NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all, let me make it clear, I don't vote party, I vote the man. I've voted for candidates from both sides over the years. This election I am voting for Bush. Read the full page ad a Republican placed in the Washington Post. I believe he pretty well sums up the feelings of Bush supporters.

http://www.whatiam.net/

I read the entire ad.

I'm definately not a Republican. :(

I read the entire ad.

I'm definately not a Republican. :(

Speaks poor for you. This guy has some admirable principles. I have to pretty much agree with him straight down the line.

I like that webpage. It's the first pro-bush article that actually defends Bush's points rather than targeting Kerry's that I have ever seen.

Regardless, this is only what intellectual conservatives think; of what people who vote for Bush who I have met, read about, and observed, don't like Kerry (instead of liking Bush) for these reasons.

-He's too stiff-looking. Bush is better looking. What is that? My god, I'm not old enough to vote yet, and somehow the older generation (i read that quote in a newspaper) is worried that the younger generations won't have as much common sense as they do??

-Kerry is a flip flopper, and can't hold a position on anything. Meanwhile, Bush makes stupid decisions and stays with them. :rolleyes: ...

-Kerry is gay-loving hippie, and is unAmerican. What the hell was that??

-So what if Bush isn't a good speaker? Kerry is a flip flopper. Coming this December is a 250-page book of "Bushisms."

-Bush (quote): I don't read newspapers. *Snort* Sorry that last one wasn't about Kerry, but I just had to add it :D ...

I have to pretty much agree with him straight down the line.

Speaks poor for you. :p

First of all, let me make it clear, I don't vote party, I vote the man. I've voted for candidates from both sides over the years. This election I am voting for Bush. Read the full page ad a Republican placed in the Washington Post. I believe he pretty well sums up the feelings of Bush supporters.

http://www.whatiam.net/
It's funny..but in the 1930-40's, the Germans said the same thing about Hitler.

Juxtoposition!
I like that webpage. It's the first pro-bush article that actually defends Bush's points rather than targeting Kerry's that I have ever seen.


WHAT I AM … is tired of hearing from leading Democrats who see only negativity in America; racism in her people; class warfare in her society and “political incorrectness” in her character.

WHAT I AM … is a voter, tired of politicians, who, every time their voting records are subjected to public scrutiny, try to divert attention from their political and legislative failures by accusing their opponents of “attack ads” and “negative campaigning”…. and the news media who allow them to get away with it.


Reality check... who's been doing more attack ads? Statistics say... Bush/Cheney '04

And again:

I like that webpage. It's the first pro-bush article that actually defends Bush's points rather than targeting Kerry's that I have ever seen.

WHAT I AM … is someone deeply troubled by a political party which embraces a candidate whose primary “leadership” qualities center around his protesting of the Vietnam war and his labeling the honorable men and women who fought in it, (50,000 of whom gave their lives in that action), as rapists, and war criminals. That same political party then stepped forward this year to block the appearance of a true Vietnam war hero, retired Admiral and former United States Senator, Jeremiah Denton, (a man who spent seven years and seven torturous months in a North Vietnam prison), from speaking before an open session of the California legislature as part of that state’s 4th of July celebration. The reason Democrats gave for refusing to allow this American hero to speak before their state legislature was because of the “conservative” nature of his views. As an American, that troubles me deeply ….as well it should you.That last point is bizarre. Kerry, a Vietnam vet, is wrong for speaking about his experiences of Vietnam, whereas another Vietnam vet should be allowed to say whatever he likes in whatever forum he likes... simply because he served in Vietnam.

I hope he prints a follow up after the election, it will say:

WHAT I AM ... is an idiot who spent over 100,000 bucks to put up an ad that wasted everybody and their grandmothers' time reading it.

Now that Kerry is President, I would like Bush to refund my money.

That will be sweet.

However, I imagine he'll just grumble into his creamed corn about how the youth are taking over and he'll go on hoping someone comes and changes his depends before the sores get too putrid.

First of all, let me make it clear, I don't vote party, I vote the man. I've voted for candidates from both sides over the years. This election I am voting for Bush. Read the full page ad a Republican placed in the Washington Post. I believe he pretty well sums up the feelings of Bush supporters.

http://www.whatiam.net/

WHAT I AM … is disgusted with the Courts who, on one hand, call the murder of a pregnant woman a “double homicide” but then refer to the abortion of her baby as, “pro-choice”.

I think i have to agree with that one.
Not in the way most people would expect though.
The murder of a pregnant woman should be in no way a double homicide, as this is counting the fetus as another seperate life. Granted, it is alive, but so is bacteria. Lets stop caring wether or not it is counted as truly "alive" and insted start realizing that any time before birth, this creature is not human.
(fetus) :mp5:

Speaks poor for you.

I believe in God, country, the santity of life, respect for others, honesty, hard work, fairness, charity, strength, home & family, responsibility, and equal rights. I think it speaks pretty good for me.

It's funny..but in the 1930-40's, the Germans said the same thing about Hitler.

Hitler was a charismatic speaker and was able to whip the people into a misguided frenzy and selective blindness with lies and rhetoric. Nobody is trying to exterminate whole races and segments of the population. Except abortionists.

Speaks poor for you. This guy has some admirable principles. I have to pretty much agree with him straight down the line.
really soldiers guarantee our freedom of speech press and dissent?

last ichecked the soldiers worked for the government "protecting" those rights and followed directions to suppress those freedoms when told to do so.


woo reality check


ooh ooh ooh and he supports random cencsorship

and there is a attack on kerry's character

pretends all christians are moralistic and focused on helping others

respected and believed, then challenged with fact and changed

the bravery of ronald reagan! to do the illegal to kill "communist" uprisings wherever they occurred

attack on abortion supporters instead of the hypocrisy of the legal system

ANOTHER attack on john kerry's character, some moralistic christian person with a good character he is. what SHOULD trouble this man is the RNC accused a nearly parapalegic man of being unpatriotic and questioned the mental stability of john mccain AND that bush said putin was doing a good job, the same man silencing his opposition in russia

and yet ANOTHER attack, more indirectly this time, on john kerry's character and ignoring any faults by Bush, like taking air force one (on the taax payer's dollar) to daytona to watch a race and look all snazzy

ooh ooh hypocrisy! so unexpected :rolleyes:
LMFAO!! the rights of the governed exceed the powers of the government? the republicans? not hardly. last i checked the republicans were the ones trying to enforced their opinions and beliefs on the person by federal legislation


these people sicken me

That last point is bizarre. Kerry, a Vietnam vet, is wrong for speaking about his experiences of Vietnam, whereas another Vietnam vet should be allowed to say whatever he likes in whatever forum he likes... simply because he served in Vietnam.

Yep ... good ol' neocon logic, eh?

He should also have printed:

WHAT I AM ... is riddled with alzheimers.

i like a lot of that, but not all.

However, I imagine he'll just grumble into his creamed corn about how the youth are taking over and he'll go on hoping someone comes and changes his depends before the sores get too putrid.
That's a bit overly bitter, but it did have the tone of Dennis the Menace's neighbour moaning about "kids today"

I believe in God, country, the santity of life, respect for others, honesty, hard work, fairness, charity, strength, home & family, responsibility, and equal rights. I think it speaks pretty good for me.

To each their own.

That's a bit overly bitter, but it did have the tone of Dennis the Menace's neighbour moaning about "kids today"


I know it would seem a bit overkill, but the only way I can keep the bile down is to think of Republicans as nameless, faceless charicatures.

First of all, let me make it clear, I don't vote party, I vote the man.
http://www.whatiam.net/

As in "the man"?

As in not a woman?

As the saying goes, you only get one chance to make a first impression. My impression of you was colored by the end of your first statement.

Wahoo!

As in "the man"?

As in not a woman?

As the saying goes, you only get one chance to make a first impression. My impression of you was colored by the end of your first statement.

Wahoo!

As far as I know neither Bush nor Kerry are female. Maybe you know something about Kerry I don't. Give me a female candidate and if I believe her policies are the best for our nation I will vote for her. But, as pertaining to this election, my choice is split between two men as the front runners.

PS: I'm a woman. And I have held public office.

Wa who? :confused:

I know it would seem a bit overkill, but the only way I can keep the bile down is to think of Republicans as nameless, faceless charicatures.

Might as well get used to that nasty taste in your mouth. Not everyone is going to agree with you. You just want dissenters to be treated as nameless faceless caricatures. Typical liberal bias.

You just want dissenters to be treated as nameless faceless caricatures. Typical liberal bias.
*Bottle's irony meter bursts into flames*

I dont vote the man or the party. I vote for the ideas of the person. If i had to pick the person it would be every man, woman and child. I love them all equally, I just am a bit partial to some of our ideas though.

Might as well get used to that nasty taste in your mouth. Not everyone is going to agree with you. You just want dissenters to be treated as nameless faceless caricatures. Typical liberal bias.
And you get the big
L
as well.

