PDA

View Full Version : Kerry Bad For America



KerryGoHome
26 May 04,, 12:53
Open letter to John Kerry

To be an American is something more than an aspiration or an idea. Americans have a right to be led by a fellow American, not by someone who received a good part of his education in a European country; by a drifter who lived in a boarding house. Americans have a right to choose a leader who does not chase after very rich women to satisfy his political hunger, or by a looser who cut classes to learn how to fly. An American leader should be something more than an adventure seeker. A leader should actually convey a sense of core values and have roots ... not contradict himself at every possible opportunity, and show a different face depending on the audience. John Kerry is a political ghost. His “values” are invisible – his “ethic”, fleeting.

Do Americans want a Mozambique-born cosmopolitan liberal first lady with a Portuguese accent in the White House? Do Americans want a Marxist/socialist woman as our next first lady who has been quoted as saying “No American boy or girl should have to go to war and lose their lives because of our gluttonous need for oil”? The same woman who owns three SUV’s!? The same woman who said that “Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism”? Who are you people? ‘What’ are you people?

Do Americans want the daughter of their leader to show off her tits at a film festival? >> http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/100009.html << Sexual promiscuity, enormous wealth, and Marxist/socialist leanings threatens business interests, the image of Americana, and American values. Is ‘this’ what Americans want?

John Kerry is a rogue member of the Skull and Bones society at Yale. The difference between Kerry and other members of Skull & Bones is that Kerry betrayed its philosophy by constantly speaking out against Vietnam. Kerry is not a team player. John Kerry was educated primarily in Europe; made it a point to date very rich women; and applied for navy patrol boat duty in Nam: because he was taken in by John F. Kennedy’s sailing and philandering. Kerry explains his yen for adventure when he said, “I cut classes, I didn't do much. I spent a lot of time learning to fly”. Obviously, Kerry’s hunger for power is not based on a love, or loyality for American values (or his wife’s) ... they are based on recklessness and a sense of adventure. I would hate to see a family of pigs like this in the White House!

This situation is remarkably similar to what we had in 1963 when the ungrateful and self righteous Kennedy clan was also threatening to become a monarchy on American soil. So far, Kerry has succeeded in threatening to reconstitute the liberal bureaucracy of a bygone era. And for what it is worth, like the Kennedy’s, Kerry has also succeeded in angering the Catholic Church. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.




Philip

Praxus
26 May 04,, 20:10
To be honest I can't think of any politician that is good for America.

We need a philosoper president like Jefferson not a profesional bull shit artist.

berkut
27 May 04,, 19:16
Open letter to John Kerry

To be an American is something more than an aspiration or an idea. Americans have a right to be led by a fellow American, not by someone who received a good part of his education in a European country; by a drifter who lived in a boarding house. Americans have a right to choose a leader who does not chase after very rich women to satisfy his political hunger, or by a looser who cut classes to learn how to fly. An American leader should be something more than an adventure seeker. A leader should actually convey a sense of core values and have roots ... not contradict himself at every possible opportunity, and show a different face depending on the audience. John Kerry is a political ghost. His “values” are invisible – his “ethic”, fleeting.

Uhuh... coke sniffing president is always a better alternative




Do Americans want the daughter of their leader to show off her tits at a film festival? >> http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/100009.html << Sexual promiscuity, enormous wealth, and Marxist/socialist leanings threatens business interests, the image of Americana, and American values. Is ‘this’ what Americans want?
Philip

You are right, what I Americans really want is a president who's both daughters are alcoholics, official document forgerers, and peace disturbers. We should also follow Taliban example and make all women wear bedsheets over their bodies and if they dare as much as to show their ankles we will stone them.



John Kerry is a rogue member of the Skull and Bones society at Yale. The difference between Kerry and other members of Skull & Bones is that Kerry betrayed its philosophy by constantly speaking out against Vietnam. Kerry is not a team player. John Kerry was educated primarily in Europe; made it a point to date very rich women; and applied for navy patrol boat duty in Nam: because he was taken in by John F. Kennedy’s sailing and philandering. Kerry explains his yen for adventure when he said, “I cut classes, I didn't do much. I spent a lot of time learning to fly”. Obviously, Kerry’s hunger for power is not based on a love, or loyality for American values (or his wife’s) ... they are based on recklessness and a sense of adventure. I would hate to see a family of pigs like this in the White House!


FIrst, bush is a member of skull and bones himself. Betrayed? Depends how you look at it.. may be had enough balls not to be a sheep and speak his own mind, not afraid of what his daddy is going to say or how much millions in donations he will loose. Oh, and a vast majority of people who actually faught in Vietnam and didnt watch it from a couch in trailer would much rather prefer that liberal guy. Along with thousands of bustard kids, widows, and parents who lost somebody in that useless war.
Cut classes? Is that your big point? Obviously you have not gotten past your GED, nobody who actually went to a university would stress that point. I am going to repeat myself here, but I think Americans deserve a literate president first. I guess daddy's influence can get you up the ladder and his money can by you an admission and a degree but as they say "You can take the boy out of hick redneck country but you can't take the hick out of the boy". My favorite Bush's quote "nuCELar". You want a president who makes US the laughing stock of the whole world when he says that Cashmere is a sweater and Sri Lanka is a person? Our school's janitor who doesn't even speak english knows the difference.




And for what it is worth, like the Kennedy’s, Kerry has also succeeded in angering the Catholic Church. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.


Read the constitution. "The church shall not interfere with the affairs of state".
Catholic church should be the last one to talk about morals. Do you know where I'm going?
Sometthing that never changes about Republicans: cheap, sleezy, tabloid type unrelated propaganda.

Ironduke
27 May 04,, 19:35
My favorite Bush's quote "nuCELar".
Are you making fun of the way I say the word?

berkut
27 May 04,, 20:00
Are you making fun of the way I say the word?

: )
Every time I hear somebody pronounce it that way I get an image of Homer Simpson in my head "The correct way to say it is nucelar, Lisa". And Bush of course

http://www.cse.msu.edu/~postrobe/images/bush-dumb.jpg

http://home.arcor.de/kultras/assets/images/homer.jpg

Confed999
27 May 04,, 23:16
Sometthing that never changes about Republicans: cheap, sleezy, tabloid type unrelated propaganda.
Gore must be a Republican then. :rolleyes:

Ironduke
27 May 04,, 23:17
Ah, I must have missed that. I guess I'm cheap and sleazy.

KerryGoHome
29 May 04,, 00:06
Updated version of Open Letter to John Kerry...

Open letter to John Kerry

To be an American is something more than an aspiration or an idea. Americans have a right to be led by a fellow American, not by someone who received a good part of his education in a European country; by a drifter who lived in a boarding house. Americans have a right to choose a leader who does not chase after very rich women to satisfy his political hunger, or by a looser who cut classes to learn how to fly. An American leader should be something more than an adventure seeker. A leader should actually convey a sense of core values and have roots ... not contradict himself at every possible opportunity, and show a different face depending on the audience. John Kerry is a political ghost. His “values” are invisible – his “ethic”, fleeting.

Do Americans want a Mozambique-born cosmopolitan liberal first lady with a Portuguese accent in the White House? Do Americans want a Marxist/socialist woman who inherited over five-hundred-million-dollars from her former husband as our next first lady – who has been quoted as saying “No American boy or girl should have to go to war and lose their lives because of our gluttonous need for oil”? The same woman who owns three SUV’s!? The same woman who said that “Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism”? Who are you people? ‘What’ are you?

Bush bashers who criticize the way he handles the press and gives speeches are contradicting themselves. To those critics who say “Politics is an art form, and ‘therefore’ things are said in a certain way to please the crowd”, etc. This kind of thinking is way off the mark and was expressed in a letter I recently received from a friend. When on the subject of flip-flopping she said “Welcome to the world of politics, that’s the nature of the game and if you haven't figured that out yet hopefully you will soon. EVERYBODY including good old George Bush plays to the crowd. They set up to be the most appealing to the audience”. Quite revealing, I thought. If entertainment is what you are looking for then hire a magician, not a president. For those old enough to remember the television program To Tell the Truth: where there were three people associated with a story, and the panelists had to guess who was the real person involved. At the end of the program, the host would ask “Will the real, (so and so), please stand up”! I get the same sensation listening to John Kerry as I did from watching To Tell The Truth. You just don’t know who the real John Kerry is because he refuses to tell you. He puts on a different face for different crowds, and in the process makes a fool out of himself. Kerry is not even true to his own religion. So how is it possible to have faith in a man who has no faith in himself? He’s just playing to the liberal elite who are picking up the tab for his campaign. Maybe he’s pulling one over on them. Who knows? I don’t even think John Kerry knows.

No, George Bush isn’t perfect. We all have problems and we all fall from grace every now and then. But that’s not the point. The point is that I know who Bush is because he wears the same face for everyone. I know what to expect from Bush because he is consistent. He has character. I recall Bush’s eyes watering up on television once as he was discussing his fellow American victims of 911. I don’t even have to like him, but at least I know what to expect. Kerry puts one on edge because you don’t know what his next move is. Why do we look up to people in the first place? We want a leader that we can admire, or for someone else to set an example for us and for our children. Do we want our commander-in-chief to allow his own daughter to show off her breasts at a film festival the way John Kerry’s daughter did recently? >> http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/100009.html << That’s not the kind of leader I want, and I pity those who do. One wonders if this was not a deliberate side show in the Kerry campaign to attract supporters. Sexual promiscuity, enormous wealth, political invisibility, and the looming Marxist/socialist leanings threaten business interests, the image of Americana, American values, and the stability of the family environment. Is this what we ‘really’ want? Or are we so caught up in republican this and democrat that, that we can no longer see the light at the end of the tunnel.

If, hypothetically, a child old enough to understand something about politics turns to his Kerry-supporting mom and asks “Mommy, what does John Kerry believe” ... then how is it possible for that parent to convey something of value to the child, given the moral relativism that is so pervasive in Kerry’s policies.


John Kerry is a rogue member of the Skull and Bones society at Yale. The difference between Kerry and other members of Skull & Bones is that Kerry betrayed its philosophy by constantly speaking out against Vietnam. Kerry is not a team player. Bush did not serve in Vietnam but wished he had. Kerry did serve but wished he hadn’t. John Kerry applied for navy patrol boat duty in Nam, because he was mesmerized by John F. Kennedy’s sailing and philandering. Kerry explains his yen for adventure when he said, “I cut classes, I didn't do much. I spent a lot of time learning to fly”. Obviously, Kerry’s hunger for power is not based on a love, or loyality for American values (or his wife’s) ... they are based on recklessness and a sense of adventure. I would hate to see a family of pigs like this in the White House!

This situation is remarkably similar to what we had in 1963 when the ungrateful and self righteous Kennedy clan was also threatening to become a monarchy on American soil. So far, Kerry has succeeded in threatening to reconstitute the failed liberal bureaucracy of a bygone era. And for what it is worth, like the Kennedy’s, Kerry has also succeeded in angering the Catholic Church. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

---------------------

I have had some people ask me what I mean by 'monarchy'. Here is the clarification.

The Kennedy's had over one hundred members in their immediate family. The patriarch, Joe Kennedy, had Mafia business ties and was a Nazi sympathizer. Joe Kennedy's Mafia ties were in theory and practice, undermining the stability of the United States Government: especially through Mafia tactics that ran counter to various federal laws and regulation. Joe Kennedy made a pact with the devil, and understood that he could never make it to president. So he pushed his three sons for the title. When Bobby Kennedy released The Enemy within: The McClellan Committee's Crusade Against Jimmy Hoffa and Corrupt Labor Unions in 1960, it was made official that the Mafia could no longer expect to court favor with the Kennedy family. From coast to coast the Kennedy's made everybody angry (including the Catholic Church), and, as it turns out, there was a collective interest in their removal.

One difference between the Bush family and the Kennedy's is that the Kennedy's were threatening to become an active monarchy on American soil -- while the Bush's are simply a dynasty: a succession of rulers of the same family. Therefore, in the ladder case power is limited and decentralized.





Philip

Trooth
29 May 04,, 01:39
Ah, unamerican again. So now it refers to people not born or educated in the US?

And women have breasts? When did that happen and why was i not informed? And they choose what they wear now? Geez America is a liberal paradise. Next you'll be saying that a breast was once seen on television for half a second.

Ironduke
29 May 04,, 04:51
Ah, unamerican again. So now it refers to people not born or educated in the US?

And women have breasts? When did that happen and why was i not informed? And they choose what they wear now? Geez America is a liberal paradise. Next you'll be saying that a breast was once seen on television for half a second.
Cable always shows boobies. Broadcast networks don't show boobies.

themuffinman
29 May 04,, 14:46
Uhuh... coke sniffing president is always a better alternative




You are right, what I Americans really want is a president who's both daughters are alcoholics, official document forgerers, and peace disturbers. We should also follow Taliban example and make all women wear bedsheets over their bodies and if they dare as much as to show their ankles we will stone them.



FIrst, bush is a member of skull and bones himself. Betrayed? Depends how you look at it.. may be had enough balls not to be a sheep and speak his own mind, not afraid of what his daddy is going to say or how much millions in donations he will loose. Oh, and a vast majority of people who actually faught in Vietnam and didnt watch it from a couch in trailer would much rather prefer that liberal guy. Along with thousands of bustard kids, widows, and parents who lost somebody in that useless war.
Cut classes? Is that your big point? Obviously you have not gotten past your GED, nobody who actually went to a university would stress that point. I am going to repeat myself here, but I think Americans deserve a literate president first. I guess daddy's influence can get you up the ladder and his money can by you an admission and a degree but as they say "You can take the boy out of hick redneck country but you can't take the hick out of the boy". My favorite Bush's quote "nuCELar". You want a president who makes US the laughing stock of the whole world when he says that Cashmere is a sweater and Sri Lanka is a person? Our school's janitor who doesn't even speak english knows the difference.




