RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:No, I was very much against what Clinton did in Bosnia and Serbia. What he did was wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Why do you think I love Democrats and hate Republicans? I don't. I like just as many Republicans as I do Democrats... I'm just trying to get you to see that Democrats HAVE done some good things over the years, just like Republicans have. I don't know how that translates into me hating all Republicans... but whatever.

I'm not a big "Democrats=Evil/Republican=Righteous" guy. I hold contempt from BOTH parties. I disagree with Republicans on many social issues and Democrats on many fiscal issues. I am a Libertarian and want freedom on both ends. I don't want to settle for hinderances on one end and enjoy freedom on the other. I'm an Amercian. I want it ALL. The great experiment that is called the United States was a success because it proved to the world that we, as mankind, can live better and prosper more with very little government intervention. Do we really need more power-hungry people assuming a paternal role over us as if we are children?

....of course we now "enjoy"(TIC) more and more government control and look at where we're heading....to a nation of dependants that assumes very little, if not none at all, personal responsibility. I smoke. I will not sue when I get cancer. I can tear UP a McDonald's Double 1/4 Lber wth cheese, supersized with a Diet Coke, but I will not sue when I start gaining weight. I love hot chocolate, yet I will not sue the Swiss Miss chick when spill it on my 'nads rushing to work in the winter. etc., etc.


....and I actually used to like Joe Lieberman, but during the election he became more entangled with Gore and lost his individualism, IMO. I liked him because he WAS an individual. I also LOVE Zell Miller.

Well, if all that is the case, you've had a hell of a problem showing that on this board. You've come across to me and others as AS FAR right as Rochester/Schadenfreude is left.

nate jonesacc Wrote:Well, if all that is the case, you've had a hell of a problem showing that on this board. You've come across to me and others as AS FAR right as Rochester/Schadenfreude is left.

It's VERY easy to get wrapped up in that when debates turn into mutual personal attacks.

nate jonesacc Wrote:2) WMDs that constitute invading a country still have not been found. If they were found tomorrow, the pro-war case would obviously be boosted tremendously. However, until they are found, this war was completely wrong, and IMO, will be wrong no matter how many nukes they find (that's just because I'm a pacifist, not for any political reasons).

That's a difference on war. Whether they find em or not, throwing Saddam out of power and showing Iran and other nations what'll happen if they sponsor terrorist organizations that attack us, is greatly beneficial.

I don't think GWB is perfect on all issues. For example, right off, I think his immigration policy is 100% wrong. I believe that government should just have the necessaries, and that's it. A strong defense is one of the necessities..peace through strength, in these times, is the right way to go. I'm for lower taxes..in fact..I'd rather have a national sales tax instead of the income tax we have in place today. That wouldn't penalize middle-class families for trying to save $$$, and it'd greatly control government spending.

As someone who's in the middle class, what I hate is that I work all day..sometimes up to 70-80 hours a week, and have to give some of that hard-earned money to people who've sat on their butts all day drinking and watching TV. I hate handouts. I believe the Declaration of Independence said it best... life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness, not "Happiness handed out in government programs and checks". It's mostly that reason as to why I vote mostly on the GOP ticket. I have voted for Dems before though..especially if the GOP candidate was a Christian Coalition guy, because I think socially we don't need to be that uptight (see thread where I agreed with SC on Texas sodomy law). A CC guy, I feel, is just as big a threat to our freedoms as a Shadenfreude. The radical liberals and reactionist conservatives are the greatest threats to society IMO. The far left radicals tend to go towards socialism/communism, the far right more to almost a dictatorship of sorts. Neither is best for the country.

Why this gay school bothers me is not the fact that it's a gay school, but the fact that if I was in NY, my $$ would pay for an education that would support and nurture a lifestyle I oppose. That's not what I believe in, and I don't think any taxpayer with the same opinion should be forced to give up hard earned $$ for it. To me, that's a handout to gays. I'm against that. If it was private, it wouldn't bother me.

The Texas sodomy case also brings up this point. Sexual orientation/minority cases are going to be up in the SC a whole lot, as rarely has it been discussed. I think the SC will decide the same thing that it did with Brown vs. Board of Ed and other cases... seperate but equal..for public schools, is unconstitutional.

That's my $0.02. OUT

WPS

Calling, you might want to click the hyperlinks my sig. You seem to fall in line with us Libertarians.


Also, <a href='http://www.lp.org' target='_blank'>http://www.lp.org</a>

{The first link in the sig is a "News & Commentary" page and is updated daily.}

<a href='http://www.boortz.com/demsecrets.htm' target='_blank'>Democrat's Secret Plan for America....by Neal.</a>

These are the March 30 words of Donald Rumsfeld:

"We know where they are."

