, who loved God but didn't like religion -- and certainly not the mixing of relgion and politics, which which I also agree.


----------



## Cheryl05 (Jan 23, 2006)

I'm probably am a Christian in Abe Lincoln's tradition. I thoroughly believe Jesus Christ was who he claimed to be but I'm not out to "save" anyone else because to me repentance and conversion come from individual desire,not a bludgeon. If someone wants to ask me the basis of my faith I'll share it privately, but that's not what I'm here for.

When you run into these judgemental types it helps to have some ammunition. For starters, the gluttony and sloth list (which includes five others) doesn't appear in the Bible - it was put together by ascetic moks in the days of St. Augustine. God doesn't make lists that single out certain flaws as being more "deadly" than others nor does he ever mention obesity or anything similar. A very interesting list of things that he "hates" does appear, however in Proverbs 6. Judgemental Christians ought to be given it as required reading.

I've pointed this out before, but Jesus never addressed the issue of food except to enjoy and share it. For that the judgemental Pharisees of His day called Him a glutton and winebibber! Who, pray tell, designed food to be so good to begin with and gave us taste buds? We certainly need wisdom in all things, but we don't need self-appointed guardians defining our behavior. Such behavior has nothing to do with the Christianity I embrace. I can certainly tell you that I know a number of very converted fat peiople, so God obviously doesn't care when he passes out his Spirit!.

And with this digression we've TOTALLY hijacked this thread! Oh well!


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 23, 2006)

Time to hijack it again!!!


who likes clowns?


----------



## Jane (Jan 23, 2006)

Bad Clown!!!!!!!!!


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 23, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> Time to hijack it again!!!
> 
> 
> who likes clowns?



Dude, I was EATING! Shees. Can't you kids play outside?


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 23, 2006)

If you're not gonna eat it can I have it? *bounces*


----------



## Jane (Jan 23, 2006)

Dammit, Lilly, I repped you too recently. THAT deserves one.


----------



## Tina (Jan 24, 2006)

Cheryl05 said:


> And with this digression we've TOTALLY hijacked this thread! Oh well!



Heh. Well, it was already kinda digressing anyway, we just gave it a good shove.


----------



## BBW Betty (Jan 24, 2006)

Jane said:


> Dammit, Lilly, I repped you too recently. THAT deserves one.



Took care of it for you, Jane. I thought so, too.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Jan 24, 2006)

Bush is the worst American president. Let's get rid of him in a hurry.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 24, 2006)

I'd take him over Carter or Nixon or LBJ or the other Johnson or JFK or Wilson or Hoover or Hayes or Coolidge or Jackson anyday.


----------



## Cheryl05 (Jan 24, 2006)

Like it or not, only Jackson and Nixon among those listed were elected to a second term (Kennedy likely would have been) so its apparent that Buish was preferable over the alternative to many.

As I've been trying to point out, this is as much a reflection on the current general perception of the Democratic non-agenda as it is any endorsement of all things Republican. "Bush is a jerk" is not a platform, especially since he can't run again anyway. The Democrats need to do some adjusting if they expect to ever be elected.

All that said, since this thread has been hijacked nultiple times (and is now one of the longer ones) shouldn't we start a new one?


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 24, 2006)

Very true.

Jackson and Nixon were reelected but Jackson was nevertheless one of the biggest anti-Native members of the armed forces at the time, and Nixon's main problems came in his second term, so I don't fault Nixon supporters after a very successful first term. Likewise those who voted back in Reagan and Clinton didn't know about Iran-Contra or Perjury that was to happen.

I agree with your main point. The Democrats are the do-nothing party of this era, and need to learn from history before they go the way of the Whigs. One of the key reasons both Reagan and Clinton won their first term was a positive outlook with the charisma to back it up. The all doom and gloom agenda likens the furthest (read: most well heard) leftists to the three basic tenets of Tokyo Rose: the US will lose, the President lied, the US is on the wrong side.


----------



## EvilBob (Jan 24, 2006)

First of all, it should never be a matter of love or hate. This is a leader of a nation. We hire him for a job. He should only be judged based on those factors. I think we get way too emotional about these things.

Bush, like Clinton before him, inspires both serious devotion and complete disdain -- in about equal portions. Most internal political polls in Washington show campaign managers and party leaders that, just like with Clinton, about 30% adore him and about 30% despise him. That leaves that 40% in the middle of the spectrum to truly decide the fate of the United Stated. The 30% on each end are completely irrelevant to a campaign or to a politican.

The reason things seem to go so 'conservative' these days is that the 40% in the middle is more worried about security than about economics right now. Although the economy is the top issue when looking at the full spectrum, when looking at that middle group of 40%, the economy issue drops substantially, and security issues take the lead. Both global security, and crime at home -- and Republicans win the image fight on those two issues.

The Democrats -- of which I am one -- are simply focused on the wrong things right now. Until they turn their attention to that middle 40%, they will likely not win the White House. Even the wins they have had in the Senate and House are merely "we really hate the current guy" wins and not endorsements of the Democratic agenda. Democrats need to quit trying to appease the 30% of Bush-haters. Nominating candidates form the more liberal side of the party will not work. They need to move to their conservative wing -- and Bill Clinton was one of those -- if they are to win the White House in 2008... or 2012.

My two cents...
EvilBob

PS: Most non-partisan political analysts also agree that Kennedy was on the road to losing re-election in 1964. His popularity ratings in many polls the week before his death were in the 40 - 42 percent rating. That was lowest of any President ever polled at the time. Posthumously, he is much much more popular than he was in reality at the time. In fact, he was only in Texas that week to try to help his sagging poll numbers in Texas at the time.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 24, 2006)

I agree with EVERYTHING you said, and in particular:



EvilBob said:


> PS: Most non-partisan political analysts also agree that Kennedy would likely not have won re-election. His popularity ratings in many polls at the time of his death were in the 40 - 42 percent rating. That was lowest of any President ever polled at the time. Posthumously, he is much much more popular than he was in reality at the time. In fact, he was only in Texas that week to try to help his sagging poll numbers in Texas at the time.




That's a rarely known fact. And *had* he been reelected, Vietnam would have plagued him in his second term just like it did LBJ in his only full term.


----------



## fatlane (Jan 24, 2006)

President Bush.

Rhymes with "flush".


----------



## charlieversion2 (Jan 24, 2006)

I say we just bring back the days of Bill Cilton.


----------



## fatlane (Jan 24, 2006)

President Clinton.

Rhymes with "Caligula".


----------



## NotAnExpert (Jan 25, 2006)

Tina said:


> The times I've seen them together, or when he's calling Barney, Barney seems to almost always cower away from him.



What I've noticed is that chuckley snort he makes when he's telling a whopper, like this week when he said, "If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress? <snork-chuckle>"  Briefing Congress, get it? Like saying good morning to Frist or Hatch is "briefing" Congress. More like pantsing Congress, or giving it a Constitutional wedgie. "It's just a piece of paper! <snork-snork>"

I laugh to keep from crying as I wave good-bye to the land of the free and the home of the brave. The neo-cons have the sheep cowering in their pens.

Just an opinion, you understand. It'll make more sense after Alito's confirmed.


----------



## 1300 Class (Jan 25, 2006)

Nah, wheel our GORE.


----------



## Jane (Jan 25, 2006)

NotAnExpert said:


> What I've noticed is that chuckley snort he makes when he's telling a whopper, like this week when he said, "If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress? <snork-chuckle>"  .


Makes you understand how so many really bad used cars get sold in the US. That anyone can't see through that scares me.


----------



## Allie Cat (Jan 25, 2006)

I was going to add my response, but right up there on the first page were my words coming out of someone else's... um, keyboard. So I'll just say I agree with you 100%, Sadeian Linguist. Even on the bisexual thing.

=Divals



TheSadeianLinguist said:


> How can I love someone who doesn't think I'm good enough for equal protection under the law as a bisexual? How can I love someone who would falsify evidence to start a war and kill both Iraqi and American innocents for greed's sake? Can I like someone who pardons spying on private citizens? Nope. On top of this, he tries to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the right wing, Crazy Conservatives for Christ. He makes me ill.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jan 25, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> I'd take him over Carter or Nixon or LBJ or the other Johnson or JFK or Wilson or Hoover or Hayes or Coolidge or Jackson anyday.




What did you not like about JFK?


----------



## fatlane (Jan 25, 2006)

Well, there was the whole 1960 election... of course, the guys who cheated the most in that one won...


----------



## Thrifty McGriff (Jan 25, 2006)

To answer the original question in the thread's title: I despise the man but I also despise his puppeteers. Just watching news clips of George W. Bush speaking in public gives me the impression that a) he lives in a bubble and b) this man is not fit to be "leading" a nation. But then, I'm in Canada so I don't know the half of it. 

And since Stephen Harper just got elected as our new Prime Minister I am even more frustrated because I suspect he will make Canada more cozy with the Bush administration, and possibly even make Canada more like the USA as it currently is, a culture of fear. I don't hate America. I do however hate the Bush administration.


----------



## EvilBob (Jan 25, 2006)

America always swings back the other way after getting too far one direction. It is the glory of a well-oiled democracy. We can all be certain, no man will ever lead for more than 2 full terms or 10 years -- if they take over part-way through an administration due to a president leaving office.

So, in 2008, Bush goes away. And, for the casual observer, the moderate side of the Republican party is making gains that frighten the conservatives. People like NY Mayor Guiliani (pro-gay rights), Schwartenegger (pro-choice) and others are a sign of things to come.

So, as with all American governments, if you are opposed to it, you only need wait, and this too shall pass.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Jan 25, 2006)

fatlane said:


> President Clinton.
> 
> Rhymes with "Caligula".



*snort* I love that. And I'm a Clinton fan, but when you're right, you're right.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 25, 2006)

EtobicokeFA said:


> What did you not like about JFK?



Well the whole 1960 election was a bad start, and he got us in Vietnam.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jan 25, 2006)

Thrifty McGriff said:


> To answer the original question in the thread's title: I despise the man but I also despise his puppeteers. Just watching news clips of George W. Bush speaking in public gives me the impression that a) he lives in a bubble and b) this man is not fit to be "leading" a nation. But then, I'm in Canada so I don't know the half of it.
> 
> And since Stephen Harper just got elected as our new Prime Minister I am even more frustrated because I suspect he will make Canada more cozy with the Bush administration, and possibly even make Canada more like the USA as it currently is, a culture of fear. I don't hate America. I do however hate the Bush administration.



Well, Stephen Harper and Bush, has the same views when it comes to same-sex marriage, abortion and missile defence. And, he has already suggested that our supreme courts judges (mostly elected by the Liberal party) might act like activists towards him. And yes, last time I checked he believed that there is WMDs in IRAQ. We don't know what he going to do about privacy issues, though. So, yes he seems scary to us.

From what I heard most of the Canadians, voted for Harper's party because, the Liberal, get caught stealing taxplayers money. So now, it looks like Canadian are going to have a Canadian Bush without the Bushisms.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jan 25, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> Well the whole 1960 election was a bad start, and he got us in Vietnam.


 
But, didn't he save you during the Cuban missile crisis, or is my American history off?


----------



## FitChick (Jan 25, 2006)

I voted for President Bush twice, I also voted for the late President Reagan...in fact I don't recall ever voting for a Democrat in any election. I'm the first and only Republican in my family.

But do I LIKE Bush? I like how he LOOKS (I've always been a sucker for a man in suit and tie who works out a lot)....but I don't much like his politics these days, but not for the reason many of you don't. I think Bush is not much of a true conservative, but he's perhaps the best I'm going to get these days.


----------



## EvilBob (Jan 25, 2006)

The extremist evangelical Christian sect of the Republican party has attempted to call themselves 'conservative' for years - very successfully. The media has bought in and everyone now considers these terms so charged it is difficult to think of them logically.

I am a Democrat. I am a Conservative. I believe that -- when the decision is to be made -- less government is better. I believe in a citizen's right to succeed. I equally believe in their right to fail. The only place the government is involved in this is in the creation of equal opportunity to do both -- good schools, safe neighborhoods, smart tax policy. That is all you are guaranteed. If you are given those and still choose to fail, that is your issue -- not the taxpayers. (Obviously, there are exceptions for those who fall outside the realm of healthy, employable citizens).

