Another good example of why not to trust Bush & Co.

[Ravenstorm]

Click for the link (http://www.thememoryhole.org/feds/justice_redaction.htm)

At the bottom of the page are the links to the ACLU that talks about it in depth. But in summary, the justice department in the name of 'domestic security' decided to censor a direct quote from the Supreme Court that warned of the dangers of censoring dissent in the name of 'domestic security'.


"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect 'domestic security.' Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent."

Yes, keeping that from the public eye is vital to national security. After all, people might get ideas that the government can't just do anything it wants.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

But now we have absolute, incontrovertible proofI'm just confused by the article altogether.

[Cayge]

I always love how any level of government up to and including the Supreme Court, treat the ACLU like such a huge thorn in their sides. If that be the case, keep stickin' em then. Interesting read there, I of course think the Patriot Act is the sole reason we should remove Bush and Co. from office.

[Hulkein]

....

My mind is reeling at that blatant abuse of power. Seeing this article has changed my life forever.

[StrayRogue]

Nice article. I'm awaiting the usual Republican "Its bullshit" remarks. That or the typical "can't argue so we'll slander" crap they tend to pull.

[Tsa`ah]

Lies! Every word of it lies!

[Psykos]

Talk all the shit you want about the Republican party, but the best the Democrats could come up with to combat the oh so awful Bush is the piece of shit known as John Kerry.

I've met Kerry before, I'm from Ma, and he's nothing but a pompus piece of trash.... fighting for the rights of the working class.

Democrat, Republican, its all hemogony, uni-lateral decisions, and the captialist american way. Like it or leave.

[DeV]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Nice article. I'm awaiting the usual Republican "Its bullshit" remarks. That or the typical "can't argue so we'll slander" crap they tend to pull.

[kheldarin]

NOOOO! TELL ME IT CAN'T BE!

*Jumps on his own head and kills himself for being a Republican.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Psykos
Talk all the shit you want about the Republican party, but the best the Democrats could come up with to combat the oh so awful Bush is the piece of shit known as John Kerry.

I've met Kerry before, I'm from Ma, and he's nothing but a pompus piece of trash.... fighting for the rights of the working class.

Democrat, Republican, its all hemogony, uni-lateral decisions, and the captialist american way. Like it or leave.

Christ.. now I have to switch parties. :(

Oh and Lycain.. you have claimed alot since you started posting here.. meeting John Kerry now? How are we supposed to believe this?

I think I'm going to start calling you Sean.

[Ilvane]

I've spoken to John Kerry, actually. I worked in the State house in Boston for a summer in college, he called in to the office I was working in.:)

Oh, and I met Ted Kennedy twice. The first time I met him, it was as the President of my student government in college, and he asked about me, and I told him how my mom had just had bypass surgery and she always had loved him, since he helped her out at the hospital she worked at(Boston City Hospital, now Boston Medical center, a story for another time)..Second time, I was working for his campaign in Hyannis, and he asked me about my mom, and if she was feeling better. This was after meeting me once. He was impressive to me.

I have a picture of me and Al Gore from the 2000 election when he was in Boston, and one of me and William Weld, our old governor, from when I worked at the State house too.

It's possible he could have met him, I mean our politicians are pretty accessible in Mass.

-A

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Christ.. now I have to switch parties. :(



Come on over to the dark side babe. I would love to know that my vote for Kerry will actually add to the totals instead of offset your vote. :D

Just got my voter reg card in the mail the other day - ensuring that I am ready. :kisses:


-TRL

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Christ.. now I have to switch parties. :(



Come on over to the dark side babe. I would love to know that my vote for Kerry will actually add to the totals instead of offset your vote. :D

Just got my voter reg card in the mail the other day - ensuring that I am ready. :kisses:


-TRL

Please don't waste your vote on Kerry. It would make me sad. :(

[Betheny]

'wasted vote' is the most retarded term ever.

The only vote wasted is the one not cast.

Oh, and the electoral college is retarded, and I guess that would make for some 'wasted votes', since minority votes in a majority area wouldn't be 'counted'.

Eh, whatever.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Maimara
'wasted vote' is the most retarded term ever.

The only vote wasted is the one not cast.

Oh, and the electoral college is retarded, and I guess that would make for some 'wasted votes', since minority votes in a majority area wouldn't be 'counted'.

Eh, whatever.

The NY Times just had an editorial like four or five days ago saying that same thng.

The electoral college has got to go.

[Izalude]

I'm re-entering the US on Election Day just so I can vote against Bush. I fear any politician that is of less than average intelligence.

[Faent]

>>The only vote wasted is the one not cast. -Maimara

That is false. Consider the following scenario:

Suppose you have three candidates (Larry, Moe, and Curly) running for public office. Larry is your favorite candidate. In fact, Larry is such a good candidate his entire voting record mirrors you perspective flawlessly. Unfortunately, you know that Larry doesn't have a chance in hell at winning. Furthermore, you know that the race between Moe and Curly is exceedingly close. Moe isn't great, but he sure isn't as horrible as Curly. Upon contemplation of Curly's ascension to power, your first response is to assert that you'll cut out your heart with a spoon. Moe, who doesn't suit you as nicely as Larry (who might be controlled by your thoughts, his voting record is so perfectly aligned with your opinions), is nevertheless not such a bad guy.

Voting for Larry is a clear-cut case of wasting your vote. (If you want an even clearer case, let's stipulate that Larry is only going to get .5% of the vote, and your vote will make the difference between Curly and Moe gaining public office.)

>>Oh, and the electoral college is retarded -Maimara

No, the electoral college keeps the relatively unpopulated Midwest from seceding from the Union. If it were not the for the electoral college, under five coastal cities in this country would dictate federal law to the every other geographic portion of America. Trust me, the rest of the country would be very, very unhappy.

-Scott

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Maimara
'wasted vote' is the most retarded term ever.

The only vote wasted is the one not cast.


Go Nader!

[Faent]

>>I'm re-entering the US on Election Day just so I can vote against Bush. I fear any politician that is of less than average intelligence. -Izalude

Personally, I think if Kerry's advising team had any brains, they'd play his intellectual card much more heavily. If his wishy-washy voting record was attributed to a careful, rational, intellectual decision process that took a mind-numbing number of variables into consideration, as opposed to Bush's single-variable calculus, perhaps he could improve his perception. In other words, his advisors need to learn the meaning of the word "spin".

-Scott

[Betheny]

The Electoral College ensures that we will never really be truly counted. The Electoral College gives politicians the ability to market themselves to one targetted region and win an election. The Electoral College has NOTHING to do with the balance of PUBLIC POWER, and EVERYTHING TO DO with ease of campaigning for politicians.

MAJORITY WINS, except in America! Bullshit.

And by the way, I'm from the Midwest, I seriously doubt we'd secede.

And Scott, you are fucking stupid.

[Edited on 9-7-2004 by Maimara]

[Betheny]

P.S., voting for who you think is going to win is even more hare-brained than our incumbent president. Your logic is flawed.

[Hulkein]

The electoral college has some positives. Without it states like Ohio, West Virginia, etc wouldn't really matter. I personally like it. We'll see if my feelings change if Bush wins the popular vote and loses the electoral college this election though :)

[Faent]

>>The Electoral College ensures that we will never really be truly counted. -Maimara

It's not clear what you mean. Without the EC, the people who live in the Midwest would truly not get counted. Their votes wouldn't matter. So the EC guarantees that states with fewer people still have a say in goverment: Midwest states truly count.