Read the constitution. "The church shall not interfere with the affairs of state".
Catholic church should be the last one to talk about morals. Do you know where I'm going?
Sometthing that never changes about Republicans: cheap, sleezy, tabloid type unrelated propaganda.

The Frightening Void: Voting For John Kerry
By Joseph Grant Swank (bio)

Other Articles by Joseph Grant Swank Jr.
Back to News / Home Page

To vote for John Kerry in November is to vote for The Void. It is to move a nation — and much of the free world — into an awesome, scary vacuum.

The reason is because no one, including John Kerry, knows truthfully who Kerry is. And the word "truthfully" is the key word. No one. Kerry is unknowable in that he has a base that shifts. He is Political Opportunist to the maximum — one of the most dangerous to this new century.

Kerry is now called The Waffler. He’s called that because he is. Who then in one’s right mind would vote in a waffler? Only the fools of the nation would cast a ballot for a person who is so unpredictable that not even John Kerry knows where he's going to land next week. His voting record in the Congress is right there before the eyes of the country. It’s public record. It’s unnerving to go over his voting history.

Yet this is the Democrat choice for the United States President. And this in an exceptionally changing world — speedily changing. This is the Democrat candidate to take the helm when much of the planet’s plates are moving daily.

No wonder then that Iran votes for Kerry. No wonder then that North Korea votes for Kerry. They consider him unpredictable, which he is; therefore, they have the chance to govern his governorship. And they will surely do that if they can. Welcome killers international to America where the president knows not his right shoe from his left, who has no real foreign policy, and projects himself as The Void in which Iranian and North Korean killers can walk in to manage.

All Americans should sit up straight on this one. This is not a minor item. This is major scary. Kerry is a vacuum because he’s never trained his morals to log in. He is a relativist. He is a moral opportunist. This is particularly evident in his being Catholic in name only. Kerry doesn’t care about biblical data as revealed truth. Kerry doesn’t care about the Holy See’s doctrinal conclusions. Kerry doesn’t give a hang about his church’s social teachings regarding abortion and homosexuality.

With a person like that to oversee the United States of America, we are in for a rocky ride. This man cannot see through the fog to take a chance at conviction. He lacks conviction except on one point: his own opportunism. He holds to the conviction that he has the right to waffle and still be considered sophisticated for waffling. He has the conviction that he can swing from wrong to right and from right to wrong, defining his own ethical code apart from divine revelation. He is one of the most obvious self-appointed deity personalities afloat today. That is, he is his own god and politic is his bible.

John Kerry has not set forth one substantive proposal regarding anything. Nothing. He knows how to criticize but not how to create. He knows how to pull apart but not how to build. He has not given to the voting public one strong position regarding economy, national security, and foreign security.

So with that, Kerry rants and raves against Mr. Bush’s campaign ads, his wife, Heinz Kerry underwriting the Whiners National who call in to say they’re offended by Bush’s accent on 9 / 11. And so it goes when you think you’re running for president of the high school student council.
05.13.04 01:27

http://www.bushcountry.org/news/columnists/Grant-Joseph/c_030804_joseph_swank_voting_john_kerry.htm

KerryGoHome
31 May 04,, 23:01
Ah, unamerican again. So now it refers to people not born or educated in the US?

And women have breasts? When did that happen and why was i not informed? And they choose what they wear now? Geez America is a liberal paradise. Next you'll be saying that a breast was once seen on television for half a second.

Michael or Janet Jackson can do no wrong simply because they are Black. If a Black leader says something it must be true because he or she is Black. When Marion Barry was re-elected it was perfectly fine with Black America because Barry is Black. Blacks do not choose their leaders based on vision -- they choose them because they are black.

When OJ Simpson was acquitted 95% of Black Americans experienced a catharsis: even for the crime of MURDER! For them his guilt or innocence is not the issue. Because OJ is Black he must 'therefore' be innocent.

Blacks are far more prejudice than Whites can ever hope to be! Even moral relativism would be better than this. At least then you have a 50-50 chance at getting it right.

Thank you, Philip

Trooth
31 May 04,, 23:04
Michael or Janet Jackson can do no wrong simply because they are Black. If a Black leader says something it must be true because he or she is Black. When Marion Barry was re-elected it was perfectly fine with Black America because Barry is Black. Blacks do not choose their leaders based on vision -- they choose them because they are black.

When OJ Simpson was acquitted 95% of Black Americans experienced a catharsis: even for the crime of MURDER! For them his guilt or innocence is not the issue. Because OJ is Black he must 'therefore' be innocent.

Blacks are far more prejudice than Whites can ever hope to be! Even moral relativism would be better than this. At least then you have a 50-50 chance at getting it right.

Thank you, Philip

What a nice speech. What, exactly has it to do with my post?

KerryGoHome
31 May 04,, 23:07
What a nice speech. What, exactly has it to do with my post?

My response to: "Next you'll be saying that a breast was once seen on television for half a second".
Philip

Bill
31 May 04,, 23:38
"Blacks do not choose their leaders based on vision -- they choose them because they are black. "

Quite true.

Sad, but still true.

themuffinman
01 Jun 04,, 02:42
"Blacks do not choose their leaders based on vision -- they choose them because they are black. "

Quite true.

Sad, but still true.
Maybe that's why the liberals and the media Love kerry so much.
Kerry gave an interview to American Urban Radio in which he said:

President Clinton was often known as the first black president. I wouldn't be upset if I could earn the right to be the second.

A civil rights group wants Kerry to apologize for that remark.

Today, Paula Diane Harris, founder of the Andrew Young National Center for Social Change, had this to say about Kerry's comment:

It is sad that candidates will say anything for a vote. “I consider John Kerry’s statement regarding his earning the right to be known as the second black president an insult,” stated Paula Diane Harris, Founder, President and & CEO of the Andrew Young National Center for Social Change Inc. John Kerry is not a black man-- he is a privileged white man who has no idea what it is to be a poor white in this country, let alone a black man.

Kathleen Parker, in this op-ed piece, explains why Kerry isn't going to be a black president:

Speaking strictly as a honkie, I find few pastimes more amusing than watching white people try to be black. With John Kerry's announcement that he would like to be the second black president, the next eight months promise an embarrassment of riches.

Kerry, whose soul quotient makes George Bush look like James Brown, made the remark Tuesday following his anointing as the Democratic presidential nominee: "President Clinton was often known as the first black president. I wouldn't be upset if I could earn the right to be the second."

How does one earn the right to be a black president? That may depend on what your definition of "black" is.

The definition that got Clinton thus dubbed was provided by Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison, who wrote in a 1998 New Yorker essay that Clinton was our nation's first black president because he "displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas."

http://cayankee.blogs.com/cayankee/2004/03/civil_rights_gr.html

KerryGoHome
03 Jun 04,, 02:06
Kerry Bad for America

To be an American is something more than an aspiration or an idea. Americans have a right to be led by a fellow American, not by someone who received a good part of his education in a European country – by a drifter who lived in a boarding house. Americans have a right to choose a leader who does not chase after very rich women to satisfy his political hunger or by a looser who cut classes to learn how to fly. An American leader should be something more than an adventure seeker. A leader should actually convey a sense of core values and have roots ... not contradict himself at every possible opportunity, and show a different face depending on the audience. John Kerry is a political ghost. His “values” are invisible – his “ethic”, fleeting.

Do Americans want a Mozambique-born cosmopolitan-liberal first lady with a Portuguese accent in the White House? Do Americans want a Marxist/socialist woman who inherited over five-hundred-million-dollars from her former husband as our next first lady who has been quoted as saying “No American boy or girl should have to go to war and lose their lives because of our gluttonous need for oil”? Gluttonous? When was the last time a potential first lady, God forbid, said something so cynical about her “own people”? The same woman who owns three SUV’s!? The same woman who said that “Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism”? Who are you people? ‘What’ are you?

Bush bashers who criticize the way he handles the press and gives speeches are contradicting themselves. To those critics who say “Politics is an art form, and ‘therefore’ things are said in a certain way to please the crowd”, etc. This kind of thinking is way off the mark and was expressed in a letter I recently received from a friend. When on the subject of flip-flopping she said “Welcome to the world of politics, that’s the nature of the game and if you haven't figured that out yet hopefully you will soon. EVERYBODY including good old George Bush plays to the crowd. They set up to be the most appealing to the audience”. Quite revealing, I thought. If entertainment is what you are looking for then hire a magician or clown, not a president. For those old enough to remember the television program To Tell the Truth: where there were three people associated with a story, and the panelists had to guess who was the real person involved. At the end of the program, the host would ask “Will the real, (so and so), please stand up”! I get the same sensation listening to John Kerry as I did from watching To Tell the Truth. You just don’t know who the real John Kerry is because he refuses to tell you. He puts on a different face for different crowds, and in the process makes a fool out of himself. Kerry is not even true to his own religion. So how is it possible to have faith in a man who has no faith in himself? He’s just playing to the liberal elite who are picking up the tab for his campaign. Maybe he’s pulling one over on them. Who knows? I don’t even think John Kerry knows.

If, hypothetically, a child old enough to understand something about politics turns to his Kerry-supporting mom and asks “Mommy, what does John Kerry believe” ... then how is it possible for that parent to convey something of value to the child, given the moral relativism that is so pervasive in Kerry’s policies?


No, George Bush isn’t perfect. We all have problems and we all fall from grace every now and then. But that’s not the point. The point is that I know who Bush is because he wears the same face for everyone. I know what to expect from Bush because he is consistent. He has character. I recall Bush’s eyes watering up on television once as he was discussing his fellow American victims of 911. I don’t even have to like him, but at least I know what to expect. Kerry puts one on edge because you don’t know what his next move is. Why do we look up to people in the first place? We want a leader that we can admire, or for someone else to set an example for us and for our children. Do we want our commander-in-chief to allow his own daughter to show off her breasts at a film festival the way John Kerry’s daughter did recently? >> http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/100009.html << That’s not the kind of leader I want, and I pity those who do. One wonders if this was not a deliberate side show in the Kerry campaign to attract supporters. Sexual promiscuity, enormous wealth, political invisibility, and the looming Marxist/socialist leanings threaten business interests, the image of Americana, American values, and the stability of the family environment. Is this what we ‘really’ want? Or are we so caught up in republican this and democrat that, that we can no longer see the light at the end of the tunnel.


John Kerry is a rogue member of the Skull and Bones society at Yale. The difference between Kerry and other members of Skull & Bones is that Kerry betrayed its philosophy by constantly speaking out against Vietnam. Kerry is not a team player. Bush did not serve in Vietnam but wished he had. Kerry did serve but wished he hadn’t. John Kerry applied for navy patrol boat duty in Nam, because he was mesmerized by John F. Kennedy’s sailing and philandering. Kerry explains his yen for adventure when he said, “I cut classes, I didn't do much. I spent a lot of time learning to fly”. ...“kerry was seen as an impatient new breed, more interested in generating headlines than mastering the tedious process of lawmaking”:
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062103.shtml << Obviously, Kerry’s hunger for power is not based on a love or loyalty for American values (or his wife’s) ... they are based on recklessness and a sense of adventure.

This situation is remarkably similar to what we had in 1963 when the ungrateful and self righteous Kennedy clan was also threatening to become a monarchy on American soil. So far, Kerry has succeeded in threatening to reconstitute the failed liberal bureaucracy of a bygone era. And for what it is worth, like the Kennedy’s, Kerry has also succeeded in angering the Catholic Church. Politics makes strange bedfellows. I would hate to see a family of pigs like this in the White House!

Philip

http://www.onestopinternetshop.com/politicalcommentary.html

mtnbiker
07 Jul 04,, 20:17
Read the constitution. "The church shall not interfere with the affairs of state".



Um, before telling everyone to read the constitution and then quoting it, you might want to try and get your quotes correct.

Here is the proper quote.

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

Confed999
08 Jul 04,, 00:35
Here is the proper quote.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Amen! :)

ChrisF202
08 Jul 04,, 01:32
Michael or Janet Jackson can do no wrong simply because they are Black. If a Black leader says something it must be true because he or she is Black. When Marion Barry was re-elected it was perfectly fine with Black America because Barry is Black. Blacks do not choose their leaders based on vision -- they choose them because they are black.

When OJ Simpson was acquitted 95% of Black Americans experienced a catharsis: even for the crime of MURDER! For them his guilt or innocence is not the issue. Because OJ is Black he must 'therefore' be innocent.

Blacks are far more prejudice than Whites can ever hope to be! Even moral relativism would be better than this. At least then you have a 50-50 chance at getting it right.

Thank you, Philip
Also they think Mumia is innocent when he gunned down a cop over a simple traffic ticket. His supporters convinved hundreds of Americans (mostly liberals, and including Hillary Clinton) that he is innocent, We owe it to the family of Ofc. Daniel Faulkner of the Philidelphia PD to execute this man rather then release him. Also Bill Clinton pardoned a women who took part in a amored car robbery in Nyack, NY in i think it was 1981 in which an amored car guard and 2 cops were killed, several other guards and cops were wounded. Her name was Kathy Boudin.

Ray
08 Jul 04,, 03:08
I was surfing the channels, when I saw Kerry's, 'We can do better' speech.

Interesting.

This has become an interesting campaign as it has become interesting out here with Berkut and others.

As far as the comment indicating indignation about showing tits at a fashion show and practically insisting on a dress code, it is as dangerous a thought as that of the Taliban who insists bedsheets should be worn by women and only their eyes should be seen. I think the bedsheets worn are called chador.

It will be a sad day if the USA goes the Taliban way.

