NationStates Jolt Archive

The truth about Kerry:

http://paradigmassociates.org/TheTruthAboutKerry.html

HEHEHEHE You said truth and kerry.

wow, propaganda overload.

it's amazing how one right wing guy on the internet can so easily predict how badly kerry will do as president.

wow, propaganda overload.

it's amazing how one right wing guy on the internet can so easily predict how badly kerry will do as president.

We all believe what we choose to believe, LFS. I hardly consider myself to be "right wing," but nothing I can say here will ever convince you, or any other of the left wing extremists on here that I'm not. Your minds have been filled with nonsense by someone else and sewn shut.

And if you think that was a predictive site, try THIS one. The First 100 Days of A Kerry Presidency:

http://paradigmassociates.org/OneMansOpinion.html

He voted for war and then against funding for the troops?
The vote was to get the inspectors back in Iraq, not a blank check for war.
The famous bill where he voted for the funding before he voted against it concerns some $87 billion. There were actually two bills introduced, the first got the funding from a partial roll-back of the tax cuts the wealthiest in the nation just received. Kerry voted for that while the Republicans who control congress voted against it, thus delaying these funds. The second bill got the money by borrowing it. I don't know the details about from where. Could be from China like the tax relief came from. I don't know. But i'm damn sure the people behind this ad don't know about it either.

HEHEHEHE You said truth and kerry.

Which brings up an interesting question: Would a TRUTHFUL Kerry be any better than the one we're stuck with?

We all believe what we choose to believe, LFS. I hardly consider myself to be "right wing," but nothing I can say here will ever convince you, or any other of the left wing extremists on here that I'm not. Your minds have been filled with nonsense by someone else and sewn shut.

And if you think that was a predictive site, try THIS one. The First 100 Days of A Kerry Presidency:

http://paradigmassociates.org/OneMansOpinion.html


that was the one i was talking about. i thought it was worse than the original site you linked too. i wasn't refering to you as the right-wing guy (unless you made the site).

the fact is kerry is the lesser of two evils. another four years of bush and the country will really be in a terrible state.

Which brings up an interesting question: Would a TRUTHFUL Kerry be any better than the one we're stuck with?

No, Kerry likes the environment, welfare, and gun control to much.

that was the one i was talking about. i thought it was worse than the original site you linked too. i wasn't refering to you as the right-wing guy (unless you made the site).

the fact is kerry is the lesser of two evils. another four years of bush and the country will really be in a terrible state.

Then I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. That is, if you're one of the few on here who can actually DO that sort of thing!

Yes, I made both sites, and yes, in your eyes I'm probably "far right," but only because you're seeing what I say from a far left perspective.

No, Kerry likes the environment, welfare, and gun control to much.

Yeah. Damn him and his concern for the environment.

No, Kerry likes the environment, welfare, and gun control to much.

Good point. However, even though I've been labelled as a "right wing extremist" by some of the dim-bulbs on here, I favor strong environmental controls ( see my Nation The Republic of Eutrusca, for example ).

i don't see you as a far-right guy, ther were no far-right ideas on the sites. hell, you might not even be that right-wing, it's just i disagree with that kind of political campaigning. i believe that campaigns should be based on the strenghth of the candidates policies not on the weaknesses of the opponent.

i sensed bullshit and republican psychic ability seeping from this thread, and i was right

Wait, so Kerry is evil because he didnt want to vote to increase pay for the troops? But Bush isnt despite the fact he sent the troops to die so as to increase pay for his Oil executive friends?

Interesting way of looking at things.

We all believe what we choose to believe, LFS. I hardly consider myself to be "right wing," but nothing I can say here will ever convince you, or any other of the left wing extremists on here that I'm not. Your minds have been filled with nonsense by someone else and sewn shut.

And if you think that was a predictive site, try THIS one. The First 100 Days of A Kerry Presidency:

http://paradigmassociates.org/OneMansOpinion.html

That thing was ridiculous. Apparently just because Kerry gets elected, terrorists attack the U.S., even though he pulls out of muslim land. Suuuuure.

i don't see you as a far-right guy, ther were no far-right ideas on the sites. hell, you might not even be that right-wing, it's just i disagree with that kind of political campaigning. i believe that campaigns should be based on the strenghth of the candidates policies not on the weaknesses of the opponent.

Well, not being a rabid GWB fan, yet despising Kerry and most of what he stands for, I have few options in this political campaign. As I have stated in other threads, my primary concern is for the future of my grandchildren. Given that, Bush wins my support even if by default. I shudder to think of the consequences of electing a "peace at any cost," Neville Chamberlain type of candidate like John Kerry!

Yeah. Damn him and his concern for the environment.

The enviroment sucks. It should be blown up.

[/sarcasm]

i sensed bullshit and republican psychic ability seeping from this thread, and i was right

Wait, so Kerry is evil because he didnt want to vote to increase pay for the troops? But Bush isnt despite the fact he sent the troops to die so as to increase pay for his Oil executive friends?
Interesting way of looking at things.

See what I mean? There's no way to have a rational discussion with people whose minds have been filled with nonsense and then sewn shut.

I beg your Pardon?

the fact is, kerry is not a peace at all costs neville chamberlain alike. sure appeasement was the wrong policy for the 1930's but we're dealing with a different type of threat now. you can't deal with terrorism in the same way that you deal with expansionist nations. bombs and tanks don't make terrorism go away they only strengthen it. the more wars against "terrorism" bush enters into the greater the terrorist threat to the US will be.

That thing was ridiculous. Apparently just because Kerry gets elected, terrorists attack the U.S., even though he pulls out of muslim land. Suuuuure.

Have you forgotten 09/11/01 so soon? That had been in the planning stages through at least two administrations, one Democrat and one Republican, perhaps even longer. We are going to be attacked whether we pull out of "muslim land" or not. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to understand?

the fact is, kerry is not a peace at all costs neville chamberlain alike. sure appeasement was the wrong policy for the 1930's but we're dealing with a different type of threat now. you can't deal with terrorism in the same way that you deal with expansionist nations. bombs and tanks don't make terrorism go away they only strengthen it. the more wars against "terrorism" bush enters into the greater the terrorist threat to the US will be.

We are going to be attacked whether we respond to those attacks or not, as I have been at pains to point out several times on this board. What is it about implacable terrorists that you don't comprenend???

I beg your Pardon?

Even young as you obviously are, surely you no longer need to "beg." Try asking. ;)

how do you know that?

the truth is you don't know what would happen if the US pulled out of muslim lands. you've just openly submitted to the proaganda that the administration spews out to justify further interference in foreign countries and to permit the removal of civil rights and basic freedoms from the american public.

no terrorist attack is done just for the hell of it, there is always a motive behind it. remove the motive and you end the terrorism. invading countries in the name of freedom only gives terrorists more support for their causes.

Aww, you misunderstand.

I beg your pardon is a British expression, it roughly means 'What did you just say?'

Yeah. Damn him and his concern for the environment.
Yeah, seriously. I hate the environment. I mean, it's just so... environmental.

See what I mean? There's no way to have a rational discussion with people whose minds have been filled with nonsense and then sewn shut.
what a hypocritical thing to say

what intelligent information have you put forth? outline it, point by point, please disclude anything that involves future assumptions, especially of a person who has not held such a position as the assumptions are being made of. imagining a person in a position they have never held, then imagining what they would do in said position is asinine at best

how do you know that?
the truth is you don't know what would happen if the US pulled out of muslim lands. you've just openly submitted to the proaganda that the administration spews out to justify further interference in foreign countries and to permit the removal of civil rights and basic freedoms from the american public.
no terrorist attack is done just for the hell of it, there is always a motive behind it. remove the motive and you end the terrorism. invading countries in the name of freedom only gives terrorists more support for their causes.

Of course I don't "know" what would happen if the US pulled out of muslim lands, I've never claimed to be psychic. But the best predictor of future actions is past actions. Given that, attacks will continue regardless of anything we do, which in my view, makes it imperaitve that we do our very best to anticipate attacks and proactively attempt to head them off.

You make a number of assumptions and bald allegations with which I cannot agree:

1. That every word which issues from the current Administration is "propaganda."

2. That anything the US does in the way of proactive prevention of future terrorist attacks is "interference in foreign countries." ( I would be interested in knowing how you feel about our actions in Afghanistan. )

3. That there has been any "removal of civil rights and basic freedoms from the american public." I'm not aware of any of my rights or feedoms having been restricted, and I live here.

I also have a question for you: What do you think was "the motive" behind the 09/11/01 terrorist attacks?

Well, not being a rabid GWB fan, yet despising Kerry and most of what he stands for, I have few options in this political campaign. As I have stated in other threads, my primary concern is for the future of my grandchildren. Given that, Bush wins my support even if by default. I shudder to think of the consequences of electing a "peace at any cost," Neville Chamberlain type of candidate like John Kerry!
future of your grandchildren? your grandchildren will be the ones paying for the huge ass debt Bush is incurring with his ludicrous plan of cutting taxes and increasing spending

your grandchildren will also be paying for bush's proposals to privatise social security into "you get it if you save up your money", also they will be paying for his great underfunded "no child left behind" which fixes education like affirmative action fixed it, but worse because its an INVISIBLE bandaid

Aww, you misunderstand.
I beg your pardon is a British expression, it roughly means 'What did you just say?'

I know. I was being a bit fascitious. ; )) What part of my post do you not understand?

Of course I don't "know" what would happen if the US pulled out of muslim lands, I've never claimed to be psychic. But the best predictor of future actions is past actions. Given that, attacks will continue regardless of anything we do, which in my view, makes it imperaitve that we do our very best to anticipate attacks and proactively attempt to head them off.
yes BUT if they are attacking us because they hate and despise us, please tell me how invading, taking over, and occupying their homeland is an intelligent "pro-active" head off.

1. That every word which issues from the current Administration is "propaganda."
just most of it.

2. That anything the US does in the way of proactive prevention of future terrorist attacks is "interference in foreign countries." ( I would be interested in knowing how you feel about our actions in Afghanistan. )
not to mention completely stupid and short sighted. the war on "terrorism" has been treated like what they claim it not to be: a war on a organized army. with that said, you obviously cant go around killing people and occupying places to get rid of terrorism. you must fight a war of propaganda with propaganda. and pissing off everyone and their mom isnt going to stop terrorism; however, it will INCREASE terrorism, as we have already seen in the last report

3. That there has been any "removal of civil rights and basic freedoms from the american public." I'm not aware of any of my rights or feedoms having been restricted, and I live here.
not so much the removal as the POTENTIAL removal of basic rights and freedoms. the patriot act can easily be abused by a corrupt and arrogent adminsitration (ie republicons) and a afraid, sheepish public. accuse some one of being a terrorist, provide not even slightly ample information, boom they can do whatever htey damn well please. lets not to mention loyalty oaths to see the president of the united states speak.

I also have a question for you: What do you think was "the motive" behind the 09/11/01 terrorist attacks?
im sure hatred for us and the western world

but, riddle me this

if the reason was hatred for us, how is attacking them and their homeland helping us in anyway?

future of your grandchildren? your grandchildren will be the ones paying for the huge ass debt Bush is incurring with his ludicrous plan of cutting taxes and increasing spending your grandchildren will also be paying for bush's proposals to privatise social security into "you get it if you save up your money", also they will be paying for his great underfunded "no child left behind" which fixes education like affirmative action fixed it, but worse because its an INVISIBLE bandaid

Debt? Need I remind you that dead men ( and dead women! ) don't pay debts? As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said when he generated the very first National Debt in a largely unsuccessful attempt to pull the Nation out of the Depression, "We owe it to ourselves."

I happen to believe that one of the best things you can do for a free people is allow THEM to decide for themselves how their money should be spent or invested. To do otherwise indicates a lack of trust in your own people.

Given that, I am in favor of removing the Social Security fund from general revenue to prevent politicians from using it like a "found money" fund. I am also in favor of giving people the option of designating their contributions into the Social Security fund for investing, rather than simply turning it over to politicians to be used at their whim.

As to the No Child Left Behind program, I'm not sufficiently conversant with it to discuss it intelligently. Sorry.

future of your grandchildren? your grandchildren will be the ones paying for the huge ass debt Bush is incurring with his ludicrous plan of cutting taxes and increasing spending

your grandchildren will also be paying for bush's proposals to privatise social security into "you get it if you save up your money", also they will be paying for his great underfunded "no child left behind" which fixes education like affirmative action fixed it, but worse because its an INVISIBLE bandaid
Only if they're rich ;)

Debt? Need I remind you that dead men ( and dead women! ) don't pay debts? As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said when he generated the very first National Debt in a largely unsuccessful attempt to pull the Nation out of the Depression, "We owe it to ourselves."
and roosevelt was saving our asses from a depression, not playing games with terrorists and catering to big business like bush and reagan, who drove up the national debt to ludicrous amounts with "reaganomics" with neither rhyme nor reason

I happen to believe that one of the best things you can do for a free people is allow THEM to decide for themselves how their money should be spent or invested. To do otherwise indicates a lack of trust in your own people.
why trust them? they are stupid. if you allow themt o decide whether to invest or not, there will be a crapload of people without social security when they get older, there are things people can be allowed to do, and certain things people must be TOLD to do. in a free WORKING society, there must be a balance of freedom and control

Given that, I am in favor of removing the Social Security fund from general revenue to prevent politicians from using it like a "found money" fund. I am also in favor of giving people the option of designating their contributions into the Social Security fund for investing, rather than simply turning it over to politicians to be used at their whim.
which had ZERO to do with my point

I just wasnt quite sure why you (effectively) said I was in-capable of rational thought despite having only ever seen one or two posts from me.

Of course I realise now you may have been being sarcastic, in which case you can safely ignore everything I just said.

Yes BUT if they are attacking us because they hate and despise us, please tell me how invading, taking over, and occupying their homeland is an intelligent "pro-active" head off, not to mention completely stupid and short sighted. the war on "terrorism" has been treated like what they claim it not to be: a war on a organized army. with that said, you obviously cant go around killing people and occupying places to get rid of terrorism. you must fight a war of propaganda with propaganda. and pissing off everyone and their mom isnt going to stop terrorism; however, it will INCREASE terrorism, as we have already seen in the last report.

Not so much the removal as the POTENTIAL removal of basic rights and freedoms. the patriot act can easily be abused by a corrupt and arrogent adminsitration (ie republicons) and a afraid, sheepish public. accuse some one of being a terrorist, provide not even slightly ample information, boom they can do whatever htey damn well please. lets not to mention loyalty oaths to see the president of the united states speak.

I'im sure hatred for us and the western world but, riddle me this if the reason was hatred for us, how is attacking them and their homeland helping us in anyway?

1. Invading known rouge and terrorist supporing states is a proactive step necessary to preclude their support of terrorism. This war is unlike almost any of the previous ones in that we are having to use unconventional forces and tactics. For example, the drastic increase in use of Special Forces at the higher levels of command. I still have a number of contacts within the Special Ops. community and can personally vouch that the war against terrorism is being fought on multiple fronts and with multiple, unconventional means.

2. To state that the actions of terrorists is nothing more than "a war of propaganda" is, at very best, a deeply flawed concept totally out of touch with reality.

3. There has always been a "POTENTIAL removal of basic rights and freedoms." That's why we have the Bill of Rights. As Benjamin Franklin said when asked what sort of government the founders had given us, "A Republic ... if you can keep it!"

I just wasnt quite sure why you (effectively) said I was in-capable of rational thought despite having only ever seen one or two posts from me.
Of course I realise now you may have been being sarcastic, in which case you can safely ignore everything I just said.

LOL! Ok. : ))

1. Invading known rouge and terrorist supporing states is a proactive step necessary to preclude their support of terrorism. This war is unlike almost any of the previous ones in that we are having to use unconventional forces and tactics. For example, the drastic increase in use of Special Forces at the higher levels of command. I still have a number of contacts within the Special Ops. community and can personally vouch that the war against terrorism is being fought on multiple fronts and with multiple, unconventional means.
which in no way discounts my point. my point is, if they hate us, how in the hell is invading and occupying their homeland, killing their families, helping prevent terrorism. these people do NOT have to be supported by any state. did the people who carried out 9/11 use any heavy weapons or anytihng? no. and even if you managed to cut off imaginary state funding, the bin Laden family are tycoons, Osama is rich.

2. To state that the actions of terrorists is nothing more than "a war of propaganda" is, at very best, a deeply flawed concept totally out of touch with reality.
out of touch with reality? compared to you? i think not. propaganda. this should not be a war on a peoples or a nation, that what the bush white house claims it isnt, yet all you people supposedly in touch with reality treat it as such. how do terrorists become terrorists? they are convinced we are bad and evil and must be destroyed. and how is that accomplished one might ask? propaganda.

3. There has always been a "POTENTIAL removal of basic rights and freedoms." That's why we have the Bill of Rights. As Benjamin Franklin said when asked what sort of government the founders had given us, "A Republic ... if you can keep it!"
not on the scale of the patriot act. the alien and sedition acts have been repealed for quite a while now im sure. Banjamin Franklin also said "When one would trade libtery for safety, one deserves neither liberty nor safety." the Patriot Act is the biggest threat to liberty and safety for a long time. it suspends and ignores the bill of rights

and roosevelt was saving our asses from a depression, not playing games with terrorists and catering to big business like bush and reagan, who drove up the national debt to ludicrous amounts with "reaganomics" with neither rhyme nor reason.

Correction: President Roosevelt was *trying* to save our asses from a depression. What finally pulled the US out of the Great Depression was an increase in trade with Great Britain, which was trying to defend itself from Nazi Germany.

I don't see us as "playing games with terrorists" as a game of any sort! It's deadly serious.

why trust them? they are stupid. if you allow themt o decide whether to invest or not, there will be a crapload of people without social security when they get older, there are things people can be allowed to do, and certain things people must be TOLD to do. in a free WORKING society, there must be a balance of freedom and control

Ahhh! Finally we get to the crux of the primary difference between the way the leftist elite see the world, and the way the rest of us see the world!

As I have tried repeatedly to point out on this board, American leftists do NOT trust "the people!" Quite the contrary, the primary reason we have a flithy rich, Ivy League educated, far left politician running for President is because the left knows SOOO much better than we how our lives should be managed, what we should read, how we should behave, and how virtually everything about our lives should be.

If you need an example of this, just ask yourself why Kerry and company don't trust "the people" to exercise their Constitutional right to own guns. And please spare me the specious allegations that the Constitution "means something else" on this subject, or that the intent of the framers wasn't to allow any law-abiding citizen to own personal weapons. The answer to this question should be obvious ... the Kerry Kitchen Kommandos DO NOT TRUST THE PEOPLE!

"I'm not aware of any of my rights or feedoms having been restricted, and I live here.
Oh god, are you that naive? What about the patriot act enabling the government to arrest and detain anyone indefinetly without cause or presenting any charges? What about the "free speach zones" that are located 20 blocks away from what they're protesting about? I'm sorry, but you are blind my friend.

Oh god, are you that naive? What about the patriot act enabling the government to arrest and detain anyone indefinetly without cause or presenting any charges? What about the "free speach zones" that are located 20 blocks away from what they're protesting about? I'm sorry, but you are blind my friend.

( shrug ) You can call me blind if you like, especially when your being able to do so proves the point that the continuing freedom of speech allows you to do so. BTW ... it's been a long, long time since anyone called me "naive." Congratulations! : ))

Ahhh! Finally we get to the crux of the primary difference between the way the leftist elite see the world, and the way the rest of us see the world!

As I have tried repeatedly to point out on this board, American leftists do NOT trust "the people!" Quite the contrary, the primary reason we have a flithy rich, Ivy League educated, far left politician running for President is because the left knows SOOO much better than we how our lives should be managed, what we should read, how we should behave, and how virtually everything about our lives should be.
a person is generally smart, trust worthy, and a-ok. in a GROUP, people are stupid, conspirative, and not great. the republicans live in the same fantasy world the anarchists do, which is the same one all the kids shows on PBS exist in: everything is peachy keen, nothing bad ever happens, and people can take care of themselves, especially at the hands of sharks going by the title of CEO.

the hard truth is there MUST be an element of control to society, period. there are things people can be left to do for themselves, and there are things the government must do to mantain the structure and calmness of society. even if it requires the government to force certain things on the public.

oh so because some one is intelligent they cant run the country, or if they were educated well, they cant? well bush has a ivy league education, albeit on his father's dollar. and those people run the coutnry worse than big business and the sharks that own big business? i guess teh CEO knows whats best for the grunt at the bottom huh? that is, make sure they have less money for more work, and you have more money for less work. sicne you like roosevelt so much, go back and check out how the big businesses worked back then and what would've happened if roosevelt hasnt pushed to get all those labor laws in place.

rofl, you are going off into your nazi fantasy world. the liberal are COMMUNISTS not nazis, remember? personal things people can do however they want: read, write, go to the bathroom, etc. other things are more important in the long run than little whiny bitching at the time: forcing people to save money so they will have it when they are older so they can live without having to work the rest of their lives.



