Bush Bashing [Archive] - Page 4

Qikdraw

10-20-2005, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
The biggest blunder was failing to engage sufficient U.S. troops to capture or kill the mass of al-Qaida fighters in the later stages of the Afghan war.

Right, so we can agree that Bush took troops away from the war on terrorism to focus on Iraq, whixh has created more terrorism in teh world. I know I feel safer...

Also, the excessive U.S. focus on Iraq led to weak and inadequate responses to the greater challenges posed by North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear programs,

I agree with North Korea, however Iran claims its nuclear programs are entirely enrgy based, and there is zero proof otherwise. With that Iran is perfectly legal under all treaties and international law to research and build a nuclear energy program. The US and the EU are wrong in trying to force Iran to give up its nuclear energy program.

and diverted resources from the economic and diplomatic efforts needed to fight terrorism in its breeding grounds in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Very true. We pay Pakistan 100 million a month, are financing them buying billions more in military hardware for their "help" in fighting terrorism, yet they are a dictatorship, have human rights abuses, have WMDs, and also support terrorism...

There is definately something wrong with this picture.

Qikdraw

curmudgeon

10-23-2005, 07:26 PM

1. A president (of any country) cannot necessarily say in public what the real agenda is. A president probably can't say #2 below and certainly not #3.

2. The terrorist problem is not limited to al-Qaida. The problem is radical Islam.

3. The goal is not to democratize Iraq out of idealism. The goal is to begin to change the culture of the middle east to reduce the danger from radical Islam. It has also been noted that democracies do not tend to attack one another.

4. Iraq is the most logical place to attempt a change in the middle east.

5. Iraq is at least one of the most secular and best educated of the Islamic countries. Iran would probably be in this regard, but lacked some of the other advantages -- #6, for example.

6. The worldwide consensus of the intelligence community that they likely posessed WMD provided some "cover" in deposing Saddam. Even if they did not possess WMD, they were in volation of the UN resolutions with regard to inspections, accounting for the ones the had posessessed, etc.

7. Whether or not the war has been badly run as some believe remains to be seen. The biggest problem was not the often-ascribed lack of planning, but the fact that the Defense and State Departments did not agree on a plan. Their ideas were often diametrically opposed and the administration alternated between them. (That was unarguably bad!)

8. This whole approach to alter the culture of the Mid East may or may not work. The idea was initially suggested by an Englishman whose name I do not recall. There appears to already be some spillover effects in Lebanon, Egypt, and Libya -- maybe even a beginning in Saudi Arabia. The fact is, though, that nobody seems to have come up with any other ideas that are likely to have any chance of altering the religious imperialism that is behind the terrorism.

10. Simply ignoring the threat of further attacks is not an option. It is hard to imagine how naive someone would have to be not to realize what a colossal blunder that would be. The world is a much smaller place than it used to be and for the U.S. to hunker down between two oceans no longer protects us.

hm0504

10-24-2005, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by curmudgeon:
1. A president (of any country) cannot necessarily say in public what the real agenda is. A president probably can't say #2 below and certainly not #3.

I generally agree with the first sentence, but there is also the matter of just how much a president can validly mislead. I think Bush and company vastly overstepped their "presidential right to mislead" in the case of Iraq.

Originally posted by curmudgeon:
2. The terrorist problem is not limited to al-Qaida. The problem is radical Islam.

I agree absolutely.

Originally posted by curmudgeon:
3. The goal is not to democratize Iraq out of idealism. The goal is to begin to change the culture of the middle east to reduce the danger from radical Islam. It has also been noted that democracies do not tend to attack one another.

Great goal. But I'm not sure invasion will help or hinder that goal.

Pakistan became a democracy in 1971 after 23 years of military rule (which quickly followed independence from Britain). Then, in 1999, it went back to military dictatorship. And yes, radical Islam is still alive and kicking there. I can also think of another democracy, one based in Western European culture, that is over 200 years old, and even today the power of religious fundamentalists is an ongoing issue. I hope the American military plans to stay in Iraq for 50 to 60 years to ensure democracy doesn't get overturned there and has a good chance to take root.

Democracy is great, but a taste of democracy is no guarantee of a permanent move to a secular state.

Take a peak at the new Iraq constitution -- looks like the mullahs are the big winners to me.

Originally posted by curmudgeon:
4. Iraq is the most logical place to attempt a change in the middle east.

Well, largely thanks to Hilary Clinton and Madeleine Albright, women's political rights in Kuwait have taken a big leap forward.

Originally posted by curmudgeon:
5. Iraq is at least one of the most secular and best educated of the Islamic countries. Iran would probably be in this regard, but lacked some of the other advantages -- #6, for example.

Yes, one of the benefits of Saddam Hussein's rule (and no, I'm not saying he wasn't a cold-blooded killer), was that he promoted a secular state and higher education.

Originally posted by curmudgeon:
6. The worldwide consensus of the intelligence community that they likely posessed WMD provided some "cover" in deposing Saddam. Even if they did not possess WMD, they were in volation of the UN resolutions with regard to inspections, accounting for the ones the had posessessed, etc.

No, not even the CIA believed Iraq had any meaningful amounts of WMDs. The only ones of note who absolutely insisted that Iraq had dangerous WMDs was the White House "intelligentsia".

Originally posted by curmudgeon:
7. Whether or not the war has been badly run as some believe remains to be seen. The biggest problem was not the often-ascribed lack of planning, but the fact that the Defense and State Departments did not agree on a plan. Their ideas were often diametrically opposed and the administration alternated between them. (That was unarguably bad!)

Actually, the post-"Mission Accomplished" part of the war was terribly run -- still is.

Originally posted by curmudgeon:
8. This whole approach to alter the culture of the Mid East may or may not work. The idea was initially suggested by an Englishman whose name I do not recall. There appears to already be some spillover effects in Lebanon, Egypt, and Libya -- maybe even a beginning in Saudi Arabia. The fact is, though, that nobody seems to have come up with any other ideas that are likely to have any chance of altering the religious imperialism that is behind the terrorism.

Hey, I have no doubt that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is what precipated Pakistan's turn to democracy back in 1971.

Originally posted by curmudgeon:
10. Simply ignoring the threat of further attacks is not an option. It is hard to imagine how naive someone would have to be not to realize what a colossal blunder that would be. The world is a much smaller place than it used to be and for the U.S. to hunker down between two oceans no longer protects us.