This one stands for "looney"

*Bottle's irony meter bursts into flames*
*gets a duck and a cover

And you get the big
L
as well.

This one stands for "looney"

I realize that I lot of you people bashing conservatives are about junior high age. But if you don't have a solid argument why do you feel the need to start calling names? I read these boards for a long time before I started posting and I've noticed that this is a bad habit running through the liberal posters on here. If you can't think of something worthwhile to contribute why don't you keep quiet until you do?

I realize that I lot of you people bashing conservatives are about junior high age. But if you don't have a solid argument why do you feel the need to start calling names? I read these boards for a long time before I started posting and I've noticed that this is a bad habit running through the liberal posters on here. If you can't think of something worthwhile to contribute why don't you keep quiet until you do?
as opposed to the conservatives ignoring facts, arguments, and general blaring obvious problems with their and their ruler's arguments.

WHAT I AM … is disgusted with the Courts who, on one hand, call the murder of a pregnant woman a “double homicide” but then refer to the abortion of her baby as, “pro-choice”.

I think i have to agree with that one.
Not in the way most people would expect though.
The murder of a pregnant woman should be in no way a double homicide, as this is counting the fetus as another seperate life. Granted, it is alive, but so is bacteria. Lets stop caring wether or not it is counted as truly "alive" and insted start realizing that any time before birth, this creature is not human.
(fetus) :mp5:

Maybe i'm checking back a little too soon. But i just compared a fetus to bacteria and agreed it should be killed. Not one arguement?
No one thinks i'm an immoral monster?
I'l check back in a few minutes...

I realize that I lot of you people bashing conservatives are about junior high age. But if you don't have a solid argument why do you feel the need to start calling names? I read these boards for a long time before I started posting and I've noticed that this is a bad habit running through the liberal posters on here. If you can't think of something worthwhile to contribute why don't you keep quiet until you do?

If you've been reading the boards as long as you say you have, you'd notice it's hardly just the liberals.

I must say, the alzheimers is one of the best so far :p

Yeah, that website was retarded.

as opposed to the conservatives ignoring facts, arguments, and general blaring obvious problems with their and their ruler's arguments.

We're not claiming that Bush hasn't made mistakes. He's human and I don't believe there has ever been a president that was right 100% of the time. There is an obvious difference in how people view the potential terrorist threat to the US and what led to economic problems and the effectiveness of Bush's answer to them. What is really the biggest issue against Kerry is his character and his record. He hasn't been an active representative for Mass (please don't ask me to spell it), he missed 70 % of Senate votes. Would you ask for a promotion at your job if you had been absent from work 70% of the time? Would you even have a job?

Maybe i'm checking back a little too soon. But i just compared a fetus to bacteria and agreed it should be killed. Not one arguement?
No one thinks i'm an immoral monster?
I'l check back in a few minutes...

Your not it (a fetus) is not a person untill it draws its first breath, so how could you be immoral?

We're not claiming that Bush hasn't made mistakes. He's human and I don't believe there has ever been a president that was right 100% of the time. There is an obvious difference in how people view the potential terrorist threat to the US and what led to economic problems and the effectiveness of Bush's answer to them. What is really the biggest issue against Kerry is his character and his record. He hasn't been an active representative for Mass (please don't ask me to spell it), he missed 70 % of Senate votes. Would you ask for a promotion at your job if you had been absent from work 70% of the time? Would you even have a job?
i would lose my job if i was absent 45% of the time, so I guess Bush should get fired, too.

We're not claiming that Bush hasn't made mistakes. He's human and I don't believe there has ever been a president that was right 100% of the time. There is an obvious difference in how people view the potential terrorist threat to the US and what led to economic problems and the effectiveness of Bush's answer to them. What is really the biggest issue against Kerry is his character and his record. He hasn't been an active representative for Mass (please don't ask me to spell it), he missed 70 % of Senate votes. Would you ask for a promotion at your job if you had been absent from work 70% of the time? Would you even have a job?
you ignore my point yet you prove it in your post

the only question about kerry's character and record is raised by ignorance. 70% senate votes when? cuz he has been there a long time

Maybe i'm checking back a little too soon. But i just compared a fetus to bacteria and agreed it should be killed. Not one arguement?
No one thinks i'm an immoral monster?
I'l check back in a few minutes...

Abortion isn't the issue. But, I'll say this. The DNA of a fetus is human as soon as the egg first splits. The fetal stage is only one stage of a human's life. At no point in a person's life does any other person have the right to deny him/her life except in defense.

Not everyone is going to agree with you.

Well call the FBI ... we got us a real detective here!

In other words ...

No shit, Sherlock.

Where did I ever once say even a single person would agree with me.

Jackass.

First of all, let me make it clear, I don't vote party, I vote the man. I've voted for candidates from both sides over the years.
http://www.whatiam.net/

Just me, I read chronologically... top to bottom, letf to right. It gets me through the paragraph in a reasonable manner, allowing for the sentances to follow a generally, socially, non-politcal path.

The post headline is regarding a politcal party, the first two statements are generalizations about the writer's voting habits. This was the basis for my original comment. I am aware the two leading candidates are males, that you missed the generalization prior to the specific says much about you as well.

I am unclear why you being a woman who held office is relevent, but thanks for sharing.

Wahoo.

First of all, let me make it clear, I don't vote party, I vote the man. I've voted for candidates from both sides over the years. This election I am voting for Bush. Read the full page ad a Republican placed in the Washington Post. I believe he pretty well sums up the feelings of Bush supporters.

http://www.whatiam.net/


I think it's great that this guy can articulate his views so well. It's rare today to hear such a rich variety of reasons that voter is voting for his/her candidate.

That being said, it doesn't change my mind one bit. I've grown up in a much different time than this guy, had different experiences, different jobs, known different people, etc., and while I respect his principles, I cannot relate to them. I have to base my views on my life, and it's just not enough to make me want to vote for Bush.

Well call the FBI ... we got us a real detective here!

In other words ...

No shit, Sherlock.

Where did I ever once say even a single person would agree with me.

Jackass.

Looks like you jokers ran off Pedie. He's probably right about the age range exhibited here. Well, I guess I'll join him too and let you kiddies call each other names for a change.

Nite nite kiddies.

WARNING - Depending on how you look at it, this may be a 1 and a half page long rant, so if you don't want to read any more political rants, then I strongly encourage you not to read this.

I have a massive problem with that article as a whole, but I'll get to that later. Also, if you find any inconsistencies in my thing here, please point them out, and I'd be delighted to debate/review whatever it is with you.

I think we have effectively come to the conclusion that all the Republicans (or rather, "conservatives") here think that the world is uniformely "liberally biased", whereas all the Democrats (or "liberals", if you will) all think the world is uniformely "conservatively biased". Now, take that as you will, but I'd like to propose that they're both equally true, and they therefore cancel each other out. Now, end of that argument. *smacks Pedie for being close-minded*.


I believe in God, country, the santity of life, respect for others, honesty, hard work, fairness, charity, strength, home & family, responsibility, and equal rights. I think it speaks pretty good for me.


Now, quickly a few things about this comment, as well as all other comments of the same variety.
1. You may believe in God, more power to you if you do, but not everyone believes in God. Therefore, please don't force it on those of us who do not want to believe in him. Forcing God on others (even indirectly, keep reading), invalidates "Equal Rights", "Respect for Others", and "Responsibility".
2. I believe, that based on the comments you have made previously, that I can safely say that you probably think that Gay Marriage should be outlawed, as should abortion. Now "Equal Rights" means "Equal Rights", no getting around that. So, if you can get married to the woman you love, why can't Susie G. get married to the woman she loves? You're both people, right? If I remember correctly, the 2 biggest arguments for outlawing Gay Marriage are "The Bible says it's wrong", and "We want to preserve the sanctity of marriage". Now, you're welcome to do whatever the heck you want in your churches, based on what the members want to do (since there does happen to be a "seperation of church and state" clause in the US constitution - please observe that fully) though I won't protect you from any lawsuits sent your way by angry people. However, please do not abridge the rights of those who do not conform to your religious or social ideals, and please keep in mind that there is no sanctity of marriage any more. The divorce rate is at around 60% if I remember correctly, and even then there's always been a problem with so-called "dead-beat dads" and "dysfunctional families".
Also, on the subject of abortion, taking away a woman's right to choose whether or not she actually does have the child is again, forcing your religion on others. If the woman does not want the child, do not make her have it, and do not chastise her for making the decision not to have it.

Zooke - I have to respect you for posting your views in such a non-combative way. However, I feel obligated to say that the person who posted that article is not quite being up front with us.

World War 2 helped to jump-start our economy, and THAT ended in 1944. The Great Depression was in the late 20's and early 30's, and this guy is saying that he lived through it (must have been a long 52 years). Mathematically, that doesn't add up, since it's 2004 right now, and 52 years ago would have been 1962, nowhere near the Great Depression. I think the others have thoroughly covered all the other inconsitencies.