That's a lie. You can't parse it. He lied.

Anyone who spends four-and-a-half months looking for something doesn't know where it is.

Schadenfreude Wrote:These are the March 30 words of Donald Rumsfeld:

"We know where they are."

That's a lie. You can't parse it. He lied.

Anyone who spends four-and-a-half months looking for something doesn't know where it is.

What if they were moved? Someone could wake me up in the morning and I could state, "Hell yeah I know where my Jeep is".....but what if it was stolen? Would I be lying?
I have NO doubt that weapons were moved to Syria during the convoys that WERE documented(Convoys).


By the way, please provide a link to Rumsfeld's assertion.

BTW Shad, do you:


1: Deny the fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

2: Deny the fact that when UN inspectors were ousted from the country that there were tons of WMD's unaccounted for.

??????

I can hide something in my back damn YARD and you won't be able to find it. You APPARENTLY think it's impossible to hide weapons in a country the size of California. ....and they JUST found about 30 planes. You "Arm-Chair" Generals have no clue as to what it's like in the field. Don't act like experts.

Lie (noun)
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

or

1. Norwegian politician and first secretary-general of the United Nations (1946-1953). (Haha...Ok, back to serious)

Bush has not claimed this information to be false. The people who gave it to Bush (Blair's intelligence agencies) still stand by it. Until Bush claims that this information was false or goes back on his words (admits no attempt to obtain uranium), then it is not a lie. You have to prove that Bush intentionaly decieved people. No one has done that. Even if Blair says that the information is wrong, you have to prove that Bush knew it was wrong. If he was mis-informed he didn't lie, he misreported.

Its that simple.

Could someone link me to where Saddam helped Al Qaida?

<a href='http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/1048653833092.html' target='_blank'>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/...8653833092.html</a>

<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/</a>

<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83047,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83047,00.html</a>

<a href='http://www.restonweb.com/community/politicstalk/messages001010/7250.html' target='_blank'>http://www.restonweb.com/community/politic...01010/7250.html</a>

Two of those URLs are to Rupert Murdoch's Fox News. A third is to the Sydney Morning Herald, which Murdoch also owns.

Those publications should be taken with a grain of salt. Murdoch is prowar, and that view infects the media he owns.

Finally, the last report is simply a factual summation of the Bush administation's view. Take it for what it is worth.

Before I go further, we should probably reflect on the meaning of the word "link."

Is the PLO linked with the state of Israel because the respective leaders have met now and again and occasionally cooperated on a few things (as they have)?

Are the Yankees and the Mariners linked because the Bronx Bombers dealt Armando Benitez to Seattle?

It is easy to use the word "link." It's a convenient shorthand for making complicated stories understandable. But the word can be applied in all kinds of situations that far short of a "parternship," which is what pro war people are trying to imply when they throw around the word "link."

The reality is this: Ansar Al-Islam isn't Al Qaeda. Both are radical Islamist organizaitons that share some similar views on the world. But they aren't the same thing. Ansar's goals are, primarily, to impose a radical Islamist state in parts of Kurdistan.

Further, suppositions of a link between Saddam and Qaeda -- or even Ansar Al-Islam, a Kurdish movement -- are extremely tenuous. The Bush administration claims a link. But the evidence is mounting that, here again, it lied to the American public and the rest of the world about an important rationale for this war.

For instance, a UN committee concluded two months ago that it could find no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Here is a Radio Free Europe report that touches on the issue:

<a href='http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/08/12082003154550.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/08/...82003154550.asp</a>

Here is a Reuters report that touches on the issue:

<a href='http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3269522' target='_blank'>http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?...storyID=3269522</a>

The best read is possibly this, an op-ed piece that ran in the International Herald Tribune last month:

<a href='http://www.iht.com/articles/103441.html' target='_blank'>http://www.iht.com/articles/103441.html</a>

I can't help but conclude that this supposed Saddam-Qaeda link was just Bush administration hokum to get the American public behind the war.

It certainly appears that here again, the Bush administration lied to us.

God, is all the liberals do is *****?

And complain.

And whine about Bush.

Bush hasn't admitted false information, nor has Blair. Until someone proves it with extremely strong evidence (not going to happen) or Bush comes out and admits, he didn't lie. Its not that confusing. Now shut up, grow up, and get on with your life.

T-Monay820 Wrote:God, is all the liberals do is *****?

Yes.

T-Monay820 Wrote:And complain.

Yes.

T-Monay820 Wrote:And whine about Bush.

Yes.

Now, they're trying to blame the blackout on Bush. Pathetic. Just as Shad is.

For Dufus....otherwise known as Schadenfreude:

Quote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -----Edmund Burke

....guess Liberals AREN'T for human rights. Sheesh, am I the only one that figured as much?