Intentionally deceiving the public about non-existent threats is not an option either and simply worsens the situation. Though it is hard to predict how the future will unfold, it would seem to be that with blundering of the occupation, that Iraq is becoming much like Iran, the massive deficits spent on the war thus far and more to come, the U.S. is in a far worse military position that it was at the turn of the year 2000.

curmudgeon

10-24-2005, 07:36 PM

hm0505: I'd like to go through and post point by point, but I don't think that will be readable.

1. The problem isn't so much how much a President can validly "mislead" as the issue of how to avoid creating problems with too much revelation. I have no doubt at all that for a U.S. Pres to state a goal of changing the Islamic culture would create huge foreign problems. Unfortunately it is not possible to say it domestically without telling the world.

The mullahs may appear to be bigger winners than many would like. The fact is, though, that the whole separation of church and state issue in the U.S. has been grossly distorted. The 1st amendment really only spoke to a national religion. Indeed, several of the original states entered the union with official state religions.

The alternative to invasion would be to wait for something to happen spontaneously. The likelihood of anything internal succeeding without outside assistance would be slim. The likelihood of anyone trusting that the U.S. would assist an internal effort was pretty well zilched when we didn't keep our promises after Gulf War I.

And thanks to the Bush admin, women's rights in Afghanistan have taken a big leap forward.

Actually I think Iraq was relatively more secular even before Saddam.

I would need some support for your statement that the no one in the inteligency community believed Iraq possessed WMD. Your assertion does not constitute proof.

I don't say it hasn't been badly run, only that it may not be as bad as many say. Again you merely assert it has. My main point here, however, is that the real problem was the differences between State and Defense. When two departments are in charge, nobody is in charge. Grante that is a big problem.

I have no idea why you keep referring to events more than 30 years ago in Pakistan. (Actually, I know very well that it's because you lack current arguments, but from a logical standpoint, I fail to see what connection it is that you imagine)

jon71

10-24-2005, 09:10 PM

In Pakistan a democratically elected president was ousted by general Musharif, who is now a dictator. In Iraq we went from a modern secular society with a military dictator in charge to terrorism (thanks to Bush) and mayhem and will likely end up with a theocratic dictator in charge.
While changing the mideast is a nice enough notion on its own who ever said war was the only, or the best approach. What about diplomacy and/or economic pressure. It may not be as fast or dramatic but it doesn't waste thousands of American lives either and the end results will likely be more stable and lasting anyways.
As to the states with a state religion that was radically unconstitutional, they just weren't called on it. Keep in mind our founding forefathers said "all men are created equal" and practiced slavery so they had a big habit of saying one thing and doing another. Our seperation of church and state should, imho go further that it does now. Any interaction is detrimental to both the church and the state. The less the church meddles in state business and the less the state meddles in church business the better off we are.

Foxnaturist

10-28-2005, 04:47 PM

I never served in the military, and was prepared to relocate to Canada during Vietnam (I speak fluent French, and my father, who served in WWII in the South Pacific, had no problem with my position).

Dad, who was in cryptography (code breaking) might be visually mistaken for a conservative Republican; however, he wouldn't _____ on Bush if the man was on fire.

I personally have no use for a "leader" who doesn't even have command of the English language. Harvard? I can't even imagine Dubya getting a passing grade in a UW comp. class.

The Iraq war was a mistake (not to mention a sham). These people will continue slaughtering each other until the end of time. Democracy cannot be foisted upon a people; it must be desired from within.

Naturist Mark

10-28-2005, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Foxnaturist:

I personally have no use for a "leader" who doesn't even have command of the English language. Harvard? I can't even imagine Dubya getting a passing grade in a UW comp. class.

George Bush is not unintelligent (his mediocre grades were more due to lack of application than lack of ability) and he used to be able to speak clearly in complex sentences and present thoughts with precision and nuance. Check out this video (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1019.htm) of Bush in a gubernatorial debate in 1994 and compare it to today's W. Something bad has definitely happened to George's cognitive abilities. I discuss it in this (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/5080062463/r/2970009083#2970009083) previous post.

-Mark

missouriboy

10-29-2005, 04:34 AM

"Democracy cannot be foisted upon a people; it must be desired from within."

That's the best assessment of the situation I've seen lately. Applying a particular solution to a non-existent problem is folly, which fairly describes where our administration is right now. The whole premise of bringing democracy to the Islamic middle-east is a non-starter, IMHO.

hm0504

10-29-2005, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Foxnaturist:
"Democracy cannot be foisted upon a people; it must be desired from within."

Foxnaturist, well put. And noting that was your first post, welcome to CFF.

hm0504

10-29-2005, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by curmudgeon:
...
The mullahs may appear to be bigger winners than many would like. The fact is, though, that the whole separation of church and state issue in the U.S. has been grossly distorted. The 1st amendment really only spoke to a national religion. Indeed, several of the original states entered the union with official state religions.

If the original goal was turning Iraq into a secular democracy, rather than a theocratic state with a parliamentary facade, then the U.S. has not succeeded. As I said, Iraq is now basically in Iran's pocket.

Originally posted by curmudgeon:
The alternative to invasion would be to wait for something to happen spontaneously. The likelihood of anything internal succeeding without outside assistance would be slim. The likelihood of anyone trusting that the U.S. would assist an internal effort was pretty well zilched when we didn't keep our promises after Gulf War I.

Great, I think it would it have been better to leave Saddam in power anyway. Yes, he was/is a cold-blooded monster, but what's the point of wasting thousands of American, British, and other lives to replace one autocrat with another. The no-fly zone kept Saddam's ability to persecute under control and should have stayed the policy.

Originally posted by curmudgeon:
And thanks to the Bush admin, women's rights in Afghanistan have taken a big leap forward.

You may recall that Afghanistan was an international effort, not just a U.S. one. I would have been happy to invade Afghanistan well before 9/11.

Originally posted by curmudgeon:
...
I would need some support for your statement that the no one in the inteligency community believed Iraq possessed WMD. Your assertion does not constitute proof.

What I said was "No, not even the CIA believed Iraq had any meaningful amounts of WMDs. The only ones of note who absolutely insisted that Iraq had dangerous WMDs was the White House "intelligentsia".
" which leaves open the possibility Saddam might have had a vial of something a freezer. If a country is unser continuous air surveillance for years, with inspectors going here and there, it would be near impossible to maintain any sort of meaningful WMD program.