And, one final thing! Our country was not founded by Christians, it was founded by Deists (rather like agnostics), which is a misconception that has become all too common.

Peace everyone, and may the (better) man win the election (though either way, half the country's going to be absolutely pissed).

Having read that article, I am now much more likely to vote Democrat.

i would vote if i could but i'm only 16.politics is really corrupted. no one can run a decent campaign ie mudslinging etc. some paroled criminals act more decent than these 2 idiots.

if you ever read Executive Orders by Tom Clancy you will probably agree with me

Looks like you jokers ran off Pedie. He's probably right about the age range exhibited here. Well, I guess I'll join him too and let you kiddies call each other names for a change.

Nite nite kiddies.
if you are unable to clear the easy hurdles that have been raised against you on this thread so far, then it is probably unwise to attempt to mount an even higher horse at this time. just a little friendly advice.

Looks like you jokers ran off Pedie. He's probably right about the age range exhibited here. Well, I guess I'll join him too and let you kiddies call each other names for a change.

Nite nite kiddies.


And, yet, I'm 32 .... go figure.

They can't even guess ages right.

I believe in God, country, the santity of life,


Ahh and what was your stand on Iraq, Rawanda, and hte Sudan?


Hitler was a charismatic speaker and was able to whip the people into a misguided frenzy and selective blindness with lies and rhetoric. Nobody is trying to exterminate whole races and segments of the population. Except abortionists.

Well there is a little more to the Hitler comment. My great-aunt met him.

As to your abortionist comment? :rolleyes:

Well there is a little more to the Hitler comment. My great-aunt met him.

Really: in what context? Sounds interesting. Do you know anything about it and do you want to tell us about it?

It's true, very true. His first part on the top describing what you are told Republicans is exactly what they tell you. It isn't true and I thank this man for finally getting the message out better than most of us could.

I'm a Republican. I'm also a Conservative. I'm also a Realist. I'm also an American.

I realize that I lot of you people bashing conservatives are about junior high age. But if you don't have a solid argument why do you feel the need to start calling names? I read these boards for a long time before I started posting and I've noticed that this is a bad habit running through the liberal posters on here. If you can't think of something worthwhile to contribute why don't you keep quiet until you do?


Hello! Pot meet kettle!

Really: in what context? Sounds interesting. Do you know anything about it and do you want to tell us about it?

She was part of the consolate over there.

She said he was a very personable likable man. You talked to him and you liked him.

She once answered as to how he was able to move the Germans like he did was simple. He spoke to their ideals of building things and improving themselves. There are other factors of course but once you get a people moving in a direction its like trying to stop a massive ship. It takes time.

Sorry for the short response. I have to head off for training.....

It's true, very true. His first part on the top describing what you are told Republicans is exactly what they tell you. It isn't true and I thank this man for finally getting the message out better than most of us could.

I'm a Republican. I'm also a Conservative. I'm also a Realist. I'm also an American.

That's actually not true. I really can't find anyone with any semblance of intelligence that believes that every Republican is like that. That some of them are? Well.. You do have to admit they tend to come across like that, at times.

I don't see what this article says that's so revolutionary. The views that he states as Republican ideals all seemed rather obvious to me. Again, not in a stereotypical sense, but most Republicans I see seem to hold the beliefs stated here, if presented in a less articulate manner.

Anyway, what I wanted to say was that the first point was a falsity. Also, doesn't this man realise the irony in.. well, stereotyping a majority of the population by stating they all believe a certain stereotype?

That's actually not true. I really can't find anyone with any semblance of intelligence that believes that every Republican is like that. That some of them are? Well.. You do have to admit they tend to come across like that, at times.

I don't see what this article says that's so revolutionary. The views that he states as Republican ideals all seemed rather obvious to me. Again, not in a stereotypical sense, but most Republicans I see seem to hold the beliefs stated here, if presented in a less articulate manner.

Anyway, what I wanted to say was that the first point was a falsity. Also, doesn't this man realise the irony in.. well, stereotyping a majority of the population by stating they all believe a certain stereotype?

You should talk to some of the people I work with in Home Depot and some of the people that I go to college with, professors included. I am here in New York, on the border of the Bronx so. Man they don't know the first thing about a Republican. More so are those in HD, they're good workers but political morons, not because of their beliefs but because of the lack of their insight and coherence to the matter. They're CNN and NYT Democrats and everything that is said there is always true. After all, to the NYT they'd love to say Republicans are Nazi's but you know they can't publish it because it's libel. Take the article about the Supreme Court recently.

Yeah, I vote for the best person, and that happens to be Bush.

Touching, very touching. But he makes no sense regarding his version of the 'American Dream' Self-empowerment is good. I like the ability to take charge of my own life. But if that's the line he wants to push, I truly don't understand why government exists.

As long as there are biznitches and jerkfaces who want to preside over people, and excercise authority over others, they had better take care of the people they are governing. That is why I am left wing. And until every single person is taken care of by the government, every single minority group, every special interest group, I will believe it to be corrupt and evil.

I believe the right wing is the epitomy of corruption, as it lures us into a false sense of empowerment. Regardless of how many freedoms the right wing gives us...they're still in charge and that they can take it away.

I believe in equality. Government simply doesn't allow that.

- Asylum Nova

I see this election as a scary one. You have a moron (Bush) and a du***bag (Kerry). Nader isn't a factor unless he gets on the ballot in every state and this being a Democratic Republic, I don't see why not, especially when the Democrats sue to keep him off the ballot in Florida but that's neither here nor there.

I do not believe Bush is as much of a blubbering idiot as he appears when he is talking and such. I believe it is all just an act. After all, "He's just a normal guy," and that is the act he goes with. In comparison to Mr. Stiff (Kerry), Bush looks like a much more charismatic leader, something Clinton was.

Now I do not like Bush. As I said before, I am a Conservative Republican, but I do not like Bush. I'm not against the War in Iraq but I am against the way it is being fought, politically. Soldiers aren't allowed to shoot back because "We're not at war" and we need a "mediator." When AK-47 shells are flying at you, to hell with a mediator, send some .223 back at them! That is why we are losing so many guys, because of the rules of engagement. Sound familiar? The rhetoric is the same now as it was in Vietnam. BUT DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, THIS IS NOT VIETNAM.

Lastly, Bush's way overbudget Medicare plan was not cool in my books, nor has been his immigration policies.

But I know what I am going to get with Bush, another 4 years of what we've just had for 4 years. With Kerry, I don't know what I am going to get and that is scary. I know it will be different from Bush, particularly in Iraq, very different. Who is he kidding that he would get Germany and France to join our coalition? They'd be stupid to do so and their leaders aren't going to commit political suicide, give them some credit. I think Kerry is going to make this war worse and that the numbers of guys coming home in body bags will double. Additionally, I do not believe, as a nation, we will be safer under Kerry. I don't believe we are all that much safer now than we were before 9.11 and rightfully so, we're just a little more safer than we were pre-9.11 and we will continue to remain as such.

However, I think the policies of Kerry and his liberal views will allow more terrorists into the country because "we can't profile." Not to be racist but an overwhelming majority of terrorists are of Arab descent. That isn't a profile, it's a statistic.

Also this nonsense about the PATRIOT ACT. The PATRIOT ACT is not 1/2 as bad as it seems. Most of the anarchists and liberals are claiming we are under martial law with all this security in airports and train stations. Guys, martial law is not upon us, if it were and you left your house after 9p or 8p or whatever the curfew is, you go to directly to jail, no due process, no trial, and you're lucky if you aren't shot (if you resist you will be shot). That is not what we are under right now.

15 March 2001

India joins anti-Taliban coalition

By Rahul Bedi

India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.

Military sources in Delhi, claim that the opposition Northern Alliance's capture of the strategic town of Bamiyan, was precipitated by the four countries' collaborative effort.

The 13 February fall of Bamiyan, after several days of heavy fighting, threatened to cut off the only land route from Kabul to Taliban troops in northern Afghanistan. However, media reports indicate that Taliban forces recaptured the town on 17 February.

India is believed to have supplied the Northern Alliance leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud, with high-altitude warfare equipment. Indian defence advisors, including air force helicopter technicians, are reportedly providing tactical advice in operations against the Taliban.

Twenty-five Indian army doctors and male nurses are also believed to be treating Northern Alliance troops at a 20-bed hospital at Farkhor, close to the Afghan-Tajik border. The Statesman newspaper quoting Indian officials said the medical contingent is being financed from Delhi.

Several recent meetings between the newly instituted Indo-US and Indo-Russian joint working groups on terrorism led to this effort to tactically and logistically counter the Taliban.

Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support. Oleg Chervov, deputy head of Russia's security council, recently described Taliban-controlled Afghanistan as a base of international terrorism attempting to expand into Central Asia. Radical Islamic groups are also trying to increase their influence across Pakistan, he said at a meeting of Indian and Russian security officials in Moscow. "All this dictates a pressing need for close co-operation between Russia and India in opposing terrorism," he said.