But if by "truly counted" you mean that the EC doesn't weight the votes of all citizens equally, then you're right. The EC guarantees that your vote is worth more if you live in Alaska than the vote of somebody who lives in New York. But that's the whole point of the EC, and it's good. See previous paragraph.

>>The Electoral College gives politicians the ability to market themselves to one targetted region and win an election.


The Electoral College has NOTHING to do with the balance of PUBLIC POWER, and EVERYTHING TO DO with ease of campaigning for politicians. -Maimara

You've got it backwards, babe. The EC makes it harder for politicians to campaign. Without the EC, as I mentioned previously, politicians would only have to campaign heavily in a few states. The EC guarantees that politicians actually have to campaign somewhere other than California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Illinois. (Or, if 100 million people isn't enough to win the vote, add Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, and Georgia for another 50 million.) See, states that are part of the U.S.A., like Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming actually get some say in the *federal* government.

>>MAJORITY WINS, except in America! Bullshit. -Maimara

People who think that the majority should win are frightening. What if eight year olds were the majority? What if the majority was utterly stupid? What if the majority might impose their will on a disenfranchised minority? (In that vein, are you a fan of slavery?)

>>And by the way, I'm from the Midwest, I seriously doubt we'd secede. -Maimara

Have you heard of taxation without representation? The Boston Tea Party?

>>And Scott, you are fucking stupid. -Maimara


You lose.

-Scott

[Psykos]

Falgrin,

I don't know who this Lycain is, but you're mistaken friend. I'd appreciate if you stop acting 10 for two minutes. I live in MA, and have met John Kerry, if you don't believe me go steal some silvers in the park, it'll make us both feel better.

Psykos

[Betheny]

No, I don't lose, but I"m not going to resort to Google to try and prove my point, and I'm not going to bother discussing this with an idiot.

By the way, call me babe again and I'll really let you have it.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Psykos
Falgrin,

I don't know who this Lycain is, but you're mistaken friend. I'd appreciate if you stop acting 10 for two minutes. I live in MA, and have met John Kerry, if you don't believe me go steal some silvers in the park, it'll make us both feel better.

Psykos

Dear Lycain,

After an extensive sifting process through logs and a couple of IM messages, it has been proven that you are indeed the same twit that plays Lycain. He is one of two people who are "mad" at Falgrin right now because he steals from them constantly. Boo fucking hoo.

And to get back on topic, stop voting Republican Lycain.. you drop the entire party's IQ by 2 points.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
And to get back on topic, stop voting Republican Lycain.. you drop the entire party's IQ by 2 points.

And we all know they are in desperate need of every one of them. :P

[Psykos]

If it makes you feel better to think I'm Lycain thats great. I can't believe how much of a moron you are. I'm not even angry with you for stealing from me when I played, I'm angry with you for being a board monkey.

Also, what in the hell would shifting through logs prove that some random posts were a player. Get a life pal.

:die:

If anyone is Lycain, please post so Falfuck can get back to Roleplaying.

Psykos

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Maimara
No, I don't lose, but I"m not going to resort to Google to try and prove my point, and I'm not going to bother discussing this with an idiot.

By the way, call me babe again and I'll really let you have it.

What did he google? He pretty much outlined the true reasons why the EC still exists. If you have nothing to prove your point better than don't respond. Saying 'U ARE DUM' after he just outlined a position intelligently and articulately makes you look like a fool.

[Betheny]

I never said he googled, I said I wasn't going to. Can you tell me, why was the electoral college created in the first place? Guarantee you it wasn't so that the midwest wouldn't secede from the Union. ;) It was actually more about timeliness and the lack of technology to count every vote. But, if you want to turn it into something it isn't, then... fine. Do as you please. And for the record, Hulkein, I've never said OMFG UR DUM. I said he was a fucking idiot, because he is.

[Psykos]

Two things I'm sick of..

1) The democratic party is nothing but a conglomeration of different ideals and conceptions of the good that people have yet to find a single person to express. The republicans at least have a solid membership base and goals, which helps them maintain a steady party and a foundation of voters. The democrats basically like taking the mix. Some gay rights here, a little affirmative action, how about some PETA and green votes too. The real people that were protesting outside the RNC in NY were mostly communist and/or socialist, and one statistic showed that 40% still believed we were at war with Afganistan (granted that the statistic was reported by FOX news). In any event, the Republican party may not always be right about their decisions but at least they're not some flip-flop party that attunes itself to whatever the going trend is.

I'm sick of the republicans taking all the heat, when most of the senior democrats agree with a majority of their decisions, and hell some democrats even talk at their convention.

Psykos

[Hulkein]

Fair enough. I jumped to conclusions and figured you were indirectly saying he googled his info.

Yeah I know why it was originally created, that's why I said 'still exists.' It has turned into something that I find pretty fair for the entire country.

[Faent]

>>No, I don't lose, but I"m not going to resort to Google to try and prove my point... -Maimara

>>I never said he googled, I said I wasn't going to. -Maimara

If you need Google to make your point, you probably don't know what your point is. Yes, I used Google, but I didn't need it to make my point. Rather, I helped to solidify the point with concrete facts. I opened my browser and searched for a ranked list of state populations so I could tell you that half of the population of this country lives in *exactly* ten states. I could have easily estimated without Google, however, and I expect that if you have anything interesting to contribute, you should be able to do so without the use of a search engine as well.

>>and I'm not going to bother discussing this with an idiot. -Maimara

You mean you can't trouble your mind to try and puzzle yourself out of the hole you just dug yourself into, don't you?

>>By the way, call me babe again and I'll really let you have it. -Maimara

Posting threats on message boards doesn't reflect well on your intellectual aptitude. What are you going to do? Assault me with a wall of text?

>>And for the record, Hulkein, I've never said OMFG UR DUM. I said he was a fucking idiot, because he is. -Maimara

My posts were both calm and collected. For mysterious reasons concerning then constitution of your frustrated psyche, you managed to become inflamed with emotion and passion upon reading them. Then, having lost control of your rational faculty, you commenced to vomit a polluted volley of insults, threats, and excuses for not defending your position. So far I've largely limited my remarks to reflections upon your *position* and *behavior*. Unlike yourself, I'll stop short of behaving like a complete fool by calling you a "fucking moron" in return. I do have one question, however. Do you always behave so poorly when your position is challenged?

-Scott

[Wezas]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=5&u=/nm/20040907/od_nm/odd_bush_dc

[Psykos]

Faent,

I don't like Maimara, but I'm going to have to confess something -- She's making a whole hella lot more sense than you are right now.




Originally posted by Faent
>>No, I don't lose, but I"m not going to resort to Google to try and prove my point... -Maimara

>>I never said he googled, I said I wasn't going to. -Maimara

If you need Google to make your point, you probably don't know what your point is. Yes, I used Google, but I didn't need it to make my point. Rather, I helped to solidify the point with concrete facts. I opened my browser and searched for a ranked list of state populations so I could tell you that half of the population of this country lives in *exactly* ten states. I could have easily estimated without Google, however, and I expect that if you have anything interesting to contribute, you should be able to do so without the use of a search engine as well.

>>and I'm not going to bother discussing this with an idiot. -Maimara

You mean you can't trouble your mind to try and puzzle yourself out of the hole you just dug yourself into, don't you?

>>By the way, call me babe again and I'll really let you have it. -Maimara

Posting threats on message boards doesn't reflect well on your intellectual aptitude. What are you going to do? Assault me with a wall of text?