Bush is not Conservative -- mainly because he believes in growing the government to enforce social beliefs. He is spending many federal tax dollars working to eliminate things like porn and abortion from the countryside. Both of these items have existed since the dawn of society, and will continue long after man is living on other planets and looking for alien porn.

So, the bastardization of the word Conservative bothers me. Along the same line, 'Liberal' is not a swear word either.

That is another 2 cents... 4 total now.


----------



## Jane (Jan 25, 2006)

EvilBob said:


> Along the same line, 'Liberal' is not a swear word either.



Thanks, Bob....


----------



## fatlane (Jan 25, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> *snort* I love that. And I'm a Clinton fan, but when you're right, you're right.



Glad you liked it. I play weddings, mitzvahs, and wakes, as well.


----------



## 1300 Class (Jan 25, 2006)

EtobicokeFA said:


> But, didn't he save you during the Cuban missile crisis, or is my American history off?



Its all really a myth and double speak about the cuban missle crisis. It was Kruschev equally if not more than Kennedy. Plus the 1960 election, plus the numerous affairs and security risks and women on the side that he had, and the fact that he was on a coctail of methsanphetimiens and opiates and a whole host of other narcotics and drugs.


----------



## Fuzzy (Jan 25, 2006)

Its a pity they didn't have oxycontin back then.


----------



## NotAnExpert (Jan 26, 2006)

I can't stop thinking about that thing Grover Norquist said about government, how he wanted to starve it and make it small enough to "strangle it in the bathtub". It's as if BushCheneyRumsfelt have decided that starving is too slow, so they've decided to slander and bleed it to death too. While they dry up the revenue sources with reverse-Robin-Hood tax cuts, they try every possible trick to cripple the government, whether it's the Alice-in-Wonderland Medicare drug "benefit" or the FEMA response to Katrina. Then they cry havoc, turn the money faucet on full blast and let it disappear into the bottomless carpetbags of miltary contractors. Once it's too insolvent, discredited and ineffective to do anything, Washinton DC should just curl up and blow away. Then we'll find out just how scary "freedom" really is.

Somebody mentioned China. We've become the world's biggest debtor nation in an amazingly short amount of time. I'm sure our creditors don't want to see their investment collapse into anarchy but I think they will expect a lot more cooperation from us in the near future. Ten years ago, when even a nominal Democrat like Clinton could stop the deficit, who'd have thought of such a development? (Of course, they fixed his wagon! Impeached him good!)

(For lyin'!)


(About SEX!)


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 26, 2006)

The whole Clinton and his surplus thing has to be the biggest deceit he pulled off since a) Congress handles the spending and b) the surplus was only a surplus if you counted Social Security Tax as revenue and not as it's own seperate line item.

As for the impeachment, any President who lies under oath should get that if not more.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jan 26, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> The whole Clinton and his surplus thing has to be the biggest deceit he pulled off since a) Congress handles the spending and b) the surplus was only a surplus if you counted Social Security Tax as revenue and not as it's own seperate line item.
> 
> As for the impeachment, any President who lies under oath should get that if not more.



When Clinton lied, no one died.


----------



## EvilBob (Jan 26, 2006)

Any President getting credit for the economy is merely political noise. The economy reacts very slowly to changes. A change made today will likely not show an effect for 5 - 10 years at a minimum, in many cases.

Clinton gets credit for good economic times. Carter got blamed for bad economic times. Neither were deserved. 

However, as a Democrat who votedfor Bush both times (and I worked for Al Gore for 2 years in the White House, so it was a very knowledgeable decision then), I was seriously disappointed to hear how the data used to "sell" the Iraq action was flawed. Not being in the CIA, I am not sure where the breakdown occurred, but Bush owns responsibility for the decision.

However, if anyone asks me if I miss the good old days of Saddam Hussein having people disemboweled in front of their love ones to force loyalty, I really don't. I have many Iraqi American friends in Los Angeles, and they want us to "wrap it up" but they cannot stop telling everyone they meet how happy they are we went in to begin with.

But, what do I know? I am just a sexy BHM with (apparently) too much time on my hands!

Now, on to the lighter posts!
EvilBob


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jan 26, 2006)

NotAnExpert said:


> Somebody mentioned China. We've become the world's biggest debtor nation in an amazingly short amount of time. I'm sure our creditors don't want to see their investment collapse into anarchy but I think they will expect a lot more cooperation from us in the near future. Ten years ago, when even a nominal Democrat like Clinton could stop the deficit, who'd have thought of such a development? (Of course, they fixed his wagon! Impeached him good!)
> 
> (For lyin'!)
> 
> ...



We got to remember China wants to become an economic superpower, if not a military superpower. And, they want to compete with the US, if not surpass the states.


----------



## FitChick (Jan 26, 2006)

TraciJo67 said:


> When Clinton lied, no one died.



Only his wife's trust in him died.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jan 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> Only his wife's trust in him died.



Somehow, I'm thinking that her trust in his ability to keep it zipped died long, long before Monica Lewinsky arrived on the scene


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 26, 2006)

TraciJo67 said:


> When Clinton lied, no one died.



A lie is a lie. Maybe I'm too picky and unrealistic in hopeing one day there's an honest politician.

Although I do remember in college seeing on the news Clinton sent some missiles into Iraq just after some big event in the Monica stuff...we all agreed (even the most ardent Clintonites) that it was to distract attention. So maybe some did die.

I know that Sheehan mom is going around now saying more Iraqis died under Clinton than Bush.


----------



## 1300 Class (Jan 26, 2006)

Honest Politician? You have high dreams....


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 26, 2006)

Vote Chippy!!!! (;


----------



## Jane (Jan 26, 2006)

So help me, every time you write that, I look at your avatar, and fall out laughing. People walk by my office. They stare.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 26, 2006)

VOTE CHIPPY!!!!


doesnt he look like an honest guy? 

View attachment 1.jpg


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jan 26, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> A lie is a lie. Maybe I'm too picky and unrealistic in hopeing one day there's an honest politician.
> 
> Although I do remember in college seeing on the news Clinton sent some missiles into Iraq just after some big event in the Monica stuff...we all agreed (even the most ardent Clintonites) that it was to distract attention. So maybe some did die.
> 
> I know that Sheehan mom is going around now saying more Iraqis died under Clinton than Bush.



Well, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek.

I agree with you that Clinton should never have lied under oath. The only thing I'll say in his 'defense' is that I don't think the question should have been asked in the first place.

Bunch of hypocrites.

Please find me one politician who is above that sort of thing (shagging the help). Or one who *wouldn't* try to lie his way out of getting caught with his pants around his ankles.

But still ... yeah, you're right. He lied, and he shouldn't have.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jan 26, 2006)

TraciJo67 said:


> Well, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek.
> 
> I agree with you that Clinton should never have lied under oath. The only thing I'll say in his 'defense' is that I don't think the question should have been asked in the first place.
> 
> ...



No matter which country, presidents and prime ministers have been commiting adultery forever. Hell, the Whitehouse and the Canadian Parliament buildings both were built with secret passages to let the ladies of the night in and out. 

The sad truth is that Clinton wasn't the first and won't be the last. His problem was that he just got caught at it. 

Lying is dishonest, but I would like to but some contrast to this. Is it worse for a president to commit adultery, or to lie, to get a country into a war?

Is it fair that one president gets investaged for have an affair, and another one seems untouchable when it came to questions about things like intelligences failures, war profiteering and possible contections to Enron?


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jan 26, 2006)

So, what do people think about this wiretapping scandal? 

And, remember to talk directly into the mic!  

*Me being scarasit *


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 27, 2006)

I think both Ford and Carter wouldnt have.

Maybe thats why they lasted one term.

As for the wire tapping "scandal" as John Kerry admitted in an interview the other day Congress funded the thing (he thought maybe they shouldnt have authorized the $) therefore it was basically legal or perhaps more likely to quote another pol, "there was no controlling legal authority"


----------



## fatlane (Jan 27, 2006)

Politicians: the more experience they have, the worse they get.

-- Kinky Friedman


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 27, 2006)

I heard on the radinews earlier today that the latest polls give Bush a 41% approval ration.

So the answer to the question that started this thread ("Who Loves Bush?") has to be "less than half".


----------



## RedHead (Jan 27, 2006)

I do love George - IMHO that he has done the best with the information provided to him at the time. Not all of us would have made the decision's that he did, but then again, we didn't hang our asses out there in the air to get slapped whenever we made a decision.

I also believe that politics is a nasty business and that no one side is correct or wrong. I believe both sides have good points and bad points. 

I am actively involved in my beliefs; I IMHO that in order to effect change, we must work for it.

Of course this is IMHO


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 27, 2006)

RedHead said:


> I do love George - IMHO that he has done the best with the information provided to him at the time. Not all of us would have made the decision's that he did, but then again, we didn't hang our asses out there in the air to get slapped whenever we made a decision.
> 
> I also believe that politics is a nasty business and that no one side is correct or wrong. I believe both sides have good points and bad points.
> 
> ...


I disagree. On August 6, 2001, Bush received a daily briefing detailing how Osama Bin laden was plannign to attack within the US using planes. Five weeks later, the Twin Towers were gone, and Bush was sitting in a classroom in FLorida, looking like a deer in the headlights.

And I'm actively involved in my beliefs as well - it's incompetant, dangerous people like George W. Bush that keep me active in the Democratic Party.


----------



## Jane (Jan 27, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> I disagree. On August 6, 2001, Bush received a daily briefing detailing how Osama Bin laden was plannign to attack within the US using planes. Five weeks later, the Twin Towers were gone, and Bush was sitting in a classroom in FLorida, looking like a deer in the headlights.
> 
> And I'm actively involved in my beliefs as well - it's incompetant, dangerous people like George W. Bush that keep me active in the Democratic Party.


Amen, Wayne. But you forgot totally selfish, self-serving, loathsome, and immature.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 27, 2006)

Jane said:


> Amen, Wayne. But you forgot totally selfish, self-serving, loathsome, and immature.


I have arthritis in both hands, Jane. I tend to leave things out.


----------



## toni (Jan 27, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> I disagree. On August 6, 2001, Bush received a daily briefing detailing how Osama Bin laden was plannign to attack within the US using planes. Five weeks later, the Twin Towers were gone, and Bush was sitting in a classroom in FLorida, looking like a deer in the headlights.
> 
> And I'm actively involved in my beliefs as well - it's incompetant, dangerous people like George W. Bush that keep me active in the Democratic Party.



Anyone could have been president at the time, the result would have been the same. As per Newsweek, Clinton also received a similar brief on DEC 4th 1998 that read "Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and other attacks." Clinton did nothing to respond. I also ask what was Clinton's response to the terrorist attacks in 1993? Why did Bill Clinton refuse the Sudan's offer to extradite Osama bin Laden to America in 1996? 

The WTC was not the only time the terrorist attacked the US during Clinton's presidency, terrorists attacked the US military complex and Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (1996), terrorists bombed the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania (1998), terrorists bombed the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden (2000). All these attacks, many American lives lost and Clinton did little in response to it. While Clinton was busy talking Americans into a false sense of security the terrorist cells were waiting and gearing up for the biggest attack of them all. Believe me Wayne 9/11 was not planned in 6 weeks. 

Bush inherited this problem, the reason he is blamed is because he was the president at the time. We should have had strict policies in place since 1993, the FIRST time America was attacked on her own soil!!!


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 27, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> I disagree. On August 6, 2001, Bush received a daily briefing detailing how Osama Bin laden was plannign to attack within the US using planes. Five weeks later, the Twin Towers were gone, and Bush was sitting in a classroom in FLorida, looking like a deer in the headlights.
> 
> And I'm actively involved in my beliefs as well - it's incompetant, dangerous people like George W. Bush that keep me active in the Democratic Party.



Strange...it's incompentant dangerous people in the Democratic party that make me thing I better change affiliations when I register in Missouri.


----------



## Jane (Jan 27, 2006)

Chippy, the best way to change something is from the inside. Some of us are fighting like hell. Join us!!


----------



## Jane (Jan 27, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> I have arthritis in both hands, Jane. I tend to leave things out.


Whereas, I keep getting these distinct pains in the arse.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 27, 2006)

VOTE CHIPPY! or just wait til summer for the official Chippy 08 site to go up


----------



## Jane (Jan 27, 2006)

You only posted that because you love to see me fall off my chair!!!