Military sources indicated that Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are being used as bases to launch anti-Taliban operations by India and Russia. They also hinted at the presence of a small Russian force actively assisting Massoud in the Panjsher Valley. "The situation in Afghanistan cannot be ignored as it impinges directly on the 12-year old Kashmir insurgency," an Indian military official said, adding that the Northern Alliance's elimination by the Taliban would be "disastrous" for India.

Tuesday, 18 September, 2001, 11:27 GMT 12:27 UK
US 'planned attack on Taleban'


The wider objective was to oust the Taleban

By the BBC's George Arney
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.



Russian troops were on standby

Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.

Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.

The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.

Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.



Bin Laden would have been "killed or captured"

He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.

Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.

He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks.

And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban

26 June 2001: India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action" against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime.

The Taliban controls 90 per cent of Afghanistan and is advancing northward along the Salang highway and preparing for a rear attack on the opposition Northern Alliance from Tajikistan-Afghanistan border positions.

Indian foreign secretary Chokila Iyer attended a crucial session of the second Indo-Russian joint working group on Afghanistan in Moscow amidst increase of Taliban's military activity near the Tajikistan border. And, Russia's Federal Security Bureau (the former KGB) chief Nicolai Patroshev is visiting Teheran this week in connection with Taliban's military build-up.

Indian officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of "facilitator" while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan.

Military action will be the last option though it now seems scarcely avoidable with the UN banned from Taliban-controlled areas. The UN which adopted various means in the last four years to resolve the Afghan problem is now being suspected by the Taliban and refused entry into Taliban areas of the war-ravaged nation through a decree issued by Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar last month.

Diplomats say that the anti-Taliban move followed a meeting between US Secretary of State Collin Powel and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and later between Powell and Indian foreign minister Jaswant Singh in Washington. Russia, Iran and India have also held a series of discussions and more diplomatic activity is expected.

The Northern Alliance led by ousted Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani and his military commander Ahmed Shah Masood have mustered Western support during a May 2001 visit to Dusseldorf, Germany.

The Taliban is using high-intensity rockets and Soviet-made tanks to attack Northern Alliance fighters in the Hindukush range with alleged Pakistani aid. But Northern Alliance fighters have acquired anti-tank missiles from a third country that was used in the fight near Bagram Air Base in early June. The Taliban lost 20 fighters and fled under intense attack.

Officials say that the Northern Alliance requires a "clean up" operation to reduce Taliban's war-fighting machinery to launch an attack against the Taliban advance to the Tajik-Afghan border. This "clean up" action is being planned by the US and Russia since the Taliban shows no "sign of reconciliation".

Tajikistan and Uzbekistan will lead the ground attack with a strong military back up of the US and Russia. Vital Taliban installations and military assets will be targeted. India and Iran will provide logistic support. Russian President Vladimir Putin has already hinted of military action against the Taliban to CIS nation heads during a meeting in Moscow in early June.

India and Iran have been assisting the Northern Alliance and the Afghan people under their humanitarian programme since Taliban's ouster of the Rabbani government in 1996. The US needs Russian assistance because of Soviet knowledge of the Afghan terrain. The former Soviet Union intervened in Afghanistan in 1979 and withdrew in 1989.

Masood's strategic stronghold of Panjsher valley has been threatened by the advancing Taliban militia for the last three months. The Northern Alliance has stepped up its attack on Taliban troops who have brought the valley within artillery fire range.

Military planners say that if Taliban were not given a blow now it would slowly make inroads into the Panjsher valley. The fall of Panjsher will enable Taliban to control the remaining 10 per cent of Afghanistan in possession of the Northern Alliance.

Russia says it has evidence that the Taliban aims to create "liberated zones" all across Central Asia and Russia and links its Chechnya problem to the rise of Taliban fundamentalism. The US is directly hit by the anti-US thrust of Islamic groups who use Afghanistan as their base for terrorism and is demanding extradition of Osama Bin Laden to face trial in the embassy bombing case.

Such Central Asian countries as Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are threatened by the Taliban that is aiming to control their vast oil, gas and other resources by bringing Islamic fundamentalists into power. Now all the CIS nations are seeking assistance of Russia's Federal Border Guard Service to overcome the Taliban threat.

General Konstantin Trotsky, director of the border force, said in a newspaper interview, "We are watching the opposition of the Northern Alliance and the Taliban in Afghanistan very closely."

For its part, Shia Iran is reluctant to tolerate a Sunni militia regime on its border that gives Pakistan, a Sunni country and a sponsor of the Taliban, a "strategic sway" on considerable parts of the Iranian border. Iran is also affected by a Taliban-sponsored movement in Ispahan province where Sunnis have a sizable population.

Iran is also worried over the unending war effort of the Taliban to get supremacy in Afghanistan that is harming Iran's economic interests. India, Iran and Russia, for example, are working on a broad plan to supply oil and gas to south Asia and southeast Asian nations through India but instability in Afghanistan is posing a great threat to this effort.

Similarly, India is apprehensive about the increasing infiltration of Afghan-trained foreign mercenaries into Kashmir. Security agencies have reported that as many as 15,000 hardcore militants have received training in such places in Afghanistan as Khost, Jalalabad, Kabul and Kandahar since 1995. There are 55 terrorist training camps located in Afghanistan that are funded and aided by Islamic fundamentalists to carry out attacks against non-Islamic nations.

The UN had sent a 12-member delegation to India in the first week of May to assess the feasibility of tough economic sanctions against Taliban. The same delegation met General Pervez Musharraf to convince him about the importance of Pakistani cooperation. The UN believes that the sanctions can be only as tough as Pakistan desires.

India's official position is for a "peaceful and lasting solution" to the Afghan problem. But it strongly advocates strict economic sanctions against Taliban and is also not averse to a "limited military action" to weaken it.

India plans to raise the Afghanistan issue in the forthcoming G-8 summit in Geneva in mid-July.

I'm neither Republican or Democrat and vote my conscience.

That being said, there are fundamental issues that each party embrace that I find interesting and definitely sway me in voting.

First, the Republican party believes basically in less government and more state influence in how each state runs their own government. The Democratic party believes in a larger central government and less state influence in each states affairs.

Second, Democrats would prefer a more socialist option where the government takes care of those dissadvantaged individuals, believing that we as individuals are unable to help ourselves and need their support. Republicans believe each person is smart enough to take care of themselves and don't need the government to hand hold them.

Thirdly, I have found through my four decades of experience, that contrary to what I was taught, that the Democrats are more likely to reduce my freedoms of free speech and such than Republicans. Just about all the Republicans I have meet might vehemently dislike what I have to say, but will fight to protect my right to say it. Most Democrats I meet seem to think that I should not be allowed to say anything they don't like to hear from my opinions.

There are extremists on each side, both making their party look bad. Both have moderates that are more alike outside of their party affiliation than they like to admit. There are policies in both parties that I can't fathom why they believe what they do.

After it's all said and done, I feel Bush is much more moderate than Kerry, and I firmly believe that a moderate voice is far better than a slightly more extremist voice. While some feel that having convictions like Bush is bad, saying that he's inflexible, I have a hard time believing that a president who will change his convictions based on polls and popularity is what a country needs. While I might not always agree with Bush, and I do feel there was a better way to handle some issues, I have infinitely more trust in someone who sticks to his beliefs because he's willing to do what he feels is right rather than popular.

One last comment as well. I feel sorry for those who feel the last four years were such a huge economic burden. For those of us who understand how economics of a large country work, let us explain it for those who blame Bush for the last four years of the economy. Any president who enters office has about 3 months to get his/her economic policy in place. It takes about 3-3.5 years for any economic policy to come to fruition. After that it should last about another 3-3.5 years. Poppa Bush's economic plan put this country on a pace for unprecedented economic success. Just about the time Clinton was being re-elected, the internet surged and provided a unique economic boon. President Clinton is the first president to ever serve 2 terms and never implement any economic policy. These last 4 years are a direct result of that. Our current president understands economic policy and our economy is growing, albeit slowly. However, a slow growing, but steady, economy is exactly what you want. If it grows to fast, it either burns out too quick or we end up with inflation, something you definitely don't want, trust me. Being a student in the late 70's and staring 20% inflation in the face is not fun.

If Kerry gets elected and removes the tax credits 'for the rich', which means anyone with a six figure household income (and with 2 income families, that's not that hard), you reduce the amount of money available to employ others. So, this money that the government gets will have to be used to create jobs. So, instead of jobs in companies where you can get promoted far easier and have a more competitive opportunity, you get a lower paid government job with almost no growth or opportunity. Bush understands that the so called 'rich' employ people and keep the economy strong. A government should not be in the business of creating busy work just to employ people.

My vote is for Bush.