As Richard Clarke, Bush's former counterterrorism czar, said in 2004 March "The people in Rumsfeld's office and in Wolfowitz's operation cherry-picked intelligence to select the intelligence to support their views. They never did the due diligence on the intelligence that professional intelligence analysts are trained to do. [The OSP] would go through the intelligence reports including the ones that the CIA was throwing out. They stitched it together they would send it out, send it over to Cheney. All the stuff that a professional would have thrown out."

Originally posted by curmudgeon:
I have no idea why you keep referring to events more than 30 years ago in Pakistan. (Actually, I know very well that it's because you lack current arguments, but from a logical standpoint, I fail to see what connection it is that you imagine)

I mention Pakistan because Americans seem to forget that democracies have come and gone in the Middle East for decades. If Americans want to ensure democracy stays in Iraq, they had better be prepared to stay several decades. Seems to me my arguments as a whole are quite current indeed.

Foxnaturist

10-29-2005, 01:53 PM

Foxnaturist, well put. And noting that was your first post, welcome to CFF.

Thank you. My pleasure. I have a wide and varied life where peace and government are concerned.

hm0504

10-29-2005, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Foxnaturist:
I have a wide and varied life where peace and government are concerned.

Interesting -- can you tell us more (no need to relate anything you don't want to).

KirkOntario

10-29-2005, 05:14 PM

These people will continue slaughtering each other until the end of time. Democracy cannot be foisted upon a people; it must be desired from within.

One wonders why 'these people' have voted twice now in greater numbers than do American citizens for this democracy that is being 'foisted' upon them. I think Iraqis are as just as capable as any other people of understanding democracy and freedom.

usuallylurk

10-29-2005, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
I'm not sure, but I think Bush can make anyone he wants VP...course, I don't see Cheney stepping down except in the case of illness.

The 25th Amendment - sometimes called the "Mrs. Wilson amendment" - calls for several things, but the key indicator is to fill a vacancy in the office of Vice President. There have been numerous vacancies in the VP position through history, but it was used when Spiro Agnew resigned from office after his corruption conviction (heh, heh) and Nixon chose Gerald Ford to be VP. Ford later became President and he chose Nelson Rockefeller as his VP.

President nominates someone - who must be constitutionally eligible for the Presidency - and approval by both houses of Congress is required.

Reference to "Mrs. Wilson" -- the 25th also calls for temporary or permanent removal of the President due to disability. Dr. Jefferson spelt out the process for removal of a President due to resignation, death, or impeachment conviction, but he forgot about disability (and he isn't able to resign). This happened when Woodrow Wilson had a crippling stroke and for around a year, his wife was, in essence, running the country.

If there is a conflict where the President says he IS able to continue and the VP-acting President says he isn't, Congress must convene for a "showdown vote" to settle the matter.

The Wilson event wasn't the only circumstance; Andrew Johnson took over after the Lincoln assassination and was totally unsuited for the Presidency -- the country would have benefitted if he could have been removed by a Vice President. After Dwight Eisenhower's heart attack, Richard Nixon took over the acting Presidency, but without the support of a Constitutional provision. And when Lyndon Johnson assumed the White House in 1963 -- and already had suffered a major heart attack -- the next-in-line for the office was Speaker McCormick- in his late 70s.

The VP is important in the nuclear age -- he serves on the National Security Council and would take over if the President were unable to fulfill his duties.

gormenghast20

10-30-2005, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

These people will continue slaughtering each other until the end of time. Democracy cannot be foisted upon a people; it must be desired from within.

One wonders why 'these people' have voted twice now in greater numbers than do American citizens for this democracy that is being 'foisted' upon them. I think Iraqis are as just as capable as any other people of understanding democracy and freedom. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't forget that a greater percentage of Iraqis voted in this past election than did Americans in the last presidential election...all in the face of terrorist threat and violence.

Bob S.

10-30-2005, 01:27 PM

Albinus:"You may recall that Afghanistan was an international effort, not just a U.S. one. I would have been happy to invade Afghanistan well before 9/11."

Iraq was an international effort as well. We did not go in alone. We had allies, some with troops, some with money. Iraq had some other issues going in. The $1.8 billion Oil for Food scandal (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/10/27/volcker051027.html) had some interesting pockets. Namely Jean-Bernard Merrimee, whow was France's UN ambassador and Vladimir Zhirinovsky, head of Ruissia's Liberal Democratic Party. And guess what? Both of these countries opposed the war. Was it due to these high-ranking politicians who were getting money from Saddam?

Albinus, with suggesting that you would have been for an invasion of Afganistan pre 9-11, you are understanding Bush a bit more. So what reason would you have used? That they were abusive to their people?

Albinus:"If Americans want to ensure democracy stays in Iraq, they had better be prepared to stay several decades."

I am prepared to stay several decades. I knew going into the war that we were going to be in there for a long time. Five years at the earliest just to get the country back on its feet.

Bob S.

Qikdraw

10-30-2005, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Iraq was an international effort as well. We did not go in alone. We had allies, some with troops, some with money.

Many of those "allies" where only there because of deals the Bush admin gave these countries. So not allies in truth, but mearly opportunists.

Iraq had some other issues going in. The $1.8 billion Oil for Food scandal (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/10/27/volcker051027.html) had some interesting pockets. Namely Jean-Bernard Merrimee, whow was France's UN ambassador and Vladimir Zhirinovsky, head of Ruissia's Liberal Democratic Party. And guess what? Both of these countries opposed the war. Was it due to these high-ranking politicians who were getting money from Saddam?

How many US companies were involved as well? How many US owned foriegn companies were involved?

How many US owned companies have profited from war?

I am prepared to stay several decades. I knew going into the war that we were going to be in there for a long time. Five years at the earliest just to get the country back on its feet.

By what right are you prepared to stay? By what right to you play with the lives of a soveriegn nation's people? In actual fact YOU are not prepared to do anything, but allow others to lay down their lives so you can make nice sound bites on how you support the war. Very typical neo-con attitude unfortunately, and follows right along with how Bush & co think. Its a black mark on America that some people here think that way.

Qikdraw

OZJames

10-30-2005, 08:06 PM

TRY THIS -

1- Go to http://www.google.com

2- Type in " Failure " , without the quotes

3- Instead of hitting " Search " hit " I'm feeling Lucky "

4- See what comes up!