>>And for the record, Hulkein, I've never said OMFG UR DUM. I said he was a fucking idiot, because he is. -Maimara

My posts were both calm and collected. For mysterious reasons concerning then constitution of your frustrated psyche, you managed to become inflamed with emotion and passion upon reading them. Then, having lost control of your rational faculty, you commenced to vomit a polluted volley of insults, threats, and excuses for not defending your position. So far I've largely limited my remarks to reflections upon your *position* and *behavior*. Unlike yourself, I'll stop short of behaving like a complete fool by calling you a "fucking moron" in return. I do have one question, however. Do you always behave so poorly when your position is challenged?

-Scott

[Hulkein]

I think they both made fine sense. They are just sitting on opposite sides of the fence.

[Wezas]

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that the nation faces the threat of another terrorist attack if voters make the "wrong choice" on Election Day, suggesting that Sen. John Kerry would follow a pre-Sept. 11 policy of reacting defensively.




http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apelection_story.asp?category=1131&slug=Cheney

[Betheny]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I think they both made fine sense. They are just sitting on opposite sides of the fence.

If you can tell me you don't lease a Mazda minivan, my opinion of you will go wayyyy up!

[Snapp]

Wezas' link

That's really hitting below the belt.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Maimara

Originally posted by Hulkein
I think they both made fine sense. They are just sitting on opposite sides of the fence.

If you can tell me you don't lease a Mazda minivan, my opinion of you will go wayyyy up!

I do not lease a mazda minivan. =)

[Faent]

>>Faent, I don't like Maimara, but I'm going to have to confess something -- She's making a whole hella lot more sense than you are right now. -Psykos

I don't dislike Maimara. I'm also going to have to confess I have no clue what you think something's falling under the concept "making sense" involves. If I said, "You're a dumb fucking moron!" more often, would you think I was making more sense, since that's pretty much all she's done? If you're talking about our respective defenses/criticisms of the Electoral College, here's a clue: she hasn't offered one.

-Scott

[Back]

Originally posted by Wezas

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that the nation faces the threat of another terrorist attack if voters make the "wrong choice" on Election Day, suggesting that Sen. John Kerry would follow a pre-Sept. 11 policy of reacting defensively.




http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apelection_story.asp?category=1131&slug=Cheney

The administration shows it colors once again. In essence, what Cheney said was “A vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorists” or “A vote for Kerry is a vote for your death and destruction.” He is promoting division, fear, distrust, and thats just not right because WE, as Americans, will stand up to terrorists no matter who is in charge. To suggest otherwise, in my not so humble opinion, is so unpatriotic that I think it comes close to treason.

What does it mean when the administration says, “Terrorists will try to sway the election this November?” It means “Vote for us or you will die.” Bullshit.

[PeaceDisturbance]

>>Two things I'm sick of..

1) The democratic party is nothing but a conglomeration of different ideals and conceptions of the good that people have yet to find a single person to express. The republicans at least have a solid membership base and goals, which helps them maintain a steady party and a foundation of voters. The democrats basically like taking the mix. Some gay rights here, a little affirmative action, how about some PETA and green votes too. The real people that were protesting outside the RNC in NY were mostly communist and/or socialist, and one statistic showed that 40% still believed we were at war with Afganistan (granted that the statistic was reported by FOX news). In any event, the Republican party may not always be right about their decisions but at least they're not some flip-flop party that attunes itself to whatever the going trend is.

I'm sick of the republicans taking all the heat, when most of the senior democrats agree with a majority of their decisions, and hell some democrats even talk at their convention.

Psykos<<

I can see some of your points. But I see Republicans as the gun nuts and religous fanatics. I fear them, like I fear Al Quada(sp?).

Democrates I fear because it's liberals and minorities. They want to change our traditions, our way of life. Just because they can.

But in the end. The clincher is Iraq. I was ALL for it. We was told there was WMD, they had proof and knew where they was...... One huge lie that is costing lives. My friend is leaving tomorrow for Iraq. My brother will be joining soon to go fight.

I think Kerry is the best chance to get our troops back alive. Bush has never seen war. Never seen death. Kept the troops there longer than he said he would. I just don't have faith or any trust in this regime. Just to fanatical for me.

Party line voters.

Need I say more?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by PeaceDisturbance
I think Kerry is the best chance to get our troops back alive. You really oughta research Kerry's plan for Iraq.

[Nieninque]

===============================
THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
< www.Misleader.org >
===============================

BUSH HAMPERED FIGHT AGAINST AL QAEDA
President Bush yesterday said that because of his leadership, "America and
the world are safer."[1] But almost three years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden
remains at large, while the U.S. government admits top al Qaeda leaders are
planning attacks on America from the Afghan-Pakistan border region.[2] And
now a new book confirms the President actually shifted key resources away
from the fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Knight-Ridder reports that in his upcoming book, U.S. Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL)
disclosed that General Tommy Franks told him on Feb. 19, 2002, four months
after the invasion of Afghanistan, that many important resources were being
shifted to prepare for a war against Iraq. Graham, who was chairman of the
Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, said the administration moved
things like the Predator drone aircraft out of Afghanistan even though it is
"crucial to the search for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda leaders."[3]

Graham's account is consistent with reports from earlier this year. In March
2004, USA Today reported that the White House in 2002 shifted special forces
off of the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan and into preparations for an
Iraq invasion. The administration also took intelligence "specialists away
from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered."[4]


Sources:

1. "President's Remarks at a Victory 2004 Rally in Poplar Bluff, Missouri,"
WhiteHouse.gov, 9/06/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3106195&l=53536.
2. "Officials: Bin Laden guiding plots against U.S.," CNN.com, 7/08/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3106195&l=53537.
3. "9/11 hijackers tied to Saudi government, Graham says in book," Boston
Globe, 9/05/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3106195&l=53538.
4. "Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions," USA Today, 3/28/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3106195&l=53539.

Visit www.Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion. »

[Psykos]

umm, Bush never denied that they initially suspected Iraq had some involvement -- Hello? Isn't this the Saddam that violated weapons inspections time and time again?

:banghead: Read, learn, repost.

[Psykos]

Please tell me you're not claiming that Kerry has seen war and has seen death?




Originally posted by PeaceDisturbance
>>Two things I'm sick of..

1) The democratic party is nothing but a conglomeration of different ideals and conceptions of the good that people have yet to find a single person to express. The republicans at least have a solid membership base and goals, which helps them maintain a steady party and a foundation of voters. The democrats basically like taking the mix. Some gay rights here, a little affirmative action, how about some PETA and green votes too. The real people that were protesting outside the RNC in NY were mostly communist and/or socialist, and one statistic showed that 40% still believed we were at war with Afganistan (granted that the statistic was reported by FOX news). In any event, the Republican party may not always be right about their decisions but at least they're not some flip-flop party that attunes itself to whatever the going trend is.

I'm sick of the republicans taking all the heat, when most of the senior democrats agree with a majority of their decisions, and hell some democrats even talk at their convention.

Psykos<<

I can see some of your points. But I see Republicans as the gun nuts and religous fanatics. I fear them, like I fear Al Quada(sp?).

Democrates I fear because it's liberals and minorities. They want to change our traditions, our way of life. Just because they can.

But in the end. The clincher is Iraq. I was ALL for it. We was told there was WMD, they had proof and knew where they was...... One huge lie that is costing lives. My friend is leaving tomorrow for Iraq. My brother will be joining soon to go fight.