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 27, 2006)

toni said:


> Anyone could have been president at the time, the result would have been the same. As per Newsweek, Clinton also received a similar brief on DEC 4th 1998 that read "Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and other attacks." Clinton did nothing to respond. I also ask what was Clinton's response to the terrorist attacks in 1993? Why did Bill Clinton refuse the Sudan's offer to extradite Osama bin Laden to America in 1996?
> 
> The WTC was not the only time the terrorist attacked the US during Clinton's presidency, terrorists attacked the US military complex and Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (1996), terrorists bombed the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania (1998), terrorists bombed the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden (2000). All these attacks, many American lives lost and Clinton did little in response to it. While Clinton was busy talking Americans into a false sense of security the terrorist cells were waiting and gearing up for the biggest attack of them all. Believe me Wayne 9/11 was not planned in 6 weeks.
> 
> Bush inherited this problem, the reason he is blamed is because he was the president at the time. We should have had strict policies in place since 1993, the FIRST time America was attacked on her own soil!!!



Au contraire, Toni. 

Late in his second term, Bill Clinton assembled a task force to battle terrorism - put Al Gore in charge of it - and turned everything the task force learned over to Bush and his administration in early 2001. Know what Bush did with it? Absolutely nothing - he was too busy pushing for tax cuts for his wealthy friends to worry about terrorism. 

Don't believe me? Then try this simple test. Do a Google search on Bush's speeches from Jan 20 2001 until Sept 10, 2001. See how many times he mentions "Bin Laden" or "terrorism", and how many times he mentions "tax cuts". If anyone dropped the ball, it was people in the Bush Administration


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 27, 2006)

wasn't algore kinda busy running for president at that time?

anyway when it comes to terrorism every president since Carter dropped the ball on that one and 9/11 would have still happened under Gore.


----------



## Jane (Jan 27, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> wasn't algore kinda busy running for president at that time?
> 
> anyway when it comes to terrorism every president since Carter dropped the ball on that one and 9/11 would have still happened under Gore.


But would we be in Iraq? Seriously.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 27, 2006)

Probably. Remember Clinton thought Saddam had WMDs and almost went in a few times.


----------



## toni (Jan 27, 2006)

Late in his second term. Hmmmm...What was he doing since 1993? What about the Sudan's offer to extradite Bin Laden? No, he refused it, he allowed Bin Laden to go into Afghanistan a place where he was able to start his terror training camps. He assembled a task force? We were attacked many times, HE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN REAL ACTION. The only action he ever took was bombing a pharmaceutical plant right after a very publicized day during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.


----------



## Jane (Jan 27, 2006)

We sold them to him. That's why we thought he had them.

I doubt seriously that we would be in Iraq. I really hope we would have gone after the funding of the terrorists instead.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 27, 2006)

um Saddam funded terrorists..what was is $25K to the family of a suicide bomber each year?

and if you remember the months after 9/11 contained lots of account blocking (is that the word?) of terrorist assets in different banks


----------



## Jane (Jan 27, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> um Saddam funded terrorists..what was is $25K to the family of a suicide bomber each year?
> 
> and if you remember the months after 9/11 contained lots of account blocking (is that the word?) of terrorist assets in different banks


Getting out 2x4....are you just needing someone to fight with, or being deliberately obtuse about Saudi Arabia (the country Bush dare not mention)?

The more you post, the closer you are to Chippy butt pics.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 27, 2006)

Im very well aware about Saudi Arabia. However there are certain countries that would come before that eventuality in anyones list of whos bad. Iraq was the one Clinton and Bush put up front..then theres Iran, North Korea, The Sudan, I really don't like switzerland so lets put them on it.


----------



## Jane (Jan 27, 2006)

Switzerland...damn pascifist bastards. ROFL


----------



## Gordo Mejor (Jan 27, 2006)

Cheryl05 said:


> IBecause today's official Democrats are so dominated by extreme leftists that I have no other choice.



The Democrats are spineless Republiclones. They suck up to the big money just like their opposition. 

Third parties are the only parties that give the left any thing to vote for.


----------



## fatlane (Jan 27, 2006)

The only reason Bush is in power is because of people he fooled into thinking he was going to outlaw abortions and other supposedly moral issues like that. He hasn't done JACK CRAP on any moral issue except to nudge exceutive interpretations here and there. Loads of talk, no real change.

Bush's biggest policies have been to hand America's vast governmental resources over to big businesses and to fight a few wars on behalf of major energy corporations. His deficit spending programs threaten to cause a crisis on the dollar and have definitely shifted a huge tax burden to the kids of today and tomorrow.

Bush is a hand puppet with Dick Cheney's hand shoved up his ass.

What could have ended all this terrorist crap? Not abandoning Afghanistan in 1989 after it had served its purpose. Carter destabilized Afghanistan in 1979 to get the Soviets to invade. They did, and we kept the place armed and producing heroin to pay for those arms up to 1989. Then we cut and ran, leaving everyone flat-out in the cold. That's the genesis of Osama Bin Laden's anti-US stance. We had talked a big game and then didn't deliver.

It didn't help that the US continued to prop up nasty regime after nasty regime, so long as they sold us a little bit of petroleum. There's crap going down in Central Asia and the Caucasus that's about to come back to bite the US, and bite it ferociously.

Still think Bush is Da Man? Try www.lastbestchance.org and see how little Mr. Bush has done to limit the possibility of nuclear weapons being acquired by terrorists. Next to nothing. One of the most important things to do, and he's much more focused on handing out no-bid contracts to his vice-president's company.

America's peasants are currently taxed at a higher rate than the French peasants in Louis XVI's time. Our government is full of incompetent hacks who choose to protect themselves by reducing our liberties and securing resources abroad through military force, economic threats, and scarce-concealed corruption. 

When he dies, Bush will go to hell.


----------



## Jane (Jan 27, 2006)

God, I've missed you!!!!!

And on a roll at that!!!!!

And understand, FL and I don't always agree politically, but when he's correct, he's correct.


----------



## fatlane (Jan 27, 2006)

Jane said:


> God, I've missed you!!!!!
> 
> And on a roll at that!!!!!
> 
> And understand, FL and I don't always agree politically, but when he's correct, he's correct.



KILLING SPREE!!!

Wait, no, this isn't Halo 2...


----------



## fatlane (Jan 27, 2006)

In another day and age, I'd be a professional polemicist.

I'll make my speechwriting mad skillz available to the highest bidder. Go with me and you will win the debates. Just pay me, dude, 'cause The Man just raised my rent.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 27, 2006)

FL will you be my speechwriter. i pay in cheetos and pie.

and yes he is mostly correct (gonna have to research that peasant vs peasant one hehe)


----------



## fatlane (Jan 27, 2006)

Vote for Chippy! Vote for the Free Cheeto platform! We will not be crucified on a cross of rice cakes!


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 27, 2006)

hows this for a campaign poster 

View attachment vote.jpg


----------



## fatlane (Jan 27, 2006)

A bag of Cheetos in every house, and a cankle above every foot!


----------



## Jane (Jan 27, 2006)

Not to mention the entire pie constituency.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 27, 2006)

fatlane said:


> When he dies, Bush will go to hell.


Right now, thanks to Bush, the whole country is going to hell in a handbasket.


----------



## fatlane (Jan 27, 2006)

The nation is going downhill, out of control, and Bush has gotten into the driver's seat... and tromped down on the accelerator.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 27, 2006)

toni said:


> Anyone could have been president at the time, the result would have been the same. As per Newsweek, Clinton also received a similar brief on DEC 4th 1998 that read "Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and other attacks." Clinton did nothing to respond. I also ask what was Clinton's response to the terrorist attacks in 1993? Why did Bill Clinton refuse the Sudan's offer to extradite Osama bin Laden to America in 1996?
> 
> The WTC was not the only time the terrorist attacked the US during Clinton's presidency, terrorists attacked the US military complex and Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (1996), terrorists bombed the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania (1998), terrorists bombed the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden (2000). All these attacks, many American lives lost and Clinton did little in response to it. While Clinton was busy talking Americans into a false sense of security the terrorist cells were waiting and gearing up for the biggest attack of them all. Believe me Wayne 9/11 was not planned in 6 weeks.
> 
> Bush inherited this problem, the reason he is blamed is because he was the president at the time. We should have had strict policies in place since 1993, the FIRST time America was attacked on her own soil!!!



Here's what the Snopes web site has to say about Bill Clinton's response to terrorism. As you can see, the truth is quite a bit different from the crap spewed by conservative web sites and talk radio.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm


----------



## RedHead (Jan 27, 2006)

'Five weeks later, the Twin Towers were gone, and Bush was sitting in a classroom in FLorida, looking like a deer in the headlights.'


I think that all of us had the "deer in headlights look" - it was an astounding, atrocious, horrendous attack that leftscars so deep in our culture that it this will always be looked at as a pivitol point in our history.

I will have to disagree with you in regards to "It's all Evil GWB's" fault; I don't believe for one minute that the former president of the United States didn't have some of the same intelligence that GW was supplied with.

IMHO I believe we all would have hesitated acting on the information given - it was just so far fetched in our "comfortable realm" that we couldn't perceive something like this.

When he did act on intelligence given to him - we attacked Iraq-he is getting hammered for that decision now as well.

Had he gone after Osama prior to the towers and prevented it - do you honestly believe the spin doctors wouldn't be saying that it too was flawed information and we should never have attacked.

Just something to think about.

IMHO


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 27, 2006)

I WANNA DRIVE!

vrooooom


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 27, 2006)

Wayne where as snopes is a great site and is debunking what is said in that email about "hunting down and punished" it comes nowhere close to debunking what toni said...because its a different topic.

Clinton's response to terrorism, like Bush I's and Reagan was virtually nil


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 27, 2006)

RedHead said:


> 'Five weeks later, the Twin Towers were gone, and Bush was sitting in a classroom in FLorida, looking like a deer in the headlights.'
> 
> 
> I think that all of us had the "deer in headlights look" - it was an astounding, atrocious, horrendous attack that leftscars so deep in our culture that it this will always be looked at as a pivitol point in our history.
> ...



i agree. I read an interesting "alternate history" if you know what those are. here it be:


AN ALTERNATIVE HISTORY: washington, april 9, 2004. A hush fell over the city as George W. Bush today became the first president of the United States ever to be removed from office by impeachment. Meeting late into the night, the Senate unanimously voted to convict Bush following a trial on his bill of impeachment from the House. 

Moments after being sworn in as the 44th president, Dick Cheney said that disgraced former national security adviser Condoleezza Rice would be turned over to the Hague for trial in the International Court of Justice as a war criminal. Cheney said Washington would "firmly resist" international demands that Bush be extradited for prosecution as well. 

On August 7, 2001, Bush had ordered the United States military to stage an all-out attack on alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Thousands of U.S. special forces units parachuted into this neutral country, while air strikes targeted the Afghan government and its supporting military. Pentagon units seized abandoned Soviet air bases throughout Afghanistan, while establishing support bases in nearby nations such as Uzbekistan. Simultaneously, FBI agents throughout the United States staged raids in which dozens of men accused of terrorism were taken prisoner. 

Reaction was swift and furious. Florida Senator Bob Graham said Bush had "brought shame to the United States with his paranoid delusions about so-called terror networks." British Prime Minister Tony Blair accused the United States of "an inexcusable act of conquest in plain violation of international law." White House chief counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke immediately resigned in protest of "a disgusting exercise in over-kill." 

When dozens of U.S. soldiers were slain in gun battles with fighters in the Afghan mountains, public opinion polls showed the nation overwhelmingly opposed to Bush's action. Political leaders of both parties called on Bush to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan immediately. "We are supposed to believe that attacking people in caves in some place called Tora Bora is worth the life of even one single U.S. soldier?" former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey asked. 

When an off-target U.S. bomb killed scores of Afghan civilians who had taken refuge in a mosque, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Aznar announced a global boycott of American products. The United Nations General Assembly voted to condemn the United States, and Washington was forced into the humiliating position of vetoing a Security Council resolution declaring America guilty of "criminal acts of aggression." 