I registered as a Republican for the simple reason that there is this silly law that states that during the primaries people can only vote for people in which ever party they belong. So I had to choose. I didn’t really want to choose because I hate the entire party system and the notion that I have to choose a side. So I caved in, flipped a coin and became a Republican.

I would also like to point out that though the United States allows any party, it is really a two-party system.

I registered as a Republican for the simple reason that there is this silly law that states that during the primaries people can only vote for people in which ever party they belong. So I had to choose. I didn’t really want to choose because I hate the entire party system and the notion that I have to choose a side. So I caved in, flipped a coin and became a Republican.


You could have not voted in the primaries and signed a ballot petition for an independent candidate instead, ya know.

I have a question, its a simple question, i have conditions however.

1) Dont spin

2) stay on topic

3) This question is about Kerry so Bush better not be part of the answer

Senator Kerry has been in the Senate for over 20 years, he has opposed every war we've been in since Vietnam up until now which he now opposes the war he voted for in the first place. What qualifications proves that he would be a good war-time president?

PS: last condition: Do not use his Vietnam participation because being some scrub Lt. on a Swift Boat in Vietnam does not qualify you to be a president in any way, Kerry figured that out already.

Answer my question with civility please, i dont know but i have a hunch that there is a glimmer of hope that we can have a debate without flaming the crap out of each other can we?

Clearly an unbiased point of view!

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made
war on him, a good guy again when Cheney's Halliburton did business
with him and
a bad guy again when "W" needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China
and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of
international harmony.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body but multi-national
corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

Social Security should be privatized and retirement investment in the stock
markets encouraged. S.E.C. regulation and oversight of the stock markets should
be minimized, if not eliminated. The stock scandals of the 90's are exaggerated
and corporations have the public's best interests in mind.

Controlling big government excludes: What consenting adults do in privacy and
the rights of a person in a persistent vegetative state.

"Family Values" and parental rights do not extend to a parent in communist Cuba
when their child has been illegally smuggled into the U.S.

Jesus loves you and shares your hatred of homosexuals, Hillary Clinton, and
"Liberals".

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches
while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

Bill Clinton was a draft dodger and John Kerry lied and wounded himself to get
combat medals. But Dick Cheney's and John Ahscroft's multiple draft deferments
to avoid the Vietnam war are honorable and beyond question.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

Tobacco's link to cancer has never been proven and creationism should be taught
in schools.

Evolution and global warming are junk science but stars wars missile defense is
a sound multi-billion dollar defensive weapon against terrorist missiles, as
long as we know exactly where they're being fired from and when.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to
all Americans is socialism.

HMO's should be able to overrule doctor's decisions and have no liability.

"Trial Lawyers" are satanic demons but corporate lawyers defending "stock
holder's interests" in pollution, fraud, and poorly designed product cases are
heroes.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A
president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid
defense policy.

Government should adhere strictly to its prescribed Constitutional powers,
including:
Banning gay marriages and flag burning.
Censoring the Internet.
Posting the ten commandments in schools and courts.
Ignoring checks and balances by restricting appeals courts' reviews of
any laws deemed above reproach (i.e. challenge to mandatory recitation of the
Pledge of Allegiance)

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades. However George
Bush's cocaine conviction, his failure to meet his National Guard duties, and
media coverage of U.S. Iraq War dead is none of our business.

Being a drug addict and fraudulently acquiring prescription medications are
moral failings and felonies, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's
an illness and you're being unjustly persecuted by a "Liberal" prosecutor for
your ideology and you need our prayers for your recovery.

Hypocrisy and obsessive gambling are also moral failings, unless you're a
conservative pundit, then you can continue to lecture the country on the
importance of morals and selling your book, "The Book of Virtues", which your
mindless disciples will buy.

You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft
can, tell
states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt and that they
should rescind right-to-die laws enacted by popular vote.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest but what Bush
did is irrelevant.


Feel free to pass this on. If you don't send it to at least 10 other people,
we're likely to be stuck with Bush for 4
more years.

Friends don't let friends vote like idiots.

Also, on the subject of abortion, taking away a woman's right to choose whether or not she actually does have the child is again, forcing your religion on others. If the woman does not want the child, do not make her have it, and do not chastise her for making the decision not to have it.


I believe the statement made was not for or against abortion, but pointing out the irony of statement he made. Which was (and I'm paraphrasing) "It is called a 'double murder' when a mother and unborn fetus are killed, but 'a womens right to choose' when it's an abortion." Dont you think this is a bit twisted in its logic? It is murder when the host and fetus are killed but a right to choose when the host isn't killed but the fetus is.


World War 2 helped to jump-start our economy, and THAT ended in 1944. The Great Depression was in the late 20's and early 30's, and this guy is saying that he lived through it (must have been a long 52 years). Mathematically, that doesn't add up, since it's 2004 right now, and 52 years ago would have been 1962, nowhere near the Great Depression. I think the others have thoroughly covered all the other inconsitencies.


You are completely misreading that part of the article. It says he was a Loving Husband for 52 years. WHAT I AM … first and foremost, is a loving husband of some 52 plus years, the father of four and an American who’s proud of his country… and his country’s heritage.

Subtracting the 52 years from 2004 = 1952 (the year he was married). Take 20 to 35 years off that (more then reasonable ages to get married at during that era) and you get between 1932 and 1918 which is the range of time he was most likely born in, thus putting him squarely in the depression era.

Senator Kerry has been in the Senate for over 20 years, he has opposed every war we've been in since Vietnam up until now which he now opposes the war he voted for in the first place. What qualifications proves that he would be a good war-time president?

Well, you answered your own question. The best way to be a war-time President is to absolutely abhore war. It would mean he would use military conflict as an absolute last resort, not as a knee-jerk reaction or pre-emptive maneuver.

PS: last condition: Do not use his Vietnam participation because being some scrub Lt. on a Swift Boat in Vietnam does not qualify you to be a president in any way, Kerry figured that out already.


Two points on this:

1] He was in combat, hence, he knows what combat is like. It gives him more authority to judge combat than someone who has never been in combat. It is not a qualifier for Presidency - except that he was an officer and, thus, a leader - but Kerry never said it was.

2] He never actually used the specifics of his service record as a sole qualifier for Presidency. One of the biggest boons in his favor is his 20 years of Federal level service to the US. The RNC and others were the ones who brought up the specifics of his service in Vietnam and spun it in such a way to make it seem that is all Kerry's platform is based on.

It sort of looks like this:

What happened = Kerry stands up at a podium and says, "Elect me President! I served my country in Vietnam, I have served 20 years of Federal level service in the Senate, I have a plan for America and will do my best to make America a better nation."

What Fox News shows = Kerry stans up at a podium and says, "Elect me President! I served my country in Vietnam ..." Bill O'Reilly cuts off the video and says, "And that's all he's got for his platform ... up next we have sports".

People believe Bill O'Reilly.

Amazing, eh?

I have a question, its a simple question, i have conditions however.

1) Dont spin

2) stay on topic

3) This question is about Kerry so Bush better not be part of the answer

Senator Kerry has been in the Senate for over 20 years, he has opposed every war we've been in since Vietnam up until now which he now opposes the war he voted for in the first place. What qualifications proves that he would be a good war-time president?

PS: last condition: Do not use his Vietnam participation because being some scrub Lt. on a Swift Boat in Vietnam does not qualify you to be a president in any way, Kerry figured that out already.

Answer my question with civility please, i dont know but i have a hunch that there is a glimmer of hope that we can have a debate without flaming the crap out of each other can we?
the only reply your question involves is that there was no vote to go to war with iraq.

that is the only reply required because it sets the tone of your entire statement

Friends don't let friends vote like idiots.
when we were in dc for the we the people competition one of my group members bought a shirt hat said "friends dont let friends be republicans" for our government teacher

WARNING - Depending on how you look at it, this may be a 1 and a half page long rant, so if you don't want to read any more political rants, then I strongly encourage you not to read this.

I have a massive problem with that article as a whole, but I'll get to that later. Also, if you find any inconsistencies in my thing here, please point them out, and I'd be delighted to debate/review whatever it is with you.

I think we have effectively come to the conclusion that all the Republicans (or rather, "conservatives") here think that the world is uniformely "liberally biased", whereas all the Democrats (or "liberals", if you will) all think the world is uniformely "conservatively biased". Now, take that as you will, but I'd like to propose that they're both equally true, and they therefore cancel each other out. Now, end of that argument. *smacks Pedie for being close-minded*.


I believe in God, country, the santity of life, respect for others, honesty, hard work, fairness, charity, strength, home & family, responsibility, and equal rights. I think it speaks pretty good for me.