I think Kerry is the best chance to get our troops back alive. Bush has never seen war. Never seen death. Kept the troops there longer than he said he would. I just don't have faith or any trust in this regime. Just to fanatical for me.

Party line voters.

Need I say more?

[Back]

Originally posted by Psykos
umm, Bush never denied that they initially suspected Iraq had some involvement -- Hello? Isn't this the Saddam that violated weapons inspections time and time again?

:banghead: Read, learn, repost.

Yep. The same Saddam that has no WMDs. The same leader of a counrty that has never, until our invasion, killed a single American. A man who has no proven ties to any terrorists.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe “violated” is incorrect. Hampered? Delayed? Obsctructed maybe, but those resolutions were not violated as no weapons were found that were in “violation” of those resolutions.

:banghead: Read, learn, repost.

[Back]

Originally posted by Psykos
Please tell me you're not claiming that Kerry has seen war and has seen death?

What planet are you from man? Kerry has three purple hearts, a silver and a bronze star that have been pretty well documented. I don’t think you can get those out of a Crackerjack box.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
The administration shows it colors once again. In essence, what Cheney said was “A vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorists” or “A vote for Kerry is a vote for your death and destruction.” He is promoting division, fear, distrust, and thats just not right because WE, as Americans, will stand up to terrorists no matter who is in charge. To suggest otherwise, in my not so humble opinion, is so unpatriotic that I think it comes close to treason.

What does it mean when the administration says, “Terrorists will try to sway the election this November?” It means “Vote for us or you will die.” Bullshit.

See Spain.

[CrystalTears]

Violated. He was told to comply, to either prove or disprove that he has them, or he'd have a war on his hands to find our own answers. He basically gave us the finger. For all we know he moved them or hid them. He sure had plenty of time to do it!

Had we threatened to go to war for not complying and didn't actually go through with it, it would make the US look weaker for not following through and then other countries would get saucy and not comply either.

So it's okay that he killed thousands of his own people just because none of them were Americans? It's okay to let someone like that continue to rule just because it's not on our soil? That's just blinded logic and sad to think that if you saw someone beating the shit out of someone for no reason that you would just sit back and let it happen when you know you can do something about it.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Psykos
Please tell me you're not claiming that Kerry has seen war and has seen death?

What planet are you from man? Kerry has three purple hearts, a silver and a bronze star that have been pretty well documented. I don’t think you can get those out of a Crackerjack box.

Gee, how can we forget. That's all he ever fucking talks about.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Psykos
umm, Bush never denied that they initially suspected Iraq had some involvement -- Hello? Isn't this the Saddam that violated weapons inspections time and time again?

:banghead: Read, learn, repost.

Yep. The same Saddam that has no WMDs. The same leader of a counrty that has never, until our invasion, killed a single American. A man who has no proven ties to any terrorists.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe “violated” is incorrect. Hampered? Delayed? Obsctructed maybe, but those resolutions were not violated as no weapons were found that were in “violation” of those resolutions.

:banghead: Read, learn, repost.

Actually, you would be incorrect about Saddam killing an American. Please see Gulf War.

And Iraq was in violation of the UN Resolutions since the end of the first Gulf War... which ultimately led to war.

[Psykos]

Backlash,

Champ -- I think you need to pick up any local newspaper and the fact that Kerry even has some of those medals is making vet's sick. He's a joke. Swiss boarding school to man of the working class? Give me a break.

[Psykos]

I hate it that I agree with you.


Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Psykos
umm, Bush never denied that they initially suspected Iraq had some involvement -- Hello? Isn't this the Saddam that violated weapons inspections time and time again?

:banghead: Read, learn, repost.

Yep. The same Saddam that has no WMDs. The same leader of a counrty that has never, until our invasion, killed a single American. A man who has no proven ties to any terrorists.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe “violated” is incorrect. Hampered? Delayed? Obsctructed maybe, but those resolutions were not violated as no weapons were found that were in “violation” of those resolutions.

:banghead: Read, learn, repost.

Actually, you would be incorrect about Saddam killing an American. Please see Gulf War.

And Iraq was in violation of the UN Resolutions since the end of the first Gulf War... which ultimately led to war.

[Psykos]

God dammit now CrystalTears is making sense too, I'm going to have to rethink my alliances on here.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by PeaceDisturbance
I think Kerry is the best chance to get our troops back alive. You really oughta research Kerry's plan for Iraq.

Is it the same plan John Kerry has for everything?

'George W Bush has not handled that correctly. When I become President, I will do it correctly"

No plan, just that he will do things "right". I imagine that would consist of waving his magical uber wand of perfection?

[Ilvane]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/

Enjoy.

-A

[CrystalTears]

Kerry is a leaner. He'll lean towards whichever issue will make him popular and change it at whim. THAT is why I don't trust Kerry.

At least with Bush you know what you're getting. He said he was going to war, we went to war. He said he was going to lower taxes, he lowered taxes. Agree or don't with his actions, at least he does what he says he'll do with some sort of accuracy.

Even Kerry's site doesn't have a plan. Just things he'd like to work on with no amount of certainty. Screw that.

[Back]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Violated. He was told to comply, to either prove or disprove that he has them, or he'd have a war on his hands to find our own answers. He basically gave us the finger. For all we know he moved them or hid them. He sure had plenty of time to do it!

Had we threatened to go to war for not complying and didn't actually go through with it, it would make the US look weaker for not following through and then other countries would get saucy and not comply either.

So it's okay that he killed thousands of his own people just because none of them were Americans? It's okay to let someone like that continue to rule just because it's not on our soil? That's just blinded logic and sad to think that if you saw someone beating the shit out of someone for no reason that you would just sit back and let it happen when you know you can do something about it.

Show me the resolution he violated. As far as I recall, he has cooperated, albiet slowly. Remember, it was a UN resolution and the UN did not give the go ahead for the war.

Lets try to stay away from would, could, if, should, eh? Thats just unprovable hypothetical talk.

I never said it was ok he killed thousands of his own people. Remember, the people he killed were people who opposed him. His people are the people that should have deposed him. For humanitarian crisis, there are far worse in the world. The majority of people of Iraq used to live far better lives than people in third world nations.

I never said Saddam wasn’t stubborn, cruel, or any number of less than savory characteristics. My main contention is that attacking Iraq wasn’t the best idea at the time we did it.

[Back]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Kerry is a leaner. He'll lean towards whichever issue will make him popular and change it at whim. THAT is why I don't trust Kerry.

At least with Bush you know what you're getting. He said he was going to war, we went to war. He said he was going to lower taxes, he lowered taxes. Agree or don't with his actions, at least he does what he says he'll do with some sort of accuracy.

Even Kerry's site doesn't have a plan. Just things he'd like to work on with no amount of certainty. Screw that.

Yes, with Bush, I know what I’m getting. 4 more years of an imbecile alienating the world while making his buddies rich as our civil liberties sink away and the hardest working people of this country get f-ed in the a-hole by carrying the burden of taxes and dying on forgien soil. Fuck that.

When making crazy accusations, please provide some sources, or factual refrences. All the anti-Kerry talk and not one single factual backup of any claim on any of it. I’d post some about what I say about Bush, but they’ve been posted numerous times over and over and over. In fact, just read the news. Oh, wait, the Bush campaign dosen’t want you to. Except for Fox.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/

Enjoy.

-A

OMG! You don't say!!! THE BOSTON GLOBE IS A LIBERAL NEWSPAPER THAT HAS REPEATEDLY SUPPORTED JOHN KERRY???