Bush justified his attack on Afghanistan, and the detention of 19 men of Arab descent who had entered the country legally, on grounds of intelligence reports suggesting an imminent, devastating attack on the United States. But no such attack ever occurred, leading to widespread ridicule of Bush's claims. Speaking before a special commission created by Congress to investigate Bush's anti-terrorism actions, former national security adviser Rice shocked and horrified listeners when she admitted, "We had no actionable warnings of any specific threat, just good reason to believe something really bad was about to happen." 

The president fired Rice immediately after her admission, but this did little to quell public anger regarding the war in Afghanistan. When it was revealed that U.S. special forces were also carrying out attacks against suspected terrorist bases in Indonesia and Pakistan, fury against the United States became universal, with even Israel condemning American action as "totally unjustified." 

Speaking briefly to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House before a helicopter carried him out of Washington as the first-ever president removed by impeachment, Bush seemed bitter. "I was given bad advice," he insisted. "My advisers told me that unless we took decisive action, thousands of innocent Americans might die. Obviously I should not have listened." 

Announcing his candidacy for the 2004 Republican presidential nomination, Senator John McCain said today that "George W. Bush was very foolish and naïve; he didn't realize he was being pushed into this needless conflict by oil interests that wanted to seize Afghanistan to run a pipeline across it." McCain spoke at a campaign rally at the World Trade Center in New York City.


----------



## fatlane (Jan 27, 2006)

RedHead said:


> 'Five weeks later, the Twin Towers were gone, and Bush was sitting in a classroom in FLorida, looking like a deer in the headlights.'
> 
> 
> I think that all of us had the "deer in headlights look" - it was an astounding, atrocious, horrendous attack that leftscars so deep in our culture that it this will always be looked at as a pivitol point in our history.
> ...



AND HE KEPT READING THE DAMN STORY ABOUT THE STUPID GOAT!!!

Every other politico _worth_ something got whisked away to safety by the secret service bodyguards as soon as the first tower was hit. They let Bush read the whole story and stay at a publicly-known photo op for an hour even though there had been an attempt on his life the night previous that mimicked an attempt on a successful assassination of an anti-Taleban Afghan leader.

The president should have said, "Hey, kids, gotta take a rain check on the reading thing. Something just came up. Be back real soon, though!" and then GOTTEN THE HELL OUTTA THERE AND INTO A SECURE LOCATION WHERE HE COULD DISCUSS POSSIBLE SHOOTDOWN ORDERS FOR OTHER HIJACKED FLIGHTS. But, noooooooooooooooo, he's gonna read the goat story...

When shocking things happen, real leaders move into crisis mode and get stuff taken care of. They don't read first grade books about goats. When emergencies happen where I work, it's go time, not, "Hang on, let me finish this chapter here" occasions. I'd be fired if I worked as hard as Bush.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 27, 2006)

Vote Chippy!


----------



## fatlane (Jan 27, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> On August 7, 2001, Bush had ordered the United States military to stage an all-out attack on alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan.



Bullshit. The invasion of Afghanistan was already underway prior to the 11 September attacks. It was going to be for the oil companies, but spun patriotically for the dumbfounded masses in America. Every US base in Afghanistan sits astride the proposed trans-Afghan pipeline that the Taleban stopped negotiating on prior to the smackdown of 2001. Prior to the breakdown in the negotiations, the Taleban were fine, upstanding citizens who perhaps had a bit of a religiously intolerant streak in them.

The invasion of Afghanistan was also in time for the opium planting season of 2001. Since the invasion, Afghanistan has had three opium harvests, each bigger than the last, and the last two have set new records. The one for this year should be the biggest yet. As long as the oil flows, the US won't mess with the power structure in Afghanistan, except to get rid of the guys who won't grow opium, like Ismail Khan of Herat. (Who, incidentally, was taken out as a warlord just in time for the opium planting season... his areas, previously opium-free, all came under poppy cultivation after his removal.)


----------



## toni (Jan 27, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> Here's what the Snopes web site has to say about Bill Clinton's response to terrorism. As you can see, the truth is quite a bit different from the crap spewed by conservative web sites and talk radio.
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm



You call this a response? What does this prove? You punish one solider in the war, is that taking care of the country behind the soldier? NOOOOOOO!!! I guess 4 attacks on the US in 8 years was just coincidence. Nothing to worry about really, we will let the next administration worry about it. As long as it doesn't happen on my clock. I am guessing that was the train of thought.

Your website also forgot to list that Ramzi Ahmed Yousef (who entered the US with a passport from Iraq) while being interrogated told officials of a plan to attack the US using commercial airplanes. (Still no action taken by Clinton, no beefing up of airport security or anything like that...hmmmmm) 

Also, please do not call the facts that I have posted crap. If you have to resort to that type of argument, that just means you have really have no point to argue.


----------



## fatlane (Jan 28, 2006)

toni said:


> You call this a response? What does this prove? You punish one solider in the war, is that taking care of the country behind the soldier? NOOOOOOO!!! I guess 4 attacks on the US in 8 years was just coincidence. Nothing to worry about really, we will let the next administration worry about it. As long as it doesn't happen on my clock. I am guessing that was the train of thought.
> 
> Your website also forgot to list that Ramzi Ahmed Yousef (who entered the US with a passport from Iraq) while being interrogated told officials of a plan to attack the US using commercial airplanes. (Still no action taken by Clinton, no beefing up of airport security or anything like that...hmmmmm)
> 
> Also, please do not call the facts that I have posted crap. If you have to resort to that type of argument, that just means you have really have no point to argue.



They all screwed up the terrorist thing. The US has been enraging people around the world since 1945. Unqualified support for Israel is one strike against us. Unqualified support for corrupt regimes that send us oil is a second strike. Strike three was cutting out of Afghanistan in 1989. That gets the Arabs pretty pissed at the US. But moreover, the US has had a history of working hand-in-hand with international drug dealers since 1943, with a brief interruption in the Carter administration. Those crows frequently come home to roost.

Saddam Hussein was hired as a CIA assassin in 1969. Iraq was selected as a lucky beneficiary of US intelligence and support when we got them to attack Iran. When Iraq gassed its Kurds, Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with the man who ordered the attacks. When Saddam Hussein served his purpose, he got suckered into invading Kuwait and then taken down a peg. Bush I left him in Iraq to avoid chaos there. Bush II took him down and created chaos there.


----------



## RedHead (Jan 28, 2006)

fatlane said:


> AND HE KEPT READING THE DAMN STORY ABOUT THE STUPID GOAT!!!
> 
> Every other politico _worth_ something got whisked away to safety by the secret service bodyguards as soon as the first tower was hit. They let Bush read the whole story and stay at a publicly-known photo op for an hour even though there had been an attempt on his life the night previous that mimicked an attempt on a successful assassination of an anti-Taleban Afghan leader.
> 
> ...



Okay - he's reading to children - they know he's the president. How do you think those children would have reacted had there been a rush to get him out of there?

Let's face it, everyone reacts to crisis differently. Bush trusted his team of people to appraise him and do the job they'd been hired to do. I don't think an extra 15 minutes really mattered one way or another in regards to the twin towers. 

I believe he had the the whole countries interest at heart, and mostly those children's.

I am not going to point fingers at any ONE person for the things that have happend to our country. It's been a series of events, people, decisions that have brought us to where we are.

I just lost a good friend of mine in the war - Chet Troxal - he was a black hawk pilot, father, husband and friend. Did I want to see that happen. NO - but I also accept that in order to have freedom, we must fight for the right.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## toni (Jan 28, 2006)

fatlane said:


> They all screwed up the terrorist thing. The US has been enraging people around the world since 1945. Unqualified support for Israel is one strike against us. Unqualified support for corrupt regimes that send us oil is a second strike. Strike three was cutting out of Afghanistan in 1989. That gets the Arabs pretty pissed at the US. But moreover, the US has had a history of working hand-in-hand with international drug dealers since 1943, with a brief interruption in the Carter administration. Those crows frequently come home to roost.
> 
> Saddam Hussein was hired as a CIA assassin in 1969. Iraq was selected as a lucky beneficiary of US intelligence and support when we got them to attack Iran. When Iraq gassed its Kurds, Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with the man who ordered the attacks. When Saddam Hussein served his purpose, he got suckered into invading Kuwait and then taken down a peg. Bush I left him in Iraq to avoid chaos there. Bush II took him down and created chaos there.



You are totally right!!! This is something that has been brewing for decades. I just get so annoyed when people call Bush the antichrist but they hold Clinton on a pedestal. If we trace it back, we can find evidence to hold many presidents accountable in the long string of events which lead to Sept. 11th.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 28, 2006)

fatlane said:


> AND HE KEPT READING THE DAMN STORY ABOUT THE STUPID GOAT!!!
> 
> Every other politico _worth_ something got whisked away to safety by the secret service bodyguards as soon as the first tower was hit. They let Bush read the whole story and stay at a publicly-known photo op for an hour even though there had been an attempt on his life the night previous that mimicked an attempt on a successful assassination of an anti-Taleban Afghan leader.
> 
> ...



Not for nothing, but it doesn't work like that in the office of the Presidency. The President can't order the secret service around, they don't work for him. We pay them to protect the President by any means necessary even if they must restrain him by force. If they say it's unsafe to move now, he must cooperate. If they have to secure the area before he can pass through, he has to sit there sweating bullets till clearance is given. Then he is swiftly snatched away without ceremony and he's just going to have to use the toilet some other time. Sitting there listening to the President drone on about a goat probably isn't as fun as watching him get wrestled to the ground by a bunch of hired thugs in suits and lugged away unconscious. But it's a distinct possibility that it could happen in a crisis if he doesn't do as he's told.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 28, 2006)

dern it can I use this pic yet?


----------



## Aliena (Jan 28, 2006)

toni said:


> You are totally right!!! This is something that has been brewing for decades. I just get so annoyed when people call Bush the antichrist but they hold Clinton on a pedestal. If we trace it back, we can find evidence to hold many presidents accountable in the long string of events which lead to Sept. 11th.



Bravo! It's not just one person, it's the system of which continues to break down and will soon effect every American, not just a few. 

It's kind of scary when you think about.


----------



## Aliena (Jan 28, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> Not for nothing, but it doesn't work like that in the office of the Presidency. The President can't order the secret service around, they don't work for him. We pay them to protect the President by any means necessary even if they must restrain him by force. If they say it's unsafe to move now, he must cooperate. If they have to secure the area before he can pass through, he has to sit there sweating bullets till clearance is given. Then he is swiftly snatched away without ceremony and he's just going to have to use the toilet some other time. Sitting there listening to the President drone on about a goat probably isn't as fun as watching him get wrestled to the ground by a bunch of hired thugs in suits and lugged away unconscious. But it's a distinct possibility that it could happen in a crisis if he doesn't do as he's told.



Another well put post. Americans seem to forget that the President is NOT a man, but an office. There is protocol and he has to follow that protocol. This isn't Hollywood--:doh:


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jan 28, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> Not for nothing, but it doesn't work like that in the office of the Presidency. The President can't order the secret service around, they don't work for him. We pay them to protect the President by any means necessary even if they must restrain him by force. If they say it's unsafe to move now, he must cooperate. If they have to secure the area before he can pass through, he has to sit there sweating bullets till clearance is given. Then he is swiftly snatched away without ceremony and he's just going to have to use the toilet some other time. Sitting there listening to the President drone on about a goat probably isn't as fun as watching him get wrestled to the ground by a bunch of hired thugs in suits and lugged away unconscious. But it's a distinct possibility that it could happen in a crisis if he doesn't do as he's told.



I would think about it this way! The country is under attack! The president will be target! Anybody, in the same room would be in the line of fire, as well!


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 28, 2006)

EtobicokeFA said:


> I would think about it this way! The country is under attack! The president will be target! Anybody, in the same room would be in the line of fire, as well!



Yes but before they move from that place they have to make sure they are not going to run into a spray of molotov cocktails. Whatever plan of exit they had planned previously has to be completely abandoned and other options entertained, like a helicopter on the roof or something, briefing the press that they are no longer allowed to exit the way they had been informed to exit previously - IF they are allowed to exit at all. Secret service persons who were once briefed to leave with the President now must stay behind, etc. An exit like this has to be flawlessly executed, they can't just take off running for the first cab that comes along.


----------



## fatlane (Jan 28, 2006)

EtobicokeFA said:


> I would think about it this way! The country is under attack! The president will be target! Anybody, in the same room would be in the line of fire, as well!