If you need an example of this, just ask yourself why Kerry and company don't trust "the people" to exercise their Constitutional right to own guns. And please spare me the specious allegations that the Constitution "means something else" on this subject, or that the intent of the framers wasn't to allow any law-abiding citizen to own personal weapons. The answer to this question should be obvious ... the Kerry Kitchen Kommandos DO NOT TRUST THE PEOPLE!
you ignorant hick. ask yourself why bush and co. dont trust the people to excercise their constitutional rights to vote, speak freely, assemble freely, write freely, have a fair and speedy trial, see a lawyer, and in general, disagree with the current government?

wow, when you break it down into what cosntitutional rights eahc person wants to bar, it leans heavily for bush.

the second amendment has ALWAYS been in queation because of wording, but ican tell you for a fact, banning all guns illegal, putting restraints on fire arm ownership, NOT illegal, BECAUSE it is not making it "excessively" hard to own a gun

For those of you who have doubts about any links between Saddam and Osamma:

http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/SH040923.html

( shrug ) You can call me blind if you like, especially when your being able to do so proves the point that the continuing freedom of speech allows you to do so. BTW ... it's been a long, long time since anyone called me "naive." Congratulations! : ))
you are quite naive, even the framers realized people as a whole cannot be trusted. read the federalist papers, read madison's notes about the convention.

How does this was on Terror, and the invasion of Iraq not ring with hypocrisy. The governments, like Saudi Arabia, have more ties to these terrorists than the Iraq government had. Yet we continue to support the Saudis. Why, because they give us oil. Bush covered up his contacts with the Saudis.

Kerry, while I dislike him, knows that this cannot be won without the help of foriegn nations in a coaliton, and significant number of coalition forces. He did not want to give the President a blank check for war, so he voted against it.

a person is generally smart, trust worthy, and a-ok. in a GROUP, people are stupid, conspirative, and not great. The hard truth is there MUST be an element of control to society, period. there are things people can be left to do for themselves, and there are things the government must do to mantain the structure and calmness of society, even if it requires the government to force certain things on the public.

Oh so because some one is intelligent they cant run the country, or if they were educated well, they cant? well bush has a ivy league education, albeit on his father's dollar. and those people run the coutnry worse than big business and the sharks that own big business? i guess teh CEO knows whats best for the grunt at the bottom huh? that is, make sure they have less money for more work, and you have more money for less work. sicne you like roosevelt so much, go back and check out how the big businesses worked back then and what would've happened if roosevelt hasnt pushed to get all those labor laws in place.

rofl, you are going off into your nazi fantasy world. the liberal are COMMUNISTS not nazis, remember? personal things people can do however they want: read, write, go to the bathroom, etc. other things are more important in the long run than little whiny bitching at the time: forcing people to save money so they will have it when they are older so they can live without having to work the rest of their lives.

you ignorant hick. ask yourself why bush and co. dont trust the people to excercise their constitutional rights to vote, speak freely, assemble freely, write freely, have a fair and speedy trial, see a lawyer, and in general, disagree with the current government?

wow, when you break it down into what cosntitutional rights eahc person wants to bar, it leans heavily for bush.

the second amendment has ALWAYS been in queation because of wording, but ican tell you for a fact, banning all guns illegal, putting restraints on fire arm ownership, NOT illegal, BECAUSE it is not making it "excessively" hard to own a gun

Thank you for making several of my points for me ( see emphasis added in red ).

you are quite naive, even the framers realized people as a whole cannot be trusted. read the federalist papers, read madison's notes about the convention.

All of which I have read. And, by the way, I have no inbuilt prejudice against educated people, having two undergraduate degrees and a Masters degree, and currently working on my PhD. However, unlike the extremist left, I still trust the people to do that which they feel to be in their own best self-interest. I agee with you, to a point, that there are some things goverment must do to insure things don't get out of hand, but I strongly suspect that we would never agree on just *what* those things are.

Unlike most leftists, I have nothing to hide. If you want to know more about who I am, simply visit ...

http://paradigmassociates.org/ParadigmFLH.html ( I shaved the beard off, by the way )

All of which I have read. And, by the way, I have no inbuilt prejudice against educated people, having two undergraduate degrees and a Masters degree, and currently working on my PhD. However, unlike the extremist left, I still trust the people to do that which they feel to be in their own best self-interest. I agee with you, to a point, that there are some things goverment must do to insure things don't get out of hand, but I strongly suspect that we would never agree on just *what* those things are.

Unlike most leftists, I have nothing to hide. If you want to know more about who I am, simply visit ...

http://paradigmassociates.org/ParadigmFLH.html ( I shaved the beard off, by the way )


you are on the left like bill o'reilly is moderate and zell miller is on the left.

wolf in sheeps clothing. you pretend to be on the left just so you can make the rest of us look "extreme"

and IF you have read those, you realise I am RIGHT, not you. you are a naive little republican wandering around in the forrest of wonderland

http://paradigmassociates.org/ParadigmFLH.html ( I shaved the beard off, by the way )
So wait--you used opinion pieces created by the company you work for as some sort of basis for argumentation on this thread and had the balls to refer to it as the "truth?" Wow. You're a bit full of yourself, aren't you?

So wait--you used opinion pieces created by the company you work for as some sort of basis for argumentation on this thread and had the balls to refer to it as the "truth?" Wow. You're a bit full of yourself, aren't you?
"conflict of interests" i believe

9-11-01 marked the beginning of the end of Western Civilization as we know it. Terrorism cannot be defeated. America will fall, and it will drag Europe with it. It is its destiny.


Bush is only playing a very MINOR role in the greater scheme of things. Cheney is only a scape goat.

This greater scheme has been going on ever since Rome fell and the Church gained power, hidden from public view.

I do not believe Kerry will be elected, because he will not play a part in it. I can almost gaurentee Hillary Clinton will be elected, though, for her third and fourth term in office.

Western civilization will be destroyed, and in the chaos, the New World order shall rise from the ashes like a phoenix -- installing their twisted Luciferian doctrine and Communist governments.

Of course, you don't believe me -- and won't -- until it happens.

http://paradigmassociates.org/ParadigmFLH.html ( I shaved the beard off, by the way )
By your resume, you look a bit too educated to be posting on NS.

I guess Masters degrees never matter when liberals and conservatives get into a name game.

Of course, you don't believe me -- and won't -- until it happens.
Wow, you're right!

So wait--you used opinion pieces created by the company you work for as some sort of basis for argumentation on this thread and had the balls to refer to it as the "truth?" Wow. You're a bit full of yourself, aren't you?

( shrug ) I've been accused of worse. Since I created the entire site, wrote all the essays and articles for it, and pay all of the bills for it, I suspect that it's ok for me to at least quote from it, don't you think? :))

By your resume, you look a bit too educated to be posting on NS.

I guess Masters degrees never matter when liberals and conservatives get into a name game.
Hey now, I have a Masters degree as well, and hold a fellowship at Stanford, and Bottle's smarter than any of us. We aren't just a bunch of teenagers on here.

By your resume, you look a bit too educated to be posting on NS.

I guess Masters degrees never matter when liberals and conservatives get into a name game.

LOL! Perhaps so, although I do try to not call people names. I admittedly have a tendency to be a bit testy when people aboslutely refuse to engage in any sort of intelligent debate, but I do my best to control it. ; ))

( shrug ) I've been accused of worse. Since I created the entire site, wrote all the essays and articles for it, and pay all of the bills for it, I suspect that it's ok for me to at least quote from it, don't you think? :))
Well, the general etiquette is to quote sources from other people, people acknowledged as experts in that particular field of discourse, since the presence of a link general presupposes an independent form of evidence. I mean, why link when you could just cut and paste your own previously written articles, unless it's for the pseudo-authority that the other website offers your argument?

Here's the problem, it DOESN'T matter if we pull out of "Muslim" land or not.
We are dealing with people who want us dead or converted. We in general as Americans are considered to all be "Infedels". Did you see them asking what the political realation the people on those flights or in the towers were, or their religous preference? No. Unfortunately, if we pull out, we are only wetting their appittite for more terrorism. Why, well that is kind of like our justice system, if you take a guy who steals from a convenience store, or any other type of non-decent behavior, and give him a slap on the wrist, guess what, he's gonna do it again, why because in his mind he got away with it. The situation is this, in order to crush a hornets nest above your back door, youve gotta knock it down first, that stirs up the whole mess, but you can't just let it go, cause sooner or later, you'll get stung. We've knocked it down and started to step on it, if we let up now, we are inviting more terrorist attacks. We must maintain the pressure, until all of these states, leaders, and people who practice terrorism for their "Jihad" and the distruction of all infidels and human rights are themselves, destroyed, behind bars, or put to good use-cleaning up the mess that through their "defiance of liberty for the human condition" has caused due to a war they brought upon themselves. Anyone who lives in a world of fear and oppression has a reason to have hope, and Anyone who would oppress and use terror should be very, very afraid. Let's stop with all the BS, its not just the oil, "although the freedom you enjoy is depentant upon national security, which would be in serious jepardy if oil supplies were interrupted. It's not just WDM, although you can imagin the difference between dealing with a terrorist/oppressive nation with and with out WDM, surely anyone can see which is best to deal with. It's not just revenge, hopefully, all we've been through has opened our eyes to the helpless and hopless millions who until now have had to endure a truly depressing existance, due to the terror that they have been subjected to, some times on a weekly basis, or more. We have a job to do, we and other nations like us who put right before wrong, or profit (to think some people beleive this is about money-how much is this costing us in money and lives?) must stand up and fight the injustice, and inhumaine treatment so many people have been subjected to for decades, or longer. Those who whould complain about this are like the person who would watch an old lady get beaten and robbed and do nothing about it, those people put a very bad taste in my mouth and are a disgrace, not to just to America "land of the free and home of the brave", not just to humanity, those people are a disgrace to the very ideals they hold and beleive are due to them, I'll bet the will stand for their rights to their body, right life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and let's not forget the right that allows anyone, even a complete idiot to express him/herself, the right to free speech. It's just all about "ME" for those people, complain about pump prices, while griping about our protecting out interests. Complain about unemployment while forgetting about those in countries forced to work in sweat shops, or worse, without pay, or under the gun as slaves. Anyone opposed to our cleaning up the worlds messes, remember, their are real people there, and real kids, just like yours, who deserve a chance at the life YOU take for GRANTED. So, please, if you don't like it, Get Out, leave your realative peacful and decent existance behind, and go live in one of these other countries for awhile, unless you are a complete coward or some kind of a selfish sicko, youll be picking up a gun your self after long. Find a reason to support what this country is doing, you can find any of a million reasons to gripe about it, why not find one you can get behind....
Rob

Hey now, I have a Masters degree as well, and hold a fellowship at Stanford, and Bottle's smarter than any of us. We aren't just a bunch of teenagers on here.

True, although education at whatever level, is guarantee of neither dignified debate nor intelligent postings. : ))

I can't address your statement about Bottle, since I'm not familiar with his/her postings.

True, although education at whatever level, is guarantee of neither dignified debate nor intelligent postings. : ))

I can't address your statement about Bottle, since I'm not familiar with his/her positions.
Quite true. And for a quick snippet of Bottle's postings, just look on the Falwell thread. She reposted a blog entry dealing with Falwell's move toward creating a law school at Liberty College.

The truth about Kerry:

http://paradigmassociates.org/TheTruthAboutKerry.html
so why do we need bigger military? it's not like we got anyone to fight against.

Well, the general etiquette is to quote sources from other people, people acknowledged as experts in that particular field of discourse, since the presence of a link general presupposes an independent form of evidence. I mean, why link when you could just cut and paste your own previously written articles, unless it's for the pseudo-authority that the other website offers your argument?

One man's "expert" is another man's "extremist," particularly when dealing with political issues. To my memory, I've not cut and pasted anything from other articles I've written. I try to provide a link to other articles or essays I've written from time to time, if for no other reason than to save myself the time it takes to cut and paste. If that bothers you, please forgive me.

Quite true. And for a quick snippet of Bottle's postings, just look on the Falwell thread. She reposted a blog entry dealing with Falwell's move toward creating a law school at Liberty College.

Oh yeah! I read that one. Not bad at all, very well written. I could have taken issue with a few of the statements in it, but not the overall theme.

( shrug ) I've been accused of worse. Since I created the entire site, wrote all the essays and articles for it, and pay all of the bills for it, I suspect that it's ok for me to at least quote from it, don't you think? :))
maybe i will go write stuff up on soem site, then i can reference myself as a source to prove my arguments are right,i nstead of you know, referencing other people, information, and facts

One man's "expert" is another man's "extremist," particularly when dealing with political issues. To my memory, I've not cut and pasted anything from other articles I've written. I try to provide a link to other articles or essays I've written from time to time, if for no other reason than to save myself the time it takes to cut and paste. If that bothers you, please forgive me.
My point is that when you provide a link in the course of argument, the assumption is that you're citing another source, not your own work. I'd actually be more comfortable engaging in a debate with you on your own work if it were cut and pasted here, because then I would know from the start that we were debating your ideas and mine, and not the observations of an outside expert.

But maybe that's just me.

so why do we need bigger military? it's not like we got anyone to fight against.

I hope this comment was in jest.

One man's "expert" is another man's "extremist," particularly when dealing with political issues. To my memory, I've not cut and pasted anything from other articles I've written. I try to provide a link to other articles or essays I've written from time to time, if for no other reason than to save myself the time it takes to cut and paste. If that bothers you, please forgive me.
its not so much the referencing to your works, its the referencing to your works to prove you are right an we are wrong. what bullshit

that was the one i was talking about. i thought it was worse than the original site you linked too. i wasn't refering to you as the right-wing guy (unless you made the site).

the fact is kerry is the lesser of two evils. another four years of bush and the country will really be in a terrible state.



well said. i would much rather kerry then bush. bush really screwed up stuff enough for 4 years, dont you think?

http://johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

I always liked this...

you are on the left like bill o'reilly is moderate and zell miller is on the left.
wolf in sheeps clothing. you pretend to be on the left just so you can make the rest of us look "extreme"
and IF you have read those, you realise I am RIGHT, not you. you are a naive little republican wandering around in the forrest of wonderland

LOL! I have never pretended to be "on the left!" If you have actually read any of my posts you should know that I have major problems with most leftists. Then again, I have major problems with many on the right as well. As I stated in another post, I no longer style myself as "conservative," "liberal," "left," or "right." I am who my experiences and genetic makeup have made me. Call me what you will. :)

Hey now, I have a Masters degree as well, and hold a fellowship at Stanford, and Bottle's smarter than any of us. We aren't just a bunch of teenagers on here.
My point is that once someone's fundamental beliefs are attacked, they shed rational thought, and go for the throat. The most educated Republican could spend hours trying to prove that Kerry is a flip flopper, as a Democrat would spend the same time proving that Bush is a moron.

In the end though, the most important part that nobody has proven yet. That is "Why does it matter?" We spend so much time trying to prove things important, give ourselves a notion of self assurance that we're right. We can quote any news source, but in the end the intended message is reinforcing the partisan propaganda, when we could be innovating new ways to solve problems.

In a nutshell, I'm saying it doesn't matter how educated you are, you're still an idiot if you don't use your brain for a productive purpose.

its not so much the referencing to your works, its the referencing to your works to prove you are right an we are wrong. what bullshit

Hmm. If I gave the impression that I was quoting my own material to "prove" anything other than who I am and what I believe, I humbly apologize. Such was not my intent.

My point is that when you provide a link in the course of argument, the assumption is that you're citing another source, not your own work. I'd actually be more comfortable engaging in a debate with you on your own work if it were cut and pasted here, because then I would know from the start that we were debating your ideas and mine, and not the observations of an outside expert.
But maybe that's just me.

Ah! Then I will try to do just that unless the other work is too long to paste here. Would it help if, when I use a link to something else I've written, to state that it's my own work? I guess that I was making an unwarranted assumption that since almost all of the links to my own work are on the same site along with personal information about me, everyone would know that it was my own work. Sorry about that.

Ah! Then I will try to do just that unless the other work is too long to paste here. Would it help if, when I use a link to something else I've written, to state that it's my own work? I guess that I was making an unwarranted assumption that since almost all of the links to my own work are on the same site along with personal information about me, everyone would know that it was my own work. Sorry about that.Hey, now that I know, then we're cool. Do what you wish. I'm just letting you know that you may get other types of reactions, including what my original reaction was.

Hey, now that I know, then we're cool. Do what you wish. I'm just letting you know that you may get other types of reactions, including what my original reaction was.

Thank you. You seem to at least be civil, unlike many others I have seen post here.

We all believe what we choose to believe, LFS. I hardly consider myself to be "right wing," but nothing I can say here will ever convince you, or any other of the left wing extremists on here that I'm not. Your minds have been filled with nonsense by someone else and sewn shut.

I'm not the one condemning homosexuality or socialism because my preacher says they're evil.

...and Bottle's smarter than any of us.
*fiery blush*

i would try to return the compliment, and to humbly praise others on NationStates who i think out-shine me, but i'm occupied with trying to restrain my ego...all this over-feeding has caused it to grow uncontrollably, and it is now doing battle with Mothra on the streets of downtown Tokyo.

OUR heads are filled with nonsense from some one else?

at least we arnt egomaniacal hypocrites who are too full of ourselves to listen to what anyone else has to say

This whole left/right and Kerry/Bush discussion is a load of bullshit...

Bush == far right
Kerry == right

Both are members of the same secret society: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/02/60minutes/main576332.shtml

Think about that...

I'm not the one condemning homosexuality or socialism because my preacher says they're evil.

Neither am I! As a matter of fact, I don't even HAVE a "preacher!" : ))

*fiery blush*

i would try to return the compliment, and to humbly praise others on NationStates who i think out-shine me, but i'm occupied with trying to restrain my ego...all this over-feeding has caused it to grow uncontrollably, and it is now doing battle with Mothra on the streets of downtown Tokyo.

ROFL! But, but ... what about Megaladon??? ; ))

Thank you. You seem to at least be civil, unlike many others I have seen post here.
I can get as fiery as anyone else, but I try to be civil. I get frustrated by having to refight the same battles over and over again, but I always prefer to keep it nice.

I can get as fiery as anyone else, but I try to be civil. I get frustrated by having to refight the same battles over and over again, but I always prefer to keep it nice.

Me too. That's one reason I created this thread, so I could post my thoughts, beliefs and prejudices here where everyone who might be interested could come and read them. ; ))

If you need an example of this, just ask yourself why Kerry and company don't trust "the people" to exercise their Constitutional right to own guns. And please spare me the specious allegations that the Constitution "means something else" on this subject, or that the intent of the framers wasn't to allow any law-abiding citizen to own personal weapons. The answer to this question should be obvious ... the Kerry Kitchen Kommandos DO NOT TRUST THE PEOPLE![/QUOTE]

Then why doesn't Bush trust us to make the right decisions about abortion? Just to bring up another controversial issue...

Me too. That's one reason I created this thread, so I could post my thoughts, beliefs and prejudices here where everyone who might be interested could come and read them. ; ))
if this thread was to state your opinions, it is obviously flame bait. as opinions are inherently not the truth

Neither am I! As a matter of fact, I don't even HAVE a "preacher!" : ))

You are a very odd conservative, then. What is your argument for authority? Élitism? Hatred of freedom?

Then why doesn't Bush trust us to make the right decisions about abortion? Just to bring up another controversial issue...

Oh, GROAN! First let me say that, although I have a personal aversion toward abortion, I see no other viable option than to place that decision in the hands of those who are pregnant. To do otherwise would seem to violate another thing I hold dear: freedom for individuals to make their own decisions about things pertaining to them.

Having said that, I suspect, although I cannot prove, that this is both a personal belief on the part of President Bush and a nod toward his ever-present religious right which form part of his "we have nowhere else to go so we're supporting you" base. As I've previously stated, I do not agree with the right wing on many issues.

You are a very odd conservative, then. What is your argument for authority? Élitism? Hatred of freedom?