Now, quickly a few things about this comment, as well as all other comments of the same variety.
1. You may believe in God, more power to you if you do, but not everyone believes in God. Therefore, please don't force it on those of us who do not want to believe in him. Forcing God on others (even indirectly, keep reading), invalidates "Equal Rights", "Respect for Others", and "Responsibility".
2. I believe, that based on the comments you have made previously, that I can safely say that you probably think that Gay Marriage should be outlawed, as should abortion. Now "Equal Rights" means "Equal Rights", no getting around that. So, if you can get married to the woman you love, why can't Susie G. get married to the woman she loves? You're both people, right? If I remember correctly, the 2 biggest arguments for outlawing Gay Marriage are "The Bible says it's wrong", and "We want to preserve the sanctity of marriage". Now, you're welcome to do whatever the heck you want in your churches, based on what the members want to do (since there does happen to be a "seperation of church and state" clause in the US constitution - please observe that fully) though I won't protect you from any lawsuits sent your way by angry people. However, please do not abridge the rights of those who do not conform to your religious or social ideals, and please keep in mind that there is no sanctity of marriage any more. The divorce rate is at around 60% if I remember correctly, and even then there's always been a problem with so-called "dead-beat dads" and "dysfunctional families".
Also, on the subject of abortion, taking away a woman's right to choose whether or not she actually does have the child is again, forcing your religion on others. If the woman does not want the child, do not make her have it, and do not chastise her for making the decision not to have it.

Zooke - I have to respect you for posting your views in such a non-combative way. However, I feel obligated to say that the person who posted that article is not quite being up front with us.

World War 2 helped to jump-start our economy, and THAT ended in 1944. The Great Depression was in the late 20's and early 30's, and this guy is saying that he lived through it (must have been a long 52 years). Mathematically, that doesn't add up, since it's 2004 right now, and 52 years ago would have been 1962, nowhere near the Great Depression. I think the others have thoroughly covered all the other inconsitencies.

And, one final thing! Our country was not founded by Christians, it was founded by Deists (rather like agnostics), which is a misconception that has become all too common.

Peace everyone, and may the (better) man win the election (though either way, half the country's going to be absolutely pissed).


Yes, he believes in God, and no, he wasn't forcing it on anyone. He was simply saying that it's not right for you to look down on him for that belief. If you ask me, you're the one forcing a belief.

Marriage is not a human right. Marriage was an institution set up a LONG time ago and was meant for a MAN and a WOMAN. Banning gay marriage is not denying them "human rights", it is preventing them from desecrating marriage. I have no problem with homosexuals, they can live how they want to, they can live together, they can love each other, I don't care, they just should not be able to get married.

Birth begins with conception. No matter what stage of life the baby is at, it is still a human being, though maybe at a very early stage of development, it is still a human, and will grow to be a fully grown human, and taking away the life that little innocent would have had is absolutely not acceptable, by my standards. Some people, like you, would rather wait until a certain stage of development to call it a human, and take its life prematurely. I honestly don't see why you would want an excuse to kill it. It may be more convenient for the mother to raise that baby or adopt it, but consequences aren't usually convenient.

I'm sick of this crap. Read up on your history. Most of the founding fathers were Christians, SOME were deists. Some were deists, and became Christians. It really doesn't matter, though, because this country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and beliefs, and you're not going to convince me otherwise with your liberal bs.

And whoever said earlier that Bush Cheney have more attack ads, I want to see proof. Right now. And if you're referring to 527's, It is undeniable that the cost of anti-Bush ads FAR outweigh the cost of the anti-kerry ads, probably 10x as much.

That is all.

Clearly an unbiased point of view!

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made
war on him, a good guy again when Cheney's Halliburton did business
with him and
a bad guy again when "W" needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China
and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of
international harmony.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body but multi-national
corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

Social Security should be privatized and retirement investment in the stock
markets encouraged. S.E.C. regulation and oversight of the stock markets should
be minimized, if not eliminated. The stock scandals of the 90's are exaggerated
and corporations have the public's best interests in mind.

Controlling big government excludes: What consenting adults do in privacy and
the rights of a person in a persistent vegetative state.

"Family Values" and parental rights do not extend to a parent in communist Cuba
when their child has been illegally smuggled into the U.S.

Jesus loves you and shares your hatred of homosexuals, Hillary Clinton, and
"Liberals".

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches
while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

Bill Clinton was a draft dodger and John Kerry lied and wounded himself to get
combat medals. But Dick Cheney's and John Ahscroft's multiple draft deferments
to avoid the Vietnam war are honorable and beyond question.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

Tobacco's link to cancer has never been proven and creationism should be taught
in schools.

Evolution and global warming are junk science but stars wars missile defense is
a sound multi-billion dollar defensive weapon against terrorist missiles, as
long as we know exactly where they're being fired from and when.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to
all Americans is socialism.

HMO's should be able to overrule doctor's decisions and have no liability.

"Trial Lawyers" are satanic demons but corporate lawyers defending "stock
holder's interests" in pollution, fraud, and poorly designed product cases are
heroes.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A
president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid
defense policy.

Government should adhere strictly to its prescribed Constitutional powers,
including:
Banning gay marriages and flag burning.
Censoring the Internet.
Posting the ten commandments in schools and courts.
Ignoring checks and balances by restricting appeals courts' reviews of
any laws deemed above reproach (i.e. challenge to mandatory recitation of the
Pledge of Allegiance)

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades. However George
Bush's cocaine conviction, his failure to meet his National Guard duties, and
media coverage of U.S. Iraq War dead is none of our business.

Being a drug addict and fraudulently acquiring prescription medications are
moral failings and felonies, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's
an illness and you're being unjustly persecuted by a "Liberal" prosecutor for
your ideology and you need our prayers for your recovery.

Hypocrisy and obsessive gambling are also moral failings, unless you're a
conservative pundit, then you can continue to lecture the country on the
importance of morals and selling your book, "The Book of Virtues", which your
mindless disciples will buy.

You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft
can, tell
states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt and that they
should rescind right-to-die laws enacted by popular vote.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest but what Bush
did is irrelevant.


Feel free to pass this on. If you don't send it to at least 10 other people,
we're likely to be stuck with Bush for 4
more years.

Friends don't let friends vote like idiots.


Yeah, just like your "clearly unbiased view". I am not going to waste my time responding to your ridiculous stereotypes, overgeneralizations, misrepresentations, and empty propogandistic rhetoric.

How dare you criticize him for being "biased", then fling this EXTREMELY biased mud at him? You, sir, are exhibiting the UTMOST level of hypocrisy.

Everyone is "biased". No one is free of opinion. Being a republican-hating liberal does not make you "unbiased", it makes you liberally biased. So enough of your "holier-than-thou" crap, and if you're going to post stuff like this, don't claim to be unbiased before doing so.

Friends don't let friends vote like hypocritical closed-minded potheads. (Clearly I am unbiased because you are biased and I disagree with you. Your faulty logic is hilarious.)

Well, you answered your own question. The best way to be a war-time President is to absolutely abhore war. It would mean he would use military conflict as an absolute last resort, not as a knee-jerk reaction or pre-emptive maneuver.



Two points on this:

1] He was in combat, hence, he knows what combat is like. It gives him more authority to judge combat than someone who has never been in combat. It is not a qualifier for Presidency - except that he was an officer and, thus, a leader - but Kerry never said it was.

2] He never actually used the specifics of his service record as a sole qualifier for Presidency. One of the biggest boons in his favor is his 20 years of Federal level service to the US. The RNC and others were the ones who brought up the specifics of his service in Vietnam and spun it in such a way to make it seem that is all Kerry's platform is based on.

It sort of looks like this:

What happened = Kerry stands up at a podium and says, "Elect me President! I served my country in Vietnam, I have served 20 years of Federal level service in the Senate, I have a plan for America and will do my best to make America a better nation."

What Fox News shows = Kerry stans up at a podium and says, "Elect me President! I served my country in Vietnam ..." Bill O'Reilly cuts off the video and says, "And that's all he's got for his platform ... up next we have sports".

People believe Bill O'Reilly.

Amazing, eh?

1) Very wrong, you dont have to be a war veteran to be a good war-time president. FDR, suffered from Polio, he couldnt even walk, but it recognized as one of the greatest war-time presidents in history. Being a General, a admiral, a Colonel very much helps in being a good war-time president. Senator Kerry was in charge of one Swift Boat for four months, thats it, thats the bottom of the food chain in the command structure. If he were a captain, his war record "might" prove useful, if he served a full tour of duty (9 months), his war record might prove useful. You dont have to abhore war to be good at it. Wesley Clark could tell you that, he made his war his career, honestly he doesnt abhore it. George Washington, made war his career, he didnt abhore it. Your statement is false "and" irrelevent and you dodged my question because you immediately targeted my conditions and didnt answer the question i asked. Honestly i gave you a wide margin to work with, i gave you his 20 year senate record to work with and that answer was the best you could come up with?

2) He voted for the use of force, you dont vote for such a legislation unless you to determined to follow through with it if necessary, war shouldnt be used for political leverage and a game of empty threats. He should of been ready for war (and from his statements back in 2002 and 2003 it seemed he was) the moment he authorized the use of force. He gave the president the power to send our troops into battle and if he didnt believe in the justifications to warrant such a move, he should never have given the authorization.