5- Tell your friends before the people at Google fix it

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <span class="ev_code_RED">JAMES</span> http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

jon71

10-30-2005, 09:28 PM

Good point Quickdraw. Unless Bob. S. in active duty military his willingness to stay doesn't mean much. I for one do not wish to see my fellow countrymen die for nothing in a failed war that was began for lies. Too many good people are leaving behing grieving spouses and children because this administration doesn't want to admit it was wrong. Then there is the 11 or 12 thousand Americans permanently wounded (missing limbs etc.) and tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians. To top it all off this war is creating more terrorism, not deterring it. Our nation is far less secure than it was five years ago. We stayed in Vietnam for years because politicians didn't want to admit failure. How many thousands of Americans died needlessly then? How many more now?

KirkOntario

10-31-2005, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
By what right are you prepared to stay? By what right to you play with the lives of a soveriegn nation's people?
Qikdraw

By what right? The democractically elected government of Iraq will decide how long Americans stay. I doubt it will be more than one or two years more. The insurgency is not winning. Iraqis are setting up their own government and those who want a stable government far outweigh those who want chaos.

jon71

10-31-2005, 07:11 AM

The "democratically elected" govt. of Iraq has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to say how long American troops will stay. The American people via congress will decide that. Our current elected officials are planning on a decade or more. Since Republicans will be massacred in the '06 elections that may be (hopefully) cut very short.

namedun

10-31-2005, 09:50 AM

I dunno about the Republicans getting massacred; I tend to think of Republican voters as the abused dog that will always return to the owner who beats it. In fact it sometimes seems like the agreed upon philosophy is "if conservatism didn't work last time, we'll just have to be even more conservative the next time around"

Boreas

10-31-2005, 11:53 AM

gormenghast20

10-31-2005, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by jon71:
The "democratically elected" govt. of Iraq has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to say how long American troops will stay. The American people via congress will decide that. Our current elected officials are planning on a decade or more. Since Republicans will be massacred in the '06 elections that may be (hopefully) cut very short.

Dream on! What elections have the Democrats won lately? Very few I would believe...their screeching liberalism is too far out of the mainstream to succeed. They will need to come back a bit to the people...and quit pushing forth radicals like Dr. Dean...for them to find any success.

hm0504

10-31-2005, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Albinus:"You may recall that Afghanistan was an international effort, not just a U.S. one. I would have been happy to invade Afghanistan well before 9/11."

Iraq was an international effort as well. We did not go in alone. We had allies, some with troops, some with money. Iraq had some other issues going in. The $1.8 billion Oil for Food scandal (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/10/27/volcker051027.html) ...

You mean allies like this one http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ?:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/I-warned-Bush-about...0/1130607134051.html (http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/I-warned-Bush-about-Iraq-Italys-PM/2005/10/30/1130607134051.html)

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Albinus, with suggesting that you would have been for an invasion of Afganistan pre 9-11, you are understanding Bush a bit more. So what reason would you have used? That they were abusive to their people?

I have been agreeable to invading Afghanistan well before Bush II, though I think the zenith of my readiness would have been in at the beginning of 2001 when the Taliban embarked on a mass destruction of archaeological treasures in order stop the worshipping of "false idols". More to the point, the Taliban and Al Qaeda were a significant threat to the West -- unlike Iraq. Also, the Taliban -- possible one of the most insane and cruel regimes in world history -- were put in power by the West (we used to call them "freedom fighters" when they were displacing the Soviet Union.) Given Afghanistan's significant progress in democracy and women's rights in the 50 years prior to the installation of the Tabliban, it was well past the time for the West to undo its damage to that region.

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Albinus:"If Americans want to ensure democracy stays in Iraq, they had better be prepared to stay several decades."

I am prepared to stay several decades. I knew going into the war that we were going to be in there for a long time. Five years at the earliest just to get the country back on its feet.

Bob S.
Glad to hear it. I am, however, not under the impression that most Americans are ready to spend several decades occupying Iraq -- a task which is going to get steadily more difficult as Iran consolidates its grip on Iraq and the Americans become less useful as a tool for stifling the Sunni Arab insurgency.

hm0504

10-31-2005, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by namedun:
I dunno about the Republicans getting massacred; I tend to think of Republican voters as the abused dog that will always return to the owner who beats it. In fact it sometimes seems like the agreed upon philosophy is "if conservatism didn't work last time, we'll just have to be even more conservative the next time around"

It will be interesting to see whether the next Republican Presidential candidate is a neo-con or a moderate. Personally, I'd like to see John McCain get in. Unfortunately, Bush will likely kill any possibilities for McCain -- unless McCain choose to take a Democrat for his V.P.

gormenghast20

10-31-2005, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Iraq was an international effort as well. We did not go in alone. We had allies, some with troops, some with money.

Many of those "allies" where only there because of deals the Bush admin gave these countries. So not allies in truth, but mearly opportunists.

And how many weren't there because they had their hands in Saddam's pockets?

Iraq had some other issues going in. The $1.8 billion Oil for Food scandal (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/10/27/volcker051027.html) had some interesting pockets. Namely Jean-Bernard Merrimee, whow was France's UN ambassador and Vladimir Zhirinovsky, head of Ruissia's Liberal Democratic Party. And guess what? Both of these countries opposed the war. Was it due to these high-ranking politicians who were getting money from Saddam?

How many US companies were involved as well? How many US owned foriegn companies were involved?

How many US owned companies have profited from war?

If Iraq has to be rebuilt why shouldn't companies from the country doing all the heavy lifting (liberating Iraq) have the business? Do you even realize how long a process it would be to take bids on a project of this size? Years...do you think the Iraqi poeple want to sit by for years for their country to be rebuilt? Give it to companies who have the size and assets to do the job...that being said, if Halliburton (or any other contractor) is overcharging on their service they should have their butts thrown in jail.

I am prepared to stay several decades. I knew going into the war that we were going to be in there for a long time. Five years at the earliest just to get the country back on its feet.

By what right are you prepared to stay? By what right to you play with the lives of a soveriegn nation's people? In actual fact YOU are not prepared to do anything, but allow others to lay down their lives so you can make nice sound bites on how you support the war. Very typical neo-con attitude unfortunately, and follows right along with how Bush & co think. Its a black mark on America that some people here think that way.