Please do try to read some of my other posts, both in this thread and others. The one right above this one is one example.

if this thread was to state your opinions, it is obviously flame bait. as opinions are inherently not the truth

Hmm. As I understand it, opinions may or may not be "the truth," depending upon how well grounded in reality they are. As I've said before, and will probably have to keep saying, one man's "truth" is another man's "lie," and we all tend to pick and choose information which supports our preconcieved notions about what "reality" truly is.

BTW ... to read more about how I view "reality," please visit ...

http://paradigmassociates.org/ParadigmReality.html

... an essay which *I* wrote some time ago ... long before this election year.

Hmm. As I understand it, opinions may or may not be "the truth," depending upon how well grounded in reality they are. As I've said before, and will probably have to keep saying, one man's "truth" is another man's "lie," and we all tend to pick and choose information which supports our preconcieved notions about what "reality" truly is.

BTW ... to read more about how I view "reality," please visit ...

http://paradigmassociates.org/ParadigmReality.html

... an essay which *I* wrote some time ago ... long before this election year.
this is like reasoning with a brick wall, or a ego maniac..oh wait


OPINIONS are NOT the TRUTH, they are OPINIONS

this is like reasoning with a brick wall, or a ego maniac..oh wait
OPINIONS are NOT the TRUTH, they are OPINIONS

Call me what you will. Opinions are almost always based upon what those stating them believe to be the truth. Why would you voice an opinion you did NOT believe in???

This whole left/right and Kerry/Bush discussion is a load of bullshit...

Bush == far right
Kerry == right

Both are members of the same secret society: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/02/60minutes/main576332.shtml

Think about that...

How is it a secret society if everyone knows about it? More hype to make Kerry seem similar to Bush in order to demotivate people from voting anti-incumbent.

this is like reasoning with a brick wall, or a ego maniac..oh wait


OPINIONS are NOT the TRUTH, they are OPINIONS

Very good, one step further,
The very definition of the "truth" leaves no room for opinons, it doesn't mutate itself to us. It stands on it's own, like it or not.

How is it a secret society if everyone knows about it? More hype to make Kerry seem similar to Bush in order to demotivate people from voting anti-incumbent.

Or, pehaps more hype to make Bush seem similar to Kerry in order to demotivate people from voting incumbent? Seems to cut both ways. : ))

Very good, one step further,
The very definition of the "truth" leaves no room for opinons, it doesn't mutate to for itself to us. It stands on it's own, like it or not.

"Truth" is a very subjective concept. Do you truly believe that Kerry's idea of "truth" is the same as President Bush's idea of "truth?"

Call me what you will. Opinions are almost always based upon what those stating them believe to be the truth. Why would you voice an opinion you did NOT believe in???
here is the truth, not opinion

you are an ego maniac, you are so enamored with yourself you could give Narcissus a run for his money.

here is the truth, not opinion
you are an ego maniac, you are so enamored with yourself you could give Narcissus a run for his money.

ROFLMAO!!! Call me what you will. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me on your reasons for this being part of your "truth?"

"Truth" is a very subjective concept. Do you truly believe that Kerry's idea of "truth" is the same as President Bush's idea of "truth?"

No, the "Truth" is usually found in common sence, not in partisan ideals. Most political figures spout thier idea of truth to get them elected, or to propigate their personal welfare in general. Although I do beleive that on occasion, we do have those leaders who can abandon the push/pull of the tides and go their own way, following their true ideas of the truth. Not that it is essentially right or wrong. At least you KNOW where they stand.
The truth is not subjective, it is set, wether we embrace it or not is our decision, for ill or good.

here is the truth, not opinion

you are an ego maniac, you are so enamored with yourself you could give Narcissus a run for his money.

In your opinion.

The truth about Kerry is simple. As a long-time Senator, his speech tends to run long, and is filled with qualifiers and nuance of meaning. This is the technique one is obliged to use in the Senate, where compromises, fine distinctions and the "you wash my back, I'll wash yours" mentality is required in order to move any legislation forward.

In one examines ANY long-term legislator's voting record, one will find apparent inconsistencies and evidence of "waffling." The reason for this is sometimes a good legislator has to sacrifice one issue in order to get movement on another issue. Just like in chess, sometimes you have to sacrifice a piece in order to win a more important piece or a more strategic position.

Bush and his handlers just LOVE this, as it gives them an opportunity to lie to the gross majority of the population who don't understand, really, how government works.

Bush and his team also jump on supposed contradictions in Kerry's positions during the campaign itself. Pure and simple, the only case I have seen yet where Kerry was wishy-washy was on that SUV snafu. Of course, the SUV issue is a stupid and inconsequential thing when compared to Bush's lies about the reasons for going into Iraq, the current state of Iraq, and who was going to receive the biggest chunk of the tax cuts.

Name ONE SINGLE supposed Kerry contradiction (other than the one I already pointed out,) and I can effectively refute it. If I am proven wrong on a point, I will graciously concede and move on to the next.

The challenge is on.

Venus Campbell streaks naked through the topic.

OOC:Sorry again.

Or, pehaps more hype to make Bush seem similar to Kerry in order to demotivate people from voting incumbent? Seems to cut both ways. : ))

That would be true if it wasn't for the incumbent advantage. People who don't see much difference tend not to vote to change horses. Demotivization can only benefit Bush.

No, the "Truth" is usually found in common sence, not in partisan ideals. Most political figures spout thier idea of truth to get them elected, or to propigate their personal welfare in general. Although I do beleive that on occasion, we do have those leaders who can abandon the push/pull of the tides and go their own way, following their true ideas of the truth. Not that it is essentially right or wrong. At least you KNOW where they stand.
The truth is not subjective, it is set, wether we embrace it or not is our decision, for ill or good.

"Common sense" is also an extremely subjective concept and varies widely from person to person. It is often appealed to without an understanding of its subjective nature. Give me some examples of what you consider to be "common sense," please.

Venus Campbell streaks naked through the topic.
OOC:Sorry again.

LOL! Thanks for the comic relief! ; ))

ROFLMAO!!! Call me what you will. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me on your reasons for this being part of your "truth?"
fact you assert your opinions to be the "truth"
fact you constantly reference yourself to prove the truth
fact anyone who references anyone other than yourself is closed minded
and you also assert yourself to be some one you are obviously not

The truth about Kerry is simple. As a long-time Senator, his speech tends to run long, and is filled with qualifiers and nuance of meaning. This is the technique one is obliged to use in the Senate, where compromises, fine distinctions and the "you wash my back, I'll wash yours" mentality is required in order to move any legislation forward.

In one examines ANY long-term legislator's voting record, one will find apparent inconsistencies and evidence of "waffling." The reason for this is sometimes a good legislator has to sacrifice one issue in order to get movement on another issue. Just like in chess, sometimes you have to sacrifice a piece in order to win a more important piece or a more strategic position.

Bush and his handlers just LOVE this, as it gives them an opportunity to lie to the gross majority of the population who don

't un

derstand, really, how government works.

Bush and his team also jump on supposed contradictions in Kerry's positions during the campaign itself. Pure and simple, the only case I have seen yet where Kerry was wishy-washy was on that SUV snafu. Of course, the SUV issue is a stupid and inconsequential thing when compared to Bush's lies about the reasons for going into Iraq, the current state of Iraq, and who was going to receive the biggest chunk of the tax cuts.

Name ONE SINGLE supposed Kerry contradiction (other than the one I already pointed out,) and I can effectively refute it. If I am proven wrong on a point, I will graciously concede and move on to the next.

The challenge is on.

Mr. Kerry : "My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam. I don't own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle." Outdoor life Magazine

?Police officers -- police officers -- begging the president all across our country: Keep this ban in place so we don't have to walk into a drug bust staring the down the barrel of a military machine gun, of an Uzi or an AK-47.? - John Kerry
And so tomorrow, for the first time in 10 years, when a killer walks into a gun shop, when a terrorist goes to a gun show somewhere in America, when they want to purchase an AK-47 or some other military assault weapon, they're going to hear one word: Sure.? - John Kerry

So he owns a full- auto rifle but wants to ban semi-auto's that look like his?

Mr. Kerry : "My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam. I don't own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle." Outdoor life Magazine

?Police officers -- police officers -- begging the president all across our country: Keep this ban in place so we don't have to walk into a drug bust staring the down the barrel of a military machine gun, of an Uzi or an AK-47.? - John Kerry
And so tomorrow, for the first time in 10 years, when a killer walks into a gun shop, when a terrorist goes to a gun show somewhere in America, when they want to purchase an AK-47 or some other military assault weapon, they're going to hear one word: Sure.? - John Kerry

So he owns a full- auto rifle but wants to ban semi-auto's that look like his?Question--is there proof of that the souvenir Kerry owns is a full-auto rifle? It may be--I'd just like to know. Also--is it fully functional? There could be some waiver for a collection piece that is unable to fire anymore. Again, I don't know, but it would make sense for there to be an exception for non-working pieces.

Mr. Kerry : "My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam. I don't own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle." Outdoor life Magazine

?Police officers -- police officers -- begging the president all across our country: Keep this ban in place so we don't have to walk into a drug bust staring the down the barrel of a military machine gun, of an Uzi or an AK-47.? - John Kerry
And so tomorrow, for the first time in 10 years, when a killer walks into a gun shop, when a terrorist goes to a gun show somewhere in America, when they want to purchase an AK-47 or some other military assault weapon, they're going to hear one word: Sure.? - John Kerry

So he owns a full- auto rifle but wants to ban semi-auto's that look like his?
he is also a war veteran and probably has some license for it, not the same as walking into a gunstore as any casual person to buy the thing

"Common sense" is also an extremely subjective concept and varies widely from person to person. It is often appealed to without an understanding of its subjective nature. Give me some examples of what you consider to be "common sense," please.


Indeed, a lot of what people hold to be common sensical turns out to be false. Soon after 9/11, 70% of Americans thought Saddam was in some way responsible. Many still do.

Columbus did not discover America.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not set the slaves free.

Morse did not invent the telegraph.

and so on...

This is not opinion,
We do not allow for murder, taking of a life for selfish gain, to rid oneself of a problematic person, or to change an inconvenient situation to a convenient one. We do however allow for abortion. That decision does seem to take into consideration the pursuit of happiness, yet it irrevocably denys that same right to the unborn.

We believe in our personal freedom, and unalienable rights, however, there are many of us who would deny that same freedom to others, due to geographic location and cost (money/lives). Where are the Heros.

We believe in our right to defend ourselves and/or the less fortunate, but many would have us ask for permission first.

Life is above all a gift, freedom in life is never free, and evil will always try to defeat good although sometimes good will lay down the fight in pursuit of a "Higher Ideal".

We are one of the strongest and most able of all countries, and if we beleive that what we enjoy as Americans is true for all people, not just us (although some may make it seem so, giving us the haughty image many other countries may see and even hate) is it not our duty to follow that belief to whatever ends that takes us? Whether you serve in the military, or simply support the actions taken to give others the same oportunity?
Rob

fact you assert your opinions to be the "truth"

Oh? Please point out to me where I have done this so I can set the record straight.

fact you constantly reference yourself to prove the truth

Please read my response on this same topic to another poster within this thread. It was not my intent to "prove myself by referencing myself," only to avoid having to retype or cut and paste when it's so much quicker to simply list a URL where I've written something relevant to the current topic.

fact anyone who references anyone other than yourself is closed minded

Not at all. I always try to consider the source before making any statements like that. I also will sometimes say that in an effort to get the other poster to actually think about their position. Sorry if that somehow offends you.

and you also assert yourself to be some one you are obviously not

Oh? Please explain.

Question--is there proof of that the souvenir Kerry owns is a full-auto rifle? It may be--I'd just like to know. Also--is it fully functional? There could be some waiver for a collection piece that is unable to fire anymore. Again, I don't know, but it would make sense for there to be an exception for non-working pieces.

He's never stated wheter it was demilitarized or not, just stated that he owned an assault rifle.

he is also a war veteran and probably has some license for it, not the same as walking into a gunstore as any casual person to buy the thing

Being a veteran makes no difference. It is against the UCMJ to collect trophies. Also that he may or may not have a license is also besides the point. He states that he owns a firearm that he is attempting to ban. It's similar to the shotgun debacle, accepting a gun that he supported a bill to ban.

He's never stated wheter it was demilitarized or not, just stated that he owned an assault rifle.So you're making assumptions without any basis in fact. Just checking.

he is also a war veteran and probably has some license for it, not the same as walking into a gunstore as any casual person to buy the thing

I'm a war veteran too. Does that mean I can buy any weapon I want to? Nope. There are several systems in place both at the Federal level and the state level to check the backgrounds of those attempting to buy a gun. Guns are also registered to the buyer. If I want to buy an automatic weapon ( which I don't ), I would need a very expensive license as well as an extensive Federal background investigation, as would anyone else.

He's never stated wheter it was demilitarized or not, just stated that he owned an assault rifle.

How does one go about "demilitarizing" a weapon?

I'm a war veteran too. Does that mean I can buy any weapon I want to? Nope. There are several systems in place both at the Federal level and the state level to check the backgrounds of those attempting to buy a gun. Guns are also registered to the buyer. If I want to buy an automatic weapon ( which I don't ), I would need a very expensive license as well as an extensive Federal background investigation, as would anyone else.
he is also a senator

Indeed, a lot of what people hold to be common sensical turns out to be false. Soon after 9/11, 70% of Americans thought Saddam was in some way responsible. Many still do.

Columbus did not discover America.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not set the slaves free.

Morse did not invent the telegraph.

and so on...

Thank you.

Mr. Kerry : "My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam. I don't own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle." Outdoor life Magazine

?Police officers -- police officers -- begging the president all across our country: Keep this ban in place so we don't have to walk into a drug bust staring the down the barrel of a military machine gun, of an Uzi or an AK-47.? - John Kerry
And so tomorrow, for the first time in 10 years, when a killer walks into a gun shop, when a terrorist goes to a gun show somewhere in America, when they want to purchase an AK-47 or some other military assault weapon, they're going to hear one word: Sure.? - John Kerry

So he owns a full- auto rifle but wants to ban semi-auto's that look like his?

Lovely example of nitpicking. So the fact that he has a 30 year old, probably non-functional, weapon he collected while risking his life means that he shouldn't campaign for a piece of legislation that just about every law enforcement organization also endorses?

How about the fact that Bush was convicted of a DUI, yet still supports drinking and driving laws? At least this is provent fact.

Also, since possession of an un-demilitarized piece of the type he mentioned is still illegal, the only logical conclusion is that Kerry rendered it non-functional. It makes a lot more sense than Kerry openly admitting an ongoing criminal act while he's campaigning.

Strike one.

he is also a senator

So he should be allowed to do things I cannot because he's a Senator? Hmm. It was my understanding that no one is above the law.

So you're making assumptions without any basis in fact. Just checking.

The basis is that John Kerry stated that he owned an assault rifle that he brought back from 'Nam. It was fully functional then and the burden of proof is on him to prove that it was demilitarized (something he hasn't done) and/or why he feels that he should be privileged to own a firearm that he doesn't feel the general public (many of whom are also veterans) don't have the right to own.

"Common sense" is also an extremely subjective concept and varies widely from person to person. It is often appealed to without an understanding of its subjective nature. Give me some examples of what you consider to be "common sense," please.

Common sense, is it really subjective? or would it be more to the point to realize that those who would try to complicate it only do so because they get their "common sense" from books, or lectures. Common sense is another of those things that stands on its own, it is sense refered to as common because it doesnt require schooling to get it.
For instance,
If you hit someone, chances are, youll get hit back.
If you do decide to streak, you'll probably get laughed at.
If you flip the switch, the light should come on.
If you don't take a shower/bath you will stink.
Granted these are very basic, however, I think you get the point.
Rob

So he should be allowed to do things I cannot because he's a Senator? Hmm. It was my understanding that no one is above the law.

Well, anyone in the government could easily bend the law. You just need to know how. Thats why they're in the government. ;)

The basis is that John Kerry stated that he owned an assault rifle that he brought back from 'Nam. It was fully functional then and the burden of proof is on him to prove that it was demilitarized (something he hasn't done) and/or why he feels that he should be privileged to own a firearm that he doesn't feel the general public (many of whom are also veterans) don't have the right to own.
Let me see how simply I can put this.

You haven't proven anything.

Until you show 1) that the rifle Kerry owns, he owns in violation of the law, 2)that he broke some law in his procurement of that rifle, and 3) that he does feel that he's above this as yet undescribed law, you haven't proven anything. All you've done is taken one comment and extrapolated a controversy that may or may not exist. You may be right. You may be wrong. (I'm betting on the latter.) but you haven't proven anything yet. Nor, I imagine, will you be able to.

Lovely example of nitpicking. So the fact that he has a 30 year old, probably non-functional, weapon he collected while risking his life means that he shouldn't campaign for a piece of legislation that just about every law enforcement organization also endorses?

How about the fact that Bush was convicted of a DUI, yet still supports drinking and driving laws? At least this is provent fact.

Also, since possession of an un-demilitarized piece of the type he mentioned is still illegal, the only logical conclusion is that Kerry rendered it non-functional. It makes a lot more sense than Kerry openly admitting an ongoing criminal act while he's campaigning.

Strike one.

That he "collected" it is also illegal in accordance to the UCMJ. Just because a firearm is 30yrs old doesn't mean it's "probably non-fuctional". Most of the guns I own are older than that and work fine.

Possession of the weapon (if it weren't 'collected') is not illegal w/ the proper permits, so your conclusion is unfounded until proof is obtained that he did demilitarize it. Until then, he is still being hypocritical in owning a firearm while a the same time trying to ban firearms that are less powerful.

So he should be allowed to do things I cannot because he's a Senator? Hmm. It was my understanding that no one is above the law.

No, but as a senator, he's already had thorough intensice background checks. Since he openly admits he has the weapon, and no criminal charges have been leveled, then the ONLY conclusion one can logically reach is that he holds the weapon in a legal way. I really don't see a contradiction here, only silly political mudslinging that really hasn't been substantiated in any way.

If you want to keep the silly discourse alive, then answer my question about Bush. How can Bush support drinking and driving laws when he was convicted of a DUI?

See? Hazy accusations about Kerry where there is no evidence of a law being broken or ethics being breached versus a solid claim supported by documentation.

Next topic.

Common sense, is it really subjective? or would it be more to the point to realize that those who would try to complicate it only do so because they get their "common sense" from books, or lectures. Common sense is another of those things that stands on its own, it is sense refered to as common because it doesnt require schooling to get it.
For instance,
If you hit someone, chances are, youll get hit back.
If you do decide to streak, you'll probably get laughed at.
If you flip the switch, the light should come on.
If you don't take a shower/bath you will stink.
Granted these are very basic, however, I think you get the point.
Rob

I think what you mean is that some things are widely accepted as elements of our shared reality and some aren't. One example of "common sense" among some people is that a woman who is breast-feeding can't get pregnant. This has been proven innumerable times to be not the case, yet some people still believe this is just "common sense."

I surely hope you weren't refering to me when you said, " ... those who would try to complicate [ common sense ] only do so because they get their "common sense" from books, or lectures." Anytime you'd like to compare "real life" experiences, just let me know, ok? : ))

Let me see how simply I can put this.

You haven't proven anything.

Until you show 1) that the rifle Kerry owns, he owns in violation of the law, 2)that he broke some law in his procurement of that rifle, and 3) that he does feel that he's above this as yet undescribed law, you haven't proven anything. All you've done is taken one comment and extrapolated a controversy that may or may not exist. You may be right. You may be wrong. (I'm betting on the latter.) but you haven't proven anything yet. Nor, I imagine, will you be able to.

He was in violation of U.S. military law when he "collected" it as well as international law for the same.

He was in violation of U.S. military law when he "collected" it as well as international law for the same.
Again--how do you know? And is that a law that is commonly enforced?

That he "collected" it is also illegal in accordance to the UCMJ. Just because a firearm is 30yrs old doesn't mean it's "probably non-fuctional". Most of the guns I own are older than that and work fine.

Possession of the weapon (if it weren't 'collected') is not illegal w/ the proper permits, so your conclusion is unfounded until proof is obtained that he did demilitarize it. Until then, he is still being hypocritical in owning a firearm while a the same time trying to ban firearms that are less powerful.


Actually, as the accuser, the burden of proof falls on you, or do you not believe in the American Value "innocent until proven guilty"?

Until then, you are a politically motivated nitpicker without a proper foundation for his accusations.

The fact that you see this minor topic as being comparable to the monstrosities the Bush administration has inflicted just shows me that your mind is only open to arguments that back up your point of view.