1) Very wrong, you dont have to be a war veteran to be a good war-time president. FDR, suffered from Polio, he couldnt even walk, but it recognized as one of the greatest war-time presidents in history. Being a General, a admiral, a Colonel very much helps in being a good war-time president. Senator Kerry was in charge of one Swift Boat for four months, thats it, thats the bottom of the food chain in the command structure. If he were a captain, his war record "might" prove useful, if he served a full tour of duty (9 months), his war record might prove useful. You dont have to abhore war to be good at it. Wesley Clark could tell you that, he made his war his career, honestly he doesnt abhore it. George Washington, made war his career, he didnt abhore it. Your statement is false "and" irrelevent and you dodged my question because you immediately targeted my conditions and didnt answer the question i asked. Honestly i gave you a wide margin to work with, i gave you his 20 year senate record to work with and that answer was the best you could come up with?

2) He voted for the use of force, you dont vote for such a legislation unless you to determined to follow through with it if necessary, war shouldnt be used for political leverage and a game of empty threats. He should of been ready for war (and from his statements back in 2002 and 2003 it seemed he was) the moment he authorized the use of force. He gave the president the power to send our troops into battle and if he didnt believe in the justifications to warrant such a move, he should never have given the authorization.


1] Why did you set conditions if you did not want them adhered to?

2] So, you think if you get in a fight with some guy, you are required to pummel him until he is dead? Sometimes a couple of hits and a "There ... had enough?" is all that is required. Bush is saying we must pummel them until dead, without relent and without tempering our justice with mercy. Not a good way to be President.

I realize that I lot of you people bashing conservatives are about junior high age. But if you don't have a solid argument why do you feel the need to start calling names? I read these boards for a long time before I started posting and I've noticed that this is a bad habit running through the liberal posters on here. If you can't think of something worthwhile to contribute why don't you keep quiet until you do?
I have plenty of good points. But any swordsman will tell you that you don't bother blunting your best blades on pathetic opponenets.

We're not claiming that Bush hasn't made mistakes. He's human and I don't believe there has ever been a president that was right 100% of the time. There is an obvious difference in how people view the potential terrorist threat to the US and what led to economic problems and the effectiveness of Bush's answer to them. What is really the biggest issue against Kerry is his character and his record. He hasn't been an active representative for Mass (please don't ask me to spell it), he missed 70 % of Senate votes. Would you ask for a promotion at your job if you had been absent from work 70% of the time? Would you even have a job?
Far, far fewer than 30% of senate votes are actually on important issues. And voting is only one facet of a senator's job.

Mathematically, that doesn't add up, since it's 2004 right now, and 52 years ago would have been 1962, nowhere near the Great Depression. I think the others have thoroughly covered all the other inconsitencies.
I think he meant he'd been married since then


WHAT I AM … first and foremost, is a loving husband of some 52 plus years, the father of four and an American who’s proud of his country… and his country’s heritage.

I'm sick of this crap. Read up on your history. Most of the founding fathers were Christians, SOME were deists. Some were deists, and became Christians. It really doesn't matter, though, because this country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and beliefs, and you're not going to convince me otherwise with your liberal bs.
See, now that to me is like sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALALALALALALA". You don't care whether or not the USA was founded by christians or a deists, you believe what you believe and nothing we can actually show you (like a 10th grade history textbook) will convince you otherwise.

Marriage is not a human right. Marriage was an institution set up a LONG time ago and was meant for a MAN and a WOMAN. Banning gay marriage is not denying them "human rights", it is preventing them from desecrating marriage. I have no problem with homosexuals, they can live how they want to, they can live together, they can love each other, I don't care, they just should not be able to get married.
Live however they like... so long as it doesn't affect or offend you in any way whatsoever.

Just cos something's an old custom doesn't mean its good. Slavery, for example, has been around for millenia. And marriage has changed plenty since it was first created anyway.

Live however they like... so long as it doesn't affect or offend you in any way whatsoever.

Just cos something's an old custom doesn't mean its good. Slavery, for example, has been around for millenia. And marriage has changed plenty since it was first created anyway.
here, let me try something:

Freedom is not a human right. Slavery was an institution set up a LONG time ago and was meant for a white man to own a black man. Banning slavery is not denying them "human rights", it is preventing them from desecrating the white race. I have no problem with negros, they can live how they want to, they can live together, they can love each other, I don't care, they just should not be able to get free and equal rights.

here, let me try something:

Freedom is not a human right. Slavery was an institution set up a LONG time ago and was meant for a white man to own a black man. Banning slavery is not denying them "human rights", it is preventing them from desecrating the white race. I have no problem with negros, they can live how they want to, they can live together, they can love each other, I don't care, they just should not be able to get free and equal rights.
slavery was instituted far before white and black

salvery is an ancient, sic good apparently, institution where the conquerers of a people or region enslave the "lesser people" and for us to ban slavery is a horrible act that infringes upon the rights of people who think they are better than others to own others as slaves

1] Why did you set conditions if you did not want them adhered to?

2] So, you think if you get in a fight with some guy, you are required to pummel him until he is dead? Sometimes a couple of hits and a "There ... had enough?" is all that is required. Bush is saying we must pummel them until dead, without relent and without tempering our justice with mercy. Not a good way to be President.

I set conditions because i want a straight answer. I ask a question and they give me an answer for some question they heard in their head. You have a 20 year record to work with, you cant come up with anything better then he was a scrub Lt. on a boat as a good reason to be president?

A fight with some guy? So that is what war is? You punch them and make them bleed and thats the end of it right? Welcome to reality, in war, its kill or be killed, you second guess yourself in combat you are dead because the enemy will definately not show mercy. The terrorists have showed their level of mercy when they suicide bombed 35 iraqi children because they wanted candy. Thats how much mercy they show us and you want us to show mercy? Ok, you go to iraq and show mercy, lets see how long you survive, cuz i can guarantee you will be the next rolling head on the internet.

Iraq is a warzone, war is not pretty, people die. Kerry and democrats believe we shouldnt be there just because we cant find WMD's. I guess liberating iraqi's isnt enough incentive, it HAS to be WMD's right? The Iraq war was a "great diversion" right? A "colossal mistake" right? I want to see Kerry say that to iraqi's. I want to see him go there and tell them their freedom isnt worth our time. Their lives arent worth our effort. I want him to go to a iraqi child and tell them they werent worth fighting for, that our battle to free them was a mistake, that the child doesnt deserve the freedoms we take for granted. The war might not be going perfect, Iraqi's are dying, terrorism is rampant, but at least now, Iraqi's have a choice and chance to be free and they have the strongest military in the world backing them all the way. Who is Kerry to say they cant be free because it doesnt help his campaign needs. I want to see every anti-iraq war person go to a iraqi child, a woman raped by Bathists or the Husseins themselves, to the families of the dead found in mass graves, go there and tell them they shouldnt be free because it doesnt suit your needs, see what response you get, i can guarantee it wont be a good one. Not showing mercy? Our battle is for mercy, Saddam Hussein is responsible for the worst amount of genocide in the world since Hitler over 60 years ago. Millions of Iraqi's were executed just because Saddam felt like killing people. He tested WMD's on villages, he dragged thousands of Iraqi's out to the desert and had them brutally executed, Iraqi women carrying children were shot in the back of the head at point blank range, the infants somothered under their own dead mother's body weight or flat out buried alive. You tell them they cant be free, that they dont deserve better, not showing mercy? We fight for them, we show mercy to the ones that deserve it.

See, now that to me is like sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALALALALALALA". You don't care whether or not the USA was founded by christians or a deists, you believe what you believe and nothing we can actually show you (like a 10th grade history textbook) will convince you otherwise.

See, now that to me is like sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALALALALALALA". You don't care whether or not the USA was founded by christians or a deists, you believe what you believe and nothing we can actually show you (like a 10th grade history textbook) will convince you otherwise.

The reason I say you will never convince me is because people have thrown this stupid argument at me more times than i can count, and every time they use faulty sources. I have actually researched this, more than once. Here, I guess I'll need links to convince you of your ignorance.

There are TONS of sites that prove America was founded primarily by Christians, but here's one.

http://www.earstohear.net/leaders.html

Now, there are also sites like this
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm
that say that some of the founding fathers, like Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, were deists, not Christians. Now, even if this were true, the majority of them would still have been Christians, and this argument wouldn't matter. But let me point out a few inaccuracies in their arguments,anyway.

Thomas Paine did not sign the constitution or the declaration. He had a great influence on the American people through the work "common sense", but he didn't "found" anything. He believed in God, and a supernatural realm, but you could call him a deist.