Confed999
08 Jul 04,, 04:35
It will be a sad day if the USA goes the Taliban way.
We do have public decency standards, but if anything they are going down and not increasing.

mtnbiker
09 Jul 04,, 22:47
Confed, this should make you feel better about Kerry.... :eek:


Just hours before attending an all-star celebrity fundraising concert in New York, Dem presidential candidate John Kerry revealed how he has been too busy for a real-time national security briefing.

"I just haven't had time," Kerry explained in an interview.

Kerry made the startling comments on CNN's LARRY KING LIVE Thursday night.

KING: News of the day, Tom Ridge warned today about al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States. Didn't increase the -- you see any politics in this? What's your reaction?

KERRY: Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me. I just haven't had time.

Confed999
09 Jul 04,, 22:51
My father, a die hard Democrat, refuses to vote for Kerry. That's the real reason I'm afraid of him. Dad says he's going to vote for Nader ,because even if he's elected nobody will listen to him. ;)

List
11 Jul 04,, 21:38
I have a lot of trouble believing that article isn't a joke.

On a side note, what is publically decent is entirely subjective. Ideally decency standards will continue to drop from the perspective to those who refuse to adapt to the times.

Confed999
11 Jul 04,, 23:08
I have a lot of trouble believing that article isn't a joke.
It's an opinion piece outling things Kerry is a hypocrite about. You may contest it if you like, but it looks as if he's got the facts straight, and is stating his opinion about them.

what is publically decent is entirely subjective.
I guess. To a child molester, exposing itself to children would be entirely acceptable. Most of us have the ability to tell where the line should be drawn though. The families of politicians are allways in the public eye, so any act in public can, and should, be used to show character.

List
12 Jul 04,, 03:01
I was referring to the initial post. The one talking about him being educated in Europe and his wife being a foreigner.

What is considered moral in any area by a majority of its populace has change, and will continue to change. Child molestation is illegal because sexual assault is illegal, and because people below a certain age are not considered mature enough to make the decision to engage in sexual congress. There are obvious detrimental consequences to child molestation.

A man cheating on his wife without her knowledge is also bad, in the sense that he has made a commitment not to cheat on her. It is considered immoral by most, though many do it anyways. Pornography falls into a similar boat. These are both subject to change over time. While cheating on one's significant other may always be considered bad, polygamy may grow in popularity at some point in time, and may not be considered immoral. If the pornography industry were to grow, and eventually be accepted into the maintream, it may no longer be considered by many to be immoral.

Homosexuality is now considered by a large number of people in the developed world to not be immoral. Acceptance is likely to increase in the future.

It seems obvious to me that most people cannot tell where the line should be drawn, especially since that line is always moving. Older people, over the last century and beyond have always been more socially conservative. As we age, we do not keep up with the times well. I'm only 20, and I already fail to understand the youth of today. One can get a decent idea of what will be socially acceptable in the mainstream by looking at the opinions of today's youth.

I recognize that for politicians, character can be an issue. Politicians always have to worry about how they're coming across to the public. Even a charismatic leader can be destroyed by bad politics. At the same time, I think it is the job of the voters to ignore character as much as possible, and concentrate on policy. If your leader cheats on his wife and snorted cocaine and got pulled over for drunk driving, it's ok, as long as it isn't negatively effecting his foreign/domestic policy.

Bush is not the most charismatic guy, and he's made a number of horrible policy decisions while in office. It isn't a good combination. At the same time, Kerry is running what looks like a terrible campaign. He won't shut up about Vietnam, a character issue that really doesn't mean that much. He also won't shut up about Iraq, when it's unclear he would have done a better job than Bush on that issue. What he needs to do is show Americans that his policies will be better than Bush's. He can't win on Iraq, and he certainly can't win on Vietnam, policy is his only shot.

Confed999
12 Jul 04,, 03:34
I was referring to the initial post. The one talking about him being educated in Europe and his wife being a foreigner.
Me too...

Child molestation is illegal because sexual assault is illegal,
Not talking molesting, just a person that would think it's ok to be indecent towards someone. Like Kerry's daughter, or Janet Jackson, being exposed in public, possibly on purpose. Both of those ladies knew to be careful because the world was watching, and like it or not, they need to set a good example. I doubt it will be socially acceptable to be undressed in public anytime soon. Even the most liberal places keep it in specific locations so they can be avoided.

I'm only 20, and I already fail to understand the youth of today. One can get a decent idea of what will be socially acceptable in the mainstream by looking at the opinions of today's youth.
They're no different than we were. They just want to be accepted, and rebel at the same time.

I recognize that for politicians, character can be an issue... I think it is the job of the voters to ignore character as much as possible, and concentrate on policy.
But how can you believe anything someone says about policy, if their character says they are just telling you what you want to hear. I don't like butt kissing poll wather politicians because their idea of policy can, and will, change at a moments notice.

If your leader cheats on his wife and snorted cocaine and got pulled over for drunk driving
For me it's not about mistakes made, it's about what we do about it. We all have screwed up, some of us royaly, but if we tell the truth and accept the consequences, that shows character. That's my problem with Clinton, not that he did some willing girl, but that he outright lied about it.

List
12 Jul 04,, 06:07
Not talking molesting, just a person that would think it's ok to be indecent towards someone. Like Kerry's daughter, or Janet Jackson, being exposed in public, possibly on purpose. Both of those ladies knew to be careful because the world was watching, and like it or not, they need to set a good example. I doubt it will be socially acceptable to be undressed in public anytime soon. Even the most liberal places keep it in specific locations so they can be avoided

I don't know what the laws are in the States, but it's legal to go topless in Canada. It isn't common, because women don't like being stared at, but it isn't considered morally or legally wrong as far as I know. I hardly see how wearing a revealing dress is morally wrong. Nudity is not some horrible society destroying beast.


They're no different than we were. They just want to be accepted, and rebel at the same time.

Fine, but they still represent the future. You can't refute the fact that moral norms change over time, and that what is "obviously obscene" now might be entirely normal in a few decades.


But how can you believe anything someone says about policy, if their character says they are just telling you what you want to hear.

Because a president with 80% bad policy promises who follows up with 70% of them is worse than a presidential candidate with 75% good policy promises who only follows up with 40% of them. Good policy beats good politics any day of the week, though if voters recognized that, all good policy would be good politics.


That's my problem with Clinton, not that he did some willing girl, but that he outright lied about it.

Right, so it doesn't matter that he followed through with the vast majority of his policy promises. He successfully passed more legislation in his first term than any of the 4 previous republican presidents. It doesn't matter that his policies helped fuel economic growth, good foreign relations, low crime, reduced deficit, and at the end of his term, the SMALLEST federal government in four decades. All that mattered was that he lied about a personal problem that never should have been asked about in the first place.

Clinton was one of your greatest policy presidents. He even almost managed to reform health care, something he failed to do because Bob Dole and the Repulicans of the time decided that if the Democrats successfully passed health care reform, a reform that simplified a convoluted system while increasing coverage without increasing taxes, the Republican party might not recover for decades.

Attack Kerry on the things that matter. If he's wishy washy, it's still better to have someone who might be bad than someone you know will be bad. Bush, unfortunately, has very little going for him besides Iraq. He has a terrible record on environmental and social issues, and a mixed economic record. I'm not saying Kerry is better or worse, I'm just saying that you should vote based on the things that really matter.

troung
12 Jul 04,, 06:53
“Michael or Janet Jackson can do no wrong simply because they are Black. If a Black leader says something it must be true because he or she is Black. When Marion Barry was re-elected it was perfectly fine with Black America because Barry is Black. Blacks do not choose their leaders based on vision -- they choose them because they are black. When OJ Simpson was acquitted 95% of Black Americans experienced a catharsis: even for the crime of MURDER! For them his guilt or innocence is not the issue. Because OJ is Black he must 'therefore' be innocent. Blacks are far more prejudice than Whites can ever hope to be! Even moral relativism would be better than this. At least then you have a 50-50 chance at getting it right. Thank you, Philip”

That is so racist and I’m surprised no one had yet called you on it…

List
12 Jul 04,, 08:31
The initial post, and the ones that followed it were so silly I didn't think it was worth the time to answer specifics. It seems from Kerrygohome's posts that he hates immigrants, minorities, democrats, and people with different views on morallity than him.
"Even moral relativism would be better than this. At least then you have a 50-50 chance at getting it right." <<<<<especially silly.

Ray
12 Jul 04,, 08:49
Yes OJ's case is disgusting. The colour is not important if justice is to be given. Nor should a sportsman be above law.

To be fair, the 'others' (non European or white if you please) are not impressed with flawed justice and their colour can be of mud for all we care! A blasted murderer is a murderer, colour be damned and also if he wears his underwear or not. In fact, we wondered what type of justice is there out in the US.

I am constrained to add since many of you feel third world countries are a bunch of illiterate, impoverished, undemocratic yahoos living on dole of the US.

In India's General Election, if there is a doubt, the Election Commisioner ( a non partisan body and which has ruled against the govt many a time) orders a re-election including in the latest election. Yet, in the US, when there was a serious doubt about the Florida count, the US Supreme Court legislated! Surely a re-election would have been a better democratic option with the errors removed. That would be democracy where the people would vote and not a few 'honourable' gentlemen, who are appointed by the govt or rather okayed. Aftrer all, democracy is all about peoples' choice and not a bunch of few 'learned gentlemen'.

I know you all will haul me over the coals, but then I sure would like to hear a contrary view for better understanding.

Confed999
12 Jul 04,, 22:45
I don't know what the laws are in the States, but it's legal to go topless in Canada. It isn't common
I bet if everyone did it, the rules would change rapidly. Nobody would be offended in Canada? How about if it was your child's teacher? Probably too cold to do it there anyway. ;) Here it is allowed only in restricted locations, so that people who don't want to deal with it don't have to, same as most of the free world.

Nudity is not some horrible society destroying beast.
Never said it was, but not everyone should be forced to deal with it either. Just like I won't force you to take a bath, but if you stink, and you don't have an excuse, I won't let you in my house.

Fine, but they still represent the future.
Sure, but you grew up, I grew up, why do you think they will not? Don't worry about the kids, they need time to figure out who they are still. When they're ready they will come around, forcing it will just cause problems. Kids don't need the weight of the world on their shoulders, they just need us to be patient and supportive until they are done being kids.

He successfully passed more legislation in his first term than any of the 4 previous republican presidents.
That isn't a good thing. How many more laws do we need? Each one damages our freedom. Do you really want to talk about past Dem Presidents? LOL! BTW, I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

his policies helped fuel economic growth
His policies damaged our economic growth and sent us into a recession. It was a big part of the 2000 campaign.

good foreign relations
What policy did he adopt to do that? Just his innate liberalism? In Kosovo he brought us in on the side of terrorists, and even recruited Americans to join them. Alot of the Iraqi WMD intel came from those "good foreign relations", so I'm thinking the relations weren't that great.

low crime
Which federal law lowered crime? I know we've passed tons of State, and local, laws, here, that have really helped, but they had nothing to do with the Feds.

SMALLEST federal government in four decades
??? Really? Got stats on that? I don't remember him firing thousands of federal employees. Plus more federal legislation = bigger government. I can't name one time our government got smaller in my lifetime. You mean he reduced deficit spending? At the cost of how much of our intel network? If those guys were on the job, isn't there a greater chance 9/11 wouldn't have happened?

All that mattered was that he lied about a personal problem that never should have been asked about in the first place.
He did it in a office I am paying for, while he was supposed to be doing a job I was paying him to do. If you caught your employee banging someone on your time, should you be allowed to ask about it? I would, then I would fire them. This also told me that all of the other allegations he denied, including rape, were 100% true. BTW, he passed the sexual harrassment laws that allowed him to be prosecuted.

the Republican party might not recover for decades.
Why? Alot of us don't want socialized medicine. The Republicans still hold both houses and the presidency, and there have been elections since then.

He has a terrible record on environmental
Really, what's terrible about it?

and social issues
Really, what's terrible about it?

mixed economic record.
The economy is growing rapidly, that ain't mixed.

you should vote based on the things that really matter.
I'm going too. This will be the first time in my adult 17 years that I'll not be voting Libertarian. I'll be voting for the only candidate willing to take the fight to our enemies, and in the process free millions of oppressed peoples. I'll be voting for the candidate that does not promote class and race warfare. I'll be voting for the candidate that took us out of an economic recession compounded by the murder of thousands. I'll be voting for the candidate that isn't running on a higher tax promise, because if taxes increase I'll have to fire employees to make up the profit margins. I'll be voting for Bush, because the alternative is a socialist country plauged by terrorism, that can only intervene when the UN says it's ok.

Confed999
12 Jul 04,, 23:07
I am constrained to add since many of you feel third world countries are a bunch of illiterate, impoverished, undemocratic yahoos living on dole of the US.
Not all, but many are. I think if it weren't for communism, alot of the third world would be first world. Soon, I believe, I'll be saying the same thing about socialism.

Yet, in the US, when there was a serious doubt about the Florida count, the US Supreme Court legislated!
Here the election process is allready covered by the Constitutuion, and a few other laws. The US SC ruled according to that document, exactly the way they should have, the States have the right to set their own rules for the voting process as long as it's not descriminatiory. All the US SC ruling did was say Florida's time limit for recounts was constitutional, if I remember correctly and not in so few words. Nobody is trying to change those laws BTW, they're just complaining about them. Note: I didn't vote for either candidate that time, and I thought the Libertaian was a jack-ass too, so I wrote in Mickey Mouse. BTW, Mickey Mouse was the write in winner of my senior class presidency. :)

view for better understanding.
Hope I helped some. :)

ChrisF202
12 Jul 04,, 23:58
I wrote in Mickey Mouse. BTW, Mickey Mouse was the write in winner of my senior class presidency.
I heard 435 people voted for God in Washington DC

Confed999
12 Jul 04,, 23:59
I heard 435 people voted for God in Washington DC
Nice! She would make a good Prez. ;) I wonder if anyone else voted for Mickey?