If you want to keep the silly discourse alive, then answer my question about Bush. How can Bush support drinking and driving laws when he was convicted of a DUI?




When in doubt create red herrings and strawmen.

No, but as a senator, he's already had thorough intensice background checks. Since he openly admits he has the weapon, and no criminal charges have been leveled, then the ONLY conclusion one can logically reach is that he holds the weapon in a legal way. I really don't see a contradiction here, only silly political mudslinging that really hasn't been substantiated in any way.
If you want to keep the silly discourse alive, then answer my question about Bush. How can Bush support drinking and driving laws when he was convicted of a DUI?
See? Hazy accusations about Kerry where there is no evidence of a law being broken or ethics being breached versus a solid claim supported by documentation. Next topic.

I could be mistaken, but the only post I made into this topic was to ask you whether Kerry should be allowed to do things I cannot simply by virtue of his being a Seantor. I don't think I posted anything about his allegedly owning an assault rifle or whether it was owned legally or not.

In order for the average citizen to own a fully automatic assault rifle, they have to undergo a stringent backgound check ( which you addressed above ), and pay a very high fee for a license. There may be other requirements, but since I've never applied for private ownership of an assault rifle, I have no idea what they might be.

I think what you mean is that some things are widely accepted as elements of our shared reality and some aren't. One example of "common sense" among some people is that a woman who is breast-feeding can't get pregnant. This has been proven innumerable times to be not the case, yet some people still believe this is just "common sense."

I surely hope you weren't refering to me when you said, " ... those who would try to complicate [ common sense ] only do so because they get their "common sense" from books, or lectures." Anytime you'd like to compare "real life" experiences, just let me know, ok? : ))

First, did I refer to you, that depends on you, if that statement is true of you than I guess I was, if not, then no. :0) The statements that have been made about Columbus, or breast feeding women are not examples of common sense, one was/is incorrect history lessons, and the other an example of scientific ignorance. My reference to common sense wasn't either of these things, nor was it wives tales or superstitions. It was very simply, common sense which is not complicated at all except to those who do not have any. LOL
Rob

[QUOTE=Gymoor] ... you are a politically motivated nitpicker without a proper foundation for his accusations.

... monstrosities the Bush administration has inflicted ...QUOTE]

All of which leads me to believe that you are the very thing of which you accuse others.

... common sense ... is not complicated at all except to those who do not have any. LOL
Rob

What an excellent example of circular reasoning: "if you had any common sense, you'd understand what common sense is!" Fascinating! This puts you in the same ballpark with those who use the Bible to prove that the Bible is God's "word."

I would really like a response to this post, please:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chess Squares
fact you assert your opinions to be the "truth"

Oh? Please point out to me where I have done this so I can set the record straight.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chess Squares
fact you constantly reference yourself to prove the truth

Please read my response on this same topic to another poster within this thread. It was not my intent to "prove myself by referencing myself," only to avoid having to retype or cut and paste when it's so much quicker to simply list a URL where I've written something relevant to the current topic.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chess Squares
fact anyone who references anyone other than yourself is closed minded

Not at all. I always try to consider the source before making any statements like that. I also will sometimes say that in an effort to get the other poster to actually think about their position. Sorry if that somehow offends you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chess Squares
and you also assert yourself to be some one you are obviously not

Oh? Please explain.

When in doubt create red herrings and strawmen.

Physician, heal thyself.

You have not proven that Kerry "collected" or holds the weapon illegally. Show me proof, or abondon this topic and move on to your next baseless argument against Kerry.

You are suggesting that Kerry committed a crime, without any proof. I showed that Bush actually has committed a crime, a crime that is in the public record. Yet you condemn Kerry but not Bush. I don't see why this is a red herring. It is a clear indication of your own unacknowledged hypocrisy.

Again--how do you know? And is that a law that is commonly enforced?

903. ART. 103. CAPTURED OR ABANDONED PROPERTY

(a) All persons subject to this chapter will secure all public property taken from the enemy for the service of the United States, and shall give notice and turn over to the proper authority without delay all captured or abandoned property in their possession, custody, or control.

(b) Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) fails to carry out the duties prescribed in subsection (a);

(a) buys, sells, trades, or in any way deals in or disposes of captured or abandoned property, whereby he receives or expects any profit, benefit, or a advantage to himself or another directly or indirectly connected with himself; or

(b) engages in looting or pillaging; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

903. ART. 103. CAPTURED OR ABANDONED PROPERTY

(a) All persons subject to this chapter will secure all public property taken from the enemy for the service of the United States, and shall give notice and turn over to the proper authority without delay all captured or abandoned property in their possession, custody, or control.

(b) Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) fails to carry out the duties prescribed in subsection (a);

(a) buys, sells, trades, or in any way deals in or disposes of captured or abandoned property, whereby he receives or expects any profit, benefit, or a advantage to himself or another directly or indirectly connected with himself; or

(b) engages in looting or pillaging; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
That didn't answer his question. How many peoples grandpas have samurai swords? He wasn't disputing the law. That wasn't his question. rif

What an excellent example of circular reasoning: "if you had any common sense, you'd understand what common sense is!" Fascinating! This puts you in the same ballpark with those who use the Bible to prove that the Bible is God's "word."

Wow, guess I struck a cord, the statement I made was that common sense is only complicated to those who don't have any, Not that you have to have common sense to understand it, but rather those who don't have it are puzzled by it, and try to reason it out, not that they could never get it.
Rob

No, Kerry likes the environment, welfare, and gun control to much.

Oh god no! Not the environment and welfare! Run for the friggin hills!

I would really like a response to this post, please:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chess Squares
fact you assert your opinions to be the "truth"

Oh? Please point out to me where I have done this so I can set the record straight.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chess Squares
fact you constantly reference yourself to prove the truth

Please read my response on this same topic to another poster within this thread. It was not my intent to "prove myself by referencing myself," only to avoid having to retype or cut and paste when it's so much quicker to simply list a URL where I've written something relevant to the current topic.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chess Squares
fact anyone who references anyone other than yourself is closed minded

Not at all. I always try to consider the source before making any statements like that. I also will sometimes say that in an effort to get the other poster to actually think about their position. Sorry if that somehow offends you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chess Squares
and you also assert yourself to be some one you are obviously not

Oh? Please explain.
The thread is titled "The Truth About Kerry," and then contains what reads like a job application. You are skillful, I'll give you that, you've dodged and weaved so well that no one has managed to call you on your dated talking points. But you are stating your opinion of Kerry, especially with the assumption of the first 100 days, as facts but then later claim they are your opinions that are founded in fact. No one ever says their opinions are founded in flights of fantasy-everyone believes their opinions are fact. But even the much maliagned Michael Moore will admit when people aren't screaming at him for inventing editing that his opinions may be wrong and "let's have that discussion" (quoted from several interviews)

Sigh. One completely unsubstantiated issue that, even if true, is practically meaningless. Who the fuck cares is the man has a keepsake (from a war he actually went to?) Is this all you have, Kerry-bashers? Seriously, if this is all Kerry is guilty of, he'd be a candidate for sainthood.

INSERT NEW BASELESS ACCUSATION BELOW

Sigh. One completely unsubstantiated issue that, even if true, is practically meaningless. Who the fuck cares is the man has a keepsake (from a war he actually went to?) Is this all you have, Kerry-bashers? Seriously, if this is all Kerry is guilty of, he'd be a candidate for sainthood.

INSERT NEW BASELESS ACCUSATION BELOW

I have to agree, does it really matter, especially for someone who believes in our right to bear arms, I for one would't hold it against him. I don't know about sainthood, and guilt or lack thereof doesn't make one right or wrong, nor is a law correct just because it is a law. I simply fear the day when the only people holding the "best" guns are all criminals and all to willing to use them for the wrong thing, without any decent people to counteract it.
Rob

That had a ring to it. i was convinced from the start that he was no good but i am not saying that bush is any better because he is a terrorist and he will always stay a terrorist.

The thread is titled "The Truth About Kerry," and then contains what reads like a job application. You are skillful, I'll give you that, you've dodged and weaved so well that no one has managed to call you on your dated talking points. But you are stating your opinion of Kerry, especially with the assumption of the first 100 days, as facts but then later claim they are your opinions that are founded in fact. No one ever says their opinions are founded in flights of fantasy-everyone believes their opinions are fact. But even the much maliagned Michael Moore will admit when people aren't screaming at him for inventing editing that his opinions may be wrong and "let's have that discussion" (quoted from several interviews)

Um ... the site with the "First 100 Days of A Kerry Presidency" is clearly labelled as "One Man's Opinion," both in the URL and in the graphic header. Would it have helped if I had placed the title of this thread in quotation marks???

That had a ring to it. i was convinced from the start that he was no good but i am not saying that bush is any better because he is a terrorist and he will always stay a terrorist.

Guess I missed something, who is a terrorist?
Rob

Guess I missed something, who is a terrorist?
Rob

I guess I am, since I favor preventive intervention to save our collective asses! : ))

Guess I missed something, who is a terrorist?
Rob

Well, you certainly have the looks of someone he terrorized by letting you live too long under the threat of his red, yellow, orange, purple, green or blue alerts...

I'm kidding, never mind that. In fact, I came in to propose a solution!

Everybody here looks pretty much like he's gonna stick to his ideas. So how about a bit of gambling?

Bush-ers say America's gonna fall if it elects Kerry.
Kerry-ers say America's gonna fall if it elects Bush.

Now, we wait, go and vote for those who can (I'm just gonna watch and laugh if I'm right), then in November... we see who was right!

I guess I am, since I favor preventive intervention to save our collective asses! : ))
How does a war in the Middle East save our "collective asses"?

How does a war in the Middle East save our "collective asses"?

I've never liked any expression better than "preventive intervention"!

It really sounds like punching you in the face before you punch me! =D

Well, you certainly have the looks of someone he terrorized by letting you live too long under the threat of his red, yellow, orange, purple, green or blue alerts...

I'm kidding, never mind that. In fact, I came in to propose a solution!

Everybody here looks pretty much like he's gonna stick to his ideas. So how about a bit of gambling?

Bush-ers say America's gonna fall if it elects Kerry.
Kerry-ers say America's gonna fall if it elects Bush.

Now, we wait, go and vote for those who can (I'm just gonna watch and laugh if I'm right), then in November... we see who was right!

LOL! I don't actually believe that "America is going to fall" if Kerry is elected. The Republic has survived worse. I just happen to believe, based on what evidence I have seen, that he would be a really, really bad choice for President, and wouldn't be able to combat terrorism even as well as Bush has.

I've never liked any expression better than "preventive intervention!" It really sounds like punching you in the face before you punch me! =D

Which is exactly what I should expect you to do if I had given you good cause to believe that I might actually do such a thing! : ))

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself quite clear, let's split the options in 4

1) Bush wins, America prospers.
2) Bush wins, America falls.
3) Kerry wins, America prospers.
4) Kerry wins, America falls.

I hope that's a bit better...

'cause I'm takin' bets!! ;)

Which is exactly what I should expect you to do if I had given you good cause to believe that I might actually do such a thing! : ))

Even if I disagreed with most of the things said precedently... good point.

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself quite clear, let's split the options in 4

1) Bush wins, America prospers.
2) Bush wins, America falls.
3) Kerry wins, America prospers.
4) Kerry wins, America falls.

I hope that's a bit better...

'cause I'm takin' bets!! ;)
lol.... Im still waiting for those celebrities who said they would leave the country if Bush won the election in 2000 to actually leave.

Even if I disagreed with most of the things said precedently... good point.

Thank you!

There is a cultural difference between many Southern males and males from the Northeast. Altercations between two Northeasterners usually consists of a "war of words," with each trying to be more descriptive of the things he is going to do to the other. In the South, however, there is a segment of the population with very low tolerance for what they consider to "insults to my honor." In some altercations between these two differing world views, the first insult from the Northeasterner will often prompt an immediate swing from the Southerner. There seem to be a variety of reasons for this difference, but I just thought this would be an appropriate place to make note of it. ; ))

lol.... Im still waiting for those celebrities who said they would leave the country if Bush won the election in 2000 to actually leave.

ROFL! Me too! I think it would be fantastic if both Barbara Striesand and Alec Baldwin made good on their promises to leave. BTW ... Baldwin starred alongside Sean Connery in "The Hunt for Red October" as a CIA Analyst. Talk about miscasting! ; ))

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself quite clear, let's split the options in 4

1) Bush wins, America prospers.
2) Bush wins, America falls.
3) Kerry wins, America prospers.
4) Kerry wins, America falls.

I hope that's a bit better...

'cause I'm takin' bets!! ;)

How about ...

1. Bush wins, America prospers
2. Bush wins, America stays the same
3. Bush wins, America declines
4. Kerry wins, America prospers
5. Kerry wins, America stays the same
6 Kerry wins, America declines

:D

Thank you!

There is a cultural difference between many Southern males and males from the Northeast. Altercations between two Northeasterners usually consists of a "war of words," with each trying to be more descriptive of the things he is going to do to the other. In the South, however, there is a segment of the population with very low tolerance for what they consider to "insults to my honor." In some altercations between these two differing world views, the first insult from the Northeasterner will often prompt an immediate swing from the Southerner. There seem to be a variety of reasons for this difference, but I just thought this would be an appropriate place to make note of it. ; ))

LOL!! "You son of a..." *WHAM!*

*Edits* oh, and the more bet options there are, the best it will be for the winner!

LOL! I don't actually believe that "America is going to fall" if Kerry is elected. The Republic has survived worse. I just happen to believe, based on what evidence I have seen, that he would be a really, really bad choice for President, and wouldn't be able to combat terrorism even as well as Bush has.
Did you even read what you put on that site?
You said that America would be nuked many times over with small nukes that have a blast that covers at most a states size.
You also said Kerry would declare martial law before hand and somehow more security makes terrorism more possible thus refuting you later posts.

I was following along thinking: This is probably bias but i'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Day 2 is impossible because Hillarty is bound to her state till 2008.

Day 3 is laughable and not gonna happen. He may like the UN but he likes US uniforms.

Day 4 is okay.

Day 5 is what Bush is doing anyway. Bush said he wants most troops to be under UN control also.

Day 6 Islamic terrorost would leave Iraq alone or lose their cause. So your data is bunk.

Day 7 Is possible but Timmithy McViech did same thing almost.

Day 8 is a little late: 7 days after being President? And He doesn't even know her! Why Jane Fonda? Besides scaring the readers what use of logic was this?

Day 9 is not believeable Bush is the one who took benefits away from aging Vets not Kerry.

Again DAy 10 won't happen because islamic insurgents would lose their cause if they tried to take Iraq after America stops.

Day 15, isn't "President Kerry opens entire State of Alaska for oil exploration and drilling. " What republicans are yearning for! Isn't that a good thing to them?

And after that it gets more and more fantasy conspiracy leading. Most seems to be a drugged up haze.

america has fallen horribly so far.
John Kerry is our only hope of getting somewhere..

id rather have a nukular bomb shoved FAR up my ass than see bush in the white house for another 4 years!

VOTE JOHN KERRY!!!!



ps: just thought this was interesting ---> www.fundrace.org

John Kerry GOOD :)
george bush BAD! :(

LOL!! "You son of a..." *WHAM!*

*Edits* oh, and the more bet options there are, the best it will be for the winner!

Exactly! On both counts! ; ))

Did you even read what you put on that site?
You said that America would be nuked many times over with small nukes that have a blast that covers at most a states size.
You also said Kerry would declare martial law before hand and somehow more security makes terrorism more possible thus refuting you later posts.

I was following along thinking: This is probably bias but i'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Day 2 is impossible because Hillarty is bound to her state till 2008.

Day 3 is laughable and not gonna happen. He may like the UN but he likes US uniforms.

Day 4 is okay.

Day 5 is what Bush is doing anyway. Bush said he wants most troops to be under UN control also.

Day 6 Islamic terrorost would leave Iraq alone or lose their cause. So your data is bunk.

Day 7 Is possible but Timmithy McViech did same thing almost.

Day 8 is a little late: 7 days after being President? And He doesn't even know her! Why Jane Fonda? Besides scaring the readers what use of logic was this?

Day 9 is not believeable Bush is the one who took benefits away from aging Vets not Kerry.

Again DAy 10 won't happen because islamic insurgents would lose their cause if they tried to take Iraq after America stops.

Day 15, isn't "President Kerry opens entire State of Alaska for oil exploration and drilling. " What republicans are yearning for! Isn't that a good thing to them?

And after that it gets more and more fantasy conspiracy leading. Most seems to be a drugged up haze.

Um ... which part of the terms "fiction" and "poetic license" don't you understand?

Um ... the site with the "First 100 Days of A Kerry Presidency" is clearly labelled as "One Man's Opinion," both in the URL and in the graphic header. Would it have helped if I had placed the title of this thread in quotation marks???
I'm not sure how that would help or how it addresses the post.

Look man, you're intitled to opinions and more than intitled to state them. But call a horse a horse.

And Keep up. (http://factcheck.org/) There are all new battles to fight, retreading old dismissed arguments is tiring.

Once you wade through the brow-beating and back-patting in this thread, you end up with the same old analysis:
Kerry voted against some defense bills, many of which Cheney voted against.

And terrorists hate our 'freedom.' Which is absolutely ridiculous. You need to do a better job of analysising thier 'paradigm' to understand how they can form a new 'paradigm.' It's more complicated than 'hating our freedoms' and we need someone in office who understands that. No amount of Bradley fighting vehicles would have stopped the terrorists from hitting the towers. We've become like the british at the revolution, marching in columns to fight a guerilla war.

Its sad to see that now the leason we learn from Vietnam is not that we failed to understand the enemy, but that we should blindly commit to what ever we get ourselves into and question the maturity, intellegence or patriotism of anyone who disagrees. Except those that protested the Vietnam war where right-we didn't need to be there, it didn't spread communism across the globe, and we couldn't win. It was not part of the cold war to them, it was a civil war.

If you can't function from a better understanding of why terrorists feel that the only thing they have left is to sacrafice themselves then there is no better reason to reject your endorsement, no matter what qualifications you claim.

I guess I am, since I favor preventive intervention to save our collective asses! : ))
:cool:, if that is what it takes to be a terrorist, me too.
Rob

Um ... which part of the terms "fiction" and "poetic license" don't you understand?
Mostly Poetic License :)

america has fallen horribly so far.
John Kerry is our only hope of getting somewhere..

id rather have a nukular bomb shoved FAR up my ass than see bush in the white house for another 4 years!

VOTE JOHN KERRY!!!!



ps: just thought this was interesting ---> www.fundrace.org

John Kerry GOOD :)
george bush BAD! :(

LOL! Perhaps you should bend over then. : ))

LOL! I don't actually believe that "America is going to fall" if Kerry is elected. The Republic has survived worse. I just happen to believe, based on what evidence I have seen, that he would be a really, really bad choice for President, and wouldn't be able to combat terrorism even as well as Bush has.
Terrorism has increased under Bush. What is the grounds for Bush doing a good job fighting terrorism?

lol.... Im still waiting for those celebrities who said they would leave the country if Bush won the election in 2000 to actually leave.

OH, YES, YES, YES!!!!!
Plese let them leave!!!!
Rob

Terrorism has increased under Bush. What is the grounds for Bush doing a good job fighting terrorism?

By the text of this message one would assume you believe doing nothing is better than to combat it, OF COURSE it's going to increase to some extent, we're stirring up the perverbial hornet nest, yet lets try to keep this in perspective, USS Cole, 1st 2 attacks on the WTC, and How many other attacks world wide to our bases or intrests over the years? Some of those happend during Clintons watch, Unfortunatly, he treated them as criminal acts, not acts of war, if he had dealt with it promptly as an act of war, we may not be having this discussion at all.
Rob

By the text of this message one would assume you believe doing nothing is better than to combat it, OF COURSE it's going to increase to some extent, we're stirring up the perverbial hornet nest, yet lets try to keep this in perspective, USS Cole, 1st 2 attacks on the WTC, and How many other attacks world wide to our bases or intrests over the years? Some of those happend during Clintons watch, Unfortunatly, he treated them as criminal acts, not acts of war, if he had dealt with it promptly as an act of war, we may not be having this discussion at all.
Rob
You're going to have to trace the logic of that assumption. For clarity, I'll retrace mine:

The statement was that George Bush has done a good job fighting terrorism.

I question that statement, pointing out that terrorism has increased under George Bush. Which would mean that if it was bad under Clinton, it's worse now.

So, tell me how you arrived at the assumption that I think doing nothing is better from that question. Do you live in a world where there are only two choices to every problem?