George Washington was definitely a Christian. He attended an episcopalian church and his friends didn't deny that he was a christian. Many of the writings of George Washington are here
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=13

Thomas Jefferson had a tendency to waiver from religion to religion. He always believed in God, and was at one point definitely a Christian, because he said this "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

James Madison is often quoted as a deist because he said things like "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." These quotes could mean anything. "Religious bondage" could mean a number of things, and I don't see how a belief that God created us and still cares for us fits that description. They forget that he said things like this, also: (in a letter to attorney general Bradford) Public officials should be "fervent advocates in the cause of Christ."

It is said that Benjamin Franklin was a deist in his early years, and that throughout his life he showed some deistic beliefs, but if you look at his writings, you will see that he was DEFINITELY no deist.

Benjamin Franklin - "...And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need its assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth, that GOD governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe, that, without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little, partial, local Interests, our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and a Bye-word down to future Ages..."

He has TONS of Christian quotes like this, I will find you more if you want them.

Alexander Hamilton explained to James Bayard in an 1802 letter that two things made America great: Christianity, and a constitution based on Christianity. He said this about the Constitution in 1787:

He also said "I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."

He said this about the Constitution in 1787: "For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests."

John Adams said in a letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1813, “The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.”

To say that the founding fathers were not Christians because a handful weren't is like saying all women are bad because 3 have dumped you. It's utterly foolish. But, despite your best efforts, you haven't even lived up to utter foolishness, because only 3 of the more than 200 signers of America's founding documents were truly "irreligious" - Henry Dearborne, Charles Lee, and Ethan Allen.

America was founded by Christians, on Judeo-Christian ethics and morals, whether you like it or not, so stop lying to everyone so you can force your anti-religionism on us.

I have numerous sources and valid arguments for everything regarding this subject, so feel free to try to refute me.

H00ray for disgusting nationalism!

America was founded by Christians, on Judeo-Christian ethics and morals, whether you like it or not, so stop lying to everyone so you can force your anti-religionism on us.

Too bad they included something called the 1st Amendment!

Too bad they included something called the 1st Amendment!

Oh yeah, great argument. Since we have the freedom of religion, we couldn't possibly have had vocal Christian founders.

John Adams - “ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

George Washington - "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."

Oh yeah, great argument. Since we have the freedom of religion, we couldn't possibly have had vocal Christian founders.

John Adams - “ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
since you liked to point out that thomas paine did not sign the constitution i will point out john adams wasnt even in the country when the constitution was being writtn

George Washington - "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."
washington was not involved in the authoring of the constitution nor was he put in office because he was a good christian man, he was put into office because he was a military leader, the one that led us throguh the fight with britain

I have numerous sources and valid arguments for everything regarding this subject, so feel free to try to refute me.
all from biased sites which i doubt have any real back up and cherry pick quotes, except those of john adams which they like to sling around without including the fact he has shit to do with the constitution's creation. he was in britain, jefferson wasn't in the country either, but he was recorded to have been keeping in touch with the more important people and authored the declaration of independence

Speaks poor for you. This guy has some admirable principles. I have to pretty much agree with him straight down the line.

Just to pick a few at random.

"WHAT I AM … is a voter, tired of politicians, who, every time their voting records are subjected to public scrutiny, try to divert attention from their political and legislative failures by accusing their opponents of “attack ads” and “negative campaigning”…. and the news media who allow them to get away with it. "

And this explains voting republican how? Bush is more guilty of this than any president I've ever seen.


"WHAT I AM … is a movie go-er who is repulsed by those insecure, socially inept, elementary thinking, ego-inflated “entertainers” who have appointed themselves “experts” in the fields of national security and geo-politics and then use their forum to attack this nation, its leaders and its actions…. much to the delight and encouragement of our enemies."

Ya. Like Jessica Simpson, Ron Silver and Billy Baldwin, they should shut the hell up. Oh, wait. He said entertainers. What if all of the proffessors, politicians, and proffesional geo-political and national security experts who WERE against the war were put on CNN and Faux News and the only pro war voices allowed out were MTV's Kennedy and Ted Nuget?
Maybe he should have said:
What I AM... an ignorant twit who doesn't know how to debate the message so insults the messenger.

That this idiot thinks a draft dodging cheerleader evidences better leadership qualities than a decorated war hero and that he believes republican's own attack ads, evidently considering them news because he seems to think attack ads are a purely democratic excersise, shows that he is exactly the the sort of republican he claims not to be.

"WHAT I AM … is a realist who understands that the terrorist attack that murdered hundreds of innocent Russian children could have occurred here, in our heartland. That’s why I sincerely believe America needs now, more than ever, a President who sees with a clear and focused vision and who speaks with a voice when heard by both friend and foe alike, is understood, respected and believed."

Have I misunderstood. Is he one of the Republicans for Kerry (http://www.republicansforkerry.org/)? I see nothing else in the ad to indicate that but I have trouble believing that anyone with the intelligence to read and write doesn't see that the idea that we need to pick Bush rather than Kerry because he is "understood, respected and believed by friend and foe alike,"is the sort of logical paradox that gives computers free will in sci-fi movies. Maybe he dictated the article and had someone else type it. I have no problem believing he likes dictating. Republicans always seem to be big on the dictating. Loooove the dictating. And those who do the dictating. What do you call those again?

Oh yeah, great argument. Since we have the freedom of religion, we couldn't possibly have had vocal Christian founders.

John Adams - “ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

George Washington - "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."

They [preachers]dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live. - Thomas Jefferson.

The Founders' notion of Christianity was not necessarily the same as Pat Robertson's.

<aheam>

Treaty of Tripoli. Treaty of Tripoli, Treaty of Tripoli, Treaty of Tripoli. I win.

They [preachers]dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live. - Thomas Jefferson.

The Founders' notion of Christianity was not necessarily the same as Pat Robertson's.

I've already commented on Thomas Jefferson. Read before arguing.

<aheam>

Treaty of Tripoli. Treaty of Tripoli, Treaty of Tripoli, Treaty of Tripoli. I win.

I've already addressed this. All the treaty stated was "America is not a Christian Nation", which is correct. It is not a Christian nation, in the sense that everyone is a Christian and everything else is looked down upon, it is a nation of religious freedom. Defining America as a "Christian nation" would be hypocrisy. But, that has nothing to do with the fact that it was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics, by Christians.

all from biased sites which i doubt have any real back up and cherry pick quotes, except those of john adams which they like to sling around without including the fact he has shit to do with the constitution's creation. he was in britain, jefferson wasn't in the country either, but he was recorded to have been keeping in touch with the more important people and authored the declaration of independence

Yeah, I'm sure they fabricated those quotes from the Constitutional Convention and their PUBLISHED personal writings. If you want to talk about Cherry-picking and fabricating quotes, the only quotes I've seen on the sites calling them deists are from 3rd party authors. Most of the quotes for their Christianity are taken from published personal letters and journals or documented events. *note* I'm not debunking the quotes, I'm just saying if you're going to argue my quotes' sources, you should really consider the sources of your own as well.

John Adams signed the Declaration of Independence. When I said I didn't consider Paine a "founder", I meant he didn't sign any of the founding documents. The constitution isn't the only document that lead to this nation's creation. Although, I guess his being a founder or not is just my opinion, and up for debate.


washington was not involved in the authoring of the constitution nor was he put in office because he was a good christian man, he was put into office because he was a military leader, the one that led us throguh the fight with britain

It doesn't matter WHY he was put in office, that's not what I was arguing. My point was he is obviously considered a founding father, and was vocal about his Christian faith.

Washington longed to retire to his fields at Mount Vernon. But he soon realized that the Nation under its Articles of Confederation was not functioning well, so he became a prime mover in the steps leading to the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia in 1787. When the new Constitution was ratified, the Electoral College unanimously elected Washington President

But it is a mark of the power of Washington's character, and of the depth of his countrymen's recognition of his moral stature, that despite this official silence he played a critical role throughout. For instance, a key provision of the new Constitution-the adoption of a single executive as one of the three branches of government-was highly controversial due to the delegates' antipathy to anything resembling monarchy. It was the widely held assumption that Washington would become the first occupant of this executive office that carried the day on this point. And although Washington was not active in the ratification debates, his approval of the Constitution was well known, and did much to mollify popular concerns.

James Monroe wrote to Jefferson after ratification, "Be assured, [Washington's] influence carried this government." Thus in the creation of the longest-lived and most widely-copied constitution in human history, as in the winning of American independence previously, we see the impossibility of separating the character of Washington from the early nation's accomplishments.

While he may not have had anything to do with the actual AUTHORING of the constitution, it is undeniable he had an influence on it, and had a major role in the founding of this country.

Again, I dare you, refute me.

Here's some fun: prove yourself right.

WHat christian morals were we founded on?

Ahhh-before you get started, some rules.

1) They have to be christian morals. No other religion can have them. Otherwise, they arn't christian morals, are they?

2) They have to exist in both law and the bible, with you ready to quote BOTH.

Now, have fun :p

Again, I dare you, refute me.

I refute you.

It's funny..but in the 1930-40's, the Germans said the same thing about Hitler.


BAM...the Hitler Fallacy. Debate over.