Dear Ilvane,

Don't make me post equally stupid material from rushlimbaugh.com or dredgereport.com or swiftboatvets.com

Thanks.

[Back]

Originally posted by Psykos
Backlash,

Champ -- I think you need to pick up any local newspaper and the fact that Kerry even has some of those medals is making vet's sick. He's a joke. Swiss boarding school to man of the working class? Give me a break.

Chump -- I think its you who needs to read about why they are mad at him, how he got them, who gave them to him, and when. Give me a break.

[Ilvane]

heh, I should have known you wouldn't read it PB. It's too much to admit that maybe he didn't fulfill he requirements, huh?

-A

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Psykos
umm, Bush never denied that they initially suspected Iraq had some involvement -- Hello? Isn't this the Saddam that violated weapons inspections time and time again?

:banghead: Read, learn, repost.

Yep. The same Saddam that has no WMDs. The same leader of a counrty that has never, until our invasion, killed a single American. A man who has no proven ties to any terrorists.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe “violated” is incorrect. Hampered? Delayed? Obsctructed maybe, but those resolutions were not violated as no weapons were found that were in “violation” of those resolutions.

:banghead: Read, learn, repost.

Actually, you would be incorrect about Saddam killing an American. Please see Gulf War.

And Iraq was in violation of the UN Resolutions since the end of the first Gulf War... which ultimately led to war.

I’ve bolded a part of my post you seem to have missed. You are correct though PB, about the first war, which I was against also... but, yes, Iraq did violate the first set by obscruction. But I’m pretty certain they didn’t with the set after that.

[CrystalTears]

I can't quote or resource what I'm saying, really, because I'm stating my opinion based on things I hear him say here and there. Maybe that's a copout, I don't know, don't really care. I'm just stating my opinion. I'm not the one trying to win an election. :P

I went to www.johnkerry.com and maybe I'm missing something, but I saw no plans. Just theories of what he'd like to do. It looks more like he's trying to be Miss America than the president.

[Edited on 9/8/2004 by CrystalTears]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
heh, I should have known you wouldn't read it PB. It's too much to admit that maybe he didn't fulfill he requirements, huh?

-A

When you start reading the bullshit that is on the drudge report, Fox news and Rush Limbaugh.. I'll take a look.

Thanks.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
It looks more like he's trying to be Miss America not the president.

Which would be a major improvement on Bush...

[Hulkein]

<<The same leader of a counrty that has never, until our invasion, killed a single American.>>

They fired at US pilots relatively often.

<<A man who has no proven ties to any terrorists>>

He paid suicide bombers families in Palestine. That is terrorism. He most certainly had ties to terrorism.

You said you protested Desert Storm in the early 90s, didn't you? You wouldn't approve of this war until Saddam came over and murdered your family.

[Psykos]

Igorance is bliss.


Oiginally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by CrystalTears
It looks more like he's trying to be Miss America not the president.

Which would be a major improvement on Bush...

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Nieninque
Which would be a major improvement on Bush...

Do you even live in America?

Edited to removed CT's quote also so as there is no confusion who I am asking.

[Edited on 9-8-2004 by Hulkein]

[Back]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I can't quote or resource what I'm saying, really, because I'm stating my opinion based on things I hear him say here and there. Maybe that's a copout, I don't know, don't really care. I'm just stating my opinion. I'm not the one trying to win an election. :P

I went to www.johnkerry.com and maybe I'm missing something, but I saw no plans. Just theories of what he'd like to do. It looks more like he's trying to be Miss America than the president.

[Edited on 9/8/2004 by CrystalTears]

Well, I suppose for myself, I just need some help understanding everything. When I hear this or that about one or the other, I look to see what sources have information and base my opinions on that information. And no, I don’t mean Drudge, Snopes, Moorewatch, or MoveOn.

So far, FactCheck.org has been one I turn to most, and mostly articles from CNN, BBC, Washington Post, New York Times, AP and Rueters. Not to mention government pages on things like Senators voting records, Ellectoral College, and blah blah blah...

[Psykos]

Well aren't you Mr. Information.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
[quote]Originally posted by Psykos
umm, Bush never denied that they initially suspected Iraq had some involvement -- Hello? Isn't this the Saddam that violated weapons inspections time and time again?

:banghead: Read, learn, repost.

Yep. The same Saddam that has no WMDs. The same leader of a counrty that has never, until our invasion, killed a single American. A man who has no proven ties to any terrorists.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe “violated” is incorrect. Hampered? Delayed? Obsctructed maybe, but those resolutions were not violated as no weapons were found that were in “violation” of those resolutions.

:banghead: Read, learn, repost.
I’ve bolded a part of my post you seem to have missed. You are correct though PB, about the first war, which I was against also... but, yes, Iraq did violate the first set by obscruction. But I’m pretty certain they didn’t with the set after that.

If you were against the first Gulf War.. I can't even debate you because you are so far to the left that you see no need for war at all.

Kuwait was invaded. Kuwait was our ally. How again were you against this war? Don't tell me, you were against us going to war in WWII against Japan as well?

:rolleyes:

[Psykos]

Falgrin,

Did you see the statistics on the protestors outside the RNC? Almost all of them were communist/socialist supporters, and have no part whatsoever in supporting John Kerry and his campaign, yet the NY times liked to stress, along with other liberal news stations the impact that the protestors had on the convention in such a light that it seems its the Democrats and their base protesting.

Interesting stuff,

Its going to be only a few more months before Bush is re-elected anyway, so then everyone can pipe down for a few more years.

Love and hugs,

Psykos

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Psykos
Falgrin,

Did you see the statistics on the protestors outside the RNC? Almost all of them were communist/socialist supporters, and have no part whatsoever in supporting John Kerry and his campaign, yet the NY times liked to stress, along with other liberal news stations the impact that the protestors had on the convention in such a light that it seems its the Democrats and their base protesting.

Interesting stuff,

Its going to be only a few more months before Bush is re-elected anyway, so then everyone can pipe down for a few more years.

Love and hugs,

Psykos

If they were simply socialists and communists.. why didn't they protest the DNC? It's not like they agree with the ideals of Democrats.

I think it's a case that it was in NYC, home to too many hippies and that it is "cool" to bash Bush.

[TheEschaton]

Hey all,

I'm just browsing around because work is winding down, and you know what I think "Hey, I'd like to get into a political argument......because everyone here (IE, not in the United States) seems to agree with me already. Hell, even that Lutheran pastor the other day gave me a high five when I told him I was voting for Kerry." I have my absentee ballot ready in hand, but if John Kerry doesn't win NY without my vote, I don't hold much hope for him in the overall election.

Anyways, I'd like to discuss a few things, perhaps:


Violated. He was told to comply, to either prove or disprove that he has them, or he'd have a war on his hands to find our own answers. He basically gave us the finger. For all we know he moved them or hid them. He sure had plenty of time to do it!

Had we threatened to go to war for not complying and didn't actually go through with it, it would make the US look weaker for not following through and then other countries would get saucy and not comply either.

So it's okay that he killed thousands of his own people just because none of them were Americans? It's okay to let someone like that continue to rule just because it's not on our soil? That's just blinded logic and sad to think that if you saw someone beating the shit out of someone for no reason that you would just sit back and let it happen when you know you can do something about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Saddam, in late 2002, was told to comply. What most people seem to forget is that he was complying. When it was discovered that Saddam had missiles that COULD POSSIBLY BE modified to fly beyond the 95k (or whatever it was) limit imposed on Iraqi missiles, yanno what Iraq did? It started to disarm them. When Hans Blix said he had been having trouble accessing sites....they threw the gates even further open in an attempt to appease what was an administration looking for a war. Hell, our whole war is based on the fact that Dick Cheney said the 1300 page accounting of all Iraqi weapons was complete bullshit and far from complete....but yanno what? All the things Cheney said they had but didn't report.....they didn't have...and thus didn't report.