List
13 Jul 04,, 06:27
Nobody would be offended in Canada? How about if it was your child's teacher?

I'm sure people in Canada would be offended. I never claimed Canadians were smarter than Americans. I wouldn't care if my child's teacher wore a revealing dress, though I suppose I could change my mind over the years.


That isn't a good thing. How many more laws do we need? Each one damages our freedom.

When politicians run for office, they make promises. I know it's shocking, but those promises often require legislation to keep. If you look at what Clinton passed, and you look at his campaign promises, you'll realize that he did a spectacular job both keeping his promises and getting things done. As for restriction your freedoms, I'm sure inner city empowerment zones, childhood immigration initiatives, student-loan reform, and the family leave law seriously hurt your freedoms.


His policies damaged our economic growth and sent us into a recession.

Really? You were in a recession when he took office. As soon as he started implimenting the new budget, with his other legislation, unemployment went down. The economy went through its longest period of growth in history, crime went down, and the majority of people actually ended up with lower taxes. You might not credit him with that, but if you aren't, you'll have to apply the standard to every other administration.


What policy did he adopt to do that?

He had positive dealings with Russia and Japan. He helped save Mexico from collapsing. He helped stop the bloodshed in Haiti and Bosnia, at least for a time. He stopped North Korea's primary nuclear program. He helped with the peace negotiations in Northern Ireland. He increased relations with Vietnam. I can give you more examples if you want them.


Which federal law lowered crime?

Ok, how about the Brady Bill? The assault weapons ban? The new drug courts? Putting 100,000+ new police on the street? In fact, I think that was part of his bill that he referred to as his "crime bill."


Really? Got stats on that? I don't remember him firing thousands of federal employees. Plus more federal legislation = bigger government. I can't name one time our government got smaller in my lifetime.

You must have a terrible memory, or you just weren't paying attention. In 2000 there were 365,000 fewer employees in the Federal government than in 1993, making it the smallest Federal government since Kennedy.


You mean he reduced deficit spending? At the cost of how much of our intel network? If those guys were on the job, isn't there a greater chance 9/11 wouldn't have happened?

Actually, he increased intelligence and anti-terrorism spending after the first wtc attacks and the Oklahoma city bombing. He warned Bush about al Qaeda and bin Laden. You can't possibly blame Clinton for 9/11.


he passed the sexual harrassment laws that allowed him to be prosecuted.

He never would have been prosecuted, not that it would have mattered. Nixon was pardoned, all of the Iran-Contra guys were pardoned, Reagan would have been pardoned had he been indicted. What Clinton did was FAR more minor, he didn't even need to be pardoned for it. It would take a lot for a President/Former President to do jail time for something he did while in office.


Why? Alot of us don't want socialized medicine. The Republicans still hold both houses and the presidency, and there have been elections since then.

He wasn't talking about socializing medicine. He was trying to make sure that everyone had proper coverage, he was trying to improve the American medical system to bring it up to par with a number of other developed countries. And my point was that the Republicans thought, at the time, that they'd be seriously damaged if Clinton passed health care reforms. We'll never know, because they blocked those reforms. People were actually asked what health plan they preferred from a number of packages without knowing where those options came from, they overwhelming chose Clinton's. The media distortion and attack ads at the time were bad enough that the vast majority of people didn't know what Clinton was offering them. If you don't believe it would have damaged the Republicans, they certainly did. I even dug up a quote for you from Dan Quayle's former chief of staff, William Kristol. He said that a success on health care would present a "serious political threat to the Republican Party." Newt Gingrich had admitted as much earlier on in his efforts to block it. The Republican congressional leaders decided to adopt Kristol's position.


Really, what's terrible about it?

Wow, I cannot honestly believe you think Bush has a decent environmental record. The guy who lowered clean air and water standards, who broke his promises to address global warming, who slowed up toxic dump cleanups and forced taxpayers to cover it, who cut environmental enforcement. He's given a number of pro-environment positions to former energy executives. He backed out of Kyoto, which many may not approve of, but Kyoto was a step in the right direction for the environment.


Really, what's terrible about it?

What's so terrible about supporting abstinance education that doesn't work while opposing educating youths on the use of condoms and birth control? How about a constitutional amendment that would, in effect, ban gay marriages? How about banning foreign aid to organizations that offer abortion councelling, even if they use non-American funds to do it. Aid can't be given to family planning clinics that even mention the word "abortion." You claim to be a Libertarian, but you support that?


I'll be voting for Bush, because the alternative is a socialist country plauged by terrorism, that can only intervene when the UN says it's ok.

Right, like all of those other "socialist" countries plagued by terrorism! The only one that even comes close is France, and their problems didn't arrise from them being a "socialist" country, and they haven't let the UN prevent them from doing anything. In fact, what you said made no sense, because even if the United States was more left wing, it would still not be "plagued" by terrorism, and wouldn't need UN approval to fight terrorism on its home turf. There's no reason to think that Bush has been successful in fighting terrorism, or is more successful than someone else would be in his place. If you wanted to fight terrorism, invading Iraq was a terrible idea, because it has only had the effect of increasing terrorism. If you wanted to help Iraqi citizens gain freedom, I fully approve. Just don't mix up your goals.

Ray
13 Jul 04,, 09:42
With due regards to your concern about terrorism and very rightly so, you have just been hit once - the WTC and maybe Oklahoma.

Where were you when others were being hit daily? And I would not be surprised if a large majority of you did not even know that others were and are facing it daily. Take Israel, India or even your bete noire Russia.

Confed,

Here I am embarrassed to disagree with you since you are my friend. Clinton did great stuff internationally. He made us look up to US as a great nation (I know that makes no diff to you all), but the socialist and communist govts too thought he was not a 'bad guy'. That's important to sway the world opinion. Kosovo etc may have been wrong, but not a peep or any negative noise from anyone - US was still acceoted as uber alles!

Bush may have done a good thing, but everyone other than the majority US citizens, very few supported him and those who did are slowly abandoning him. The UN, which was condemned, spurned and shoved into the dustbin, but had to be brought back to help in Iraq. That has not helped the US image. In fact, unfriendly folks are gloating that the US had to eat crow.Therefore, it leaves a very confused message. Indeed, as Senator Rockefeller said during the Intelligence Committe Report, ' the US has lost all its friends and its image is at the lowest' or words to that effect. It may piss you off, but as a friend, this being true hurts me more than it hurts you all as it is sadly true, with a few like me (?) still rooting for the US. Don't dismiss this as normal anti Americanism. It is not. It is true and that is what hurts. With all the sincerity that the US has, the US has no sensitivity is what it appears to others.

Extraordinary that there is no thread on this board on the Senate Intell Report. We should not be scared of the truth. One may say I should have posted one, but then I don't want to rock the boat because I wish you all well and hope you can change the trend. US is a good nation with all good intentions. It has to learn to be sensitive to others too! International politics means taking everyone along and still being supreme. I am afraid that is not the case now.

I don't remember who, in another thread, wrote that France is wrong because it indicates racial identification, to ban the hijab. I agree. But then shouldn't Saudi Arabia and Iran etc not force others from covering their head or wearing miniskirt? How come what is bad for France is OK for SA or Iran? We must not go overboard in appeasment too! So, what is the bottom line? Kick others who are giving it back tit for tat to the Islamist funadamentalist ? I have no French connection, except that my school founder was French advernturer and a Genral in th British East India Company.

I am very clear. Irrespective of my personal or relgious beliefs, if I go to a foreign land and if I want to live there, then I better learn to live it like them.....or if I am such a bigot and won't compromise, the I better return home. You cannot impose your way of life on others who have been there before you and accepted something else as their culture. Sooner the immigrants realise that, the world will become a safer place.

ChrisF202
13 Jul 04,, 18:53
With due regards to your concern about terrorism and very rightly so, you have just been hit once - the WTC and maybe Oklahoma.
The US had only been hit by international terrorists twice before 9/11; the shootdown of TWA Flight 800 in 1996 (they uncovered evidence that Islamic terrorists in a boat shot it down w/ a missile) and the 1st WTC bombing in 1993.

Officer of Engineers
13 Jul 04,, 19:26
The US had only been hit by international terrorists twice before 9/11; the shootdown of TWA Flight 800 in 1996 (they uncovered evidence that Islamic terrorists in a boat shot it down w/ a missile) and the 1st WTC bombing in 1993.


That's just an internet rumour.

Praxus
13 Jul 04,, 19:40
The US had only been hit by international terrorists twice before 9/11; the shootdown of TWA Flight 800 in 1996 (they uncovered evidence that Islamic terrorists in a boat shot it down w/ a missile) and the 1st WTC bombing in 1993.

These are just attacks known to be sponsored by Iran, let alone other terrorist organizations like Al Quada...

April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.

December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait.

January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed.

April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain.

September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again).

December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran.

June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut.

After a let-up, the attacks then restarted: Five and 19 dead in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, 224 dead at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 and 17 dead on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.

Simultaneously, the murderous assault of militant Islam also took place on U.S. soil:

July 1980: an Iranian dissident killed in the Washington, D.C. area.

August 1983: a leader of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam killed in Canton, Mich.

August 1984: three Indians killed in a suburb of Tacoma, Wash.

September 1986: a doctor killed in Augusta, Ga.

January 1990: an Egyptian freethinker killed in Tucson, Ariz.

November 1990: a Jewish leader killed in New York.

February 1991: an Egyptian Islamist killed in New York.

January 1993: two CIA staff killed outside agency headquarters in Langley, Va.

February 1993: Six people killed at the World Trade Center.

March 1994: an Orthodox Jewish boy killed on the Brooklyn Bridge.

February 1997: a Danish tourist killed on the Empire State building.

October 1999: 217 passengers killed on an EgyptAir flight near New York City.

Confed999
14 Jul 04,, 00:35
I'm sure people in Canada would be offended. I never claimed Canadians were smarter than Americans. I wouldn't care if my child's teacher wore a revealing dress, though I suppose I could change my mind over the years.
There she could actually be topless right? Here the rules are, cover the nipples (women only), the genitals and a touch more than 1/3 of the butt. Seems loose enough for me.

When politicians run for office, they make promises. I know it's shocking, but those promises often require legislation to keep. If you look at what Clinton passed, and you look at his campaign promises, you'll realize that he did a spectacular job both keeping his promises and getting things done. As for restriction your freedoms, I'm sure inner city empowerment zones, childhood immigration initiatives, student-loan reform, and the family leave law seriously hurt your freedoms.
Who has to pay for these promises? Why would I ever want the government to do any of this, especially in a country based on the private sector, and not socialism? I guess a true liberal says my money isn't mine anyway, it belongs to the government and I should be thankful they let me keep any.

Really? You were in a recession when he took office.
And in a recession when he left, I'm not a Republican, you can rag on them all you want to.

As soon as he started implimenting the new budget, with his other legislation, unemployment went down. The economy went through its longest period of growth in history, crime went down,
But we ended up in the same place. Seems this proves my point, the government should stay out of the economy, they just mess it up.

the majority of people actually ended up with lower taxes.
"All men are created equal". "The majority" indicates discrimination.

He had positive dealings with Russia and Japan. He helped save Mexico from collapsing. He helped stop the bloodshed in Haiti and Bosnia, at least for a time. He stopped North Korea's primary nuclear program. He helped with the peace negotiations in Northern Ireland. He increased relations with Vietnam. I can give you more examples if you want them.
We have positive dealings with Russia and Japan now. Mexico is still a place where people are killing themselves to get out. The bloodshed in Haiti had to be stopped again. Bosnia we went in on the side of terrorists and he recruited Americans to join them! Vietnam is deals with bad guys, he sold out every Vietnam vet. I can give you more examples if you want them.

Ok, how about the Brady Bill? The assault weapons ban? The new drug courts? Putting 100,000+ new police on the street? In fact, I think that was part of his bill that he referred to as his "crime bill."
Gun bans create criminals, they don't reduce crime. That one technicly makes me a criminal. More useless war on drugs stuff. There was no funding provided to pay for the police, they just told local governments to add them without funding. And wouldn't adding 100,000 government employees be making government bigger?

You must have a terrible memory, or you just weren't paying attention. In 2000 there were 365,000 fewer employees in the Federal government than in 1993, making it the smallest Federal government since Kennedy.
I'm awful with names and dates, but I get by. Moving federal programs to state and local levels without getting rid of the programs is not smaller government. All it changes is who signs the check, the feds or the state/county/city.

Actually, he increased intelligence and anti-terrorism spending after the first wtc attacks and the Oklahoma city bombing. He warned Bush about al Qaeda and bin Laden. You can't possibly blame Clinton for 9/11.
Sure, I can place blame on Clinton for 9/11. AQ, and the Taliban, came about durring his watch. AQ attacked us repeatedly under his watch. He sent out the FBI and CIA but he said they couldn't cooperate and they couldn't use any of their questionable sources to get intel. His solution was to throw money at the problem. He should have taken care of aQ after the Cole, so I can certainly blame Clinton.

He never would have been prosecuted, not that it would have mattered. Nixon was pardoned, all of the Iran-Contra guys were pardoned, Reagan would have been pardoned had he been indicted. What Clinton did was FAR more minor, he didn't even need to be pardoned for it. It would take a lot for a President/Former President to do jail time for something he did while in office.
He was taken to court 3 times. Nobody should have been pardoned. I won't excuse bad behavior, just because someone else did something bad too, that's dumb.

He wasn't talking about socializing medicine.
If the government does it, it's called socialization. How about fixing the current socialized medical programs, as well as our social security, before creating another monster.