By the text of this message one would assume you believe doing nothing is better than to combat it, OF COURSE it's going to increase to some extent, we're stirring up the perverbial hornet nest, yet lets try to keep this in perspective, USS Cole, 1st 2 attacks on the WTC, and How many other attacks world wide to our bases or intrests over the years? Some of those happend during Clintons watch, Unfortunatly, he treated them as criminal acts, not acts of war, if he had dealt with it promptly as an act of war, we may not be having this discussion at all.
Rob

That's right, Bush treated it like a war and now we have weekly decapitations in Fallujah. There have also been attacks on our allies and atrocities being committed by militias in Afghanistan. Now our forces are spread thin, we've all but abandoned Afghanistan, and the situation in Iraq is growing more and more unstable. Oddly enough, the war on terror was going better when it was a police action, the way it should be.

Terrorism has increased under Bush. What is the grounds for Bush doing a good job fighting terrorism?

In all fairness, neither I nor anyone else knows whether all of the actions taken by this Administration are going to ultimately result in a virtual elmination of terrorism. This is a long, long, hard road we are walking, and the end cannot be seen yet, no matter who says differently.

I obviously have no way to *prove* this, but I do believe that taking affirmative steps to head off terrorism before too many innocent lives are taken is a much more effective approach than electing a "peace at any cost" candidate like Kerry.

Which is exactly what I should expect you to do if I had given you good cause to believe that I might actually do such a thing! : ))

With regards to the punching the guy who you think is going to hit you in the face argument, I have this to say:

If there was a guy who actually hit you, would you turn your attention away from him and attack some other guy who you merely thought might hit you...even though your evidence of him wanting to hit you was weak, and your assessment of him was that even if he hit you, he wouldn't be able to so much as scratch you? Meanwhile, while you're attacking that guy, the guy who actually hit you is cheering on the action, collecting more buddies, and is hoping for the mutual destruction of you and the guy you hit.

The guy who actually hit you: Al Qaeda

The wimpy but thoroughly evil guy you choose to hit: Iraq

Bush: Idiot who has endangered all our lives

...that terrorism has increased under George Bush. Which would mean that if it was bad under Clinton, it's worse now.
Really. Let's see:
Number of terror attacks on United States installations, Navy ships, and in US territory during the Clinton years...1993, WTC; 1995, Oklahoma City; 1996, Khobar Towers; 1998, US embassies in Africa; 2000, USS Cole...sub-total: 5.

Number of terror attacks on United States installations, Navy ships, and in US territory during the Bush years...2001, WTC; 2001, anthrax attack; 2002, sniper attack...sub-total: 3.

Now, math hasn't always been my strong point, but 5 IS greater than 3. And yes, I count the anthrax attack as only one, since it was all associated...ditto with the sniper attacks, which were conducted as a single action.

The big difference, though...Bush has actually taken decisive actions against the terrorists, while Clinton (and Kerry by extension, since he proposes to take us back to the Clintonian course of action against terrorism,) would simply serve terrorists with sub-poenas, after getting permission from other countries.

You're going to have to trace the logic of that assumption. For clarity, I'll retrace mine:

The statement was that George Bush has done a good job fighting terrorism.

I question that statement, pointing out that terrorism has increased under George Bush. Which would mean that if it was bad under Clinton, it's worse now.

So, tell me how you arrived at the assumption that I think doing nothing is better from that question. Do you live in a world where there are only two choices to every problem?

Like it or not, we are faced with exactly that ... two choices. Either what President Bush represents, or what John Kerry represents. You already know my personal choice between these two.

With regards to the punching the guy who you think is going to hit you in the face argument, I have this to say:

If there was a guy who actually hit you, would you turn your attention away from him and attack some other guy who you merely thought might hit you...even though your evidence of him wanting to hit you was weak, and your assessment of him was that even if he hit you, he wouldn't be able to so much as scratch you? Meanwhile, while you're attacking that guy, the guy who actually hit you is cheering on the action, collecting more buddies, and is hoping for the mutual destruction of you and the guy you hit.

The guy who actually hit you: Al Qaeda

The wimpy but thoroughly evil guy you choose to hit: Iraq

Bush: Idiot who has endangered all our lives

Politics and international relations, like life, is seldom as simple and straightforward as you might sometimes prefer to think.

In all fairness, neither I nor anyone else knows whether all of the actions taken by this Administration are going to ultimately result in a virtual elmination of terrorism. This is a long, long, hard road we are walking, and the end cannot be seen yet, no matter who says differently.

I obviously have no way to *prove* this, but I do believe that taking affirmative steps to head off terrorism before too many innocent lives are taken is a much more effective approach than electing a "peace at any cost" candidate like Kerry.
But we can look at what is happening: Terrorists that wheren't in Iraq before are there now, acts are increasing, there are even reports that recruitment has increased. Are you arguing that we have to go backwards before we go forward? How far backwards are you willing to go before we have to reassess that?

Please cite why you believe Kerry is a 'peace at any cost' candidate. I have not seen it anywhere in his platform. Instead I have seen him take a more rational approach to fighting terrorism, since terrorists are not armies and have to be be dealt with differently than armies.

They're telling us that "I will not take us to war unnecessarily" and "I will defend my country from terrorist attacks" to mean he's a peace at any cost president.

Really. Let's see:
Number of terror attacks on United States installations, Navy ships, and in US territory during the Clinton years...1993, WTC; 1995, Oklahoma City; 1996, Khobar Towers; 1998, US embassies in Africa; 2000, USS Cole...sub-total: 5.

Number of terror attacks on United States installations, Navy ships, and in US territory during the Bush years...2001, WTC; 2001, anthrax attack; 2002, sniper attack...sub-total: 3.

Now, math hasn't always been my strong point, but 5 IS greater than 3. And yes, I count the anthrax attack as only one, since it was all associated...ditto with the sniper attacks, which were conducted as a single action.

The big difference, though...Bush has actually taken decisive actions against the terrorists, while Clinton (and Kerry by extension, since he proposes to take us back to the Clintonian course of action against terrorism,) would simply serve terrorists with sub-poenas, after getting permission from other countries.
And now do 2003 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/powell.terror/). Bush was president that year, yes?

In all fairness, neither I nor anyone else knows whether all of the actions taken by this Administration are going to ultimately result in a virtual elmination of terrorism. This is a long, long, hard road we are walking, and the end cannot be seen yet, no matter who says differently.

I obviously have no way to *prove* this, but I do believe that taking affirmative steps to head off terrorism before too many innocent lives are taken is a much more effective approach than electing a "peace at any cost" candidate like Kerry.

Yes, but until we invaded Iraq, they were not really an important piece of the war on terror. If you want an effective fight on terror, why are you escalating the number of people involved in it?

Based purely on a "fighting terrorism" argument, attacking Iraq was nothing more than insane. Affirmative steps would have been continuing to pursue Al Qaeda with a singleness of purpose, destroying their leadership, subverting their support with an excellent "pro-America" public relations campaign (propaganda, for those who aren't squeamish about political practicalities.) and properly managed global alliances (since terrorism, by nature, is not tied to loacations, per se.)

The only alternative to declaring the Bush administration to be insane is to suppose that they had some other motive for invading Iraq. Options include: Oil, creating a democratic ally in the area, dedication to the ideals of Democracy.

Well, if we truly are in a state of war against terrorism, or more precisely, fundamentalist Islam militancy, then all those other motivations should be taking a back seat right now.

How ever you figure it, Bush is failing at the fight against terrorism, since he really isn't fighting it.

Kerry, on the other hand, has not failed as of yet. All your suppositions and impressions of his policies are nothing compared to the facts of the dismal war Bush is running.

Kerry impressed me in his speech outlining his 7 point plan. It makes a whole lot more sense that anything Bush has done in the war on terror.

Come on, people, clinton's policy worked. The only reason Dubya made it a war was because he wanted to ride the "war president" name and keep the extremist right in charge of the country even longer. I don't see how weekly american decapitations and muslims slaughtering schoolchildren can qualify for winning the war on terror.

Like it or not, we are faced with exactly that ... two choices. Either what President Bush represents, or what John Kerry represents. You already know my personal choice between these two.
This is where I have to admire your skill-rather than address what is happening you create a tangential argument that looks correct, after all-it is a binary election. However, the question was not whether or not we had a binary election, nor is that election about 'do nothing' or 'do something,' which is the tacit implication. So the question is not answered, only a third tangential question made to ignore the first.

So nope. That wasn't an answer to the question. I'm not going down that hall on this line.

But we can look at what is happening: Terrorists that wheren't in Iraq before are there now, acts are increasing, there are even reports that recruitment has increased. Are you arguing that we have to go backwards before we go forward? How far backwards are you willing to go before we have to reassess that?

Please cite why you believe Kerry is a 'peace at any cost' candidate. I have not seen it anywhere in his platform. Instead I have seen him take a more rational approach to fighting terrorism, since terrorists are not armies and have to be be dealt with differently than armies.

This post is several different questions, so I'll respond to them individually. This is also the very last time I will do so, since I've repeatedly stated my position on all of these.

1. "Terrorists that wheren't in Iraq before are there now, acts are increasing, there are even reports that recruitment has increased." All of which are true, as far as I can tell. Islamism isn't going to go away and any attack is going to attract terrorists. Personally, I wish they would ALL go to Iraq so we could mop them up as they appeared.

2. "Are you arguing that we have to go backwards before we go forward? How far backwards are you willing to go before we have to reassess that?" I don't recall stating or agreeing that we are "going backwards," those are your own choice of words.

3. "Please cite why you believe Kerry is a 'peace at any cost' candidate. I have not seen it anywhere in his platform." Nor will you see it in his platform ... calling yourself that would be political suicide. As I have pointed out several times, the best predictor of future performance is past performance. John Kerry has repeatedly urged US withdrawal, first from Vietnam while stabbing all other Vietnam veterans in the back, and later from Iraq, even offering to bring all US forces home after four months in office. Ergo: peace/capitualation candidate.

4. "Since terrorists are not armies and have to be be dealt with differently than armies." Terrorists who support the same or similar goals are indeed an army. But you are correct in stating that they need to be handled by different means than would a traditional army. This is being done, as I have stated before. Even the command structure has changed to place special operations forces in the chain of command of conventional forces to give them better insight and response time in a conflict with a terrorist army.

Come on, people, clinton's policy worked. The only reason Dubya made it a war was because he wanted to ride the "war president" name and keep the extremist right in charge of the country even longer. I don't see how weekly american decapitations and muslims slaughtering schoolchildren can qualify for winning the war on terror.

Clinto's policy worked??? Then how in God's name did 09/11/01 ever happen??? And if you truly believe that a sitting President of the United States would deliberately start a war just to make a name for himself, then I have nothing more to say to you.

This is where I have to admire your skill-rather than address what is happening you create a tangential argument that looks correct, after all-it is a binary election. However, the question was not whether or not we had a binary election, nor is that election about 'do nothing' or 'do something,' which is the tacit implication. So the question is not answered, only a third tangential question made to ignore the first.

So nope. That wasn't an answer to the question. I'm not going down that hall on this line.

Then rephrase the question, please, and I will do my very best to respond to the exact question you ask. How's that??? : ))

Don't get me wrong. Dubya didn't do it all by himself. He shouldn't get all the credit. Rumsfeld had a hell of alot to do with Iraq, too.

You Americans never seem to like the idea of more than two parties?
I don't get it, it has no nuances to it, which puts you in the position of being forced to choose the lesser of two evils. Hmmm, maybe you should try and reevaluate your voting system since only 50% (or less) bothers to vote anyway.

Uh... I think I know one reason why... The two main parties have the most support from the citizens. That wasn't very hard.

1. "Terrorists that wheren't in Iraq before are there now, acts are increasing, there are even reports that recruitment has increased." All of which are true, as far as I can tell. Islamism isn't going to go away and any attack is going to attract terrorists. Personally, I wish they would ALL go to Iraq so we could mop them up as they appeared.
This has to work on the assumption that these are not new terrorists that are appearing, not people who are faced with what they feel is an empirial invasion that they have no recourse against except to sacrifice themselves. To assume that occupying Iraq without having made the case, and having the case we built not coming true, does not strengthen the terrorists case to the people who might become terrorists. That somehow the finite number of terrorists that come into Iraq will run out. This is a short-sighted view, and fails to understand what is being fought and why.

2. "Are you arguing that we have to go backwards before we go forward? How far backwards are you willing to go before we have to reassess that?" I don't recall stating or agreeing that we are "going backwards," those are your own choice of words.
You answered my question as to why you felt Bush was doing a good job on terror given that terror has increased by saying you 'felt' what he was doing was good. Which means that on some level you have to believe we have to make it worse before it can get better. If that's not the case, then please clarify, because that is what is coming through.

3. "Please cite why you believe Kerry is a 'peace at any cost' candidate. I have not seen it anywhere in his platform." Nor will you see it in his platform ... calling yourself that would be political suicide. As I have pointed out several times, the best predictor of future performance is past performance. John Kerry has repeatedly urged US withdrawal, first from Vietnam while stabbing all other Vietnam veterans in the back, and later from Iraq, even offering to bring all US forces home after four months in office. Ergo: peace/capitualation candidate.
But, as has been pointed out to you, even Bush is preaching pulling out of Iraq. We do need a plan to get out of Iraq, both are preaching that. As I've stated before, the protesters where right about Vietnam. Since Iraq was not a threat and it has increased terrorist activities, it looks like the protestors where right about Iraq as well. That's a pretty good track record, looking at past performance. Attacking Iraq is spinning our wheels, Kerry is proposing fights that won't do that. I hardly see that as capitulation.

4. "Since terrorists are not armies and have to be be dealt with differently than armies." Terrorists who support the same or similar goals are indeed an army. But you are correct in stating that they need to be handled by different means than would a traditional army. This is being done, as I have stated before. Even the command structure has changed to place special operations forces in the chain of command of conventional forces to give them better insight and response time in a conflict with a terrorist army.

Shock and awe. What do you think the effect that has on the populace? After you've been 'shocked and awed,' how much influence do you think the guy telling you the people responsable for it are the devil?

Really. Let's see:
Number of terror attacks on United States installations, Navy ships, and in US territory during the Clinton years...1993, WTC; 1995, Oklahoma City; 1996, Khobar Towers; 1998, US embassies in Africa; 2000, USS Cole...sub-total: 5.

Number of terror attacks on United States installations, Navy ships, and in US territory during the Bush years...2001, WTC; 2001, anthrax attack; 2002, sniper attack...sub-total: 3.

Now, math hasn't always been my strong point, but 5 IS greater than 3. And yes, I count the anthrax attack as only one, since it was all associated...ditto with the sniper attacks, which were conducted as a single action.

The big difference, though...Bush has actually taken decisive actions against the terrorists, while Clinton (and Kerry by extension, since he proposes to take us back to the Clintonian course of action against terrorism,) would simply serve terrorists with sub-poenas, after getting permission from other countries.
Thanks!!
Rob

Wait a minute. There's something EXTREMELY BAD about peace, ain't I right?? We shouldn't be at peace right now!! It's DANGEROUS! Right?

What was the word "peace" supposed to mean at first?
Oh, it's just not that simple. "You live in utopias, Tycoony!"

Yeah, he conveniently left out all the terror attacks in the years after.

Then rephrase the question, please, and I will do my very best to respond to the exact question you ask. How's that??? : ))
rif.

I'm not playing the shell game. Read the post I was responding to and then my response, and if you feel like fighting Honorland's battles, continue on the discussion. It's fair enough since he was carrying on yours, but I'm still not following you into the Hall of Mirrors.

Thanks!!
Rob
Then, of course, you'd want to include 2003 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/powell.terror/), unless you where cherry picking to rose color the president. You wheren't, where you?

:sniper: Ok, I am really sorry for all of the people that like Kerry, and most of the ones that Like him most likely liked Clinton, now don't get me wrong Clinton did do SOME good things, but his lack of action in the mideast is what cause the attacks of 9/11, and there is no possible way that he (clinton) did not know that something like that was going to happen, Kerry will be one of the worst thinds that has ever happened to this nation, I feel that if Kerry were president our country would quickly fall into a depression... and then where would we be? Kerry is very contridictory of himself, and needs to decide on what he wants, first he supports the war,then he is against it and dose not want to send funding to the troops that are over seas fighting for our freedom, and for the freedom of innocent people, that are stuck over there in that hell hole.... put your self in their place, if your courty was like that and you totally dissagreed with it, and there was no way out, would you not want some one to help you? Of course you would, I know that War is not pretty, and that no one likes it, but we have to face the fact that war is sometimes a must for us to protect our selves and some of the brave men and women of this nation have the guts to put their lives on the line to fight for what is right, and for freedom!! If we did not go into the mideast who knows what could have happened to this nation, and us.. These people 'Terrorists' need to be stoped and if the UN is against going in to a land to protect one's right to freedom and to protect one's self, then by God the UN is against freedom, Kerry is on the side of the UN, therefore I consider Kerry to be VERRY ANTI-AMERICAN!! Who I ask you would want the president of the Uninted States of America to be anti- american?? If that is what this nation decides then I would feel abshamed to call my self an American, do you wish to support our nation, or send it down a path that will cause a lot more innocent people to die? Think of all of the people that died the day that those planes crashed... they would support this, they would want the people that killed them to pay, ould they not? What if your loved ones were in one of those buildings, or on one of those planes? Would you then support the man that is so against sending the brave men and women of this nation the things that they need to bring these people down? I think not...

This post is several different questions, so I'll respond to them individually. This is also the very last time I will do so, since I've repeatedly stated my position on all of these.

1. "Terrorists that wheren't in Iraq before are there now, acts are increasing, there are even reports that recruitment has increased." All of which are true, as far as I can tell. Islamism isn't going to go away and any attack is going to attract terrorists. Personally, I wish they would ALL go to Iraq so we could mop them up as they appeared.

2. "Are you arguing that we have to go backwards before we go forward? How far backwards are you willing to go before we have to reassess that?" I don't recall stating or agreeing that we are "going backwards," those are your own choice of words.

3. "Please cite why you believe Kerry is a 'peace at any cost' candidate. I have not seen it anywhere in his platform." Nor will you see it in his platform ... calling yourself that would be political suicide. As I have pointed out several times, the best predictor of future performance is past performance. John Kerry has repeatedly urged US withdrawal, first from Vietnam while stabbing all other Vietnam veterans in the back, and later from Iraq, even offering to bring all US forces home after four months in office. Ergo: peace/capitualation candidate.

4. "Since terrorists are not armies and have to be be dealt with differently than armies." Terrorists who support the same or similar goals are indeed an army. But you are correct in stating that they need to be handled by different means than would a traditional army. This is being done, as I have stated before. Even the command structure has changed to place special operations forces in the chain of command of conventional forces to give them better insight and response time in a conflict with a terrorist army.

1. Okay, you agree that terrorist attacks have increase in frequency, and your response is to hope that they all go to Iraq? Well, they won't. We're also helping those who hate us to recruit more terrorists worldwide. America is at an all time low because of this war. The worse our reputation in the world, the easier it is to recruit terrorists.

2. You agree that attacks on us have increased, that Iraq is a mess and that the world is kinda pissed at us, but you refuse to characterize that as "moving backward"?

3. Kerry urged withdrawl from Vietnam, true. He was also right. Kerry calls now for speeding up the withdrawl process by waging a more intelligent war in Iraq (easily done,) speeding up the training of the Iraqi forces, and stepping up the aid programs and intelligently working on AMerica's public relations problems. Hard to argue with. Don't see how any of this would cause you to conclude that Bush is the better choice. Also, Kerry has actually fought in a war, Bush hasn't. You did mention examining past history, after all. Oh, and Bush has a long history of failed businesses too. Sure makes him look good as far as our economy goes. Bush couldn't get into law school. Kerry did and got a reputation as a tough prosecutor. I guess you figure Bush has a better past experience with crime too? Wake me up when you start making sense.

Oh, and how did Kerry actually stab Veterans in the back? Some Veterans may have felt personally betrayed, not having any way of knowing what Kerry was actually doing. Other Veterans fully supported Kerry. Some have suggested that Kerry's words were used to further torture POW's. Nice of the Vietnamese to give those POW's a completely unbiased, in depth accounting of Kerry's actions and intentions...or does it make more sense that the Vietnames siezed on anything that might be remotely helpful and twisted it to their best benefit? Gee, you don't think the Vietnamese would stoop to using propaganda, do you? So, basically when you say Kerry tortured the POW's, you are parroting Vietnamese propaganda.