As for not backing up the threat of war with actual force - we didn't need to use the threat of war to begin with. That's pretty simple logic right there. Saddam was more than effectively contained in Bagdhad, he couldn't even control large swathes of his country, let alone do harm to any other.

As for Saddam having links to terrorists, the one example given was the giving of money to terrorists in Palestine. WHILE I DO NOT SUPPORT WHAT HE ACTUALLY DID, this is inaccurate...he said he would support the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. This, while it allows suicide bombers to be free of financial worries for their families when they're gone, is not in and of itself a cause of suicide bombing. Think about it. If you're at the point where you're willing to blow yourself up to kill some Israelis - you're not gonna stop yourself because your family might have financial difficulties after you're gone. As a last point, this is no worse than the U.S. financially supporting guerilla groups throughout the whole of Latin America, the difference is, we claim that we never supported them, because we never gave them equipment.

As for your last argument, CT, I like how you try and use emotional topics to mask a worthless point. The fact is, the weapons Saddam used to kill his own citizens, were provided by the U.S. and Britain. The fact is, the genocide of the Kurds occured because the U.S. said they would support a popular Kurdish uprising...and didn't...the fact is, any "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Iraq has had, we gave them to them, any WMD it has produced, it has produced in factories the British and ourselves have built. Is it good that he killed his own people with horrible chemical weapons? Nope. But yanno what - we made the moral decision for him when we said it was okay to use it on Iranians. If I saw someone being beaten up in the street, I'd help them get out of the fight. But we have this thing in the U.S. where we don't enact vigilante justice against people who've purportrated a crime - the days of lynching and whatnot are over, y'see. Instead, we make sure that they're arrested, get a fair and transparent trial....and punish them based on the facts in a context, not just groundless accusations and statistics taken without the environment that spawned them.

That felt good....I've not had to defend the liberal position in awhile. I thought I might be rusty - but nah, even a rusty me is good enough to punch through the bullshit of this administration.

-TheE-

P.S. The electoral college is a good thing, but not the best thing. It's like the Senate, in Congress, it ensures that the smaller states have an equal say in the election process by weighting their votes more heavily (essentially). The problem is there is no counterbalance, such as the House of Representatives offer, where states like NY, CA, and Texas DO rule the roost.

[Nieninque]

:clap:

Well put and welcome back

[CrystalTears]

Heh, glad I could help let you get that out. This is why I hate these threads. I'm no good at it. :banghead:

[TheEschaton]

Whereas I, at the ripe old age of 23, am a seasoned political hatchet man. ;)


-TheE-

[Psykos]

Okay,

"The so called bullshit of this administration" is a liberal cry that arguments are to be dealt with dissent and nothing else. Its easy to bash Bush for doing his job, but hard to define how Kerry is any different. I'm not exactly sure who you're supporting in the election, I'd assume Nader based upon your comments. The reality is that John Kerry is more pompus and elite than ol' Red-neck Bush could ever want to be. Oil money or not, I think that Mr. Cohen, err I mean Kerry lives in a fake world where things around him center on what the mainstream thing to do was.... kinda like protesting the Vietnam war?

And back to the topic of where Saddam got his weapons.. Thats kind of a moot point. The weapons were deliverd by none other than D. Rummy back in the 1980s when were were allies (kinda) with Saddam. Stop warping old facts into new discussion. Its not like every small decision concerning weapons and arms can be made with the scope of 20 years in mind. Give me a break.

God that felt good, I guess defending this administration is easy. I'm not so rusty afterall.

Psykos


Originally posted by TheEschaton
Hey all,

I'm just browsing around because work is winding down, and you know what I think "Hey, I'd like to get into a political argument......because everyone here (IE, not in the United States) seems to agree with me already. Hell, even that Lutheran pastor the other day gave me a high five when I told him I was voting for Kerry." I have my absentee ballot ready in hand, but if John Kerry doesn't win NY without my vote, I don't hold much hope for him in the overall election.

Anyways, I'd like to discuss a few things, perhaps:


Violated. He was told to comply, to either prove or disprove that he has them, or he'd have a war on his hands to find our own answers. He basically gave us the finger. For all we know he moved them or hid them. He sure had plenty of time to do it!

Had we threatened to go to war for not complying and didn't actually go through with it, it would make the US look weaker for not following through and then other countries would get saucy and not comply either.

So it's okay that he killed thousands of his own people just because none of them were Americans? It's okay to let someone like that continue to rule just because it's not on our soil? That's just blinded logic and sad to think that if you saw someone beating the shit out of someone for no reason that you would just sit back and let it happen when you know you can do something about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Saddam, in late 2002, was told to comply. What most people seem to forget is that he was complying. When it was discovered that Saddam had missiles that COULD POSSIBLY BE modified to fly beyond the 95k (or whatever it was) limit imposed on Iraqi missiles, yanno what Iraq did? It started to disarm them. When Hans Blix said he had been having trouble accessing sites....they threw the gates even further open in an attempt to appease what was an administration looking for a war. Hell, our whole war is based on the fact that Dick Cheney said the 1300 page accounting of all Iraqi weapons was complete bullshit and far from complete....but yanno what? All the things Cheney said they had but didn't report.....they didn't have...and thus didn't report.

As for not backing up the threat of war with actual force - we didn't need to use the threat of war to begin with. That's pretty simple logic right there. Saddam was more than effectively contained in Bagdhad, he couldn't even control large swathes of his country, let alone do harm to any other.

As for Saddam having links to terrorists, the one example given was the giving of money to terrorists in Palestine. WHILE I DO NOT SUPPORT WHAT HE ACTUALLY DID, this is inaccurate...he said he would support the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. This, while it allows suicide bombers to be free of financial worries for their families when they're gone, is not in and of itself a cause of suicide bombing. Think about it. If you're at the point where you're willing to blow yourself up to kill some Israelis - you're not gonna stop yourself because your family might have financial difficulties after you're gone. As a last point, this is no worse than the U.S. financially supporting guerilla groups throughout the whole of Latin America, the difference is, we claim that we never supported them, because we never gave them equipment.

As for your last argument, CT, I like how you try and use emotional topics to mask a worthless point. The fact is, the weapons Saddam used to kill his own citizens, were provided by the U.S. and Britain. The fact is, the genocide of the Kurds occured because the U.S. said they would support a popular Kurdish uprising...and didn't...the fact is, any "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Iraq has had, we gave them to them, any WMD it has produced, it has produced in factories the British and ourselves have built. Is it good that he killed his own people with horrible chemical weapons? Nope. But yanno what - we made the moral decision for him when we said it was okay to use it on Iranians. If I saw someone being beaten up in the street, I'd help them get out of the fight. But we have this thing in the U.S. where we don't enact vigilante justice against people who've purportrated a crime - the days of lynching and whatnot are over, y'see. Instead, we make sure that they're arrested, get a fair and transparent trial....and punish them based on the facts in a context, not just groundless accusations and statistics taken without the environment that spawned them.

That felt good....I've not had to defend the liberal position in awhile. I thought I might be rusty - but nah, even a rusty me is good enough to punch through the bullshit of this administration.