Wow, I cannot honestly believe you think Bush has a decent environmental record. The guy who lowered clean air and water standards, who broke his promises to address global warming, who slowed up toxic dump cleanups and forced taxpayers to cover it, who cut environmental enforcement. He's given a number of pro-environment positions to former energy executives. He backed out of Kyoto, which many may not approve of, but Kyoto was a step in the right direction for the environment.
I don't think his enviornmental record is worse than anyone elses. I could go into things peole like Clinton did in the name of "enviornment" that suck too, but I don't think he was "terrible" to the enviornment either. Doesn't the US allready have a 6% reduction law working? Why sign Kyoto and incur greater costs to change plans for 2% more over a different time period. I bet Clinton wouldn't have signed Kyoto either, to the best of my knowledge it's redundant.

What's so terrible about supporting abstinance education that doesn't work while opposing educating youths on the use of condoms and birth control?
I can abstain, so it must work on some. I think birth control should be taught too. Thing is, it should be taught by the parents. Maybe have a parenting class as required study instead, and we can fix this in 2 generations.

How about a constitutional amendment that would, in effect, ban gay marriages?
I have to admit I baited you on this one. Bush's amendment plan included civil unions for everyone. All the benifits/problems of marriage and none of the religious people are mad. Truthfully I believe, all of the acceptance the gay community had gained over the years, they lost much of simply by using the word marriage. Civil unions sound good, not "terrible", at least to me. Either way though, it will never pass, or be ratified, so it doesn't matter.

Right, like all of those other "socialist" countries plagued by terrorism! The only one that even comes close is France, and their problems didn't arrise from them being a "socialist" country, and they haven't let the UN prevent them from doing anything. In fact, what you said made no sense, because even if the United States was more left wing, it would still not be "plagued" by terrorism, and wouldn't need UN approval to fight terrorism on its home turf. There's no reason to think that Bush has been successful in fighting terrorism, or is more successful than someone else would be in his place. If you wanted to fight terrorism, invading Iraq was a terrible idea, because it has only had the effect of increasing terrorism. If you wanted to help Iraqi citizens gain freedom, I fully approve. Just don't mix up your goals.
Don't know much about Kerry's past statements? Making deals with terrorists causes terrorism. The fact we would be socialist AND plauged by terrorism, mostly domestic just like Spain and France, would be coincidental, and based on our position not anyone else's. There are an awful lot of dead and captured terrorists for us to be no safer at all, in fact that seems a silly statement. My goals are freedom for everyone, that's what America is about, even if others tell you that's not true. My goals aren't mixed, they're black and white.

Confed999
14 Jul 04,, 01:11
With due regards to your concern about terrorism and very rightly so, you have just been hit once - the WTC and maybe Oklahoma.
We've been hit many times, internationally and domesticly.

Where were you when others were being hit daily?
You know I was right here saying the same things.

Here I am embarrassed to disagree with you since you are my friend.
Never be embarrassed to disagree with me. I truly don't expect anyone to agree with me at all. You are a good friend, and you're even allowed to call me names if you want! ;)

Clinton did great stuff internationally. He made us look up to US as a great nation (I know that makes no diff to you all), but the socialist and communist govts too thought he was not a 'bad guy'. That's important to sway the world opinion.
Clinton was a good talker, it's true, why else would anyone here excuse the many bad things he did.

Kosovo etc may have been wrong, but not a peep or any negative noise from anyone - US was still acceoted as uber alles!
Kosovo wasn't wrong, we just shouldn't have taken sides. The UN didn't approve that one either. Any country that stood against the crimes in Kosovo, and didn't against the crimes in Iraq are hypocrites, no matter who made the call for it to end.

The UN, which was condemned, spurned and shoved into the dustbin, but had to be brought back to help in Iraq. That has not helped the US image. In fact, unfriendly folks are gloating that the US had to eat crow.
The UN was only taken out of the loop on the invasion, they were there for everything else before and after. It may look like we went crawling back from the press reporting, but it isn't true, we never left completly. Alot of Americans are angry about that too, I would just assume they were calling for UN reforms instead.

It is true and that is what hurts. With all the sincerity that the US has, the US has no sensitivity is what it appears to others.
It hurts here too, because from our viewpoint, it's us that was abandoned.

Extraordinary that there is no thread on this board on the Senate Intell Report. We should not be scared of the truth.
I've read it. It should have been done by an independant group instead of partisan politicians.

International politics means taking everyone along and still being supreme. I am afraid that is not the case now.
That's never happened before, don't know why everyone would start to agree on anything now.

How come what is bad for France is OK for SA or Iran? We must not go overboard in appeasment too!
I think SA and Iran are much, much, much worse. I don't like making deals with bad guys.

List
14 Jul 04,, 03:13
We obviously disagree on a range of issues. The civil union/gay marriage issue wouldn't be such a big deal for me if gay marriage actually had some negative effect on straight couples. Non-religious people can get married and it doesn't hurt religious people, so I don't see how gays getting married would distrupt things.

While I agree that abstinance education is better than no sex education at all, it's been proven to be far less effective than sex education. In a study of people who took a pledge to abstain until marriage, over 80% broke the pledge, and they had higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy because they were so much less likely to use protection. A large number of parents are either not able, or not willing, to properly educate their children about sex. Talking about sex with a parent can be extremely akward, and having a stranger available who knows and teaches the facts, and is able to answer questions is extremely useful. I'm sure you'd be disapproving of a large government program that forced parents to undergo sex-ed training to teach to their kids, not that such a thing would ever happen. As such, proper sex-ed in schools is the best way to combat teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, as well as abortions. Parents who want to shield their children from proper sexual education for religious reasons still have that option.

Beyond that, I don't think it's necessary to derail this thread anymore.

Confed999
14 Jul 04,, 03:32
We obviously disagree on a range of issues.
Certainly, but I can say that about myself and my girl friend. I've never met anyone with the exact same beliefs I have, I doubt you have either.

The civil union/gay marriage issue wouldn't be such a big deal for me if gay marriage actually had some negative effect on straight couples. Non-religious people can get married and it doesn't hurt religious people, so I don't see how gays getting married would distrupt things.
Hey, I have no problem with it myself. As an ordained minister the day it becomes legal I will be signing off on any couple that can convince me they love each other. The religious groups think this is such a bad idea they are willing to go back to the "homosexuals are evil" stand, and that seems silly when there is such a simple compromise.

I'm sure you'd be disapproving of a large government program that forced parents to undergo sex-ed training to teach to their kids, not that such a thing would ever happen.
I would actually say teach it starting the first year of high school, we allready have that large government program. You would actually be amazed at how calling the class something like "successful parenting" instead of "sex education", and teaching it from the viewpoint of a parent talking to a child, would be able to get the point across without all the anti-whatever parents freaking out.

I don't think it's necessary to derail this thread anymore.
These are all campaign issues, so we're still ok. ;)

List
14 Jul 04,, 04:12
In that case, I'd like to add that I don't see how requiring background checks for gun ownership prevents law abiding citizens from having their guns. It's obvious how it helps stop some criminals from getting firearms. At the very least, it slows them down. The assault weapons ban wouldn't effect the vast majority of gun owners, and you can't honestly tell me that you need one of those weapons for hunting/self defense. Removing them from the market/households has the added bonus of making it harder for criminals to get them illegally. That bill also included assurances that other guns, ones that most legal gun owners actually use, could not be taken from them.

Confed999
14 Jul 04,, 04:44
In that case, I'd like to add that I don't see how requiring background checks for gun ownership prevents law abiding citizens from having their guns. It's obvious how it helps stop some criminals from getting firearms.
I don't have any problem with that. Did you know the National Rifle Association did some of the work getting the computer system together to preform the background checks? Crime control is good.

The assault weapons ban wouldn't effect the vast majority of gun owners, and you can't honestly tell me that you need one of those weapons for hunting/self defense.
Not into guns huh? You're missing out. I use mine to shoot paper targets, and bigger is better. There are tons of recreational shooters and these bans (funny you don't like that word when it comes to marriage) effect all of us. You know the difference between an assult rifle and any other semi-auto rifle? They look scarry... BTW, I don't hunt. I couldn't shoot a fluffy lil' animal unless it was trying to eat me, or someone else.

Removing them from the market/households has the added bonus of making it harder for criminals to get them illegally.
And that lowers crime how?

List
14 Jul 04,, 07:27
And that lowers crime how?

Because if a criminal can't get a gun, he's less likely to commit certain crimes. Even if that doesn't lower crime, it certainly saves lives. Shootings are much deadlier than beatings and stabbings, shootings with assault weaponry are even deadlier than those with hand/long guns etc. Also, there's the issue of armor piercing/"cop killer" bullets. You need those to shoot targets? Are deers wearing kevlar vests now? I don't like the word "ban" in the case of gay marriages because gay marriages don't directly result in people's deaths. Access to armor piercing bullets and fully automatic weapons makes criminals that much more dangerous. Whether or not I'm in to guns doesn't really matter. Even I was into guns, and was a citizen of the United States, I could get one without government intervention. Clinton, had he gotten his way with guns, would not have prevented me from owning one.

Incidentally, I can easily get a gun in Canada. If I don't mind doing the necessary training and waiting for the extra license, I could legally own a handgun too. I just have no interest in owning one. I'm not even in favour of banning handguns in Canada. Most Canadian criminals with guns smuggle them in through the States anyways.

Back to something else you said:


Vietnam is deals with bad guys, he sold out every Vietnam vet.

Vietnam was a civil war between two bad systems of government that the United States never should have gotten involved in. There was no good side in the conflict, and because of U.S. involvement a lot more innocents and soldiers got killed. If you think Vietnam had anything to do with the cold war and the war on communism, I strongly recommend reading one of Robert Mcnamara's books. "In Retrospect:The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam", "Wilson's Ghost: Reducing the Risk of Conflict, Killing, and Catastrophe in the 21st Century", and especially "Argument Without End: In Search of Answers to the Vietnam Tragedy" all give good insight. You could also go out and rent "The Fog of War", or read the upcoming book.

Vietnam is currently in fairly good shape compared to many of the countries America currently deals with. Clinton's involvement with Vietnam finally "ended" the war. Families of missing soldiers finally got to know what happened because of him.

On a side note, Clinton also went extra lengths to make sure Vietnam veterans were receiving proper medical coverage. He also made sure children of veterans who had been exposed to agent orange, children with birth defects, received the care they needed.

List
14 Jul 04,, 08:25
And the harp on something else you said earlier:


This also told me that all of the other allegations he denied, including rape, were 100% true.

That's a logical falicy. It's like saying if I was found innocent of killing two people, and later found guilty of assaulting another, I'm now guilty of killing those two people. Besides, if you look at the other allegations, they were easily disproven. Clinton probably cheating on his wife on numerous occasions, but the non-Lewinsky allegations, if you look at the evidence, were almost certainly false.


Civil unions sound good, not "terrible", at least to me.

Right, but you don't seem to be a homosexual. Being in a "civil union" takes away ones ability to honestly say that they're married. It's being told you aren't good enough to be allowed to marry. And it lets homophobes claim a certain victory they don't deserve at the expense of the civil rights of gays.


Either way though, it will never pass, or be ratified, so it doesn't matter.

I hope you're right. Then again, it doesn't really affect me that much in Canada. If I wanted to swing the other way and get married to another guy I'd be allowed to. As yet another side note, a poll about a decade ago showed most Americans who claimed to actually know a homosexual were in favour of gay marriages. I doubt the numbers have degraded since then.

Officer of Engineers
14 Jul 04,, 11:27
Because if a criminal can't get a gun, he's less likely to commit certain crimes. Even if that doesn't lower crime, it certainly saves lives. Shootings are much deadlier than beatings and stabbings, shootings with assault weaponry are even deadlier than those with hand/long guns etc. Also, there's the issue of armor piercing/"cop killer" bullets. You need those to shoot targets? Are deers wearing kevlar vests now? I don't like the word "ban" in the case of gay marriages because gay marriages don't directly result in people's deaths. Access to armor piercing bullets and fully automatic weapons makes criminals that much more dangerous. Whether or not I'm in to guns doesn't really matter. Even I was into guns, and was a citizen of the United States, I could get one without government intervention. Clinton, had he gotten his way with guns, would not have prevented me from owning one.

Sorry but that is pure baloney. I can kill you alot easier with my .30-06 (a hunting rifle) than I can with with an assault rifle. Hell, a shot gun with deer slug is far more deadlier, especially in the hands of someone who don't know a thing about guns, than any AK47, even with "armour piercing shells."

Military weapons are exactly that. Weapons designed for the military which means requiring weapons discipline and training for the weapons to be effective. Those of us who knows how to shoot are far deadlier with regular hunting gear and hunting rounds than with any assault gun, even when compared with penetrators. Those who don't know how to shoot are too stupid to pick up a shot gun and rely on the "cool" factor. If you replace all the assualt rifles in gun crimes with shot guns, I can guarrantee you that the number of victims would have at least tripple.

I admire you trying to staying on top of things but to base your arguements on such lack of knowledge really hurts your cause.


Incidentally, I can easily get a gun in Canada. If I don't mind doing the necessary training and waiting for the extra license, I could legally own a handgun too. I just have no interest in owning one. I'm not even in favour of banning handguns in Canada. Most Canadian criminals with guns smuggle them in through the States anyways.

But why should I be limited to the number of guns that I could own? There's a saying. The right tool for the right job and different guns are designed for different things. Out here in the country, I need more than 5 guns.

ChrisF202
14 Jul 04,, 16:09
Sorry but that is pure baloney. I can kill you alot easier with my .30-06 (a hunting rifle) than I can with with an assault rifle. Hell, a shot gun with deer slug is far more deadlier, especially in the hands of someone who don't know a thing about guns, than any AK47, even with "armour piercing shells."

Military weapons are exactly that. Weapons designed for the military which means requiring weapons discipline and training for the weapons to be effective. Those of us who knows how to shoot are far deadlier with regular hunting gear and hunting rounds than with any assault gun, even when compared with penetrators. Those who don't know how to shoot are too stupid to pick up a shot gun and rely on the "cool" factor. If you replace all the assualt rifles in gun crimes with shot guns, I can guarrantee you that the number of victims would have at least tripple.