I love this argument...how a pacifist can call someone a coward for supporting the war just because they haven't been "over there." That's like saying anyone who doesn't support the war is cowardly...I don't think that's the case...you either support the war or you don't. I guess all the Representatives and Senators who voted for military action are cowards also. And what about F. Roosevelt? Was he a coward according to your viewpoint? He sent thousands to their deaths in Europe without our country being directly threatened by Germany. No one twisted anyone's arms to join the military, I would imagine most are there because they want to perform a service for their country. I can't believe someone would join the armed forces and not understand that one day they might be under hostile fire. It's horrible that so many are killed and maimed, but I don't feel that their deaths have been in vain...the Iraqis are now out from under the thumb of a brutal dictator and thousands of murderers have been killed. If you get down to it, the U.S. Marines have liberated more people than all the peacekeeping missions put forth by the UN in its history. If you are a member of the armed services you HAVE to do your duty as your country sees it. If this duty is brought about by nefarious means, then that is a situation that HAS to be resolved. I've read on here where some feel it was up to the Iraqis themselves to liberate themselves? Exactly how were they going to do that? It's one thing for Gandhi to have shoved the British out of India peacefully...because the British weren't a murderous/genocidal regime. Iraq would've taken what it would have taken to liberate the Germans under Hitler...either outside intervention or a military coup. It was pure luck that Saddam was from a tribe of the smallest majority...that way they had the most to lose by letting up on the other two majorities. It was idiotic to justify this invasion/liberation on one point...as I can see it there were several reasons to invade Iraq...why not spell them out??? As for the argument that there were no WMDs...you give me a tractor trailer (although I believe a simple van would be big enough to hold enough biologicals to kill tens of thousands), a couple of years with which to hide/bury/send out of the country, an area the size of California (with perhaps the surrounding states being areas I can send my WMDs to) and see if you can find it. If the US governement is so underhanded, why WEREN'T WMDs found?

Another thing is that Iraq violated the cease-fire signed at the end of the first Gulf War...that ALONE warranted military action.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is a natural manure.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Foxnaturist

10-31-2005, 04:11 PM

Interesting -- can you tell us more (no need to relate anything you don't want to).[/QUOTE]

Sure. My formative years were influenced by a father who was quite involved in municipal politics, and I saw him take on several less-than-scupulous politicians and win. He was also one of this nations top contract negotiators in the area of Naval military electronics. Thus, I got to rub shoulders with people high up in that area of the military and civil service.

I also got to see how the military contract business was conducted ~ not always to the lowest bidder or the one with the best product. I'm not suggesting dad was on the take, simply that I always had good Christmases and summer vacations.

We had many discussions and I listened to many stories about government officials and how the military operates.

Even now, in his retirement years, while one might visually mistake dad for a conservative Republican, he wouldn't urinate on Bush if Dubya was on fire.

He's absolutely livid about the Wilson/Plame affair. For a man who operated at high levels of secrecy, "outing" the identity of an agent is high treason. He knows that someone in the White House knows something.

NudeAl

10-31-2005, 04:28 PM

It will be interesting to see whether the next Republican Presidential candidate is a neo-con or a moderate. Personally, I'd like to see John McCain get in. Unfortunately, Bush will likely kill any possibilities for McCain -- unless McCain choose to take a Democrat for his V.P.

Albinus

I would love to see McCain get it but he has Pi$$ed off to many in his own party to ever get the nom., though I think he would be perfect for the job. I think the next one whoever he is needs to be a uniter one who is middle of the road and both sides can live with. Enough of this devisive crap.

Mountain Goat

10-31-2005, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by OZJames:
5- Tell your friends before the people at Google fix it
<span class="ev_code_RED">JAMES</span> http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

It is not a loophole but messing with how the Google search engine works. I have heard that Google is not really keen to interfere with this either - as once they do, it sets a precedence and a political bias.

Apparently all you need to do is get your website and your friends' website linking to a site, with the words in heading for the link. The more connections there are between words and links causes the Google system to bring it up when a search is done.

There was a classic joke doing the same with "Weapons of Mass Destruction" last year, alas it has been superceded by more recent pages. It used to go here (http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/).

Mountain Goat

jon71

10-31-2005, 05:16 PM

Anyone can look at the polls and see how Bush's approval rating is deservedly in the toilet. Add to that multiple ethical and legal scandals hitting Republicans. Bush promised a new standard for the White House and delivered. It is the least moral or ethical in history. '06 is looking to good for the Democrats like '94 was for the Republicans. The fools who gave Bush a blank check on Iraq will be nicely thinned out. Can't happen too soon.

NudeTopher

10-31-2005, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
The "democratically elected" govt. of Iraq has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to say how long American troops will stay. The American people via congress will decide that. Our current elected officials are planning on a decade or more. Since Republicans will be massacred in the '06 elections that may be (hopefully) cut very short.

Dream on! What elections have the Democrats won lately? Very few I would believe...their screeching liberalism is too far out of the mainstream to succeed. They will need to come back a bit to the people...and quit pushing forth radicals like Dr. Dean...for them to find any success. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">I just adore these neo-cons.Instead of thinking about that which they parrot they just trot out the offical talking points.

Dr. Howard Dean a radical? ROFLMBBO!!!
Do you know anything more then his name?
-As Gov. he was a fiscal conservative; a concept that your (s)elected president doesn't quite grasp.
-As Gov. he was actually a social moderate.
-As Gov. he went out of his way to seek ways to work with the opposition party. Can anyone imagine Bush seeking bipartisen support for anything but an invasion based on lies?
-As a physician he against the senseless suffering and death imposed by a war based upon lies.</span>
<span class="ev_code_RED">Please explain exactly how you have come to believe that Dr. Dean is a radical?</span>

Boreas

10-31-2005, 06:26 PM

"Dream on! What elections have the Democrats won lately? Very few I would believe...their screeching liberalism is too far out of the mainstream to succeed. They will need to come back a bit to the people...and quit pushing forth radicals like Dr. Dean...for them to find any success."

And screeching conservatism or neo-conservatism is mainstream??????

Argofan

10-31-2005, 06:39 PM

Your right that the democrats have had trouble winning and perhaps will have to make some changes to policies to succeed, I find it interesting that someone in Northern Canada would comment on this liberlism, knowing that what the democrats stand for in the U.S. is basically what the conservatives stand for in Ontario, it's just an interesting point of view.

Boreas

10-31-2005, 07:14 PM

Well I did live in Toronto during Mike Harris' reign. I have a few opinions on that! I now am dealing with Gordon Campbell.

So, I am not sure what you are saying exactly. I do have some very strong views about neo-liberalism/neo-conservative ideology.