-TheE-

P.S. The electoral college is a good thing, but not the best thing. It's like the Senate, in Congress, it ensures that the smaller states have an equal say in the election process by weighting their votes more heavily (essentially). The problem is there is no counterbalance, such as the House of Representatives offer, where states like NY, CA, and Texas DO rule the roost.

[Psykos]

Also,

Check out this article:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-08-01-saddam-bluff-wmd_x.htm

Sounds like he had a death wish anyway, keeping the world guessing if he had weapons. His plan, I think, was that Bush would call his bluff, not find any any get embarassed, instead, Bush called his bluff, invaded, and saved the United States from a future incident with a nutcase.

Psykos

[Back]

Ok, I bow to TheEschaton on clarity and factual content. I was thinking I was rushed because I’m at work and can’t respond clearly and concisely with all the facts at my fingertips, but I doubt even had I plenty of time, I could compose a post like that with as much clarity.

So let me answer a few posts here. I did protest the first Gulf war. My belief at the time was that it was an Arab world matter. Not ours. We’ve played a dangerous game in that region, and still are.

Afganistan, as I’ve thought I’ve made clear here time and time again, was justified 110% in my opinion. And it should have stayed our focus after 9/11.

The comparison of WWII Japan and Iraq is stupid. Compare it to Afganistan and I’ll stand right there along with you in support.

[TheEschaton]

"The so called bullshit of this administration" is a liberal cry that arguments are to be dealt with dissent and nothing else.

Excuse me? I backed my argument up with logical, reasonable, factual arguments, not just "dissent". And then, what did you do to dispute my arguments? Nothing...you just merely dissented.

Am I arguing that John Kerry is the best choice in the world for President? Nope. He isn't. I don't like many of his stances. But he IS a better choice for President, in my opinion. Is he pompous? Maybe. In fact, he probably is. But the thing is, John Kerry usually has the intelligence and diplomacy to back up his swagger, whereas Mr. Bush has nothing but "iron-fisted faith", based on direct contradictions of A) his supposed faith, and B) a complete lack of basis in reality.

Where Saddam got his weapons is of the utmost importance because IF WE DID NOT GIVE THEM TO HIM, HE WOULD NOT OF BEEN ABLE TO USE THEM. Simple as that. As for your absurd comment that we shouldn't have to look 20 years in the future to see the possible effects of a policy, that's immoral and irresponsible, something Bush claims to be against, as well as the man who instituted these particular policies, Reagan. Liberals are often accused of moral relativism - and yet the most glaring example in recent memory, that the killing of Iranian soldiers in a heinous manner is acceptable yet it isn't in the case of Kurdish rebels.....that is moral relativism, and the last 20 years of foreign policy have been based on that. Killing people with chemical weapons is always bad. No matter who the victim (I'd argue killing is always bad period, but I'm a pacifist, and that's a different, more complex argument which I can't make since it's 5 pm and my office is closing)....in morality, it's called a context free moral decision - the situation and environment is irrelevant to the morality of an action, because it's so immoral that it can never be justified.

You defended nothing. You simply deflected, and then praised yourself for defending so valiantly. Are you sure you're not Sean Hannity?

As for your article, it merely says that Saddam took a gamble, and lost. We shouldn't be invading people based on posturing. We shouldn't invade countries based on intelligence gleaned from posturing people. If Chalabi and Allawi had such "deep connections" into Iraq on which to base their intelligence reports, how come they didn't know what "all of the senior Iraqi leadership knew - that there were no weapons."?

-TheE-

[Psykos]

I have a good idea, how about we sit on our ass and let a mistake, Saddam getting weapons from us, not be rectified? How else do you suppose we deal with it?

Bush: Saddam I'm sorry we gave you weapons, please just leave us alone, since we are at fault.

I don't think so. You defend your country and rectify the situation. AS for Kerry, I think the dems could have done a HELLA lot better job that him for their presidential hopeful.

Has anyone heard about the story where Kerry and Edwards were in a Wendy's? Apparently Edwards and his wife always go to Wendy's on their Anniversary, and Kerry went along for a photo op -- while they were on the campaign trail -- Kerry didn't eat a bite inside the Wendy's and got back to his bus and had a meal provided by the local Yatch club. Give me a break.

Kerry, For the people.

Psykos

[Prestius]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Ilvane
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/

Enjoy.

-A

OMG! You don't say!!! THE BOSTON GLOBE IS A LIBERAL NEWSPAPER THAT HAS REPEATEDLY SUPPORTED JOHN KERRY???


Dear Ilvane,

Don't make me post equally stupid material from rushlimbaugh.com or dredgereport.com or swiftboatvets.com

Thanks.

Gee PB .. equating the Boston Globe to the Drudge Report or Rush is a pretty big leap .. they are hardly equivalents.

Oh fine then if you can't trust the Globe ..

Then how about CNN? http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/bush.national.ap/

Washington Dispatch?
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000557.html

Reuters?
http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6182194

New York Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/opinion/08kristof.html

Salt Lake Tribue?
http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_2410195

Seattle Post Intelligencer?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/189869_bushguard08.html

The truth hurts sometimes, doesn't it?

-P

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Nieninque
:clap:

Well put and welcome back

What country do you live in?

<<As for Saddam having links to terrorists, the one example given was the giving of money to terrorists in Palestine. WHILE I DO NOT SUPPORT WHAT HE ACTUALLY DID, this is inaccurate...he said he would support the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. This, while it allows suicide bombers to be free of financial worries for their families when they're gone, is not in and of itself a cause of suicide bombing. Think about it. If you're at the point where you're willing to blow yourself up to kill some Israelis - you're not gonna stop yourself because your family might have financial difficulties after you're gone. As a last point, this is no worse than the U.S. financially supporting guerilla groups throughout the whole of Latin America, the difference is, we claim that we never supported them, because we never gave them equipment. >>

E, that is a piss poor attempt at defending Saddam. He had ties with Hezbollah a terrorist organization and PAID FAMILIES OF TERRORISTS. That is called a TIE to terrorism. Stop trying to spin this for Saddam.

Have fun high fiving some more people in Africa, glad to hear you're having fun :)

[Hulkein]

Prestius, the records released aren't harmful to Bush.


The records also show Bush made a grade of 88 on total airmanship and a perfect 100 for flying without navigational instruments, operating a T-38 System and studying applied aerodynamics. Other scores ranged from 89 in flight planning to 98 in aviation physiology.

[Back]

Another site I like to check is FAIR.org. (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting)

A few select quotes from one of their latest articles.

If Only They Had Invented the Internet (http://www.fair.org/press-releases/rnc-fact-checking.html)


(The references to Kerry voting against body armor were particularly disingenuous, given that the $87 billion only included money for body armor at the insistence of congressional Democrats-- Army Times, 10/20/03.)


But overlooking distortions was the norm in television's coverage of the convention. When Dick Cheney spoke ( 9/1/04), he said of Kerry: "He declared at the Democratic Convention that he will forcefully defend America after we have been attacked.... We cannot wait for the next attack. We must do everything we can to prevent it and that includes the use of military force."

Kerry did say in that speech (7/29/04), "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response. " But he couldn't have meant that that was the only time military force might be required, since he had said earlier in the speech that "the only justification for going to war" is "to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent."


It's telling that when faced with real distortions, not on trivial matters of little consequence to voters or the campaign, but on life-or-death matters that are central to the presidential debate, most journalists become agnostics regarding the truth or falsity of the smears they pass along.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Prestius

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Ilvane
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/

Enjoy.