I admire you trying to staying on top of things but to base your arguements on such lack of knowledge really hurts your cause.



But why should I be limited to the number of guns that I could own? There's a saying. The right tool for the right job and different guns are designed for different things. Out here in the country, I need more than 5 guns.
Hes right, you need a shotgun for putting animals down, a hunting rife, etc

Ray
14 Jul 04,, 19:00
Confed,

I don't agree to some of your points. You are looking at it from your point of view and I from mine. We will wait as to how events shape. That is the important litmus test.

What has got me worried is that there appears to be a meandering policy in so far as Iraq is concerned. While one is going gung ho against terrorists verbally, one is compromising in handing Fellujah to the Saddam people and that scoundrel Al Sadr who should be up for trial is now acceptable! The man should be kicked and kciked hard! No appeasement.

True that we should all have been there and not talk big on a board, but then if my govt doesn't allow, I can't go, even if I WANT to go out there.

mtnbiker
14 Jul 04,, 20:17
Ray,

While we seem to have screwed up Fallujah, it looks like we handled al Sadr pretty well. This letter was written in May. A little long, but worth it.

Spc. Joe Roche serves with the 16th Engineering Battalion of the 1st Armored Division, which is part of a quick deployment force tasked with dealing with sudden eruptions by enemy forces within Iraq.

(His Letter)
The fighting we are engaged in against the uprising of Muqtada Al-Sadr is one that is extremely sensitive and risks catastrophe. Had we entered this previously, it would not have been possible for us to win. Over the months, we have been involved in preparations and much planning. Thus, today we are scoring amazing successes against this would-be tyrant.

I ask that the American people be brave. Don't fall for the spin by the weak and timid amongst you that are portraying this battle as a disaster. Such people are always looking for our failure to justify and rescue their constant pessimism. They are raising false flags of defeat in the press and media. It just isn't true.

Last year in April while the main war was still going on to defeat Saddam Hussein's military, I myself gave a class to my company of the 16th Engineers about the threat posed by Sadr and the prospects for conflict with his militias. Though my fellow soldiers didn't appreciate having to attend a class at 8am on one of our last days before deploying to Baghdad, they can tell you that what is happening now is no surprise. I used open and general information that my superiors were already aware of.

The basis of our evaluation over a year ago was that Sadr presented a formidable and possibly impossible threat. Last summer, as my unit covered Sadr City -- the sprawling part of Baghdad that Sadr controlled then -- his militias challenged us by making a show of force in defiance of the effort to open up Iraq society to the new freedoms. Sadr clearly demonstrated that he would deny Iraqis democracy and freedom in his quest for power. By the fall, he had most of Iraq's Shia leaders and the community at large intimidated and kowtowing to his bully tactics. In January through March, his arrogance and thuggery led him to pursue two further attacks upon the hopes for Iraqi freedom.

He vigorously pursued courting and forming alliances with Iranian hard-liners. Upon returning to Iraq, he then welcomed many foreign fighters to train and assist his militia in terrorist tactics and guerrilla warfare.

In fact, we almost went into full conflict with him back then, months ago!

So our leaders, Paul Bremmer, Gen. Abizaid, and countless other US and Coalition leaders all over the land, acted w/ caution and care to secure for the US ever stronger cards against Sadr while simultaneously working to achieve four main goals.

Now we today are in a climactic battle against him and his militia. When the remnants of Saddam's regime were in full uprising in Fallujah, Sadr thought his time had come to make his bid for total power and to oust the US from Baghdad. He was very wrong.

It has been subtle and very well done by our leaders. You should be proud. It would have seemed impossible to have achieved our four main goals against Sadr even just a few months ago. Now today, despite the message of the pessimists who are misleading you into despair, we are have scored all the victories needed to bring this battle to a close. First goal was to isolate Sadr. Second was to exile him from his power-base in Baghdad. Third was to contain his uprising from spreading beyond his militias. And the last goal was to get both his hard-line supporters to abandon him, and to do encourage moderates to break from him. This has been done brilliantly, and now we are on the march in a way that just months ago seemed impossible to do. Sadr is losing everything.

Goal one: His so-called Mahdi Army militia is fighting alone. We are out defeating them day and night, and all the time we find them exposed and vulnerable. The people of Baghdad, Karbala and Najaf are not supporting him. His forces are isolated.

Goal two: His one-time powerbase, Sadr City in Baghdad, has been lost. Sadr has been exiled from there, and we have him on the run. He is trying to cloak his presence and activities in Najaf and Kut as planned, but that is damage control on his part. Yes we confront pockets of his followers. Just a couple days ago, I had to maneuver around such a crowd of 300 in Sadr City. The point is, though, we operate in Sadr City, and his followers are merely trying to raise the lost cause of his. It is perhaps better to understand why he is able to mobilize groups like this by seeing him as a mafia leader who is just sacrificing his own people in a mad last plunge to grab onto power. He is no different from any other thug in the world who manipulates and betrays his followers for his own lost cause. The critical thing to see, however, is that in Baghdad, Sadr is gone. He has been effectively exiled and we are destroying his one-time properties of power and abuse there.

Goal three: Other Shia leaders are breaking from him now in large numbers. The overall Shia leader of Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, has left Sadr's call for jihad and uprising to flounder on deaf ears. Bremmer and Gen. Abizaid stunned the overall Shia community by negotiating a calm in Fallujah. That has tail-spinned Sadr and his efforts to intimidate Iraq's Shia leaders. They see the US hand is strong, and that therefore they are making a mistake in kowtowing to Sadr's terror and violence.

Sadr is now running scared in Najaf. This is great. The Iraqi people of Najaf are offended by this Baghdad thug coming to their city and trying to hijack them into conflict with us. His militias have moved into Karbala too, and the same sentiment is being expressed by the people there. Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia are occupiers of those cities, and are insulting the most sacred sites of Shia Islam daily in their actions. Sadr's forces have stockpiled weapons in mosques and schools, and he continuously is going into the Imam Ali Mosque to call for jihad against us. This is offending Iraq's Shia leaders very much, and the Shia people are not following.

Our units, in fact, are operating w/in 500 meters of the most sacred Shia religious sites in these cities, and you should notice that the local people are not resisting. This is what the pessimists amongst you are preventing you from understanding. Something like this would have been impossible before Sadr and his militia thugs went into there to hijack Iraqi Shia Islam. The people of Najaf and Karbala know we are not there to conquer and occupying the religious sites; we are there to liberate them from this would-be tyrant who is trying to hijack them. His uprising has been contained, despite Sadr's desperate efforts to expand.

Goal four: Now Sadr's patrons and mentor in Iran are breaking from him. Grand Ayatollah Hossain Kazzam Haeri in Qom, Iran, is no longer backing him and has instead made it clear that Sadr's uprising is not sanctioned. Haeri is his mentor, and was a close intimate to Sadr's respectable father. The Teheran Times has run stories that are largely exaggerated, but still are making clear that Sadr's uprising is counter to Iranian interests and does not have the support of even one of Iran's grand statesman, Hashemi Rafsanjani.

In lieu of this, Sadr has exploded increasingly desperate and offensive. On Friday, he offended perhaps the whole Muslim world when he issued a fatwa (a religious edict) that if his forces in Basra capture a female British soldier, they can keep her as a slave. And as I pointed out already, his militia thugs in Najaf and Karbala are keeping weapons in mosques and schools.

In this, quite frankly, Sadr has done it to himself. He has compelled his would-be supporters amongst Iran's hard-liners to break from him and to put distance between Iran's interests and Sadr's uprising. Along with this, Shiites all over Iraq are breaking from Sadr and ignoring his frantic calls for jihad and slave-taking. Sadr has been abandoned.

I'm not writing you blind to the casualties this is causing us. My battalion, the 16th Armored Engineers, should be home reunited w/ family and friends after serving a full year here. Instead, we are still here where the temp is reaching 115-125 degrees. And some of my fellow soldiers have fallen. Units of my battalion are right in the front of the fighting. Your prayers are needed. [A soldier] lost his eyes and a hand last week. The surgeons are trying to salvage his hand now by re-attaching it. This tragedy is a real nightmare. Another suffered shrapnel wounds in his abdomen. Others have been cut badly. Miracle of miracles, however, Sgt. Morales on Friday was shot in the CVC (helmet) -- the bullet ricocheted around his head and fired into the back of his seat, never cutting his skin!!!

I'm telling you this because you need to know that your soldiers are working their hardest. My unit is just one of many in this fight. What you need to do is be strong and persistent in your faith with us. Sadr's militia is in panic and desperate, so they are dangerous, but you need to keep this all in perspective. The pessimists would have you believe this is a disaster. Don't listen to them. I think some of them feel that their reputations require our failure because they have been so negative all along, so they are jumping at every opportunity to sensationalize what is happening here as a disaster. Eliminating Sadr's threat is part of the overall mission and we are further ensuring the liberation of the Iraqi people. This has to be done, and we are doing it.

Don't be seduced by those who would rather that we sit back and just enjoy the freedoms past generations of Americans have sacrificed to gain for us. This is our time to earn it. I remember President Bush saying after the September 11th attacks: "The commitment of our Fathers is now the calling of our time."

Confed999
14 Jul 04,, 22:27
Because if a criminal can't get a gun
Except, as you yourself implied, one can still get a gun. OoE covered the rest masterfully.

Vietnam was a civil war between two bad systems of government that the United States never should have gotten involved in. There was no good side in the conflict
The communists slaughtered up to 1.3 million after we withdrew, they were the bad guys. The US should be prepared to fight for freedom anywhere we're needed. You cannot support Kosovo and not support Vietnam. If it had been fought like a war and not like some political campaign, a million more might be alive and free.

That's a logical falicy.
Nope, it isn't. It says he was caught in a bald faced lie and now he cannot be trusted. IMHO if he couldn't be loyal to his wife, the woman he swore to be loyal to, why should I believe he is loyal to America? Why should I believe anything he says, ever?

Right, but you don't seem to be a homosexual. Being in a "civil union" takes away ones ability to honestly say that they're married. It's being told you aren't good enough to be allowed to marry. And it lets homophobes claim a certain victory they don't deserve at the expense of the civil rights of gays.
I'm not gay, but I live next to a very large gay community and have, simply, tons of gay friends. (Heck, I've defended them on this board, and would die, if I had to, for their rights.) They aren't militant gays though, and just want equal rights. Civil unions are the exact same thing, but at the top of the licence it would say "Civil Union Licence" instead of "Marriage Licence". Like it or not the word marriage has a religious connotation and their beliefs have to be respected as well. BTW, they can still be married, I will perform the ceremony if they wish. No rights are lost with civil unions, it's the perfect compromise, plus CUs can be for everyone. Compromise is good, I like it, I love it, I want more of it!

What has got me worried is that there appears to be a meandering policy in so far as Iraq is concerned.
I agree. It's political BS.

True that we should all have been there and not talk big on a board, but then if my govt doesn't allow, I can't go, even if I WANT to go out there.
It isn't your fault. I don't blame the people, their governments should have been screaming about the Iraqi crimes for the last decade at the least. If things get bad enough the US military is willing to overlook my physical shortcommings, I will go and sit on a machinegun nest/check point/whatever, for as long as they need me. I believe in the cause, even if I don't like how it's being done.

Confed999
14 Jul 04,, 22:31
but to base your arguements on such lack of knowledge really hurts your cause.
Rarely do the gun control people know what they are talking about. They believe gun control is similar to crime control, and it just isn't true.

List
14 Jul 04,, 22:32
Sorry but that is pure baloney. I can kill you alot easier with my .30-06 (a hunting rifle) than I can with with an assault rifle. Hell, a shot gun with deer slug is far more deadlier, especially in the hands of someone who don't know a thing about guns, than any AK47, even with "armour piercing shells."

It's nice that you can do that. However statistically you are a lot more likely to be killed when shot with an assault weapon than with a handgun, the alternative of choice for your average gangbanger. Believe or not, I've never been worried about a legal gun owner shooting me. Are you suggesting a shotgun ban instead? Because it won't happen in the states. Besides, the assault weapons ban was geared towards weapons criminals use, weapons significantly more deadly than handguns. These are weapons that only a small minority of legal gun owners have, and none come close to needing.


Those who don't know how to shoot are too stupid to pick up a shot gun and rely on the "cool" factor. If you replace all the assualt rifles in gun crimes with shot guns, I can guarrantee you that the number of victims would have at least tripple.

Right, except you can't ban shotguns, and without access to assault weapons criminals will go for handguns for "cool" factor. As you said, they don't know how to shoot, so I don't see your point.


I admire you trying to staying on top of things but to base your arguements on such lack of knowledge really hurts your cause.

Lack of knowledge? You are THREE times more likely to be killed when shot with an assault weapon than with a handgun. There, you have your knowledge. Whether or not shotguns/rifles are more deadly is irrelevant, because they can't be well regulated, and because they aren't being used enough.


Hes right, you need a shotgun for putting animals down, a hunting rife, etc

No one said you couldn't have your shotgun, or your hunting rifle, or even your handgun for "self defense." You can't honestly tell me you need an ak-47 with armor piercing bullets(as Engineers put it) for anything other than target practice and killing people.

As I said previously, the assault weapons ban protected the rights of gun owners to own most guns. Arguing about your right to own multiple firearms, or your deadliness with a shotgun or hunting rifle is irrelevant, because they were never going to be restricted.

Confed999
14 Jul 04,, 22:40
Besides, the assault weapons ban was geared towards weapons criminals use
Criminals use cheep weapons, assult rifles aren't. If everything criminals use to commit crimes is made illegal we won't have anything left.