4. The organizational policies of the army are not the issue when we're talking about a war on terror. terrorist "armies" do not need to meet, to drill, to gather, to stay in a single country, or follow a chain of command. They are covert. They are willing to die to achieve their goal, and in some cases, prefer it (since they then get to go straight to paradise, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.) They wear no uniform. They speak no single language. They could be your next door neighbor or the delivery man at work. They could be in Iraq, Iran, Spain, Russia, Canada, Mexico, Australia, the US, or anywhere. Moving a significant segment of our fighting forces into a country not specifically allied to terrorist forces and allowing them to get pinned there is sheer stupidity. The inability of the Bush administration to change their basic strategies of carrying out their war is the issue, and in the face of Bush's inability to change his mind, no matter what, we obviously need a new leader.

Then, of course, you'd want to include 2003 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/powell.terror/), unless you where cherry picking to rose color the president. You wheren't, where you?
I believe that the point was Panhandlia was trying to make was attacks vs US. Not completely sure tho....

Typical conservative. They avoid the real issues because they're obviously losing and instead they call Kerry anti-american (like it's possible if you're running for PRESIDENT) and a terrorist.

:sniper: Ok, I am really sorry for all of the people that like Kerry, and most of the ones that Like him most likely liked Clinton, now don't get me wrong Clinton did do SOME good things, but his lack of action in the mideast is what cause the attacks of 9/11, and there is no possible way that he (clinton) did not know that something like that was going to happen, Kerry will be one of the worst thinds that has ever happened to this nation, I feel that if Kerry were president our country would quickly fall into a depression... and then where would we be? Kerry is very contridictory of himself, and needs to decide on what he wants, first he supports the war,then he is against it and dose not want to send funding to the troops that are over seas fighting for our freedom, and for the freedom of innocent people, that are stuck over there in that hell hole.... put your self in their place, if your courty was like that and you totally dissagreed with it, and there was no way out, would you not want some one to help you? Of course you would, I know that War is not pretty, and that no one likes it, but we have to face the fact that war is sometimes a must for us to protect our selves and some of the brave men and women of this nation have the guts to put their lives on the line to fight for what is right, and for freedom!! If we did not go into the mideast who knows what could have happened to this nation, and us.. These people 'Terrorists' need to be stoped and if the UN is against going in to a land to protect one's right to freedom and to protect one's self, then by God the UN is against freedom, Kerry is on the side of the UN, therefore I consider Kerry to be VERRY ANTI-AMERICAN!! Who I ask you would want the president of the Uninted States of America to be anti- american?? If that is what this nation decides then I would feel abshamed to call my self an American, do you wish to support our nation, or send it down a path that will cause a lot more innocent people to die? Think of all of the people that died the day that those planes crashed... they would support this, they would want the people that killed them to pay, ould they not? What if your loved ones were in one of those buildings, or on one of those planes? Would you then support the man that is so against sending the brave men and women of this nation the things that they need to bring these people down? I think not...

Republicans prophesized that we'd fall into a depression the moment Clinton took office. They were just a little bit worng, wouldn't you say? Republicans predicted that Bush's tax cuts would create 6 million new jobs. Ouch. I'd say the Republican crystal ball is somewhat less accurate than a magic 8 ball (no, not the kind G W Bush used in his college years.)

Clinton did know things were brewing in the Middle East, and yet still faced stiff Republican opposition to everything he did. He had a comprehensive plan to fight Al Qaeda...and the Bush administration ignored it. Kerry, who has never said he was for the war in Iraq, has by far been more consistent than Bush, who did not want a Homeland Security Department, then was for it, who did not want a 9/11 commission, and then wanted it. Bush, who wants to fight a war against terror, and then gives Saudi Arabia, the biggest monetary sponsor of terrorism, a free pass, and blocks any investigation into Saudi Arabian ties. Bush wanted Bin Laden, dead or alive, then later concluded Bin Laden was no longer important. Bush who promised to be a uniter, not a divider, who now characterizes differing viewpoints as being Un-American (as do you, I notice.)

Agreed, sometimes war is inevitable. Iraq did not fit that criteria though, and our forces would have been better used elsewhere, fighting real terrorists. Is Falluja peopled entirely of Al Qaeda? No. Now we have people who were in no way connected to terrorist organizations now willing to die in order to get us to go away. Nice job.

The UN was against the invasion of Iraq based on the WMD argument. They were right. Bush was wrong. Now Bush hates the UN, whether the UN can help us or not. Kerry is willing to use the UN as a resource, and realizes that some fences need mending in order to accomplish that. I trust a leader who is willing to swallow his ego in order to get us more help. Bush is unable to do that.

Yes, think of those people that died on 9/11. I'm sure, wherever they are, that they are pissed that an illegitimate war against a foe that was not responsible for their deaths has been carried out in their names. I know I would be.

Wait a minute. There's something EXTREMELY BAD about peace, ain't I right?? We shouldn't be at peace right now!! It's DANGEROUS! Right?

What was the word "peace" supposed to mean at first?
Oh, it's just not that simple. "You live in utopias, Tycoony!"

LOL! There is absolutely nothing in the world wrong with peace, but "peace at any price," especially when you were attacked first, is totally unacceptable.

Yeah, he conveniently left out all the terror attacks in the years after.

Not to mention that even using his flawed technique, he showed that there were 5 attacks in Clinton's 8 years, and 3 in Bush's 3 3/4 years. This still shows Bush did more poorly! His own "evidence"!

Yes, think of those people that died on 9/11. I'm sure, wherever they are, that they are pissed that an illegitimate war against a foe that was not responsible for their deaths has been carried out in their names. I know I would be.

Just on the outside chance you might be interested in a partial list of the connections between Saddam and Ben Laden, I've posted a few below:

Date Article Source Quote
Pre-911 X X X
November 4, 1998 Press Release on the Indictment of Bin Laden and Atef
Indicted for bombings of U.S. Embassies in Kenya, Tanzania U.S. State Department
International Information Programs MARY JO WHITE, the United States Attorney - for the Southern District of New York, and LEWIS D. SCHILIRO, Assistant Director in Charge of the New York FBI Office, announced that USAMA BIN LADEN and MUHAMMAD ATEF, a/k/a "Abu Hafs," were indicted today in Manhattan federal court for the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and for conspiring to kill American nationals outside of the United States.

The United States Department of State also announced today rewards of up to $5 million each for information leading to the arrest or conviction of BIN LADEN and ATEF.

November 4, 1998 USA v. Bin Laden - Docket 6 November 1998
(all al Qaeda Files)
U.S. District Court CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 98-CR-539-ALL
USA v. Bin Laden, Filed: 11/04/98
February 6, 1999 Saddam link to Bin Laden The Guardian (UK)
by Julian Borger Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.
February 6, 1999 The Western nightmare: Saddam and Bin Laden versus the world The Guardian (UK)
by Julian Borger and Ian Black But the most wanted man in the West may be at his most dangerous when cornered. And the increased pressure makes the prospect of a Saddam Hussein-Osama bin Laden alliance, once an improbable marriage of opposites, seem a more credible threat.
The Saudi royal family, presumably stirred into action by last year's bloodbaths in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, have closed down a number of Mr Bin Laden's front charities, and have been tightening the screws on their erstwhile Taliban clients, whose 'embassy' in Riyadh was closed down in September.

February 10, 1999 Osama bin Ladin and Iraq Iraq News
by Laurie Mylroie When US officials were obliged to defend their decision to attack the al-Shifa plant, after the Aug 20 strike, they revealed an Iraqi link to al-Shifa, as reported, for example, in the NYT Aug 25. US officials al-Shifa, as reported, for example, in the NYT Aug 25. US officials also revealed the existence of other sites in Khartoum thought to be associated with Iraq and VX production. Clinton chose al-Shifa as a target, because it was the only VX-related site not near a populated area.
February 13, 1999 Bin Laden reportedly leaves Afghanistan, whereabouts unknown CNN.com Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities.
December 28, 1999 Iraq Tempts Bin Laden To Attack West The Herald (UK)
by Ian Bruce The world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq if his worldwide terrorist network succeeds in carrying out a campaign of high-profile attacks on the West over the next few weeks.

Intelligence sources say the Saudi dissident believed responsible for the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and a US military barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1998, is running out of options for a safe haven.

He is now thought to have overcome his initial rejection of Saddam Hussein, whom he regarded as an exploiter of the Islamic cause rather than a true believer, and is considering the offer of a bolt-hole from which he can continue to mastermind terrorism on a global scale.
October 19, 2000 Iraq-Bin Laden boat bomb link The Guardian
by Julian Borger Investigators in Yemen yesterday uncovered evidence suggesting the bomb attack on the warship USS Cole had been a meticulously organised conspiracy, which a leading US terrorism expert said may have been the first joint operation between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Under an overcast sky at the Norfolk naval base in Virginia, President Clinton led thousands of US servicemen in mourning the 17 victims of last week's blast, as the state department warned that more attacks against US citizens could be on the way in the Middle East or Turkey.
June 2001 Iraqi Complicity in the World Trade Center Bombing and Beyond Middle East Intelligence Bulletin
by Laurie Mylroie On February 26, 1993, a massive bomb exploded in the parking garage of the north tower of the World Trade Center building in New York City, killing six people and leaving a crater six stories deep in the building's basement floors. The mastermind of the bombing, Ramzi Yousef, later boasted that he had hoped to kill 250,000 people. Two years later, Yousef was involved in a plot to bomb a dozen US airplanes flying over the Pacific.

Yousef's bombing plots gave rise to the notion that a new form of international terrorism had emerged that was not state-sponsored, but said to consist of "loose networks" of militant Muslims, not backed by states. Yet, as The Washington Post recently noted, "some critics have disputed this approach, contending that rogue nations like Iraq have managed to slip intelligence operatives in and out of bomb conspiracies, leaving the FBI to chase and catch the small fish that the skilled men left behind."
July 21, 2001 "American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin"
referenced in Saddam Warned of WTC Attack Before 9/11, Praised Bin Laden Afterwards by Carl Limbacher, NewsMax, March 29, 2004
Al-Nasiriya
(state-controlled Iraqi newspaper)
by Naeem Abd Muhalhal In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the US “with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.”

The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden “will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,” and that the US “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs” – an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, “New York, New York”.
August 1, 2001 Osama bin Laden to lead Taliban military operations Pravda online Citing high-ranking Afghan sources, the Pakistani newspaper, Nation, has reported that the Taliban have appointed two international terrorists, Osama bin Laden and Juma Namangani, to lead military operations against the Northern Alliance.

According to the paper's information, the Taliban leadership has de facto appointed terrorist no.1, bin Laden, as defence minister. He is currently organising offensives from his secret hide-out. Another terrorist, the Uzbek Juma Namangani, has become bin Laden's assistant, carrying out his orders on the northern front.

In the paper's opinion, the new appointments will increase the role of Arab, Pakistani and other foreign mercenaries fighting for the Taliban and could lead to new groups of religious fanatics entering Afghanistan. According to Nation's information, up to 60,000 foreign mercenaries are now fighting for the Taliban.

Post-911 X X X
September 13, 2001 The Iraqi Connection
Did Osama bin Laden act alone? Not likely.
WSJ.com Opinion Journal
by Laurie Mylroie Following the "resolution" of the second crisis, in late February 1998, through the mediation of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, bin Laden began to issue a series of bloody-minded threats against Americans. Soon Baghdad was issuing its own threats, asserting that its proscribed weapons of mass destruction had been eliminated and demanding that sanctions be lifted.

The threats issued by bin Laden, the threats issued by Iraq, and the preparations for the bombing all moved in virtual lockstep. On Aug. 3, 1998, Unscom chairman Richard Butler arrived in Baghdad. The Iraqis demanded that he declare Iraq in compliance or leave immediately. Mr. Butler departed the next day. The following day, Aug. 5, Baghdad declared "suspension day"--that is, the suspension of weapons inspections. It restated its previous threats, affirming, "To those against whom war is made, permission is given to fight."
September 19, 2001 Who did it? Foreign Report presents an alternative view Jane's The Iraqis, who for several years paid smaller groups to do their dirty work, were quick to discover the advantages of Al-Qaeda. The Israeli sources claim that for the past two years Iraqi intelligence officers were shuttling between Baghdad and Afghanistan, meeting with Ayman Al Zawahiri. According to the sources, one of the Iraqi intelligence officers, Salah Suleiman, was captured last October by the Pakistanis near the border with Afghanistan. The Iraqis are also reported to have established strong ties with Imad Mughniyeh.

"... One of our indications suggested that Imad Mughniyeh met with some of his dormant agents on secret trips to Germany. We believe that the operational brains behind the New-York attack were Mughniyeh and Zawahiri, who were probably financed and got some logistical support from the Iraqi Intelligence Service (SSO)."

Mughniyeh was the only one believed to have tried it before. On April 12th 1997, he was reported to be only two hours away from achieving the highest goal of any terrorist organisation (until last week): blowing up an Israeli El-Al airliner above Tel Aviv.
September 23, 2001 Alert by Saddam points to Iraq The Telegraph (UK)
by Jessica Berry in Jerusalem, Philip Sherwell and David Wastell in Washington
SADDAM HUSSEIN put his troops on their highest military alert since the Gulf war two weeks before the suicide attacks on America in the strongest indication yet that the Iraqi dictator knew an atrocity was planned.

Since the attacks, The Telegraph has learnt that the Iraqi leader had been providing al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, with funding, logistical back-up and advanced weapons training. His operations reached a "frantic pace" in the past few months, according to Western intelligence officials.
October 18, 2001. Gunning for Saddam
Interview with Laurie Mylroie
Frontline - PBS.org The reason that the Clinton administration did not want the evidence of Iraqi involvement coming out in the Trade Center bombing was because, in June of 1993, Clinton had attacked Iraqi intelligence headquarters. It was for the attempt to kill George Bush. But Clinton also believed that that attack on Iraqi intelligence headquarters would take care of the bombing in New York, that it would deter Iraq from all future acts of terrorism. And by not telling the public what was suspected of happening -- that New York FBI really believed Iraq was behind the Trade Center bombing -- Clinton avoided raising the possibility the public might demand that the United States do a lot more than just bomb one building. And Clinton didn't want to do more. Clinton wanted to focus on domestic politics, including health policy.
October 2001 Mounting Evidence of Iraqi Link to Terror Attacks Middle East Intelligence Bulletin
by Ziad K. Abdelnour According to the London-based Iraqi National Congress (INC), Hijazi and Brigadier-General Habib Ma'amouri reportedly developed plans for hijacking civilian airliners and crashing them into civilian targets during the mid-1990s at the GID Special Operations Branch in Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. Two Iraqi defectors have corroborated this claim. A former Iraqi military officer, Sabah Khalifa Khodada Alami, said he was in charge of training an elite special forces team, "designed to plan and conduct operations against US and British interests around the world," at Salman Pak. Using a Boeing 707 parked inside the complex, Alami's team practiced hijacking planes without weapons. He also said that another team of non-Iraqis underwent similar training at the same camp. A second defector gave a similar description of the camp, and recounted meeting some of the non-Iraqi trainees, whom he described as deeply religious, when a group of five Saudis and an Egyptian helped him move his car and jump-start the engine.
April 21, 2002 Saddam 'sends troops to help bin Laden men' The Telegraph (UK)
by Sarah Latham The strongest evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden has emerged with reports that the Iraqi dictator is supporting former al-Qa'eda fighters who have established a Taliban-style enclave in Kurdistan.

Members of Saddam's Republican Guard have been seen in two villages run by militants from Ansar al-Islam inside Iraqi Kurdistan, an area which is otherwise controlled by anti-Saddam factions.
August 25, 2002 Saddam killed Abu Nidal over al-Qa'eda row The Telegraph (UK)
by By Con Coughlin
Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist, was murdered on the orders of Saddam Hussein after refusing to train al-Qa'eda fighters based in Iraq, The Telegraph can reveal.

Despite claims by Iraqi officials that Abu Nidal committed suicide after being implicated in a plot to overthrow Saddam, Western diplomats now believe that he was killed for refusing to reactivate his international terrorist network.
September 4, 2002 11 September victims sue Iraq BBC News (UK) Victims and relatives of victims of the 11 September tragedy are suing Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein for their alleged role in the attacks on the United States.

Two lawsuits are being filed by 1,400 plaintiffs in a Manhattan federal court to demand a total of more than $1,000bn from Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network and the former Taleban rulers in Afghanistan.
September 5, 2002 Lawsuit: Iraq Involved In 9/11 Conspiracy CBS News.com Over a thousand victims and family members of those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks sued Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein Wednesday alleging there is evidence of a conspiracy with Osama bin Laden to attack the United States.

The lawsuit alleges that Iraqi officials were aware, before Sept. 11, of plans by bin Laden to attack New York and the Pentagon
September 12, 2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 USCG.mil Mr. WARNER: It is interesting, against his speech is the background of another President, President Clinton, who on February 19, 1998, referring to his own perspective on terrorism, said, referring to the terrorists:
"They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas, and they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow this to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of the region, and the security of all the rest of us."

May 12, 2003 The Al Qaeda Connection: Saddam's links to Osama were no secret. The Weekly Standard
by Stephen F. Hayes Babil, the official newspaper of Saddam Hussein's government, run by his oldest son Uday, last fall published information that appears to confirm U.S. allegations of links between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. It adds one more piece to the small pile of evidence emerging from Iraq that, when added to the jigsaw puzzle we already had, makes obsolete the question of whether Saddam and Osama bin Laden were in league and leaves in doubt only the extent of the connection
March 19, 2003 WND stories on al-Qaida-Iraq link WorldNetDaily
various Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, as well as financial and logistical support, and may have included the bombing of the USS Cole and the Sept. 11 attacks.

That's the assessment of a 16-page top secret government memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee, reports the Weekly Standard.
June 25, 2003 Document links Saddam, bin Laden The Tennessean
by Gilbert S Merritt Federal appellate Judge Gilbert S. Merritt of Nashville is in Iraq as one of 13 experts selected by the U.S. Justice Department to help rebuild Iraq's judicial system.
"Through an unusual set of circumstances, I have been given documentary evidence of the names and positions of the 600 closest people in Iraq to Saddam Hussein, as well as his ongoing relationship with Osama bin Laden."

July 11, 2003 The Al Qaeda Connection, cont.: More reason to suspect that bin Laden and Saddam may have been in league. The Weekly Standard
by Stephen F. Hayes Former Navy Secretary John Lehman, a member of the congressional commission investigating the September 11 attacks, added to the intrigue this week when he flatly declared, "there is evidence" of Iraq-al Qaeda links. Lehman has access to classified intelligence as a member of the commission, intelligence that has convinced him the links may have been even greater than the public pronouncements of the Bush administration might suggest. "There is no doubt in my mind that [Iraq] trained them in how to prepare and deliver anthrax and to use terror weapons."
July 13, 2003 Bin Laden and Iraq FrontPageMagazine.com
by Anonymous Sourced quotes from the following journals (no online links):
The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), December 28, 1999U.S.
Newswire, December 23, 1999
The Observer. December 19, 1999
United Press International. November 3, 1999
Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio). October 31, 1999
The Kansas City Star. March 2, 1999

... He (bin Laden) has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States and any country friendly to the United States....

Los Angeles Times. February 23, 1999
National Public Radio (NPR), February 18, 1999
Agence France Presse. February 17, 1999
Deutsche Presse-Agentur. February 17, 1999
Associated Press Worldstream. February 14, 1999
San Jose Mercury News (California). February 14, 1999
United Press International. January 3, 1999

September 1, 2003 'Losing bin Laden' Townhall.com
by Robert Novak On Oct. 12, 2000, the day of the devastating terrorist attack on the USS Cole, President Clinton's highest-level national security team met to determine what to do. Counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke wanted to hit Afghanistan, aiming at Osama bin Laden's complex and the terrorist leader himself. But Clarke was all alone. There was no support for a retaliatory strike that, if successful, might have prevented the 9/11 carnage.

This startling story is told for the first time in a book by Brussels-based investigative reporter Richard Miniter to be published this week. Losing bin Laden relates that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Atty. Gen. Janet Reno and CIA Director George Tenet all said no to the attack.
September 19, 2003 No Question About It: Saddam and the terrorists
National Review Online
by James S. Robbins But the premise is facile. The principle that drove Iraq and al Qaeda together is one of the oldest in international-relations theory — the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The motive for their alliance was a common hatred for the United States and Israel.