-A

OMG! You don't say!!! THE BOSTON GLOBE IS A LIBERAL NEWSPAPER THAT HAS REPEATEDLY SUPPORTED JOHN KERRY???


Dear Ilvane,

Don't make me post equally stupid material from rushlimbaugh.com or dredgereport.com or swiftboatvets.com

Thanks.

Gee PB .. equating the Boston Globe to the Drudge Report or Rush is a pretty big leap .. they are hardly equivalents.

Oh fine then if you can't trust the Globe ..

Then how about CNN? http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/bush.national.ap/

Washington Dispatch?
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000557.html

Reuters?
http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6182194

New York Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/opinion/08kristof.html

Salt Lake Tribue?
http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_2410195

Seattle Post Intelligencer?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/189869_bushguard08.html

The truth hurts sometimes, doesn't it?

-P

Dear Prestius-

The Boston Globe is in the right hand pocket of the Democratic Party.. especially this year since John Kerry is nominated for President.

If you don't realize this.. then you are stupid beyond words. Yes, I believe they are as bad as Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge. I would no longer watch Fox News to get the real truth as I would to read it from the Boston Globe.

Truth hurts sometimes, doesn't it.

[Prestius]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Prestius, the records released aren't harmful to Bush.


The records also show Bush made a grade of 88 on total airmanship and a perfect 100 for flying without navigational instruments, operating a T-38 System and studying applied aerodynamics. Other scores ranged from 89 in flight planning to 98 in aviation physiology.

Really?

"Documents that should have been written to explain gaps in President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service are missing from the military records released about his service in 1972 and 1973, according to regulations and outside experts."


"A six-month historical record of his 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, also turned over to the AP on Tuesday, shows some of the training Bush missed with his colleagues during that time.

It showed the unit joined a "24-hour active alert mission to safeguard against surprise attack" in the southern United States beginning on Oct. 6, 1972, a mission for which Bush was not present, according to his pay records."



"The newly released records do not include any from five categories of documents Bush's commanders had been required to keep in response to the gaps in Bush's training in 1972 and 1973. For example, National Guard commanders were required to perform an investigation whenever any pilot skipped a medical exam and forward the results up the Air Force chain of command. No such documents have surfaced"

[Wezas]

The one thing I got from that article....

A new website to look at.

Texans for Truth (http://texansfortruth.com/)

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Wezas
The one thing I got from that article....

A new website to look at.

Texans for Truth (http://texansfortruth.com/)

I never realized that hate sites had so much to offer. Thanks Wezas!

I found this site:

Kerry's Scary (http://www.kerrysscary.com/)

this one:

Winter Soldier (http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/)

and this one:

Crush Kerry (http://www.crushkerry.com/)

This one too!

The John Kerry Waffle Stack (http://www.geocities.com/estradaroger/johnkerry.html)

[CrystalTears]

You know I'd be more impressed if I saw more posts and threads regarding good things about Kerry rather than pointing out every single flaw of Bush.

I'm not a fan of everything Bush stands for, but I'm getting tired of hearing how some people feel that they have to bash our president instead of giving alternative and good reasons to vote for Kerry other than "because Bush sucks." That logic doesn't fly with me.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Hell, even that Lutheran pastor the other day gave me a high five Did you give him a look and make a big show of wiping your hand on something? That would've been hilarious.
Originally posted by Ilvane
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/

Enjoy.Two words: Honorable discharge. Unless you think you're smarter than every person in the National Guard, this line of discussion is dead. Same goes for you, Prestius.

And I love how when people who didn't serve with Kerry badmouth his record it's some big faux pas, but when people who didn't serve with Bush badmouth his record it's Gospel.

[Back]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
You know I'd be more impressed if I saw more posts and threads regarding good things about Kerry rather than pointing out every single flaw of Bush.

I'm not a fan of everything Bush stands for, but I'm getting tired of hearing how some people feel that they have to bash our president instead of giving alternative and good reasons to vote for Kerry other than "because Bush sucks." That logic doesn't fly with me.

Many accusations against Kerry from the Bush camp have been debunked over and over and over again, here, on these boards, with reputable sources cited.

I can only speak for myself when I say I definately think Kerry is the better man for the job. I’m at work and can’t really put any time into why I don’t think “the lesser of two evils” is a bad way to do things.

Later, however, or sometime in the near future, I agree CT, we should post the positive things about Kerry’s past, his stance on issues, and other reasons why we like him. Gotta finish my day at work, then its off to class.

[Hulkein]

Prestius, weren't those quotes you posted already public knowledge?

[Czeska]

Skimmed, and comments:
First of all.. I'm voting. I got the paperwork for my absentee ballot today, since I'll be in Europe on election day.
Secondly.. I could give a crap if Kerry didn't eat at Wendy's. Whatever. Bush is sitting in money, Kerry's sitting in money, WHO CARES? He could've just as easily grabbed a double with cheese and had the press say, "KERRY EATS FAST FOOD TO APPEAR 'COMMON'" So yeah, whatever.
Pick your issues. Take an on line quiz such as THIS ONE (http://selectsmart.com/president/) if you don't know the issues well.
And register. Go to THIS SITE (www.justvote.org ) if you're not already registered. You have until October 4.

If you can't do these two simple things, and you're legally able to vote in this country.. Hush it and have a lovely day.

[Edited on 9-8-2004 by Czeska]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Prestius
Oh fine then if you can't trust the Globe ..

Then how about CNN? http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/bush.national.ap/

Washington Dispatch?
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000557.html

Reuters?
http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6182194

New York Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/opinion/08kristof.html

Salt Lake Tribue?
http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_2410195

Seattle Post Intelligencer?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/189869_bushguard08.html

The truth hurts sometimes, doesn't it?

-P

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/bush.guard.ap/index.html

Looks like it may not have been the truth. I know that hurts you :yes:


Lines, a document expert and fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, pointed to a superscript -- a smaller, raised "th" in "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron" -- as evidence indicating forgery.

Microsoft Word automatically inserts superscripts in the same style as the two on the memos obtained by CBS, she said.

"I'm virtually certain these were computer generated," Lines said after reviewing copies of the documents at her office in Paradise Valley, Arizona

She produced a nearly identical document using her computer's Microsoft Word software.


"It just wouldn't happen," he said. "No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."


They looked to me like forgeries," said Rufus Martin. "I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years." Killian died in 1984.

[Edited on 9-10-2004 by Hulkein]

[Prestius]

Originally posted by Hulkein

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/bush.guard.ap/index.html

Looks like it may not have been the truth. I know that hurts you :yes:

[Edited on 9-10-2004 by Hulkein]

Nope ... if they're fakes, then they're fakes. The jury is still out - in the same article:

"CBS, which reported on the memos on its "60 Minutes" program, said its experts who examined the documents concluded that they were authentic. "

So .. we'll see.

-P

[Wezas]

http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=1034852&t=Business&c=31,1034 852

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

[TheEschaton]

E, that is a piss poor attempt at defending Saddam. He had ties with Hezbollah a terrorist organization and PAID FAMILIES OF TERRORISTS. That is called a TIE to terrorism. Stop trying to spin this for Saddam.

Sorry to dredge up old posts from a week back, but my internet accessibility is spotty at best. I'll try not to resurrect old topics all too often.

I just wanted to say: Is he tied to terrorists? Of course. Any more than America is tied to terrorists? Nope. Was it reason to use a massive land invasion to oust him from power.....?

....I think the answer is a resounding "Hell no!"

-TheE-