"But, Mr. Evil Terrorist Master, there are children near the president!"
"FORGET ZEE CHEELDRENS AND CARRY OUT ZEE ATTTACCKKK!!!!"
"I... I... _I CAN'T!_"
"ZEN I SHALL HAFF TWO FIND SOMEONES ELSES TWO DOO EEET!" (Blam! Thud!)
"OK, I'll do it."
"EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEXCELLLLENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNT!"

See? Terrorists hate children. That's why they're such assholes. If you care about kids, you'll get away from them because the whole "human shield" idea doesn't play to the evil terrorists.

Or _was_ Bush using the kids as human shields? Maybe he _knew_ al-Qaeda wouldn't attack a school and so he stayed in the one place he _knew_ al-Qaeda wouldn't hit!

That coward. Using those kids as a human shield. Or that idiot. Not getting those kids out of harm's way.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 28, 2006)

toni said:


> You call this a response? What does this prove? You punish one solider in the war, is that taking care of the country behind the soldier? NOOOOOOO!!! I guess 4 attacks on the US in 8 years was just coincidence. Nothing to worry about really, we will let the next administration worry about it. As long as it doesn't happen on my clock. I am guessing that was the train of thought.
> 
> Your website also forgot to list that Ramzi Ahmed Yousef (who entered the US with a passport from Iraq) while being interrogated told officials of a plan to attack the US using commercial airplanes. (Still no action taken by Clinton, no beefing up of airport security or anything like that...hmmmmm)
> 
> Also, please do not call the facts that I have posted crap. If you have to resort to that type of argument, that just means you have really have no point to argue.



I did a Google search on Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, and found the following on Wikipedia:



> Yousef was arrested by Pakistani intelligence and turned over to U.S. Diplomatic Security Service agents on February 7, 1995. Pakistani Intelligence raided the Su-Casa Guest House in Islamabad, Pakistan before he could rebase himself in Peshawar. He had been betrayed by a man he tried to recruit. When he was discovered, Yousef had chemical burns on his fingers.
> 
> Yousef was flown back to the United States and helicoptered into Manhattan. He was sent to a prison in New York, New York, United States, and held there until his trial. On September 5, 1996, Yousef, Murad, and Shah were convicted for planning Bojinka. They were sentenced to life in prison without parole. In court, Yousef said, "I am a terrorist, and I am proud of it."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef


So Yousef was caught, convicted, and imprisoned for life during Clinton's term. Sounds like he took action, don't you think?

And concerning airport security, I found the following story about what Clinton did about airport security back in 1996:



> *Clinton signs airport security measures into law*
> 
> October 9, 1996
> Web posted at: 12:15 p.m. EDT
> ...


So I was mistaken - Al Gore's commission or terrorism was convened during Clinton's FIRST term. And was working on the problem duding the second term. 

If I remember correctly, the airlines themselves balked at implementing a lot of the measures Clinton and Gore wanted, citing the costs as being too expensive. Here's an exerpt from an articl in Mother Jones called "Airline Insecurity" - underlining emphasis mine:



> When the Gore commission issued its final report in February 1997, the industry was pleased. The commission called for a slow approach to bag match, calling it a "contentious and difficult area." It suggested private security companies be certified by the government, but made no mention of improving wages or benefits. And it gave the FAA two more years to implement FBI fingerprint checks on airport workers. The Air Transport Association praised the document as a "good compendium of the issues that the industry and the FAA and the government at large have been looking at for some time."
> 
> Armed with the report, the FAA vowed to develop rules to accomplish the broad mandates outlined by the commission. Over the next four years, however, the airlines mounted an all-out campaign to forestall or weaken the already-diluted security proposals. The industry filed myriad objections to the rules, asking for delays and calling for public hearings. "The rule-making process is very easily manipulated by someone with a lot of money and expertise, and the airlines have that in spades," says Rep. Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat. "Anything that would cost them money they could fight, and delay rule making for years and years." According to Elaine Kamarck, federal regulators didn't bother to fight back. "The FAA decided to pick its battles with the airlines," she says. "You had a sluggish bureaucracy under pressure from the corporate world. They paid lip service, but let the rules drag on." Paul Takemoto, a spokesman for the FAA, insists the agency took the rules seriously but needed input from the airlines. "We move as fast as we can, with the understanding that we need to make sure that we're doing it right," he says. But according to a study by the General Accounting Office, it sometimes takes the agency 5 years or more to begin the rule-making processand up to 15 years to complete it. All that while, says DeFazio, "the Air Transport Association, with its huge staff and budget, is working day in and day out to prevent things from happening."
> 
> ...



And, Toni, I HAVE to use the word "crap" to describe any "facts" that come from conservative sources such as NewsMax, CNS, World Net Daily, or people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly. Most of what they print or say are not facts at all, but cleverly-selected propaganda nuggets intended to advance the conservative agenda. Here's what I consider to be a rather telling quote from Al Franken's book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot", based on a study done in the Early '90s:



> Now, am I saying that dittoheads are ignoramuses? No. I don't need to. Listen to Kathleed Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg School for Communications at the University of Pennsylvania:
> 
> _We just concluded a study of 360 people, whom we watched watch the health care reform debate for nine minths. And at the end of that period, we took the people who said they relied on talk radio, and by this, we mean primarily Rush Limbaugh ... And we asked then how well informed they felt... Of all the people we watched, they said they were the best informed. And of all the people we watched, they were the least informed._


So you see, Toni, you may THINK you have all the "facts", but if you depended on slanted sources, chances are pretty good that you don't.

And I believe that thousands - if not millions - of people are equially mis-served by the conservative "news" sources.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 28, 2006)

toni said:


> You are totally right!!! This is something that has been brewing for decades. I just get so annoyed when people call Bush the antichrist but they hold Clinton on a pedestal. If we trace it back, we can find evidence to hold many presidents accountable in the long string of events which lead to Sept. 11th.


And I get even more annoyed when people put BUSH on a pedestal. I believe that when the history of our time is writted, Bush will go down as one of the most ineffective, incompetant, corrupt leaders of all time.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Jan 28, 2006)

Clinton never said that the Constitutional Rights only apply to some citizens. Apparently, Bush thinks GLBT people don't deserve equal protection under the law like the constitution promises. And when Clinton was in office, gas wasn't the same price in Los Angeles as it is in Tennessee backwoods. Isn't that just a LITTLE suspicious? Clinton didn't start a war in Iraq based on a LIE. The war in Iraq was started because of "faulty information." This means LIE. It was FALSIFIED. How is it okay to kill school children because of a LIE? I had a fellow student just pulled out of a class at Tennessee Technological University (look it up) because he was Middle Eastern. Come on. This isn't right. There's a huge difference between saying Clinton was a bad president and saying Bush was a bad president.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 28, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Clinton never said that the Constitutional Rights only apply to some citizens. Apparently, Bush thinks GLBT people don't deserve equal protection under the law like the constitution promises. And when Clinton was in office, gas wasn't the same price in Los Angeles as it is in Tennessee backwoods. Isn't that just a LITTLE suspicious? Clinton didn't start a war in Iraq based on a LIE. The war in Iraq was started because of "faulty information." This means LIE. It was FALSIFIED. How is it okay to kill school children because of a LIE? I had a fellow student just pulled out of a class at Tennessee Technological University (look it up) because he was Middle Eastern. Come on. This isn't right. There's a huge difference between saying Clinton was a bad president and saying Bush was a bad president.


Precisely. If Congress wasn't under GOP control, I believe that Bush would have been impeached by now.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 28, 2006)

fatlane said:


> Saddam Hussein was hired as a CIA assassin in 1969. Iraq was selected as a lucky beneficiary of US intelligence and support when we got them to attack Iran. When Iraq gassed its Kurds, Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with the man who ordered the attacks. When Saddam Hussein served his purpose, he got suckered into invading Kuwait and then taken down a peg. Bush I left him in Iraq to avoid chaos there. Bush II took him down and created chaos there.


And for the benefit of those out there who doubt what fatlane just said, here's that photo:


----------



## autopaint-1 (Jan 28, 2006)

http://www.dubyamovie.com/large.html


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 28, 2006)

toni said:


> You call this a response? What does this prove? You punish one solider in the war, is that taking care of the country behind the soldier? NOOOOOOO!!! I guess 4 attacks on the US in 8 years was just coincidence. Nothing to worry about really, we will let the next administration worry about it. As long as it doesn't happen on my clock. I am guessing that was the train of thought.


Here's a few questions for you, Toni. 

There were 19 men involved in the 9/11 hijackings - 16 were from Saudi Arabis, as was Osama Bin Laden. Why has no action been taken against the Saudis? Could it be that the Saudi royal family, the Bin laden family, and George H. W, Bush are *BUSINESS PARTNERS*???? It THAT what you call "taking care of the country behind the soldier"?? Is the Bush familt putting their business interests above the interests of the ENTIRE COUNTRY???

In the days after 9/11, all flights within the US were cancelled for a few days. Only ONE PLANE was allowed to fly - a plane carrying members of Osama Bin Laden's family out of Texas. And at the exact moment of the Twin Tower and Pentagon attacks, George H. W. Bush was meeting with Osama's BROTHER at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington, DC.


----------



## fatlane (Jan 28, 2006)

It's a good thing Osama Bin Laden didn't have WLS, or this debate would get REALLY nasty!


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jan 28, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> Here's a few questions for you, Toni.
> 
> There were 19 men involved in the 9/11 hijackings - 16 were from Saudi Arabis, as was Osama Bin Laden. Why has no action been taken against the Saudis? Could it be that the Saudi royal family, the Bin laden family, and George H. W, Bush are *BUSINESS PARTNERS*???? It THAT what you call "taking care of the country behind the soldier"?? Is the Bush familt putting their business interests above the interests of the ENTIRE COUNTRY???
> 
> In the days after 9/11, all flights within the US were cancelled for a few days. Only ONE PLANE was allowed to fly - a plane carrying members of Osama Bin Laden's family out of Texas. And at the exact moment of the Twin Tower and Pentagon attacks, George H. W. Bush was meeting with Osama's BROTHER at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington, DC.



Mr. Moore, I hate to break it to you, but in this country, people are innocent until proven guilty. Yes, even foreigners. Yes, even dark-skinned Arabic foreigners.

Perhaps *that* is why no action has been taken against Saudi Arabia? 

Wayne, I'm a Democrat -- a liberal Democrat, even. But when you start spewing out this conspiracy theory collection of madcap innuendo, you make the rest of us look bad.

I think that giving the ugly, ugly atmosphere in this country shortly AFTER 9/11 happened, GWB deserves *credit* for getting Bin Laden's family the hell out of Dodge. What do you think would have happened to them, had they been forced to stay? Or do you suppose that they are guilty just by virtue of having the same last name?


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 28, 2006)

TraciJo67 said:


> Mr. Moore, I hate to break it to you, but in this country, people are innocent until proven guilty. Yes, even foreigners. Yes, even dark-skinned Arabic foreigners.
> 
> Perhaps *that* is why no action has been taken against Saudi Arabia?
> 
> ...


After a crime is committed, TraciJo, the authorities usually want to question the relatives of the perpetrators - they don't normally expedite their exit from the country.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jan 28, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> After a crime is committed, TraciJo, the authorities usually want to question the relatives of the perpetrators - they don't normally expedite their exit from the country.



Sigh.

So just what is it that you're accusing Bush of? 

Knowing about 9/11 in advance ... conspiring with the terrorists ... flying a plane himself ... heck, maybe he was having an affair with Bin Laden's sister, and *that's* why he allowed a bunch of women & old men to leave the country (and, btw, you have NO IDEA if they were questioned or not -- just as you have NO RIGHT to assume that they ... or anyone else, for that matter ... is assumed guilty of terrorist activities based only on what country they come from or what their last name is). 

Wayne, really. Michael Moore is a sloppy, sloppy man (and I'm not talking about his attire). Hauling out his half-baked conspiracy theories is an embarrassment to our party.


----------



## MickeyB (Jan 28, 2006)

> Sigh.
> 
> So just what is it that you're accusing Bush of?



Wayneipoo's accusing GWB of outwitting him and everyone else that subscribes to the Democratic Underground. The DU can't take it, so they bleat on.

I know full well what GWB has done well and what he hasn't done well. 

I hate his kowtowing to the Mexicans and his lack of immigration control.