Is the GTA still the centre of the universe?

Bob S.

10-31-2005, 07:15 PM

jon:"Unless Bob. S. in active duty military his willingness to stay doesn't mean much."

So because I opted to make child care my occupation, I can't speak up for what I beleive? The Military would not have taken me anyway. Too many health problems. Currently, my sister is serving in Iraq not too far from Fallujah. I support her mission. My cousin was in Iraq last year somewhere in the west. I supported his mission as well.

Qik and jon, my right to speak up is guarenteed by my being an American citizen. I choose to support the war and knew beforehand that it was going to be a long stay in Iraq. As I told Albinus, I am prepared to support my troops staying in Iraq for decades or for however long they need to be over there. I am prepared to support any politician that supports that goal.

Albinus:"I think the zenith of my readiness would have been in at the beginning of 2001 when the Taliban embarked on a mass destruction of archaeological treasures in order stop the worshipping of "false idols"."

So destruction of "archaeological treasures" is a good enough reason for regime change?

Bob S.

jon71

10-31-2005, 07:45 PM

Bob I'm not questioning your right to have an opinion I was and do question the statement "I am willing to stay". You aren't the one risking your life for a pack of lies. I hope everyone is watching "Dead Wrong" on CNN. It explains all the lies of the Bush admin. to start an unjust and unnecessary war.

kraut4191

10-31-2005, 08:18 PM

For 65 years (give or take) Russia attempted to impose it's way of life and government on other nations, even resorting to war to convert them. For all of those years we fought them every inch of the way any way we could because we thought our way was better. At least for us. Does anyone else see a parallel here? Can we really be so arrogant that we believe everybody else should adopt our way? And we will impose democracy by force if necessary? It is said that if we do not learn from history we shall be doomed to relive it.

KirkOntario

11-01-2005, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by hm0504:
It will be interesting to see whether the next Republican Presidential candidate is a neo-con or a moderate. Personally, I'd like to see John McCain get in. Unfortunately, Bush will likely kill any possibilities for McCain -- unless McCain choose to take a Democrat for his V.P.

Bush won't be running. Why would he 'kill' any possibility that McCain will get in?

KirkOntario

11-01-2005, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by kraut4191:
For 65 years (give or take) Russia attempted to impose it's way of life and government on other nations, even resorting to war to convert them. For all of those years we fought them every inch of the way any way we could because we thought our way was better. At least for us. Does anyone else see a parallel here? Can we really be so arrogant that we believe everybody else should adopt our way? And we will impose democracy by force if necessary? It is said that if we do not learn from history we shall be doomed to relive it.

Yes but their way of life was clearly not better. And the question is: Which way of life is best? How ought man to live? It is not arrogant to strive for what is good and to oppose what is bad.

KirkOntario

11-01-2005, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by jon71: The fools who gave Bush a blank check on Iraq will be nicely thinned out. Can't happen too soon.

In that case, their will be a lot of thinning of Democratic ranks won't there since the fools included most of the Democratic party who you never seem to include in telling the 'lies' about WMD. (Bill Clinton said there were WMD and he believed it and had every reason to believe it was true.)

11-01-2005, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

In that case, their will be a lot of thinning of Democratic ranks won't there since the fools included most of the Democratic party who you never seem to include in telling the 'lies' about WMD. (Bill Clinton said there were WMD and he believed it and had every reason to believe it was true.)

But Bill didn't go kill a hundred thousand people with his belief. He didn't go into Iraq because he knew it would turn into the mess we have today. Ditto for Daddy Bush.

Naturist Mark

11-01-2005, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Bush won't be running.

Are you sure?

-Mark

hm0504

11-01-2005, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71: The fools who gave Bush a blank check on Iraq will be nicely thinned out. Can't happen too soon.

In that case, their will be a lot of thinning of Democratic ranks won't there since the fools included most of the Democratic party who you never seem to include in telling the 'lies' about WMD. (Bill Clinton said there were WMD and he believed it and had every reason to believe it was true.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While it would be near impossible to be absolutely sure there were no WMD, the chances of Iraq having any significant WMD (compared to Syria, Iran, or just about anywhere else in the Middle East) were next to nil. Clinton's continuation of the no-fly zone and striking targets of opportunity was obviously shown to be very effective in containing Iraq.

hm0504

11-01-2005, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
It will be interesting to see whether the next Republican Presidential candidate is a neo-con or a moderate. Personally, I'd like to see John McCain get in. Unfortunately, Bush will likely kill any possibilities for McCain -- unless McCain choose to take a Democrat for his V.P.

What I meant was that Bush's disasterous terms will severely hinder the chances of any Republican being the next President.

Bush won't be running. Why would he 'kill' any possibility that McCain will get in? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hm0504

11-01-2005, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Bob S.:

Albinus:"I think the zenith of my readiness would have been in at the beginning of 2001 when the Taliban embarked on a mass destruction of archaeological treasures in order stop the worshipping of "false idols"."

So destruction of "archaeological treasures" is a good enough reason for regime change?

Bob S.

No. But I think any government that sets out to systematically destroy invaluable artifacts, not just to its own country but to the world, needs to be stopped militarily.

Please read my complete answer, repeated here for convenience, as to why I felt Afghanistan should have been invaded long before 9/11:

Albinus' words of wisdom:
I have been agreeable to invading Afghanistan well before Bush II, though I think the zenith of my readiness would have been in at the beginning of 2001 when the Taliban embarked on a mass destruction of archaeological treasures in order stop the worshipping of "false idols". More to the point, the Taliban and Al Qaeda were a significant threat to the West -- unlike Iraq. Also, the Taliban -- possible one of the most insane and cruel regimes in world history -- were put in power by the West (we used to call them "freedom fighters" when they were displacing the Soviet Union.) Given Afghanistan's significant progress in democracy and women's rights in the 50 years prior to the installation of the Tabliban, it was well past the time for the West to undo its damage to that region.

hm0504

11-01-2005, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kraut4191:
For 65 years (give or take) Russia attempted to impose it's way of life and government on other nations, even resorting to war to convert them. For all of those years we fought them every inch of the way any way we could because we thought our way was better. At least for us. Does anyone else see a parallel here? Can we really be so arrogant that we believe everybody else should adopt our way? And we will impose democracy by force if necessary? It is said that if we do not learn from history we shall be doomed to relive it.