List
14 Jul 04,, 23:01
Now we're going in circles.


Except, as you yourself implied, one can still get a gun.

Right, but when we're talking about the assault weapons ban, you're still three times more likely to be killed when shot with an assault weapon than with a handgun. We've covered that already. If the weapons aren't available, criminals can't steal them from a gun store, or from your home, or get someone to buy them legally for them.


The communists slaughtered up to 1.3 million after we withdrew, they were the bad guys. The US should be prepared to fight for freedom anywhere we're needed. You cannot support Kosovo and not support Vietnam. If it had been fought like a war and not like some political campaign, a million more might be alive and free.

Versus the 2.5-3 million who died during the war? The majority of those deaths would not have occured had the United States not gotten involved. The United States was not fighting for freedom, because the South Vietnamese were not free. It was effectively one form of totalitarianism versus another. If the United States had put in the forces to win the war, assuming that would have even been possible, many more would have died. You're comparing up to 1.3 million deaths with the many more deaths caused by the involvement of the United States, an involvement that didn't even have the goal of freeing the Vietnamese people. Also, I don't support Kosovo, I do support Clinton's actions towards limiting the bloodshed in Bosnia. The no fly zones etc.


Nope, it isn't. It says he was caught in a bald faced lie and now he cannot be trusted. IMHO if he couldn't be loyal to his wife, the woman he swore to be loyal to, why should I believe he is loyal to America? Why should I believe anything he says, ever?

Yes, it is a logical fallacy. You're using bad inductive reasoning, hasty generalizations. If Bill Clinton lied, he must always be lying. If he wasn't loyal to his wife, he must not be loyal to America! You're basically saying every American who's cheated on his/her spouse isn't loyal to America. Every American who has ever lied isn't loyal to America. You're also going against the facts of the other accusations against Clinton. There's every reason to believe that those other accusations were false, but you choose to ignore those reasons because Clinton lied about something else?


Like it or not the word marriage has a religious connotation and their beliefs have to be respected as well. BTW, they can still be married, I will perform the ceremony if they wish. No rights are lost with civil unions, it's the perfect compromise, plus CUs can be for everyone.

None religious people can and do get married, therefore the religious connotation of marriage if irrelevant. If you're going to prevent gays from getting married for that reason, you need to prevent the irreligious from getting married too. As for civil unions, seperate but equal, right? Sound familiar?


Rarely do the gun control people know what they are talking about.

You have yet to show me where I'm wrong. But you're right, there shouldn't be any form of gun control. A chicken in every pot and a cap in every ass.

By the way, I'm obviously not a democrat, and I'm not a gun control nut. Using arguements attacking beliefs I don't have isn't going to win you any points.

Officer of Engineers
14 Jul 04,, 23:58
It's nice that you can do that. However statistically you are a lot more likely to be killed when shot with an assault weapon than with a handgun, the alternative of choice for your average gangbanger.

Only because you're measuring the volume of weapons used as vs actual usage. On a per shot basis, ARs and handguns come in very, very low in lethality.


Believe or not, I've never been worried about a legal gun owner shooting me. Are you suggesting a shotgun ban instead? Because it won't happen in the states. Besides, the assault weapons ban was geared towards weapons criminals use, weapons significantly more deadly than handguns. These are weapons that only a small minority of legal gun owners have, and none come close to needing.

Sawed off shotguns are banned weapons.


Right, except you can't ban shotguns, and without access to assault weapons criminals will go for handguns for "cool" factor. As you said, they don't know how to shoot, so I don't see your point.

The point is that criminals will migrate towards other weapons regardless what is banned or not. You ban ARs, they move to pistols. You ban pistols, they move to shotguns. You ban shotguns, they move to small calibre rifles. You ban guns altogether, they move to explosives.

Restricting on the basis of perceived lethality is unworkable.


Lack of knowledge? You are THREE times more likely to be killed when shot with an assault weapon than with a handgun. There, you have your knowledge. Whether or not shotguns/rifles are more deadly is irrelevant, because they can't be well regulated, and because they aren't being used enough.

I rather face an idiot with an assualt rifle than the same idiot with a shot gun. I've been under fire from enemy combattants with AK47s in a middle of a war zone and I'm still walking. Your knowledge here is very lacking as to weapons specifics.


No one said you couldn't have your shotgun, or your hunting rifle, or even your handgun for "self defense." You can't honestly tell me you need an ak-47 with armor piercing bullets(as Engineers put it) for anything other than target practice and killing people.

Well, how do you define assualt weapons? I can take any AK-47, get rid of the pistol grip, get a 10 shot magazine (legal hunting limit), and to a layman, possibly to you, it looks like a regular hunting rifle and it could be used as one. What can bring down a man can bring down a deer.


As I said previously, the assault weapons ban protected the rights of gun owners to own most guns. Arguing about your right to own multiple firearms, or your deadliness with a shotgun or hunting rifle is irrelevant, because they were never going to be restricted.

Yes, they would because there is no definition of an assault weapon that does not describe traditional semi-auto hunting rifles and shot guns. All they've done so far is to restrict to a specific brand (ie an actual Kalishinkov AK-47) to which importers merely replace some parts and rename their rifles to get around the ban.

Praxus
15 Jul 04,, 01:05
The point is that criminals will migrate towards other weapons regardless what is banned or not. You ban ARs, they move to pistols. You ban pistols, they move to shotguns. You ban shotguns, they move to small calibre rifles. You ban guns altogether, they move to explosives.

Good point about the explosives, I honestly never thought of that.

List
15 Jul 04,, 03:26
Only because you're measuring the volume of weapons used as vs actual usage. On a per shot basis, ARs and handguns come in very, very low in lethality.

Right, but victims shot with ARs still die 3 times as often. Per shot basis doesn't really matter if you're hit more times with potentially higher caliber ammunition.


The point is that criminals will migrate towards other weapons regardless what is banned or not. You ban ARs, they move to pistols. You ban pistols, they move to shotguns. You ban shotguns, they move to small calibre rifles. You ban guns altogether, they move to explosives.

Except when they move to handguns, they're using something less lethal on a per use basis, meaning less gun deaths. If shotguns are that much deadlier, and they'd move to shotguns, you obviously don't ban pistols. Since pistols aren't as deadly as assault rifles, you've achieved your goal. So obviously, using your own logic, you can ban weapons based on lethality. To be fair, most "assault weapons" were already heavily restricted under the Nation Firearms Act in 1934.


I rather face an idiot with an assualt rifle than the same idiot with a shot gun. I've been under fire from enemy combattants with AK47s in a middle of a war zone and I'm still walking. Your knowledge here is very lacking as to weapons specifics.

I thought we'd agreed that criminals aren't using shotguns. Now, I'm not sure how true that is, but since we both agree on it, and we're arguing based on it, let's stick with that. In this case, you aren't choosing between being shot with an assault rifle and a shotgun, we're talking about an assault rifle and a handgun. Since assault rifles are proven to be more deadly, one would probably choose the handgun. You keep bringing up shotguns, but we aren't talking about shotguns, we're talking about criminals using assault rifles or handguns. You keep ignoring the fact that I never stated shotguns weren't deadlier, and you're right, I don't know if they are. I'm taking your word that they deadlier, but you need to acknowledge that this discussion isn't about shotguns.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jul 04,, 03:50
Right, but victims shot with ARs still die 3 times as often. Per shot basis doesn't really matter if you're hit more times with potentially higher caliber ammunition.

No, assault weapons uses lower calibre ammunition. Victims are more likely to be missed when being fired upon by assualt rifles than by higher calibre guns. No, being shot with ARs would NOT increase lethality by 300%. Large hunting calibres are by far more lethal in both shock and wound patterns.


Except when they move to handguns, they're using something less lethal on a per use basis, meaning less gun deaths. If shotguns are that much deadlier, and they'd move to shotguns, you obviously don't ban pistols. Since pistols aren't as deadly as assault rifles, you've achieved your goal. So obviously, using your own logic, you can ban weapons based on lethality. To be fair, most "assault weapons" were already heavily restricted under the Nation Firearms Act in 1934.

I like to know how you would define a pistol is less deadlier than assualt weapons. I was just as lethal with my issued Sig Sauer as I was with my C7. Assault weapons are designed for a specific purpose. My side arm was designed with a specific purpose. Both are just as lethal when used within the roles they're designed for.

If anything, both the sidearm and the assault weapon share the same kind of lethality - that requiring weapons discipline.


I thought we'd agreed that criminals aren't using shotguns. Now, I'm not sure how true that is, but since we both agree on it, and we're arguing based on it, let's stick with that. In this case, you aren't choosing between being shot with an assault rifle and a shotgun, we're talking about an assault rifle and a handgun. Since assault rifles are proven to be more deadly, one would probably choose the handgun. You keep bringing up shotguns, but we aren't talking about shotguns, we're talking about criminals using assault rifles or handguns. You keep ignoring the fact that I never stated shotguns weren't deadlier, and you're right, I don't know if they are. I'm taking your word that they deadlier, but you need to acknowledge that this discussion isn't about shotguns.

I do not agree that criminals do not use shotguns. They do. Those who know about weapons use them as they're designed for. I have received fire and returned fire and I can tell you that having bullets whizzed by my head, I know I would have been dead had it been a shotgun blast.

Confed999
15 Jul 04,, 03:59
List,

What is your definition of an assult rifle?

Confed999
15 Jul 04,, 04:04
No, assault weapons uses lower calibre ammunition.
Also higher caliber hits penetrate less, transfering greater force to the target, Many people with pistols also use hollow points, making it that much worse.

Clip fed shotguns were also banned.

List
15 Jul 04,, 04:57
No, assault weapons uses lower calibre ammunition. Victims are more likely to be missed when being fired upon by assualt rifles than by higher calibre guns. No, being shot with ARs would increase lethality 300%. Large hunting calibres are by far more lethal in both shock and wound patterns.

Ok on the first part. We've already covered the rest.


I like to know how you would define a pistol is less deadlier than assualt weapons. I was just as lethal with my issued Sig Sauer as I was with my C7. Assault weapons are designed for a specific purpose. My side arm was designed with a specific purpose. Both are just as lethal when used within the roles they're designed for.

See, you do a study on people with gunshot wounds. Both those who survive and those who die. You figure out what type of gun they were shot with. Then you figure out the death rates based on the kinds of firearms used. You're probably right about their respective lethality when properly used, however we're talking about criminals using whatever's available, or whatever's "coolest". This is not a discussion about the benefits of using handguns over rifles over.... Leave it for the gun board.


What is your definition of an assult rifle?

I'm not sure what you want me to say. I'm not qualified to use my own definition. If I use the ban's definition, you'll attack it as many gun owners/organizations have already done. I could pull a random definition off the net and hope that it pleased you, but then you'd just contrast the ban's definition with the one I used. If you have something to say about the ban and/or assault rifles, just say it.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jul 04,, 05:07
See, you do a study on people with gunshot wounds. Both those who survive and those who die. You figure out what type of gun they were shot with. Then you figure out the death rates based on the kinds of firearms used. You're probably right about their respective lethality when properly used, however we're talking about criminals using whatever's available, or whatever's "coolest". This is not a discussion about the benefits of using handguns over rifles over.... Leave it for the gun board.

That's the flaw in your arguement. 'whatever is available, or whatever's "coolest"' Would replacing assault weapons (whatever definition you want to choose) with other firearms reduce victim numbers or victim damage. The answer is no.

List
15 Jul 04,, 07:30
Mmm, dead horse. If those assault weapons were replaced with handguns, it would reduce victim "damage."

Incidentally, going back to what Confed said earlier about Bush's economic record:


(Reuters) - The U.S. government will likely reach its federal debt limit in early October, a top Treasury official said in written remarks, giving fresh details on when the politically sensitive ceiling will need to be raised.

The $7.384 trillion debt limit may need attention before the November election, Timothy Bitsberger, Treasury's nominee for assistant secretary for financial markets, said in a document obtained by Reuters on Wednesday.

"It appears very likely the limit will be reached sometime in late September or October, with the most likely date being early October," Bitsberger said in the submission for the record after his Senate confirmation hearing last week.

"Treasury may be in a better position to narrow this range after completion of the mid-session review," he said in response to a question from Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.

CONTENTIOUS VOTE

The government's statutory debt was $7.220 trillion as of July 12, according to Treasury data.

Treasury Secretary John Snow has urged Congress to move speedily to raise the limit, in what is likely to be a contentious election-year vote on the country's rising debt. He has asked Congress to act before its August recess.

Democrats blame President George W. Bush's tax cuts for turning the fiscal surplus he inherited into a record deficit, which is expected to top $400 billion this year. The debt limit has already been raised twice during the Bush administration.

Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP, said the potential timing of a vote on raising the debt limit, just before the November election, could worry markets.

"Congress doesn't want to have to deal with it, and the bond market doesn't want to see Congress have to deal with it," he said.

"The bond market at this point tends to take a pretty complacent approach to debt ceiling problems because they do tend to come and go with minimal disruption in the end," he said. "However it becomes a question that you would just rather not have hanging over the market."

I hardly think running a record deficit represents a good economic record, even if he had a good reason to do it. Not all of that deficit is defense spending. In fact most of that deficit isn't defense spending. One of the reasons the States got such a quick economic boost under Clinton was because of the bond market's reaction to Clinton's plans for deficit reduction, and the resulting low interest rate.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jul 04,, 10:23
Mmm, dead horse. If those assault weapons were replaced with handguns, it would reduce victim "damage."

How? If a person doesn't know how to use an assault rifle properly in the first place, what makes you think he would be any more effective or ineffective with a pistol?

Also, you automatically assume that pistols would replace assault rifles in gun crimes if the latter became more inaccessible. Why? You have absolutely no proof that criminals would not resort to sawed off shot guns or shortened hunting semi auto rifles such as the Ruger-14 as the perferred replacements.