But watching the DUmmies implode over at their website has entertained me to no end for the last two years.

Funny...for a guy they say can't speak in public, everyone sure knows where the hell GWB stands on issues, don't they?


----------



## RedHead (Jan 28, 2006)

MickeyB said:


> Wayneipoo's accusing GWB of outwitting him and everyone else that subscribes to the Democratic Underground. The DU can't take it, so they bleat on.
> 
> I know full well what GWB has done well and what he hasn't done well.
> 
> ...




Last night I was reading the thread, responded to quite a few - frankly I think all the ultimate power finger pointing is ridiculous.

There is no ONE individual responsible for the atrocities that have happened and are happening daily.

GWB made a decision to declare war on Iraq - this was approved by congress

GWB has made a decsion to finish the long term objective of the war, which is to allow this country to set up a government (democratic or not) that will not have one party committing racial/religous genocide on the others.

As for the reading in front of the children - we were not there; we don't know what the SS told him. Perhaps they were attempting to reroute the avenue of escape and told him to continue on and they would advise him of any changes. He is obligated to follow their orders. Besides if terrorists were going to shoot an RPG at the school - it really wouldn't have mattered if he was reading the book or not.

I don't think there is anyway we will agree on this subject; *but isn't that one of the most wonderful things about this country, we can have extreme opposing points of view; but we are all allowed to give voice to them.*

I don't necessarily believe that GWB has done everything right - my name is not Pollyanna. But I don't think he is so horrible to be called on to resign. I love my country and my president. I respect him and trust him enough to make decisions in "my" best interest; but also allow me the opportunity and POWER to question those same decisions.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 28, 2006)

MickeyB said:


> **text deleted**



This conversation is bad enough Mickey. When you begin personal attacks, especially one that expresses nothing that is a direct response to the ideas presented, you have lost the argument. On the old boards a political discussion went on for weeks and weeks back and fourth but never got shut down until someone came and started hurling out insults and pointing out grammatical errors and stuff. Political discussions are allowed here as long as they don't degenerate into this kind of thing. You may be angry but this kind of response only makes things worse. Please don't do this, we *all* lose if you take this there.


----------



## MickeyB (Jan 28, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> This conversation is bad enough Mickey. When you begin personal attacks, especially one that expresses nothing that is a direct response to the ideas presented, you have lost the argument. On the old boards a political discussion went on for weeks and weeks back and fourth but never got shut down until someone came and started hurling out insults and pointing out grammatical errors and stuff. Political discussions are allowed here as long as they don't degenerate into this kind of thing. You may be angry but this kind of response only makes things worse. Please don't do this, we *all* lose if you take this there.



Deal with it. Lilly.

If the thread gets closed, it's because people can't take a ribbing and they went running to the principal. I, however, could care less what anyone writes about me. I'm a grownup. I'll wipe my patootey the same way whether or not someone here thinks lowly of me.

You obviously don't know me very well. I'm angry? Heh. Amused is far more like it.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jan 28, 2006)

TraciJo67 said:


> Sigh.
> 
> So just what is it that you're accusing Bush of?
> 
> ...


TraciJo - 

I'm not quoting Michael Moore. I get my information from many differenct sources, including overseas services such as BBC, Reuters, and The Guardian.

I don't consider what I discussed to be "half-baked conspiracy theories" - I consider them to be unanswered questions taht need to be addressed.

Michael Moore is not the only person out there asking questions. He's just a convenient target for the right-wingers, because they're still mad about his "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11" movies, which I though were both very well done. Documentaries are supposed to make the viewer think; in that regard, I consider Michael Moore to be very successful.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 28, 2006)

haha I love reading the DU posts too. They crack me up. The far right messageboards are just as funny.

BTW Michael Moore is one person I have no faith in. His "documentaries" are flawed to no end (did they hire a fact checker?), he pretends to be for the "working man" yet won't hire union help, and he owns stock in Halliburton. He is one of the many hypocrits from both sides of the aisle that people believe for some reason when all he wants is more $ so he can live in his Manhattan apartment.


----------



## EvilBob (Jan 28, 2006)

Can I put in my 2 cents for letting this thread die?

To be honest, none of us know anything about what is really going on, how the war started or how it is really going in Iraq (unless someone here is posting from there).

"Right-wingers" aren't wrong. "Left-wingers" aren't wrong. In fact, I don't even know who those terms are attempting to villify. Which side you are on is simply a matter of which spin doctors you happen to be believing. Everyone on television has an agenda... EVERYONE. BBC, SkyNews, CNN, Reuters, all of them. They are corporations with agendas and a financial interest in the political system. They aren't evil empires, but they aren't bastions of righteousness either. In better organizations, it doesn't come out in an obvious bias to a story, but it still comes through in what stories a particular company is willing to cover. 

I have worked on staff in both Republican and Democratic White Houses (Bush 41 and Clinton). None of the people there were evil. None of the people there were saints. They were people honesty trying to change the world in a way they thought would be best for America. The only difference is their vision of the world they hope to leave behind.

We don't always agree with it, and that is excellent and healthy. But the crazy conspiracy theories -- and they are just that -- that Dick Cheney loves seeing people die... that Hilary CLinton is a cold bitch who has no heart... that Bill Clinton had people killed for one reason or another... that Ronald Reagan wanted all gay people dead... these are ALL simply not true. They are spin -- whipped up by one constituency or another to try to influence people.

Be smart: Don't be influenced by it. 

Best to all,
Scott

Let's get back to talking about what brings us together on Dimensions... and not about what differences we have.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jan 28, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> haha I love reading the DU posts too. They crack me up. The far right messageboards are just as funny.



Extremists on any side of *any* issue frankly scare me. Hint: You might be an extremist if you cannot see the flaws in your *own* logic - no matter what the issue.

I'd like to think that I'm a moderate. I align myself with the democratic party because I believe more in their underlying principles; however, I vote more for the issues than I do the party. I've voted for candidates from multiple parties.

What slays me (and scares me) is when otherwise reasonable people who can see the extremism on the other side of an issue -- i.e., "those radical Muslims" -- seem absolutely incapable of understanding that they are just as inflexible, just as intolerant, and just as capable of committing atrocities in the name of ________________ (fill in the blank; 'religion' happens to be my personal favorite, just for the irony factor).


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 28, 2006)

EvilBob said:


> Let's get back to talking about what brings us together on Dimensions... and not about what differences we have.



Love will bring us together.

The Capn and Tenille told me so!


----------



## MickeyB (Jan 28, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> TraciJo -
> 
> I'm not quoting Michael Moore. I get my information from many differenct sources, including overseas services such as BBC, Reuters, and The Guardian.



You left out the DUmmie board, Wayniepoo.

After all, you quoted that website extensively during the failed Kerry campaign of 2004.


----------



## fatlane (Jan 28, 2006)

Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
Four legs good. Two legs better.


----------



## RedHead (Jan 28, 2006)

fatlane said:


> Four legs good. Two legs better.
> Four legs good. Two legs better.
> Four legs good. Two legs better.
> Four legs good. Two legs better.
> ...



ROFL SNORT MONITOR SPEW


----------



## fatlane (Jan 28, 2006)

RedHead said:


> ROFL SNORT MONITOR SPEW



You'll love my NewSpeak Rap, then...


----------



## RedHead (Jan 28, 2006)

U da man
I know u can
your just a bitch
that cant be itched

I need to show 
my big fat MOE
Bush is great, but please don't hate

Im into Kerry, cause he's hairy.


Best I can do at rap.


----------



## fatlane (Jan 28, 2006)

Did you notice that just recently in London town
The flags all waved
The people smiled a lot, the world was right
But now it seems that nothing's changed
My ears are ringing with the promise
The promise that they'll right the wrongs
And that they're ever gonna give you
Democracy, Democracy (you wanna bet?)

We've been down this path a million times
And yet there seems no hope for us
These times are hard and yet the few do well
The rest can wallow in the dust
And if you're looking for the answers
You won't need a crystal ball
'Cause they're not taking any chances on
Democracy, Democracy (not on your life)

Don't tell me revolution changed a thing in France
'Cept for a king or two
'Cause when it's Bastile Day a toxic time bomb ticks
In the Pacific blue
'Cause revolution changes nothing
And voting changes even less
'Cause it's only time you are wasting on
Democracy, Democracy (there's none round here)

-- "Democracy?", The Damned


----------



## RedHead (Jan 28, 2006)

Again, like I said; YOU ROCK


----------



## Observer (Jan 29, 2006)

This thread, now with over 250 posts, illustrates several things:

1) that there is interest in intelligent discourse on both sides of controversial issues among those who come to this board (good)

2) that there are those who turn serious conversations into silly directions or ones not originallly intended - commonly called hijacking (bad)

3) that there are thoughtful and worthwhile observations to be shared by varous knowledgeable advocates on both sides (good)

4) that some posters unfortunately find it difficult to discuss serious issues that they feel deeply about without engaging in personalities and personal attacks (bad)

What does this all mean in the final analysis?

There has been discussion of starting a politics and social issues board to showcase the aspects of threads such as this which are good - and also talk of more closely moderating or even discouraging threads of this type because of the aspects which are bad. 

I would hope that the implications of the good wins out over the bad, but its not my call. I can therefore only at this point remind everyone of both the positive and negative options, asking for appropriate behavior. 

Enough said?


----------



## RedHead (Jan 29, 2006)

Observer said:


> This thread, now with over 250 posts, illustrates several things:
> 
> 1) that there is interest in intelligent discourse on both sides of controversial issues among those who come to this board (good)
> 
> ...



FL,

I think you and I were just spanked for not playing with the rules  

But seriously, enough has been said on both sides, that I don't think that rehashing will change anyone person's mind. So levity was the next logical step.

Rap Rules!:smitten:


----------



## 1300 Class (Jan 29, 2006)

How strangly observant. Things naturally meander and flow. All conversations do that. Nothing to get worried about really.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jan 29, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> haha I love reading the DU posts too. They crack me up. The far right messageboards are just as funny.
> 
> BTW Michael Moore is one person I have no faith in. His "documentaries" are flawed to no end (did they hire a fact checker?), he pretends to be for the "working man" yet won't hire union help, and he owns stock in Halliburton. He is one of the many hypocrits from both sides of the aisle that people believe for some reason when all he wants is more $ so he can live in his Manhattan apartment.



This is why I see him as the Bill O'Reilly for the left side. And, I prefer to think of myself as a centrist, more that anything else!


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jan 29, 2006)

RedHead said:


> FL,
> 
> I think you and I were just spanked for not playing with the rules
> 
> ...



I agree. The moment I saw "four leg good", I lost it. Meathead, I think I love you :smitten:  

Seriously speaking though, these discussions usually do evolve into something ugly. I think the attempts at levity (hijacking!) are great.


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 29, 2006)

EtobicokeFA said:


> This is why I see him as the Bill O'Reilly for the left side. And, I prefer to think of myself as a centrist, more that anything else!



Perfect analogy!


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 29, 2006)

TraciJo67 said:


> I agree. The moment I saw "four leg good", I lost it. Meathead, I think I love you :smitten:
> 
> Seriously speaking though, these discussions usually do evolve into something ugly. I think the attempts at levity (hijacking!) are great.




That's what FL and I are here for.

NOW EAT YOUR PEAS!


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jan 29, 2006)

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk said:


> That's what FL and I are here for.
> 
> NOW EAT YOUR PEAS!



Chippy (further thread degeneration alert):

Last night I read a thread that you started, something to do with 'ask anyone a question', that ended up with some pretty risque material being conveyed in Morse Code, of all things. I cannot remember the last time I laughed so hard.

-.-- --- ..- / -.-. .- -. / .... .- ...- . / .- - / -- -.-- / -.-. .- -. -.- .-.. . ... / .- -. -.-- - .. -- . --..-- / -- .-. .-.-.- / -- ..- -. -.-


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 29, 2006)

it is the language of the infamous squeakychirp!


-- -.-- / -. .. .--. .--. .-.. . ... / . -..- .--. .-.. --- -.. . / .-- .. - .... / -.. . .-.. .. --. .... -


----------



## autopaint-1 (Jan 29, 2006)

http://youtube.com/w/State-of-the-Union-2006----Bush-Impression?v=upTUbqc5Pso


----------



## autopaint-1 (Jan 29, 2006)

Larry, really with delight? Do you operate CW? I used to do 40 CW in the bottom 25 Khz (Extra) and at one time my speed was between 35 and 40 wpm. That was a long time ago. Diddle i dah dit dah


----------



## LarryTheShiveringChipmunk (Jan 29, 2006)

Haha no I just use an online translator. I used to be good at morse as a kid...I could also read braille tho I wasn't blind...just found them both in a book about "other languages" or somethign and learned them.