Saddam Hussein showed no reluctance to support terrorism per se during his career. The fact that he gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide terrorists and had a close working relationship with the PLO was well known, and something he admitted. The Iraqi regime maintained a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak near Baghdad where foreign terrorists were instructed in methods of taking over commercial aircraft using weapons no more sophisticated than knives (interesting thought that). Saddam also harbored Abu Nidal and other members of his international terror organization (ANO) in Baghdad.
September 22, 2003 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Account Links 9/11 to '93 WTC Attack NewsMax.com
by Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
According to a report Sunday by the Associated Press, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "told his interrogators he had worked in 1994 and 1995 in the Philippines with Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah on the foiled Bojinka plot to blow up 12 Western airliners simultaneously in Asia."

Yousef, of course, was the man who plotted and executed the failed 1993 World Trade Center bombing, who entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport the year before and whose partner in the plot, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was granted sanctuary by Saddam Hussein after the attack. Yasin is still at large.

Unmentioned by the AP, Mohammed's account of meetings with Yousef has been corroborated by Yousef's Bojinka partner, Abdul Hakim Murad. After his capture in 1995, Murad told the FBI that he and Yousef were contacted by Mohammed repeatedly during their time in the Philippines. Murad's FBI 302 witness statements detailing the contacts are reprinted in the new book "1000 Years for Revenge," by investigative reporter Peter Lance.
December 29, 2003 The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties

Connecting the dots in 1998, but not in 2003. The Weekly Standard
by Stephen F. Hayes Are al Qaeda's links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq just a fantasy of the Bush administration? Hardly. The Clinton administration also warned the American public about those ties and defended its response to al Qaeda terror by citing an Iraqi connection.

For nearly two years, starting in 1996, the CIA monitored the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. The plant was known to have deep connections to Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation, and the CIA had gathered intelligence on the budding relationship between Iraqi chemical weapons experts and the plant's top officials. The intelligence included information that several top chemical weapons specialists from Iraq had attended ceremonies to celebrate the plant's opening in 1996. And, more compelling, the National Security Agency had intercepted telephone calls between Iraqi scientists and the plant's general manager.
February 22, 2004 Ghost Wars : The CIA and Osama bin Laden, 1997-1999
A Secret Hunt Unravels in Afghanistan
Mission to Capture or Kill al Qaeda Leader Frustrated by Near Misses, Political Disputes
Washington Post
by Steve Coll As bin Laden's bloodcurdling televised threats against Americans increased in number and menace during 1997, the CIA -- with approval from Clinton's White House -- turned from just watching bin Laden toward making plans to capture him.

At Langley, CIA officers sometimes saw the Clinton cabinet as overly cautious, obsessed with legalities and unwilling to take political risks in Afghanistan by arming bin Laden's Afghan enemies and directly confronting the radical Taliban Islamic militia. But at the Clinton White House, senior policymakers and counterterrorism analysts sometimes saw the CIA's efforts in Afghanistan as timid, naïve, self-protecting and ineffective.
April 27, 2004 The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden The Telegraph
by Inigo Gilmore Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.
Property Classified

Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.
June 23, 2004 The Connection
Interview with Stephen F. Hayes, the author of The Connection: How al-Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America
FrontPageMagazine.com
by Jamie Glazov
In late 1998, according to U.S. intelligence documents and numerous reports in the media, Saddam dispatched Faruz Hijazi, a top intelligence officer and longtime al Qaeda liaison, to Afghanistan to offer Osama bin Laden safe haven in Iraq. Saddam was continuing his policy of denying UN inspectors access to sensitive sites. The inspectors left Iraq and a 70-hour bombing campaign – Desert Fox – ensued. Meanwhile, just five months after the simultaneous al Qaeda bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa, the Taliban was receiving intense pressure from the West to expel bin Laden. The overture sparked widespread news media coverage of the possibility that, as you say, our two most dangerous foes could be collaborating against us.
September 22, 2004 Saddam and Osama Bin Laden Worked Together for Over a Decade Free Republic
posted by Peach Numerous links to articles as well as valuable articles or excerpts from articles that have expired links. Wealth of information, but quite a maze.
September 23, 2004 Making the Case: For War Against Iraq The Federal Observer
by Barbara Stanley I have heard many in the media and elsewhere (as in the recent antiwar march in D.C. that was sponsored by the Communists Workers World Party, the founders of the International A.N.S.W.E.R., comrades and good friends of N. Korea) claim Bush hasn’t made the case for war against Iraq. I have recently been given the research that makes the case, in no uncertain terms, once and for all, tying Iraq directly to the terrorists who threaten us all.

Herewith, the facts, for any who would just read them, for to be informed is to be able to pass this intel around to others. At the end of this piece, there is a direct connection, also, with the Venezuelan Chavez government (Fidel Castro’s close ally and friend) and this, I believe, should sound the alarm. The Chinese communists now control both ends of the Panama Canal and this bodes ill for the land-route coming up to our southern border. Considering the Chinese Communists were instrumental in arming the Taliban in Afghanistan, their involvement, especially now with the N. Korean nukes, brings a dangerous note to the current world situation.

LOL! There is absolutely nothing in the world wrong with peace, but "peace at any price," especially when you were attacked first, is totally unacceptable.

Ah, but there's a whole word of wrong when you take your eye off the people who attacked us to go attack another country who had nothing at all to do with the terrorist attacks.

Oh, I'm sorry, were you unaware of the fact that we now have fewer operatives working inside Al Qaeda than we had before 9/11?

Just on the outside chance you might be interested in a partial list of the connections between Saddam and Ben Laden, I've posted a few below:

Nice that you failed to include all the information that shows that Al Qaeda and Iraq did not have a collaborative relationship. Good job at cherry picking.

Also, I see no references about Iraq working specifically on 9/11 in all that.

Some of that laundry list you posted also had nothing to do with Iraq and Al Qaeda working together. I assume it's just filler to make the presentation look better?

There's some interesting stuff in there, but also a lot of supposition. You already know my well founded cynicism towards the right-wing's prognostication techniques.

Really. Let's see:
Number of terror attacks on United States installations, Navy ships, and in US territory during the Clinton years...1993, WTC; 1995, Oklahoma City; 1996, Khobar Towers; 1998, US embassies in Africa; 2000, USS Cole...sub-total: 5.

Number of terror attacks on United States installations, Navy ships, and in US territory during the Bush years...2001, WTC; 2001, anthrax attack; 2002, sniper attack...sub-total: 3.

Now, math hasn't always been my strong point, but 5 IS greater than 3. And yes, I count the anthrax attack as only one, since it was all associated...ditto with the sniper attacks, which were conducted as a single action.

The big difference, though...Bush has actually taken decisive actions against the terrorists, while Clinton (and Kerry by extension, since he proposes to take us back to the Clintonian course of action against terrorism,) would simply serve terrorists with sub-poenas, after getting permission from other countries.
Here's the problem with your math. The five terrorist attacks on Clinton's watch occurred over eight years, while the three on Bush's watch occurred over about 3.5 years. That's a higher ratio for Bush than for Clinton.

And Eutrusca, I think I may understand why you're so confused about a lot of the situation--you're believing Laurie Mylroie. She's a loon who's been trying to tie Bin laden to Hussein since the early 90s, and she's never been believed by anyone with any sense. Check the reliability of your sources, man.

Here's a piece on Mylroie (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html) from the Washington Monthly that gives some small examples of just how far she's willing to go to try to make a link between Hussein and Bin Laden, even though none exists.

Here's the problem with your math. The five terrorist attacks on Clinton's watch occurred over eight years, while the three on Bush's watch occurred over about 3.5 years. That's a higher ratio for Bush than for Clinton.

And Eutrusca, I think I may understand why you're so confused about a lot of the situation--you're believing Laurie Mylroie. She's a loon who's been trying to tie Bin laden to Hussein since the early 90s, and she's never been believed by anyone with any sense. Check the reliability of your sources, man.

Indeed. You'd think if this evidence was reliable, it would have been cited in the 9/11 report, and yet the 9/11 commission clearly stated: No collablrative relationship.

You're going to have to trace the logic of that assumption. For clarity, I'll retrace mine:

The statement was that George Bush has done a good job fighting terrorism.

I question that statement, pointing out that terrorism has increased under George Bush. Which would mean that if it was bad under Clinton, it's worse now.

So, tell me how you arrived at the assumption that I think doing nothing is better from that question. Do you live in a world where there are only two choices to every problem?

I stated that it is obvious that when fighting the war on terror, it will increase before it gets better, it's part of the price, you made the statement that because it has increased Bush is doing a bad job, I say because it is getting worse we must be doing something to piss them off, YES?
Perhaps it is that we wont lie down and take it, for ourselves, or for freedom in general, or maybe, they were just waiting for an excuse LOL, who knows. Look, this is a simple matter, When the bully on the block is given your lunch money each day like good little worms, he's probabaly not gonna rough you up as much, but if you don't bring it or decide to fight him for it, Your gonna take some licks, thats all there is to it, and yes, in this situation there is only 2 choices, fight evil and oppression wherever you find it, destroy the nations, leaders etc, that support terror, and show the world that when we say all men are created equal, and that we all have unalienable rights WE MEAN IT. Or we can lay down and say, hey could you please not do that, it's not nice. Hey I got an idea, how bout we give you some military secrets or some money or something huh, will ya leave us alone now. Hmmm, please whimper whimper.
Rob

Nice that you failed to include all the information that shows that Al Qaeda and Iraq did not have a collaborative relationship. Good job at cherry picking.
Also, I see no references about Iraq working specifically on 9/11 in all that.
Some of that laundry list you posted also had nothing to do with Iraq and Al Qaeda working together. I assume it's just filler to make the presentation look better?
There's some interesting stuff in there, but also a lot of supposition. You already know my well founded cynicism towards the right-wing's prognostication techniques.

About what I would have expected from you en re that post. In your case, it's not just cynicism, it's outright refusal to accept any information which doesn't support your a priori assumptions. Don't fret, I won't try to convince you anymore.

And this use of the term "cherry-picking" is as specious as the day is long. What did you expect? That I would try to list everything that has happened since the attacks on the Achille Laro up to the present, then sort through them and list all pro on one side and all con on the other? Surely even YOU can see that's an impossible task.

It's all wasted effort anyway. I just thought there might actually be SOMEone amongst the far left with enough intellectual honesty to actually consider raw data and like ... you know ... actually THINK! Silly, silly me! Tsk!

Here's a piece on Mylroie (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html) from the Washington Monthly that gives some small examples of just how far she's willing to go to try to make a link between Hussein and Bin Laden, even though none exists.

Eutrusca's source: PWN3D

When the bully on the block is given your lunch money each day like good little worms, he's probabaly not gonna rough you up as much, but if you don't bring it or decide to fight him for it, Your gonna take some licks, thats all there is to it.

By the way not to bring up an old point, but, That IS a good example of common sense.
Rob

About what I would have expected from you en re that post. In your case, it's not just cynicism, it's outright refusal to accept any information which doesn't support your a priori assumptions. Don't fret, I won't try to convince you anymore.

And this use of the term "cherry-picking" is as specious as the day is long. What did you expect? That I would try to list everything that has happened since the attacks on the Achille Laro up to the present, then sort through them and list all pro on one side and all con on the other? Surely even YOU can see that's an impossible task.

It's all wasted effort anyway. I just thought there might actually be SOMEone amongst the far left with enough intellectual honesty to actually consider raw data and like ... you know ... actually THINK! Silly, silly me! Tsk!

Yes, but the source you used has been completely refuted,as per the article linked by Incertona. I'm sure you would eye any post I would make citing, for example, Michael Moore with as much, if not more, cynicism. Hence I do not use Moore to back up my arguments, since it would utterly fail to support my position, in your eyes. What that leaves us with is citing sources that have been independently fact-checked and are more widely accepted as unimpeachable sources.

Also, in your assumption that I am to the far left, you reveal that you think any points of view in opposition to yours must be, by definition, extreme. I do not consider myself far-left, though I do acknowledge that I lean somewhat left of moderate.

When the bully on the block is given your lunch money each day like good little worms, he's probabaly not gonna rough you up as much, but if you don't bring it or decide to fight him for it, Your gonna take some licks, thats all there is to it.

By the way not to bring up an old point, but, That IS a good example of common sense.
Rob

Yeah, but it helps nothing if you decide to beat someone else up because you suspect they may, at sometime in the future, decide to make a try at your lunch money while you meanwhile turn your back on the bully. All you end up doing is create more support for the bully continuing to beat you up.

I stated that it is obvious that when fighting the war on terror, it will increase before it gets better, it's part of the price, you made the statement that because it has increased Bush is doing a bad job, I say because it is getting worse we must be doing something to piss them off, YES?
Perhaps it is that we wont lie down and take it, for ourselves, or for freedom in general, or maybe, they were just waiting for an excuse LOL, who knows. Look, this is a simple matter, When the bully on the block is given your lunch money each day like good little worms, he's probabaly not gonna rough you up as much, but if you don't bring it or decide to fight him for it, Your gonna take some licks, thats all there is to it, and yes, in this situation there is only 2 choices, fight evil and oppression wherever you find it, destroy the nations, leaders etc, that support terror, and show the world that when we say all men are created equal, and that we all have unalienable rights WE MEAN IT. Or we can lay down and say, hey could you please not do that, it's not nice. Hey I got an idea, how bout we give you some military secrets or some money or something huh, will ya leave us alone now. Hmmm, please whimper whimper.
Rob

So an increase in terrorism is an indicator that we're getting it right? How far are you willing to commit to that before you question the technique? How many lives will you sacrafice marching in columns before you start thinking of a new way to fight the war?

I don't recall you stating that because it was getting worse, I recall you stating that we where winning. But that's a semantic point.

I would say we where doing something to piss the terrorists off already. That we've gotten better at pissing them off is no consilation for me.

No one, and I mean no one, is talking about not fighting terrorism. So your simplistic binary is meaningless. The argument is how to go about it. It is only those whose plan is so slipshod, so ill concieved, that they would try to paint it as the only one.

You still didn't clarify how you arrived at the assumption that I advocate doing nothing, though you did hint at it by your notion that there is only one way to fight. But that lockstep mentality is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be voted out of office.

Yeah, but it helps nothing if you decide to beat someone else up because you suspect they may, at sometime in the future, decide to make a try at your lunch money while you meanwhile turn your back on the bully. All you end up doing is create more support for the bully continuing to beat you up.
To further rack this metaphor, if said bully has been going around telling the other kids on the playground that you are the bully and he's really protecting them-and then is able to point to all the times you've shoved other kids aside for your own gain, and then because something the 'bully' did you start wailing on the fat kid-because he looked at you funny-not only would the playground not give you sympathy, they might join in and beat your bully ass.

When the bully on the block is given your lunch money each day like good little worms, he's probabaly not gonna rough you up as much, but if you don't bring it or decide to fight him for it, Your gonna take some licks, thats all there is to it.
By the way not to bring up an old point, but, That IS a good example of common sense. Rob

LOL! Touche! Actually, I would have called it "learned behavior or perhaps "cause and effect," but I see your point! LOL!

No one, and I mean no one, is talking about not fighting terrorism.

Kerry may as well be. He has consistenly voted against pay increases for active duty military personnel, against better housing for their families, indeed against virtually ALL defense spending. He has stated that, "I'd like to see our troops dispersed around the world only at the directive of the United Nations." He has maintained that we no longer need the CIA, and has called Yasser Arafat "a statesman" and a "role model!" He has voted to kill all anti terrorism activities of every agency of the U.S. Government; to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%; to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%; to cut the funding for the NSA by 80%; and then voted to increase OUR funding for United Nations operations by 800%!

Yes, but the source you used has been completely refuted,as per the article linked by Incertona.

I know no such thing. I didn't see any "refutation" of the source I used, anywhere by anyone on this board. What "source" did I use? Can you even tell me that?

Kerry may as well be. He has consistenly voted against pay increases for active duty military personnel, against better housing for their families, indeed against virtually ALL defense spending. He has stated that, "I'd like to see our troops dispersed around the world only at the directive of the United Nations." He has maintained that we no longer need the CIA, and has called Yasser Arafat "a statesman" and a "role model!" He has voted to kill all anti terrorism activities of every agency of the U.S. Government; to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%; to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%; to cut the funding for the NSA by 80%; and then voted to increase OUR funding for United Nations operations by 800%!
You (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=187) really (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177) need (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155) too (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=153) keep (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=147) up.

Come on man. These go back to Feb. Really.

I know no such thing. I didn't see any "refutation" of the source I used, anywhere by anyone on this board. What "source" did I use? Can you even tell me that?
He's talking about the article I linked from the Washington Monthly that talked about the fact-challenged Laurie Mylroie. You quoted her in your articles from Newsmax. Take an honest look at it and then start questioning how much credence you ougt to give Ms. Mylroie's charges about the links between Bin Laden and Hussein, especially when contrasted with the findings of the bipartisan 9/11 commission.

Yeah, but it helps nothing if you decide to beat someone else up because you suspect they may, at sometime in the future, decide to make a try at your lunch money while you meanwhile turn your back on the bully. All you end up doing is create more support for the bully continuing to beat you up.

It seems we have much to cover in this little statement. My statement has been taken out of context my meaning was to help someone understand why it is you get more attacks when you do something vs. nothing, or pacifiy.
I will however accept this question as it brings a good question. Sure you help bolster the resolve and even help to encourage others to their cause when you attack them, that is given, I however would point out where this is headed. Those who would support a Terrorist, or supporter of terrorism, are either 1. already cowed by this said terrorist. 2. too scared to take a stand 3. have something to gain from the terrorist nation or their agenda. 4. are already in bed with the terrorist either as a team for a common goal, or just for monitary gain. 5. or they could be the terrorist themselves. Not to many good options to choose from eh. So who cares what these people think anyway. The other questions you raised obviously have to do with a dual front, and why Iraq. Well, lets see. First to ask why Saddam, I ask Why not. He was a tyrant who desimated, and commited unspeakable acts against his own populace. Not to mention either had the potental or the desire to aquire WMD not that I really believe that matters. Wether he had interactions with Osama and boys, really isn't the issue, Saddam was an evil man in his own right and needed to be stopped, and yes in the new climate after 911 we have to be excessivly prudent and aware of potental attacks. His willingness to use WMD before, his thumbing his nose at an ineffective and in some ways supportive of him UN, we had to address this issue, as we will have to address all the rest sooner or later. Saddam was potentally in the wrong place at the wrong time but a statement had to be made and it was, terrorists and the states that support terrror will be destroyed. Was reasoning with ties to Osama, or WMD real reasoning, or was it hype in the interest of ensuring our position. That also doesn't really matter perhaps it was a little of both. JIHAD is such an ugly word, but one I believe we will take to terrorists everywhere, whether in the middle east, asia, europe, or africa, ours is truely a Rightious mission, ending this sort of disgusting behavior, or at the very least turning the purpitraters back into the social perihas that they are instead of a misunderstood group of folks who just need some love and attention.
Rob

He's talking about the article I linked from the Washington Monthly that talked about the fact-challenged Laurie Mylroie. You quoted her in your articles from Newsmax. Take an honest look at it and then start questioning how much credence you ougt to give Ms. Mylroie's charges about the links between Bin Laden and Hussein, especially when contrasted with the findings of the bipartisan 9/11 commission.

I won't spring for your ploy to discredit everything I've said by putting me in the position of defending someone about whom I know virtually nothing. If it will make you happy, I'll simply remove the three references from Laurie Mylroie. Happy now? : ))

Typical conservative. They avoid the real issues because they're obviously losing and instead they call Kerry anti-american (like it's possible if you're running for PRESIDENT) and a terrorist.

Lets try not to use the word typical, all this does is show us your point of context to what you believe a conservative is. Which if I may point out appears to be off. There are just as many different conservatives as there are liberals, libertariens, etc. Im sure not all liberals beleive in socialist ideas although some do, as I'd wager not all conservatives are christians. Leave the generalizations out of it. (it only makes you seem intolerant, and no good liberal wants that do they LOL)...(before you get crazy the last part was a joke in counterpoint, K?)
Rob

You (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=187) really (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177) need (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155) too (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=153) keep (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=147) up.

Come on man. These go back to Feb. Really.

Oh, my God, no! All the way back to FEBRUARY? What WAS I thinking? TSK!

Oh, my God, no! All the way back to FEBRUARY? What WAS I thinking? TSK!
What was that you were saying about how extremists refuse to look at contrary evidence? Physician, heal thyself.

To the original point:

Bush has tried to cut pay to veteran's hospitals (and all of VA), cut combat pay, and various other things. Its nothing unique.