Again, your assumption is that the proliferation of assault rilfes make them more dangerous than any other firearm. That simply is not the case and what Confed and I are trying to tell you both technically and statistically.

mtnbiker
15 Jul 04,, 18:18
HI List,

Here are some other facts about Pres. Bush's economic record(and since you are so proud of Pres. Clinton's record I will use that as a comparison).

When George W. Bush moved into the White House, the economy was on the verge of recession. The largest stock market bubble in U.S. history had recently burst, exports were declining and manufacturing employment had been falling for half a year. This was before 9/11, the war on terror, and the revelations of the corporate-governance scandals that grew out of the late 1990s.

* Because of Pres. Bush's economic policies the unemployment rate peaked in June 2003 at 6.3 percent, compared with peaks of 7.8 percent and 10.8 percent during the previous two recessions.

*For the third consecutive year, the U.S. economy is poised to grow faster than most other industrialized economies. France, Germany, and Japan, for instance, are not expected to grow even half as fast as the United States.

* Since the Bush administration began, non-farm productivity has increased at a 4.1 percent annual rate — the fastest pace for the start of any presidency since Harry S. Truman occupied the White House. Under Clinton it was 0.5% in his 1st three years.

Inflation Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
Jan 2001: 3.73% (before GWBush)
Jan 2004: 1.93% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: 1.8% Decrease

Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
Jan 1993: 3.26% (before Clinton)
Jan 1996: 2.73% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: 0.53% Decrease

Homeownership Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 2000: 67.5% (before GWBush)
4th Quarter 2003: 68.6% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: +1.1%

Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 1992: 64.4% (before Clinton)
4th Quarter 1995: 65.1% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: +0.7%

Percent of People Below 50 Percent of Poverty Level (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 4.95% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 6.05% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 5.31% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)

Unemployment Rate -
Jan 2004: 5.6% (After GWBush's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '03-'04): 0.3%, Decrease

Jan 1996: 5.6% (After Bill Clinton's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '95-'96): 0.0%, No change

If you look at the avg unemployment rates for the 1st three years, Clinton's is 6.2% and Bush's is 5.5%

* "2004 Will Be the U.S.'s Best Year Economically in Last 20 Years" ~ The Conference Board's revised forecast, December 2003.

* Manufacturing is at 20-year record highs.

*The current 2004 deficit is 4.2% of the GDP which makes it smaller, compared to the GDP, than what it was in the late '80s and early '90s.

mtnbiker
15 Jul 04,, 18:36
List,

Pres Bush's economic record is as good or better in almost every aspect than Clinton's economic record after his first term.

Also, you said:


He backed out of Kyoto, which many may not approve of, but Kyoto was a step in the right direction for the environment.

You are right, Pres Bush did, because he had the balls to do what Clinton would not. Pres Clinton played politics on the world stage with Kyoto. He "supported" to court favor with world governments knowing full well the US Senate would never support nor pass Kyoto. In fact, the US Senate had already voted 95-0 against Kyoto. It was not a step in the right direction for the environment, and it would be horrible policy for the US.


......Clinton passed, and you look at his campaign promises, you'll realize that he did a spectacular job both keeping his promises and getting things done.

Actually he didn't. Take another look at his promises and accomplishments. He screwed over both the middle class and the gay community for starters.
Remember George Stephanopolous' famous quote - "The President kept all the promises he intended to keep."


As soon as he started implimenting the new budget, with his other legislation, unemployment went down.

Not exactly true. The economy didn't really start taking off until the end of his first term and through his second term. What else happened during that time? Republicans swept both the House and the Senate in the worst mid-term election results for any sitting President. A lot of the economic policies that Clinton took credit for(and you give him benefit for) were coming out of the Republican held Congress and Clinton had to co-opt as his own.


Actually, he increased intelligence and anti-terrorism spending after the first wtc attacks and the Oklahoma city bombing. He warned Bush about al Qaeda and bin Laden. You can't possibly blame Clinton for 9/11.

Again, not true and yes I can. One can make a pretty convincing argument that not all, but a significant amount of the blame is on Clinton's administration.

Confed999
16 Jul 04,, 00:33
If you have something to say about the ban and/or assault rifles, just say it.
I just want to know what gun has a 300% greater chance of killing, and who said so? The guns banned by Clinton were banned because they look scarry. For example, all AK-47 type rifles are banned, but one can still get a Ruger Mini-30, they both use the same ammo and are semi-auto clip fed rifles. The real difference is, one looks scarry. The TEC-22 is another banned "assault rifle", it's a little .22 pistol that looks scarry too. The Uzi was also banned, it fires 9mm pistol ammo. There are more exaples that completely disprove your hypothesis that, so called, "assault rifles" cause 300% casualties.

Confed999
16 Jul 04,, 00:35
Using arguements attacking beliefs I don't have isn't going to win you any points.
You aren't for gun control? I thought you were... Anyway it wasn't an argument it was a statement of fact. Your knowledge about firearms is quite limited, and you are for gun control.

Confed999
16 Jul 04,, 00:46
Vietnamese were not free. It was effectively one form of totalitarianism versus another.
Thanks for admiting Clinton made deals with the bad guys...

As for civil unions, seperate but equal, right? Sound familiar?
Please tell me how a word on top of a licence is going to cause segregation? It's better to try to get along, especially when all it takes is a word.

List
16 Jul 04,, 13:01
I just want to know what gun has a 300% greater chance of killing

I believe I stated that it was 3 times more likely. A 300% greater chance would be 4 times more likely. That aside, without having proper access to the study, I have no idea.


You aren't for gun control? I thought you were... Anyway it wasn't an argument it was a statement of fact. Your knowledge about firearms is quite limited, and you are for gun control.

Right, in the sense that I have no problems with restricting distribution/access to firearms. I have no problems with people who push for gun control, though I wouldn't decide my vote based on it. I'd never go out and actively push for gun control, because I just don't care about it that much. As you've justly demonstrated, a gun affectionado is likely to be far more knowledgeable in the ways of gun lore than I am. I just don't care enough about guns. I have a couple of friends who own a number of guns, and have restricted(handgun) licenses. Even they don't care enough to be actively against gun control. One positive mention of a bill Clinton helped pass has spiralled entirely out of control. This was not intended to be a discussion on guns/gun control, make a thread on the firearms board if you really want to push it.

I get it, you like your guns, you know your guns, and you're a libertarian.


Please tell me how a word on top of a licence is going to cause segregation? It's better to try to get along, especially when all it takes is a word.

It won't, but it's the same separate but equal issue. If civil unions and marriages are the same, why ban marriages for gays? You were right, that amendment didn't pass. It's a good thing, because only 40% of Americans supported it. 60% of Americans are currently against gay marriage, though that number will almost certainly continue to decrease. In the end, the whole issue stems from homophobia, just as segregation stemmed from racism. Civil unions convince homophobes that their marriages are "safe." You mentioned earlier that marriage was a religious issue. If that's the case, why not ban marriages for the non-religious instead of gays? Allow gay people to marry if their religion/house of worship permits it. But that isn't even the issue, it seems to me that for the time being, it's something that should be decided on a state by state basis. In a few decades when people are more accepting, and civilization hopefully hasn't fallen apart because of gay marriages, the supreme court might force it on all of America. You say that all it takes is a word, but obviously that word is very important to a large number of people.


Thanks for admiting Clinton made deals with the bad guys...

You win. Probably every government in the history of the United States has dealt with "the bad guys." Almost every government in the world deals with people or organizations that could be considered bad guys. I suppose if you don't agree with that, you might not approve of Clinton dealing with Vietnam, but he still doesn't stand out negatively in that respect to previous modern American Presidents. A number of prominent Vietnam veterans agreed with Clinton.

mtnbiker, you've put forth a large amount of information containing fact, opinion, and falsehood. As much as I'd love to take a stab at some of the juicier bits, I'm done with this thread. If you really want to discuss it, send me an email.

mtnbiker
16 Jul 04,, 18:02
No worries List. I would be interested though in what you think were falsehoods.

Confed999
16 Jul 04,, 18:17
That aside, without having proper access to the study, I have no idea.
From what I've seen there is no study. In fact I allready told you why there can't be a study saying that. You were just told that by some person that's afraid of guns. Gun control takes liberty away from people who don't abuse it. Crime control keeps guns out of criminal's hands and keeps criminals in prison. Crime control is good, gun control is as evil as slavery, and also the first step toward enslavement..

One positive mention of a bill Clinton helped pass has spiralled entirely out of control.
Because, as we have shown, nothing positive came from it, just the destruction of liberties held by law abiding citizens.

If that's the case, why not ban marriages for the non-religious instead of gays?
Because religion isn't against opposite sex couples. It is the religion's word, they should be the ones deciding how it's used. Plus, why shouldn't I be allowed to have a civil union? If gays get to marry, then people who could use the civil unions won't get to. Seperate but equal for non-gays in that world, huh? If you really want to get silly, how about unisex bathrooms. That way the transvestites don't have to choose, and the feminate gays/butch lesbians aren't forced to go into the "wrong" bathroom.

You say that all it takes is a word, but obviously that word is very important to a large number of people.
Then they are the same fools that refuse to compromise and are messing up the world, or are too dumb to know they could win without a fight. If we can't get along together, then there will be no choices except segrigation or extermination, I think that's dumb myself. Jeeze, I'm not mad because I didn't get a Bar Mitzvah on my 13th birthday, even though my Jewish friends and relatives did. Also, anyone who was alive durring the civil rights movement would probably kick your ass for making the comparison, because it's not even close to the same thing. In fact I suggest you do some research on what "seperate but equal" actually meant, and what it did.

Probably every government in the history of the United States has dealt with "the bad guys."
And it's allways wrong.

you might not approve of Clinton dealing with Vietnam
Anyone who approves of making deals with a totalitarian government, that has killed millions and enslaved millions more, is very short sighted or stands to make lots of money. Or, I suppose, just flat out supports agressive communism over more peaceful governments.

A number of prominent Vietnam veterans agreed with Clinton.
There are bad people everywhere, I'm sure the admitted war criminal Kerry was one of them.

and falsehood.
You shouldn't talk.

I'm done with this thread.
Good plan.

Asim Aquil
17 Jul 04,, 11:28
I just saw Kerry in an old episode of one of my favourite shows, Cheers!

Confed999
17 Jul 04,, 14:32
I saw that. Cheers was a good show. ;)

Semper Fi
31 Jul 04,, 05:48
I wish someone else rather then kerry was running then maybe i would have someone too vote for because their is no in way in hell im voting for bush but kerry will be horrible for americans military wise i was reading some articles about kerry and slick willy in this site http://www.softwar.net/ after reading articles from this site i came too the conclusion that they both sold their souls to the devil.

Bill
31 Jul 04,, 18:28
Whatever bush's failings, he makes sure the men in service get the most he can possibly give them.

Kerry would gut the military just like slick willy did.

I would vote for my 12yo nephew for president before Kerry, and my nephew is no rocket scientist. :)

No, i'll take Powell, Rice, and Ridge who come with Bush, and who probably make 98% of the real decisions anyway.

I sure do wish Cheyney would have a heart attack and fucking die though. I can't stand that wermin.

Donnie
31 Jul 04,, 19:02
Whatever bush's failings, he makes sure the men in service get the most he can possibly give them.

Kerry would gut the military just like slick willy did.

I would vote for my 12yo nephew for president before Kerry, and my nephew is no rocket scientist. :)

No, i'll take Powell, Rice, and Ridge who come with Bush, and who probably make 98% of the real decisions anyway.

I sure do wish Cheyney would have a heart attack and fucking die though. I can't stand that wermin.

G.W. needs to mix it up, drop dick and pick up rice.

rice for vice in 2008

Confed999
02 Aug 04,, 03:31
rice for vice in 2008
I'd vote for that. ;) She is a smart lady, and in an odd way I find her quite attractive.

Donnie
02 Aug 04,, 04:18
I'd vote for that. ;) She is a smart lady, and in an odd way I find her quite attractive.

its the power, power is always attractive :)

ChrisF202
02 Aug 04,, 14:40
its the power, power is always attractive :)
Yup, just ask Hillary Clinton about that :)

Trooth
02 Aug 04,, 19:33
I'd vote for that. ;) She is a smart lady, and in an odd way I find her quite attractive.

Could be an all female shootout in 2008, Rice v Clinton.

Donnie
03 Aug 04,, 01:47
Could be an all female shootout in 2008, Rice v Clinton.

i personaly think its time to have a female in the white house, i hope someone puts up a viable candidate some time soon, i would hate to not see it in my lifetime thats for sure, it will be embarassing trying to explain to my daughter why the us has never even had the opertunity to vote for a female president.

Bill
03 Aug 04,, 01:57
I personally think you guys are dreaming.

I'll go out on a limb and predict that i will be old and grey before there's a woman president in the US.

Officer of Engineers
04 Aug 04,, 05:10
Whatever bush's failings, he makes sure the men in service get the most he can possibly give them.

Kerry would gut the military just like slick willy did.

With Rumsfeld as SECDEF, what's the difference?

Donnie
04 Aug 04,, 18:44
I personally think you guys are dreaming.

I'll go out on a limb and predict that i will be old and grey before there's a woman president in the US.

oh i agree, i dont think it will happen any time soon either, but i do think a female vice pres. can be a posibility, and if bush wins this time, i think you might have hilary as a contendore in 2008, but i doubt she will get the party nomination. but might accept a vice pres. but i wont vote for her anyway, but at least the possibility would be there.

Trooth
04 Aug 04,, 21:34
Well, look at it this way, most people are female. Therefore one of the parties in the US will spot the obvious corrollary with votes. Like them or loathe them there aren't many people better to put up as a candidates as Rice and Clinton. Therefore i think it will be like many things, once one sides goes for a woman, the other will too.