----------



## fatlane (Jan 29, 2006)

OK, on with the spanking...

www.aohell.com

"Beating Around the Bush"

Whoever wrote that article, I have to say I agree with the guy 100%. It's long, but dead-on, if I say so myself.


----------



## toni (Jan 30, 2006)

fatlane said:


> It's a good thing Osama Bin Laden didn't have WLS, or this debate would get REALLY nasty!



OH NO!!! WLS another conspiracy:shocked: !!! LMAO

you are to funny fatlane :smitten:


----------



## autopaint-1 (Jan 30, 2006)

"OK, on with the spanking...

www.aohell.com

"Beating Around the Bush"

Whoever wrote that article, I have to say I agree with the guy 100%. It's long, but dead-on, if I say so myself."


We all have our own interests I know but I had to stop reading the article after they started equating the formation of the state of Israel (and the displacement of the Bedouins who came to be called "Palestinians" (Not caring that the name Palestinian is based on the word Philistine who were Jews) with present day terrorists who seek to kill every non believer (but let’s just start with the Jews, OK). These same Arabs who supported Hitler in WW2 are the so called victims of Jewish oppression... Let’s see, what Jewish oppression you ask? Well, the Palestinians are citizens of Israel (How many non Muslims can be citizens with voting rights in the neighboring countries?). The suppressed masses are so beleaguered that they hold positions in the Israeli parliament. Those poor folks who live in the territories controlled by their merciful leaders are forced to work in Israel, while these leaders steal the moneys given to them by world governments. I get tired of equivocation. If one side protects itself while the other commits aggression, than in our no fault world they are both equally at fault. Uhh that is unless Israel should become the aggressor. Then it’s safe to say it’s those darn Israelis who are causing all the problems. Remember the outrage when Israel took out the Iraq nuclear instillation. The world didn’t rise up and thank Israel for that move, that is until years later when the world realized that Israel might have prevented Sadaam from starting a nuclear WW3. As I’ve told my friends, Bushes pro Israel stance isn’t all that great for anyone. He wants to prepare the world for the second coming and so he’s following what he sees as the will of G-d. His opposition unfortunately takes up the cause of every group who opposes whatever the US is for, right or wrong. As someone who strongly supports Israel’s right to live peacefully, I get tired of reading how they are such oppressors when not one word is said about the Arabs leaders who kill and maim at whim ,anyone (including fellow Arabs who would dare comply with the enemy). When a Jew is killed, the world has not one word of condemnation for these terrorists. Although to be fair you will have the occasional, isn't that a shame, if only Israel wasn't so cruel to these poor people. The difference between the two sides? When Baruch Goldstein, shot up that Mosque, filled with innocent people The Israeli justice system brought him to trial and sent him to jail. When an Arab “youth” blows up innocent Israeli citizens minding their own business, their families are rewarded financially by countries like Iran and Syria. The double standard has to stop.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jan 30, 2006)

autopaint-1 said:


> "OK, on with the spanking...
> 
> www.aohell.com
> 
> ...



... and if Israel chooses to lob a few missiles (bought & paid for by the good old U.S. of A) into a heavily civilian populated Palestinian camp .... well, what's a few civilian deaths here & there? Certainly, it can't be called *terrorism*. Heck, that term is reserved for enemies of the U.S.! 

Enemies: Don't despair. Sooner or later y'all come back around to be our fair-weather friends and we'll shovel barrels-full of cash at you, so long as your interests and ours are at least marginally aligned (but only so long as that is true - once you've served your purpose, we'll abandon you like we did the Hmong, the Kurds, and just about every other "freedom fighter" turned terrorist).


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jan 30, 2006)

I hate political debate especially when it degenerates to name calling. No one is gonna change anyones mind. But as a Libertarian leaning Independant - let me just say both major parties suck! This President scares me because he is systematically removing our civil liberties.

Our freedom is much more important than WHO is taking it away. IMHO!
*
*stepping back out of this conversation**

_Now back to the regularly scheduled name calling and insulting._


----------



## 1300 Class (Jan 30, 2006)

That is indeed a drawback of the entire American system. Westministerism rocks.


----------



## autopaint-1 (Jan 30, 2006)

"... and if Israel chooses to lob a few missiles (bought & paid for by the good old U.S. of A) into a heavily civilian populated Palestinian camp .... well, what's a few civilian deaths here & there? Certainly, it can't be called *terrorism*. Heck, that term is reserved for enemies of the U.S.! "

Ok Tracy, let me answer you because I've heard that argument before. First, Israel does NOT target civilian areas without cause, unlike their enemies who do intentionally launch rockets into civilian areas with the intent of killing civilians, unlike their oposition. Israel works very hard to keep civilian injuries to a minimum but say they have located a known terrorist who happens to hide in civilian areas as a form of shield so that they can kill innocents in Israel and then hide behind woman and children after they've done their deed. The reason they hide in civilian areas is because they believe their enemy is a civilized people who would never attack innocents much as they do every day (as a example, in the US the WTC was attacked. I work about a mile and a half from that location and was at work when the towers where attacked. The WTC is not some military base. It was a building full of innocent civilians ). To continue, Israel is historically accurate enough to kill a terrorist in the room of an apartment building and yet not harm the general population, but accidents do happen. There are a few ways this problem could be resolved. One way would be for the locals to stand on their feet and declair that they no longer want to act as human shields for these criminals. What would you have Israel do? Let's be realistic here, day in and day out you have people hell bent on your destruction and the destruction of the Jewish people. Should they be good little Jews and just give the land back (To the Brits who gave the land to Israel in 1948) because since 1948 there hasn't been a day when either formally (country on country war) or informally (Terrorists supported by countries behind the scenes, because they don't have what it takes to fight the Israelis man to man so better let some other group of Arabs do the dying for you) there has been any peace in that region or do they stand up and shock the world when they show the world that the Jews aren't marching to the camps any longer and are a formidable people. One last note, With all the money the US gives Israel they give approx the same amount to Egypt. The only difference is that Israel pays back it's debts and Egypt defaults on theirs. I don't mind answering these questions because I know there's a lot of disinformation being spread and the truth isn't always as easy to find as the lies.


----------



## 1300 Class (Jan 30, 2006)

And there is no such thing as a unbiased viewpoint. The whole place is a mess, and Israel cannot be exonerated for its actions, niether can the palestinians or the other arab nations in the region. If Israel draws back to the 1968 borders (so called green line) around gaza and the west bank, things might work out. But of course it was the democratic will of the Palestinians that saw HAMAS elected to power in elections that were considered to be free and fair elections. 

And Britain did not own the land in Palestine, it was a League of Nations mandate administered by Britain.


----------



## autopaint-1 (Jan 30, 2006)

"And Britain did not own the land in Palestine, it was a League of Nations mandate administered by Britain"

No matter how it's spun, Britian had a strong impact on what occurred in that region. OK Israel goes back to it's original borders. What was the problem prior to 1968? Israel didn't attack their neighbors, they won the land by defeating aggressors. What say we in the US give back all of our land to those we fought. How about returning the southwest of the US to the Mexicans. The Mexican government always say they really own the land and that we stole it from them. How about Australia returning their land to the aboriginal (Native) people whom they stole the land from or is only Israel expected to return land after war was declared on them.


----------



## 1300 Class (Jan 30, 2006)

In actual fact, if the MacDonald Whitepaper had of been implimented were it not for the outbreak of the second world war and the formation of the United Nations would have led to far fewer problems. I suggested the 1968 borders because they are the internationally recognised borders of the state of Israel, and the ones that are the basis for the Roadmap to peace. 

Those other "examples" are totally different, not even related to the Palestine/Israel situation.


----------



## fatlane (Jan 30, 2006)

Good grief, I've created a Zionism sub-thread...

Palestine was never a land without a people for a people without a land. The closest area that fit that description ever considered by a World Zionist Congress was the Pampas region of Argentina. Uganda was another suggestion, but the WZC voted for Palestine, against the wishes of Theodore Herzl, who felt Argentina would have been a better choice. Prior to the migration of European Jews to Palestine, incidents of racial or religious violence within the Ottoman Empire had been few and far between. When Jews moved in and began to purchase land and dismiss the Arab serfs attached to the land, resentment began to grow. The Arabs expected a continuation of a feudal relationship and the Jews expected the Arabs to go somewhere else and to get off their property. Violence between Arabs and European Jewish settlers increased from about the late 1880s onward as more Jews migrated to Palestine.

Relations between Jews and Arabs in Palestine have since deteriorated. Yes, that's an understatement, but I'd rather not wade through the promises of an Arab state, the Balfour Declaration, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the League of Nations assignement of mandates for the former Ottoman Empire, the San Remo agreement, the Mufti of Jerusalem ordering death to all Jews, the formation of both Arab and Jewish terrorist groups (including the Stern gang), the Fascist Jews who appealed to Hitler to create a pro-Nazi Jewish state in Palestine to keep the Jewish blood separate from the Aryan blood (I kid you not, that was a weird fact to uncover), and the eventual abandonment of Palestine by the British in the wake of massive terrorism campaigns following the end of WW2. Britain itself was unable to maintain its empire, which is why it also spun off India and Pakistan at this time.

In the 1947-48 war, the nascent state of Israel leveled over 300 Palestinian villages - they're not on the map anymore. The Israelis forced nearly every Arab out of Haifa. 

_"It is dreadful thing to see the dead city. I found next to the port [Palestinian Arab] children, women, the old, waiting for a way to leave. I entered the houses, there were houses where coffee and pitot were left on the table, I could not avoid [thinking] that this, indeed, had been the picture in many Jewish towns [i.e. in Europe, during the World War II]."_ -- Golda Meir, Haifa 6 May 1948

_"There is a reason to believe that what is being done... is being done out of certain political objectives and not only out of military necessities, as they claim sometimes. In fact, the transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the boundaries of the Jewish state is being implemented. The evacuation/clearing out of [Palestinian] Arab villages is not always done out of military necessity. The complete destruction of the villages is not always done only because there are no sufficient forces to maintain a garrison."_ -- Aharon Cohen, MAPAM party leader, 10 May 1948

_"To say that three quarters of a country was destroyed, and only a small fraction of its land left in the hands of its original inhabitants, is no figure of speech. For this is what happened. A largely non-native collection of people simply effaced 385 villages in order to establish a 'new' state. This was no land without people. Rather it was the case of a land, Palestine, with people, transformed into a desert so that a 'new' land could blossom.

The pattern of destruction was chillingly radical. An Arab village would be invaded. Then every house, every garden wall, every cemetery and its tomb stones would be razed, literally to the ground.

The truth about Arab settlements which used to exist in the area of the State of Israel before 1948, is one of the most guarded secrets of Israeli life. No publication, book or pamphlet gives either their number or their location. This, of course, is done on purpose in order that the accepted official myth of 'an empty country' can be taught and accepted in the Israeli schools and told to visitors.

The significance of this increases when it is remembered that until late 1948, Arabs owned 93% of the land of Palestine.
"_ -- Israel Shahak, Holocaust survivor and chairman of Israeli League of Human Civil Rights

It was a terrible situation in 1948, but kept going downhill as each side retaliated for actions taken by the other. 

When it was time for Palestinians to leave the besieged Beirut in August 1982, and they had no where to go, Ariel Sharon asked an Egyptian intermediary to persuade Arafat to lead the PLO back to Jordan and said if Arafat accepted, Israel would force King Hussein to make way for the organization, Sharon boasted:

"One speech by me will make King Hussein realize that the time has come to pack his bags." 

Arafat immediately replied:

"1-Jordan is not the home of the Palestinians 2-You are trying to exploit the agony of the Palestinian people by turning a Palestinian-Lebanese dispute into a Palestinian-Jordanian contradiction." When Sharon heard Arafat's reply, he responded with an obscene curse in Arabic.