Yes but their way of life was clearly not better. And the question is: Which way of life is best? How ought man to live? It is not arrogant to strive for what is good and to oppose what is bad. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent point KirkOntario! A recent, secret poll conducted in by the UK Ministry of Defence indicates just how delighted Iraqis are by the Bush administration's handling of their country -- "65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks (against the Allies) and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/20...5/10/23/ixworld.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/23/ixworld.html)

Bob S.

11-01-2005, 01:03 PM

jon:"I was and do question the statement "I am willing to stay". You aren't the one risking your life for a pack of lies."

jon, I said "I am willing to stay" based on what Albinus wrote If Americans want to ensure democracy stays in Iraq, they had better be prepared to stay several decades. He was not referring to military members only. He was referring to all Americans. I answered as part of that group. I, as an American, am prepared to support the Iraq war, rebuilding, and stay for as long as is needed. And I, as an American, am prepared to support any politician who agrees with that. And I, as a brother and cousin, am prepared to watch as my sister and cousin are sent over there.

Bob S.

Bob S.

jon71

11-01-2005, 01:12 PM

I hope they make it back in one piece. Thousands won't.

hm0504

11-01-2005, 01:17 PM

Cheney had Haliburton and now I hear that Rumsfeld was chairman of Gilead Research (makers of avian flu vacine Tamiflu) before joining the Bush administration[1].

Man, these guys sure seem to have an uncanny knack for picking companies that just happen to benefit enormously from world events!

[1] http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/31/news/newsmakers/fortune_rumsfeld/index.htm

gormenghast20

11-01-2005, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by jon71:
Anyone can look at the polls and see how Bush's approval rating is deservedly in the toilet. Add to that multiple ethical and legal scandals hitting Republicans. Bush promised a new standard for the White House and delivered. It is the least moral or ethical in history. '06 is looking to good for the Democrats like '94 was for the Republicans. The fools who gave Bush a blank check on Iraq will be nicely thinned out. Can't happen too soon.

The party has moved so far left, and has become so isolationist with so little support for the successful age-old American foreign policy that has freed more than half the world, that the British Labor Party, once the champion of socialism, is now to the right of our Democrats.
As for Mr. Dean, he is so identified with the lunatic left that just the sight of his face conjures up an image of defeat for the party, as a prisoner of its radical wing. The Democrats are destined to remain a minority unless they break forcefully with their left, which is now correctly identified as an anti-American, anti-wealth cabal with no legitimacy among the growing middle class.
Mr. Dean, Mr. Gore, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, et al., are constantly referred to "liberals." That false euphemism protects them from the scorn they deserve as "leftists." True patriotic liberals such as Franklin Roosevelt Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, were they alive, would shy from these leftists and surely desert the present Democratic Party.
The disgrace of the madly partisan Democrats was vividly demonstrated when three-dozen leftist members of the House, along with Sen. Boxer of California, refused to certify the result of the Electoral College, a political rascality that hasn't been tried in 127 years.
America needs two patriotic parties. Now it has one.
By all means Howard Dean will lead the Democrats into continued oblivion. Some day, probably soon, they will implode, forcing a realignment of the party back to its historic roots of Jefferson, Jackson and FDR.

My bet on the next election should Hillary be nominated: She take DC and perhaps one state. Anyone want a friendly wager? Gentleman's bet, at least?

gormenghast20

11-01-2005, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
The "democratically elected" govt. of Iraq has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to say how long American troops will stay. The American people via congress will decide that. Our current elected officials are planning on a decade or more. Since Republicans will be massacred in the '06 elections that may be (hopefully) cut very short.

Dream on! What elections have the Democrats won lately? Very few I would believe...their screeching liberalism is too far out of the mainstream to succeed. They will need to come back a bit to the people...and quit pushing forth radicals like Dr. Dean...for them to find any success. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">I just adore these neo-cons.Instead of thinking about that which they parrot they just trot out the offical talking points.

Dr. Howard Dean a radical? ROFLMBBO!!!
Do you know anything more then his name?
-As Gov. he was a fiscal conservative; a concept that your (s)elected president doesn't quite grasp.
-As Gov. he was actually a social moderate.
-As Gov. he went out of his way to seek ways to work with the opposition party. Can anyone imagine Bush seeking bipartisen support for anything but an invasion based on lies?
-As a physician he against the senseless suffering and death imposed by a war based upon lies.</span>
<span class="ev_code_RED">Please explain exactly how you have come to believe that Dr. Dean is a radical?</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Howard Dean, the man who famously broke with his church over a bike path. Upon winning the chairmanship, the erstwhile "moderate governor" Dean declared that the moment marked "the reemergence of the Democratic Party" in that the so-called party of Jefferson would "actually begin fighting for what we believe: fiscally responsible, socially progressive values."

But is it fiscally responsible to demand even more spending than President Bush's string of bloated budgets already provides? Or to pronounce all serious proposals to reform Social Security that do not involve raising payroll taxes "dead on arrival"? Or, better yet, to call investing retirement savings in mutual funds "a gamble," when this is what anyone with half a brain does if he wants to get a return that actually beats inflation -- and when America's economic dynamism rests on the strength of its capital markets?

As for being socially "progressive" -- whether that code stands for being pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage, pro-affirmative action, anti-gun, or any number of stances that pander to the shrill interest groups that constitute the Democratic base -- I'm just not sure how that'll play in Kansas, Iowa, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, West Virginia, Ohio or any number of states dominated by the white working class.

Now, the Democrats may be wrong on a whole host of policy and cultural issues, but they can't be completely clueless about their own future. (Can they?) There are valid reasons for which Dean makes an attractive DNC chairman even if he isn't remotely close to being a good presidential candidate. The former governor is an energizing figure who will surely bring fresh ideas and new blood to the table -- and it will be up to the voters (rather than the derided "consultants") to decide whether these ideas are sensible. His ascension also paves the way for a centrist in the Clinton mold to paint herself as the moderate, reasonable figure between the Republican and Deaniac extremes.

Howard Dean will have a hard time making hay for the donkeys among the white working class. As someone who knows a little about both building and mismanaging popular coalitions opined, "I think if [Democrats] have a true death wish, he'd be the perfect guy to go with." It's hard to disagree with Newt Gingrich on that.

gormenghast20

11-01-2005, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by NudeAl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It will be interesting to see whether the next Republican Presidential candidate is a neo-con or a moderate. Personally, I'd like to see John McCain get in. Unfortunately, Bush will likely kill any possibilities for McCain -- unless McCain choose to take a Democrat for his V.P.