Additionally, you have to look at the actual bills and the reasons for voting against it. Did the bills have riders on them that made them totally unpalatable? Did the bills have sources of funding? You can't really fairly say that someone voted against something if voting for it would have been a terrible travesty. This is a common strategy by both parties to make the other look bad. The Republicans enjoy this tactic greatly, having spent the whole of the Clinton presidency perfecting it.

As for the war on Iraq... it is unrelated to the war on terror. If you believe we should go to war with all oppressive regiemes, I'd advise signing up. Here are some of the wonderful foes you'll have to face:

Every single country in the Middle East
China
Half of Africa

Have fun!

Bush has tried to cut pay to veteran's hospitals (and all of VA), cut combat pay, and various other things. Its nothing unique.

Now THIS is unadulterated bull crap! I have seen my VA benefits increase several times since President Bush was elected. I can look up the specifics, but that's an excercise in overkill. President Bush is one of the best friends veterans have ever had since Eisenhower was in office. Talk about distorting the facts! Jeeze!

What was that you were saying about how extremists refuse to look at contrary evidence? Physician, heal thyself.

WHAT "contrary evidence?" All you did was state that the statements go "all the way back to February." And that's your "evidence?" Hell, no wonder Kerry's in so much trouble!

So. . . .Lets go to war with Iraq, whoever doesn't is against me. . . . The 3 axis of evil! I want to attack them all, whoever doesn't with me is against me. . . . Now, lets have everyone in Europe and Asia cut ties with Palistine, who ever doesn't is against me. . . . . Poor Europeans and Asians!

America is Capitalistic, we have a free market system . . .LETS USE IT! who cares what other countries do, we take their money anyways. Sure the arabs get pissed off at us for giving them shirts that has american flags on them, turning them into human bill boards and such, but would we rather want to recieve money, or give money? hmmm . . . You know the Pope declared crusades on the middle east to get the holy sites back I.E. save western rome from killing each other (gave the pope power). . . and it ended up having spain conquered, byzantium, and a lot of trouble that sent everyone to the grave. Bush sucks, Kerry i dunno, but i know for one thing is certain. . . 3rd candidate! Its like on the simpsons where the aliens run for president and claim "Go ahead, waste your vote" . . .yeah, these next couple of years i predict is going to be where America gets stuck in 2nd place

So. . . .Lets go to war with Iraq, whoever doesn't is against me. . . . The 3 axis of evil! I want to attack them all, whoever doesn't with me is against me. . . . Now, lets have everyone in Europe and Asia cut ties with Palistine, who ever doesn't is against me. . . . . Poor Europeans and Asians!

America is Capitalistic, we have a free market system . . .LETS USE IT! who cares what other countries do, we take their money anyways. Sure the arabs get pissed off at us for giving them shirts that has american flags on them, turning them into human bill boards and such, but would we rather want to recieve money, or give money? hmmm . . . You know the Pope declared crusades on the middle east to get the holy sites back I.E. save western rome from killing each other (gave the pope power). . . and it ended up having spain conquered, byzantium, and a lot of trouble that sent everyone to the grave. Bush sucks, Kerry i dunno, but i know for one thing is certain. . . 3rd candidate! Its like on the simpsons where the aliens run for president and claim "Go ahead, waste your vote" . . .yeah, these next couple of years i predict is going to be where America gets stuck in 2nd place

So now the friggin' Simpsons is a valid source of leftist material? God!

On that note, friends and neighbors, I leave you for the comfort of my bed. Have a nice night everyone.

WHAT "contrary evidence?" All you did was state that the statements go "all the way back to February." And that's your "evidence?" Hell, no wonder Kerry's in so much trouble!
No, champ-the links I put up went back to feb. C'mon, we followed your links to yourself, the least you could do is act in kind.

WHAT "contrary evidence?" All you did was state that the statements go "all the way back to February." And that's your "evidence?" Hell, no wonder Kerry's in so much trouble!

Included in that post were several links to factcheck.org. Links you failed to click on. All those "anti-Defense" Kerry arguments are cases of extreme stretching of the truth at the very least.

If you have a problem with factcheck.org, please cite an article or make an argument that clearly explains why.

And if you think that was a predictive site, try THIS one. The First 100 Days of A Kerry Presidency:

http://paradigmassociates.org/OneMansOpinion.html

Hahahahahahahaha.

Like your President, you seemed to have begun a course of action without adequately thinking it through.
In case you didn't realize in your ridiculous fantasy, Kerry flees the country on day 31. (Thus rendering the title illogical).

So an increase in terrorism is an indicator that we're getting it right? How far are you willing to commit to that before you question the technique? How many lives will you sacrafice marching in columns before you start thinking of a new way to fight the war?

I don't recall you stating that because it was getting worse, I recall you stating that we where winning. But that's a semantic point.

I would say we where doing something to piss the terrorists off already. That we've gotten better at pissing them off is no consilation for me.

No one, and I mean no one, is talking about not fighting terrorism. So your simplistic binary is meaningless. The argument is how to go about it. It is only those whose plan is so slipshod, so ill concieved, that they would try to paint it as the only one.


You still didn't clarify how you arrived at the assumption that I advocate doing nothing, though you did hint at it by your notion that there is only one way to fight. But that lockstep mentality is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be voted out of office.

Clarification, Simple, your saying we have it wrong because things are getting worse, I say that it will get worse the harder we fight until we win. If fighting it makes it worse or rather causes more terrorist uprising than the only way to effectively lower the terrorist acts is to pacify them, or in effect, do nothing. If I read too much into your statement I apologize. However that is how I came to that conclusion. As for a lockstep mentality, Hmmm, do the right thing or not. A simple choice, and I would much rather accept a presidency willing to take the chance to do something, (it's not like theres a class in college Fighting Terrorism and Combating Pacifist Ideals 101) even if they make a mistake, this is a new kind of war, and one only this president has seen fit to take on, we didnt need 911 for a reason, there was plenty before. We need a president with the Resolve to not question the war based on temporary outcomes, it is a long process and we need to stay the course. This is quite possibly what will go down as the third world war, or at least a defining chapter in the history of the world, and of these United States. Sometimes Yes, the questions answer is binary, and I suppose I am to beleive that you beleive in the war, so if you in all your intelligence gathering, millitary prowess, and foreign diplomatic experience would like to propose a different action, feel free. But Im up to HERE (guess u cant see that) with people complaining about this but not offering any solutions.
Sorry, I try to keep my cool but sometimes.......that may not be you.....perhaps its someone else, its just so frustrating, we dont have all the info, the background or the weight of the responsibility of the free world on our shoulders, he does, and I for one am proud to call him President. Its just to easy to use hindsight to send out pot shots.
Rob

Clarification, Simple, your saying we have it wrong because things are getting worse, I say that it will get worse the harder we fight until we win. If fighting it makes it worse or rather causes more terrorist uprising than the only way to effectively lower the terrorist acts is to pacify them, or in effect, do nothing. If I read too much into your statement I apologize. However that is how I came to that conclusion. As for a lockstep mentality, Hmmm, do the right thing or not. A simple choice, and I would much rather accept a presidency willing to take the chance to do something, (it's not like theres a class in college Fighting Terrorism and Combating Pacifist Ideals 101) even if they make a mistake, this is a new kind of war, and one only this president has seen fit to take on, we didnt need 911 for a reason, there was plenty before. We need a president with the Resolve to not question the war based on temporary outcomes, it is a long process and we need to stay the course. This is quite possibly what will go down as the third world war, or at least a defining chapter in the history of the world, and of these United States. Sometimes Yes, the questions answer is binary, and I suppose I am to beleive that you beleive in the war, so if you in all your intelligence gathering, millitary prowess, and foreign diplomatic experience would like to propose a different action, feel free. But Im up to HERE (guess u cant see that) with people complaining about this but not offering any solutions.
Sorry, I try to keep my cool but sometimes.......that may not be you.....perhaps its someone else, its just so frustrating, we dont have all the info, the background or the weight of the responsibility of the free world on our shoulders, he does, and I for one am proud to call him President. Its just to easy to use hindsight to send out pot shots.
Rob
It's not hindsight if we've been saying it was a bad idea to begin with (Iraq). Fighting terror is one thing, fighting Iraq is another all together. I was unconvinced going in and I remain uncovinced. We need someone to keep their eyes on the prize, so to speak, not settle family fueds. There is a different plan. (http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html) Don't like it? Don't think it will work? Have that discussion. Don't pretend it doesn't exist.

I'm still troubled by using things getting worse as a barometer for things getting better. Nor do I like the notion of "don't question him, he knows what he's doing." For as much as anti-american is thrown about, that could fit the bill better. Absolutely question the president. I plan on doing it when/if Kerry is president and we should do it here as well.

Hahahahahahahaha.

Like your President, you seemed to have begun a course of action without adequately thinking it through.
In case you didn't realize in your ridiculous fantasy, Kerry flees the country on day 31. (Thus rendering the title illogical).

I guess you are not American right, perhaps you would like to add your invaluable input and insights to this conversation? How long would you have thought it through, how many countries would have to align for you to do something about terrorism in general. How many polls would you take to make sure everyone would still like you. Or would you instead decide to make money off the deal, or get in bed with said terrorist, to further your own interests. We don't need The UN, so many terrorist states have representation there like they are all ok, don't you think that undermines the integrity of the process. Or how about other countries, who are supposidly your allies but have ties to the terrorists? or perhaps they are just to concerned with their own welfare (to afraid, cowards I mean) to take a stand. Even when the country who is trying to counteract the worst scourge on the face of the planet (terrorism) is the same nation that helped to save so many others butts on D day. Guess no one remembers that.
Rob

I have a crazy idea (shared by many.) How about we look into the factors that create a person so zealous that they are willing to die for a cause? Poverty, culture shock, desperation, a culture of violence, moral outrage, and fundamentalist religious teachings are all factors.
If we keep fighting violence with only increased violence, we continue to create those conditions that allow the creation of our enemies in the first place. At that point, we're faced with ever-increasing violence until we kill them all off. Genocide, basically. Bush's doctorine leads inevitably to genocide as we continue to create terrorists faster than we can kill them.

It's funny that the party (Republicans) with the much better PR expertise when it comes to campaigning has done a thoroughly awful job of selling America to the rest of the world. I digress, though.

Every culture was barbaric at some point. Every culture was held in thrall by intense and violent religious beliefs. What pulls culture out of those conditions? Enlightened though and better living conditions.

Kerry's plan incorporates the idea of cutting off the cycle of hate. To replace hate with education. Fear and anger with hope. That's why he's the only choice for me (well, not the only choice, but the only choice that can win.)

It's not hindsight if we've been saying it was a bad idea to begin with (Iraq). Fighting terror is one thing, fighting Iraq is another all together. I was unconvinced going in and I remain uncovinced. We need someone to keep their eyes on the prize, so to speak, not settle family fueds. There is a different plan. (http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html) Don't like it? Don't think it will work? Have that discussion. Don't pretend it doesn't exist.

I'm still troubled by using things getting worse as a barometer for things getting better. Nor do I like the notion of "don't question him, he knows what he's doing." For as much as anti-american is thrown about, that could fit the bill better. Absolutely question the president. I plan on doing it when/if Kerry is president and we should do it here as well.

Fair enough, I will review that shortly, troubling as it may be, how far are we into a war that could potentially last into the next decade, or longer. Things are just heating up. And I didn't say dont question him hes the G## D!!!! president for gods sake. What I did say was that He is privy to information and pressures beyond our armchair discussions meaning we are not nessisaraly up to the task of taking him to task over these decisions. Although if you tend to dissagree with these actions another course would be nice, as well as perhaps talking and asking questions as to the decison making process before we just up and stake him out for burning.
Rob

Fair enough, I will review that shortly, troubling as it may be, how far are we into a war that could potentially last into the next decade, or longer. Things are just heating up. And I didn't say dont question him hes the G## D!!!! president for gods sake. What I did say was that He is privy to information and pressures beyond our armchair discussions meaning we are not nessisaraly up to the task of taking him to task over these decisions. Although if you tend to dissagree with these actions another course would be nice, as well as perhaps talking and asking questions as to the decison making process before we just up and stake him out for burning.
Rob
I don't buy the 'he knows what he's doing' defense. He's gotta make the case, that's actually most of his job, as well as being the 'face' of our nation to the rest of the world, both jobs he's been piss-poor at doing.

I have a crazy idea (shared by many.) How about we look into the factors that create a person so zealous that they are willing to die for a cause? Poverty, culture shock, desperation, a culture of violence, moral outrage, and fundamentalist religious teachings are all factors.
If we keep fighting violence with only increased violence, we continue to create those conditions that allow the creation of our enemies in the first place. At that point, we're faced with ever-increasing violence until we kill them all off. Genocide, basically. Bush's doctorine leads inevitably to genocide as we continue to create terrorists faster than we can kill them.

It's funny that the party (Republicans) with the much better PR expertise when it comes to campaigning has done a thoroughly awful job of selling America to the rest of the world. I digress, though.

Every culture was barbaric at some point. Every culture was held in thrall by intense and violent religious beliefs. What pulls culture out of those conditions? Enlightened though and better living conditions.

Kerry's plan incorporates the idea of cutting off the cycle of hate. To replace hate with education. Fear and anger with hope. That's why he's the only choice for me (well, not the only choice, but the only choice that can win.)

Alright now we get to the meat of your point. Lets educate, enlighten, and love on these people so they will love us back. This is I'm sorry to report, a ridiculous notion, where was/is their sense of sensibility, didn't see it on 911, haven't seen it in Palistine, dont see it in N Korea, where is it. This premis can only work if all people are basically good, sorry but that isnt true. Sometimes there is a price to pay and it is in blood. Perhaps the real hero isnt the one who shakes hands with evil, not even the one who defeats it, but rather the one who despite the odds holding back the fear...Fights it even to his/her last breath. Life and this world are not easy or fair, it was never ment to be so, instead it is a trial that lays open the core of a man for his maker, the world, and himself to see if he is willing to look. Unfortunatly, so many leaders retain their position based on hate and fear, they will not give up their posts nor can you expect them to, its not in them. Ill bet Hitler wouldve given up If we just asked nice enough.
Rob

I don't buy the 'he knows what he's doing' defense. He's gotta make the case, that's actually most of his job, as well as being the 'face' of our nation to the rest of the world, both jobs he's been piss-poor at doing.

I am fairly certain I never said he knows what hes doing, what I said was that he knows things we dont (and to your point, thats not the kind of thing you offer up to the 10 oclock news while your making the decision.) He gambled on the WMD, bad move, but the war is still just and one we must win, not just for us but for all civilization, then we can hope for a more utopian world, lets just get the powerful bad guys first OK.
Rob

By the way, making the case isnt the greatest part of his job his is to protect and preserve the constitution and to provide leadership for this country, and yes he is the face of our country, guess alot of other people liked the kissy face, opps look at that spooge, clinton, who did make us look like a bunch of gullable idiots, That man was a clown. Not a care for national security, He was only playing for his own gain, when you do that, you try not to make to many waves. Yet, this president is a "stand up" kinda guy, he doesn't care what you or the rest of the world thinks about him, hes got a job to do and he intends to do it with or with out you, and I'd be willing to bet that it is exactly that, which has so many up in arms against him, hes not courting you or anyone else, hes just tellin it like he sees it. Guess alot of people wanna get their ego stroked by seeing what he will promise and do for them.
Rob

I am fairly certain I never said he knows what hes doing, what I said was that he knows things we dont (and to your point, thats not the kind of thing you offer up to the 10 oclock news while your making the decision.) He gambled on the WMD, bad move, but the war is still just and one we must win, not just for us but for all civilization, then we can hope for a more utopian world, lets just get the powerful bad guys first OK.
Rob
Platitude. It's not about whether we should fight, it's who and how. Bush has gotten both wrong. Time for a change.

Alright now we get to the meat of your point. Lets educate, enlighten, and love on these people so they will love us back. This is I'm sorry to report, a ridiculous notion, where was/is their sense of sensibility, didn't see it on 911, haven't seen it in Palistine, dont see it in N Korea, where is it. This premis can only work if all people are basically good, sorry but that isnt true. Sometimes there is a price to pay and it is in blood. Perhaps the real hero isnt the one who shakes hands with evil, not even the one who defeats it, but rather the one who despite the odds holding back the fear...Fights it even to his/her last breath. Life and this world are not easy or fair, it was never ment to be so, instead it is a trial that lays open the core of a man for his maker, the world, and himself to see if he is willing to look. Unfortunatly, so many leaders retain their position based on hate and fear, they will not give up their posts nor can you expect them to, its not in them. Ill bet Hitler wouldve given up If we just asked nice enough.
Rob

History is not on your side, my friend. As I said, EVERY society was brutal and religiously zealous at one point or another. The actions of the Allies in WWI and after (specifically their insistence on "punishing" the Germans by stepping on their already crippled economy after the war was over,) had a direct effect in creating the desperation that lead to people electing Hitler.

People aren't necessarily good or bad. We react to our surroundings, and if our surroundings are bad, then we are generally bad. If our surroundings are good, then we are generally good. It's called self-interest, and usually no one is willing to die for an ideal if their life is pretty good.

I'm not talking about "shaking hands with evil," god, why is everything always an either/or proposition with you people? I'm talking about fighting a savvy war where we place as much emphasis on eliminating the motivations behind suicidal hatred as well as strategically fighting the enemy wherever they may concentrate.

You are right. People aren't very nice, naturally. We, as a species, tend to be greedy, agressive, self-centered, and judgemental. It's a HUGE step from that to saying that we're naturally bloodthirsty religious zealots with a wanton disregard for our lives and the lives of anyone else.

Like I said, unless we focus some of our energies on intelligently limiting the reasons for hate, the only alternative we are left with is genocide, and I will not support that. Ever.

Platitude. It's not about whether we should fight, it's who and how. Bush has gotten both wrong. Time for a change.

who then how?
Id bet youd be so worried about what u call platitudes if it was you who lived in country terrorised by your own gov. Bet you wouldn't want anyone to help huh. sure if he got it wrong that Saddam should still be in power, wow, yep that a be a good thing. SURE. and how else do you fight a war, ohh yea, with hugs and kisses, maybe a little food ( by the way, what happend to the food for oil food, just a side note).
Rob

who then how?
Id bet youd be so worried about what u call platitudes if it was you who lived in country terrorised by your own gov. Bet you wouldn't want anyone to help huh. sure if he got it wrong that Saddam should still be in power, wow, yep that a be a good thing. SURE. and how else do you fight a war, ohh yea, with hugs and kisses, maybe a little food ( by the way, what happend to the food for oil food, just a side note).
Rob
You're really gonna have to try harder than that. Are you really whipping out that old chestnut? Saddam was a bad guy, so it's all okay? No, sorry, we have bigger things to worry about.

And again, pretending there isn't another way to go about things is just putting your head in the sand. I'm sure there where people in the British army who derided the notion that you can fight a war without marching in columns. That didn't mean there wasn't a better way to go about things. Try harder.

who then how?
Id bet youd be so worried about what u call platitudes if it was you who lived in country terrorised by your own gov. Bet you wouldn't want anyone to help huh. sure if he got it wrong that Saddam should still be in power, wow, yep that a be a good thing. SURE. and how else do you fight a war, ohh yea, with hugs and kisses, maybe a little food ( by the way, what happend to the food for oil food, just a side note).
Rob

What happened to the several billion dollars from the US that were earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction that have simply disappeared and are unaccounted for?

We are going to be attacked whether we respond to those attacks or not, as I have been at pains to point out several times on this board. What is it about implacable terrorists that you don't comprenend???

And they will be attacked, whether they respond to the invasion of Afghanistan, & Iraq, the support for Israel in the subjugation of Palestine & to Guantanamo Bay, or not, as many people have been at pains to point out several times on this board. What is it about implacable Americans that you don't comprehend???

And now that both sides are implacable, and neither will be defeated militarily, where does that leave us?

Every time you kill a terrorist, more people are pissed off and join the terrorist ranks. Every time you kill a civilian, even more people are pissed of and join the terrorist ranks. By killing them you make them stronger.

If you can't see this, consider one thing about GWB policy... is there more or less terrorism in the western world than there was in 2000, or 2002? Is his policy therefore working?

What happened to the several billion dollars from the US that were earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction that have simply disappeared and are unaccounted for?

umm uhh, Im not sure that it has disappeared. What I am sure of is that so many have been griping about it in the senate, that Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that much of that funding was voted down. If not, then I'd say, we're spending it? I really don't know, why is there some huge consipiracy theory that I missed out on?
Rob