But let us not forget there are current voices for violence among the Palestinian leadership: it's certainly no mis-statement to say there are bloody-minded men who will die before compromising on both sides:
_
"Killing [Jewish] settlers is a Palestinian prerogative. They had better leave now safely, before they have to leave in coffins."_ - Imad Falouji, Palestinian Authority Communications Minister, December 31, 2000.

_"If Sharon wishes to continue the negotiations, this will be fine, but if not, we will continue the struggle for our goals using all means."_ - Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala), Palestinian Authority Legislative Council Speaker, on the prospect of Ariel Sharon winning the Israeli election for Prime Minister, January 27, 2001.

_"The Oslo Agreement is a Trojan horse with which to get senior Palestinian leaders into Israel. The intifada that the Palestinians began last year represents their coming out of the insides of the horse."_

- Yasser Arafat, Chairman, Palestinian Authority, Dec. 19, 2001

Moderates? I don't see any in positions of leadership in Israel or Palestine. Both sides must admit their terrorist pasts and reconcile their so-called histories with the truth if there is to be any hope of peace. Unilateral and unquestioned US support of Israel is not conducive to peace, but perpetuates the violence by forcing Palestinians to turn to increasingly radical voices for solutions.


----------



## fatlane (Jan 30, 2006)

And I am not a Nazi. I just deplore violence, hate, and ignorance.


----------



## 1300 Class (Jan 30, 2006)

Well put FL.


----------



## autopaint-1 (Jan 31, 2006)

"Palestine was never a land without a people for a people without a land. The closest area that fit that description ever considered by a World Zionist Congress was the Pampas region of Argentina"

Uhh so the Jews don't belong there you imply? How do you explain things such as the dead sea scrolls, the Western Wall. Here's a description of how areas of importance to other religions were treated under Arab control.

"During the more than one thousand years Jerusalem was under Muslim rule, the Arabs often used the Wall as a garbage dump, so as to humiliate the Jews who visited it.
For nineteen years, from 1948 to 1967, the Kotel was under Jordanian rule. Although the Jordanians had signed an armistice agreement in 1949 guaranteeing Jews the right to visit the Wall, not one Israeli Jew was ever permitted to do so."

Under Israeli control every religion is respected in Jerusalem. Can you say the same for their neighbors?

Heres some history about the word Palestine.

The term Palestine is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century B.C., settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what is now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century A.D., the Romans crushed the revolt of Shimon Bar Kokhba (132 CE), during which Jerusalem and Judea were regained. Three years later, in conformity with Roman custom, Jerusalem was plowed up with a yoke of oxen and renamed Aelia Capitolina. Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) was renamed Palaestina in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word Filastin is derived from this Latin name.

What would you suggest Israel do? They couldn't find peace before they won the wars which is how they won the land they now own. They found a willing peace partner in Egypt and gladly returned the Sinai.

We can have a scholarly debate about this but I think if we were to dig deep enough many would have to eventually admit that they don't believe Israel should exist and as a Jew I find this appalling and unacceptable. Israel is far from perfect but in that region they are closer to perfection than any of their neighboring states.


----------



## fatlane (Jan 31, 2006)

Certainly there's no denying the historical connection, but, then again, there's also no denying the historical connection of other peoples to the region. And, yes, the Romans did a number on the Jews when Hadrian insisted his image be installed in the temple, then crushed the revolt his odious policy caused...

... but then, in the aftermath of the second world war, the concept of Israel was forced upon both Arabs and Jews alike. There were Arab leaders who asked why was it that the Jews who suffered under the Nazis had to take from the Arabs: why didn't they take a slice of Germany from those who once oppressed them?

We're seeing the same sort of return-related violence in Northern Iraq as Kurds attempt to assert control over Kirkuk. It's an oil-rich area that Saddam Hussein forced Kurds out of under his rule. There are Arabs there, now, with nowhere else to go, really. Rather than try to work together, both sides claim some sort of privileged access to the land and are fighting for it.

I have to disagree that Israel is closer to perfection: perhaps for its citizens, but its occupation policies have made it anything but perfect for those it has displaced and for those it continues to try to displace. It's apartheid, revisited.

For there to be peace, both sides have to realize there are children born there who consider it to be their native land - on both sides. They have no where else to go and will fight for their land.

Yes, I'm pretty sure the Palestinians don't believe Israel should exist. Their take on it is they don't want to let their land go without a fight. That is why the wars continue. To accept Israel as a state means to accept constant warfare with those it has displaced in order to create itself. No matter how many times one waves the Balfour Declaration or the San Remo agreements, the Palestinians will say they don't respect those and continue fighting. 

And, ultimately, it's not a legal basis for Israel that keeps Israelis fighting for that land, is it? Therefore, the war will last until Israel or the Palestinians are destroyed, and time is on the side of the Palestinians. I'm not rooting for them: the bloodshed will be awful, and I fear a nuclear end to it all in a massive Samson act.


----------



## GunnDancer (Jan 31, 2006)

I support president Bush. But as it was pointed out earlier it doesn't matter who's in office, certain folks are going to be quite resentful of that regime. I personally HATED Bill Clinton and felt he made a mockery of the office, however some people loved him. Anyway, the point being that no matter who's in office, that person will have their supporters and their detracters.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jan 31, 2006)

autopaint-1 said:


> "... and if Israel chooses to lob a few missiles (bought & paid for by the good old U.S. of A) into a heavily civilian populated Palestinian camp .... well, what's a few civilian deaths here & there? Certainly, it can't be called *terrorism*. Heck, that term is reserved for enemies of the U.S.! "
> 
> Ok Tracy, let me answer you because I've heard that argument before. First, Israel does NOT target civilian areas without cause, unlike their enemies who do intentionally launch rockets into civilian areas with the intent of killing civilians, unlike their oposition. Israel works very hard to keep civilian injuries to a minimum but say they have located a known terrorist who happens to hide in civilian areas as a form of shield so that they can kill innocents in Israel and then hide behind woman and children after they've done their deed. The reason they hide in civilian areas is because they believe their enemy is a civilized people who would never attack innocents much as they do every day (as a example, in the US the WTC was attacked. I work about a mile and a half from that location and was at work when the towers where attacked. The WTC is not some military base. It was a building full of innocent civilians ). To continue, Israel is historically accurate enough to kill a terrorist in the room of an apartment building and yet not harm the general population, but accidents do happen. There are a few ways this problem could be resolved. One way would be for the locals to stand on their feet and declair that they no longer want to act as human shields for these criminals. What would you have Israel do? Let's be realistic here, day in and day out you have people hell bent on your destruction and the destruction of the Jewish people. Should they be good little Jews and just give the land back (To the Brits who gave the land to Israel in 1948) because since 1948 there hasn't been a day when either formally (country on country war) or informally (Terrorists supported by countries behind the scenes, because they don't have what it takes to fight the Israelis man to man so better let some other group of Arabs do the dying for you) there has been any peace in that region or do they stand up and shock the world when they show the world that the Jews aren't marching to the camps any longer and are a formidable people. One last note, With all the money the US gives Israel they give approx the same amount to Egypt. The only difference is that Israel pays back it's debts and Egypt defaults on theirs. I don't mind answering these questions because I know there's a lot of disinformation being spread and the truth isn't always as easy to find as the lies.



You know, I've heard all this before. It's biased, and it's a load of pablum. 

Please understand, I am *not* defending Palestinians. I believe that both sides have bloody, bloody hands. 

I just get so frustrated when I hear that line about how Israeli's are somehow "different" because they don't target civilians, because they are only defending themselves, blah blah blah. It's not true. They have killed many innocent civilians by lobbing missiles into camps - and understand, we're talking about nomadic people who live in tents; if they're very lucky, a shanty-like structure. There is no such thing as a clean strike. The missiles *are* going to kill innocent civilians, and they *have* killed many. 

But even if there wasn't evidence of callous retaliation -- even if we believe the fairy tales that Israel is a kind, gentle nation and they truly care about the displaced lifetime refugees who are living in appallingly bad circumstances .... please explain to me how much difference there is between dead ... and dead. Coz I'm not sure I know how to differentiate between finding myself blown to bits by a Palestinian suicide bomber ... or blown to bits by a missile lobbed in retaliation in what we try to explain away with the sanitized language of war: "collateral damage". Either way, I'm dead. And my family grieves for my loss. 

You raise some valid points - I will not dispute that the Palestinians have committed horrible atrocities. I just don't believe that Israel has acted with much less restraint.


----------



## Jane (Jan 31, 2006)

fatlane said:


> And I am not a Nazi. I just deplore violence, hate, and ignorance.


Then you must consider backing away from the thread.


----------



## 1300 Class (Feb 1, 2006)

Who was it that stood by and watched after the invasion of Lebanon Christian Phalanges and Maronites butcher refugees in camps? Neither side has its hands clean in this matter, there are equally determined arguements on why Isreal and Palestine should exist or not exist.


----------



## fatlane (Feb 1, 2006)

Indeed. Now, getting back on topic, I see the chap at www.aohell.com has translated Mr. Bush's State of the Union address. Yes, there's a typo on the title, but he cleaned up the rest of Bush's stammers, so it's all good.

Unless you're totally jazzed by Bush and think he's better than Reagan. Then you won't like it.

Personally, I enjoyed the article. Highly entertaining.


----------



## 1300 Class (Feb 1, 2006)

Very good. I thought that was very well done.


----------



## autopaint-1 (Feb 1, 2006)

"there are equally determined arguements on why Isreal and Palestine should exist or not exist."

I was going to drop the subject because no matter what facts are stated there will be no agreements here, but may I suggest that before making statements about Israel and the So called Palestinian states right to exist (or not exist) that we go a bit further and suggest that no one has clean hands and that maybe we (the world) should consider whether the country of Australia has a right to exist (or not exist). After all weren't the aboriginal people the natives of that land and not the now majority caucasian settlers who populate what is called Australia. In the US we had a people who some call native Americans (There was no America before European settlers but that's another story) who lived on the land before we came from Europe. Should we all leave and go back to where we came from? By the way, the only reason Israel has ever gone into Lebanon was to fight the terrorists (controlled by Syria) who were crossing (or launching missiles) into Israel with the intent of killing it's population. Prior to Syrian control of Lebanon, there were fairly good relations between the two countries. Again, Israel did not precipitate this action. It was in response to aggression from an enemy seeking it's destruction. I am done with this subject because I doubt I can change anyones mind and it doesn't seem as though those who agree with me care to show any support.


----------



## 1300 Class (Feb 1, 2006)

Well with hollow "arguments" like that, nope, your not likely to change anyones mind. And to be brutally honest, the situation in Palestine/Israel is almost totally unique on the world stage. No side can be exonerated, but your almost total whitewashing of the actions of Israel are unfounded. Everyone in the region has dirty hands, no one is clean.


----------



## fatlane (Feb 2, 2006)

Australian Lord said:


> Very good. I thought that was very well done.



Thank you very much!


----------



## fatlane (Feb 2, 2006)

autopaint-1 said:


> "there are equally determined arguements on why Isreal and Palestine should exist or not exist."
> 
> I was going to drop the subject because no matter what facts are stated there will be no agreements here, but may I suggest that before making statements about Israel and the So called Palestinian states right to exist (or not exist) that we go a bit further and suggest that no one has clean hands and that maybe we (the world) should consider whether the country of Australia has a right to exist (or not exist). After all weren't the aboriginal people the natives of that land and not the now majority caucasian settlers who populate what is called Australia. In the US we had a people who some call native Americans (There was no America before European settlers but that's another story) who lived on the land before we came from Europe. Should we all leave and go back to where we came from? By the way, the only reason Israel has ever gone into Lebanon was to fight the terrorists (controlled by Syria) who were crossing (or launching missiles) into Israel with the intent of killing it's population. Prior to Syrian control of Lebanon, there were fairly good relations between the two countries. Again, Israel did not precipitate this action. It was in response to aggression from an enemy seeking it's destruction. I am done with this subject because I doubt I can change anyones mind and it doesn't seem as though those who agree with me care to show any support.



But, hey, you're willing to discuss the issue and although we disagree, we didn't collapse into name-calling verbal violence. I respect your stand.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Feb 2, 2006)

I admit it, Bush surprised me at the state of the union address, by admitting that the country was addicted to oil. I didn't think a guy who made so much money off of oil would admit to that!

Of course, that don't mean I am going to hold my breath waiting for him to follow up, but still.


----------