Albinus

I would love to see McCain get it but he has Pi$$ed off to many in his own party to ever get the nom., though I think he would be perfect for the job. I think the next one whoever he is needs to be a uniter one who is middle of the road and both sides can live with. Enough of this devisive crap. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like McCain...talk about Patriots!...but feel too many will feel that he is too "wishy-washy." I, personally, have my eyes on Chuck Hagel of Nebraska....although a Rice/H. Clinton presidential race would have some interesting debates if nothing else.

hm0504

11-01-2005, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
I, personally, have my eyes on Chuck Hagel of Nebraska....although a Rice/H. Clinton presidential race would have some interesting debates if nothing else.

Hagel is certainly an interesting candidate. Like McCain, Hagel served in Vietnam (receiving two purple hearts) and has strongly and frankly criticized the White House's botched handling of the Iraq war [1].

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/18/hagel.iraq/

Naturist Mark

11-01-2005, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by hm0504:

Hagel is certainly an interesting candidate.

You don't know the half of it. As a virtual unknown he beat a very popular governor in a landslide in his first Senate run. How did he do it? Nobody knows, but here are some clues: <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>ES&S is the election systems branch of a company once headed by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. Hagel resigned from his job with the company shortly before his first election in 1996, in which 85% of the votes were counted by ES&S, and which he won in an upset. He still owns a strong financial interest in the company. <LI> The respected Washington, DC publication The Hill (http://www.thehill.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx) has confirmed that former conservative radio talk-show host and now Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel was the head of, and continues to own part interest in, the company that owns the company that installed, programmed, and largely ran the voting machines that were used by most of the citizens of Nebraska.

Back when Hagel first ran there for the U.S. Senate in 1996, his company's computer-controlled voting machines showed he'd won stunning upsets in both the primaries and the general election. The Washington Post (1/13/1997) said Hagel's "Senate victory against an incumbent Democratic governor was the major Republican upset in the November election." According to Bev Harris of http://www.blackboxvoting.org, (http://www.blackboxvoting.org) Hagel won virtually every demographic group, including many largely Black communities that had never before voted Republican. Hagel was the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska.

Six years later Hagel ran again, this time against Democrat Charlie Matulka in 2002, and won in a landslide. As his hagel.senate.gov website says, Hagel "was re-elected to his second term in the United States Senate on November 5, 2002 with 83% of the vote. That represents the biggest political victory in the history of Nebraska." <LI>Back in Nebraska, Charlie Matulka had requested a hand count of the vote in the election he lost to Hagel. He just learned his request was denied because, he said, Nebraska has a just-passed law that prohibits government-employee election workers from looking at the ballots, even in a recount. The only machines permitted to count votes in Nebraska, he said, are those made and programmed by the corporation formerly run by Hagel.
<LI> In addition to the 1996 Senate race in Nebraska using ES&S machines won by Chuck Hagel, a number of startling upsets, ALL favoring Republicans, have occurred in past elections where this equipment was used. Examples include the 2002 Georgia elections in which Max Clelland lost his Senate race, and the Minnesota Senate race in which Walter Mondale lost to Norm Coleman right after the death of Paul Wellstone. [/list]

"If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines" (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm)

The Ultimate Felony Against Democracy (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1104-38.htm)

Voting Fraud in the USA: A Tale of Two Brothers (http://nightweed.com/VoterFraudATaleofTwoBrothers.html)

-Mark

hm0504

11-01-2005, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:

Hagel is certainly an interesting candidate.

You don't know the half of it. ... The respected Washington, DC publication The Hill (http://www.thehill.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx) has confirmed that former conservative radio talk-show host and now Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel was the head of, and continues to own part interest in, the company that owns the company that installed, programmed, and largely ran the voting machines that were used by most of the citizens of Nebraska.

Back when Hagel first ran there for the U.S. Senate in 1996, his company's computer-controlled voting machines showed he'd won stunning upsets in both the primaries and the general election. The Washington Post (1/13/1997) said Hagel's "Senate victory against an incumbent Democratic governor was the major Republican upset in the November election." According to Bev Harris of http://www.blackboxvoting.org, (http://www.blackboxvoting.org) Hagel won virtually every demographic group, including many largely Black communities that had never before voted Republican. Hagel was the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska.

Six years later Hagel ran again, this time against Democrat Charlie Matulka in 2002, and won in a landslide. As his hagel.senate.gov website says, Hagel "was re-elected to his second term in the United States Senate on November 5, 2002 with 83% of the vote. That represents the biggest political victory in the history of Nebraska." <LI>Back in Nebraska, Charlie Matulka had requested a hand count of the vote in the election he lost to Hagel. He just learned his request was denied because, he said, Nebraska has a just-passed law that prohibits government-employee election workers from looking at the ballots, even in a recount. The only machines permitted to count votes in Nebraska, he said, are those made and programmed by the corporation formerly run by Hagel.
<LI> In addition to the 1996 Senate race in Nebraska using ES&S machines won by Chuck Hagel, a number of startling upsets, ALL favoring Republicans, have occurred in past elections where this equipment was used. Examples include the 2002 Georgia elections in which Max Clelland lost his Senate race, and the Minnesota Senate race in which Walter Mondale lost to Norm Coleman right after the death of Paul Wellstone. [/LIST]

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, as I pointed out a couple of posts back, those Republicans sure have amazing luck picking the right companies to chair just before they enter public office!

Qikdraw

11-01-2005, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
I love this argument...how a pacifist can call someone a coward for supporting the war just because they haven't been "over there."

How do you get off calling me a pacifist? I'm not a pacifist at all. Just because I disagree with the Iraq war does not make me a pacifist.

Plus, I did NOT call Bob a coward, so please stop putting words in my mouth.

And I stopped reading your post after that because you were so off base.

Qikdraw

jon71

11-01-2005, 06:28 PM

Gormenghast20 dream on. Every poll says that if the elections were today the Democratic party would win a clean sweep, White house, Senate, and Congress. The popular vote would be between 55-45 to 60-40 Democratic. Yes I know the Reps. have a year to lie and slander to stop their hemorraghing of support of the American people but it's only a question of how bad will bad be for them. For America '06 will be a vicory party. I GUARANTEE net gains in each house and the likely hood of a Dem. White house in '08 grows daily. My dream ticket would be Sen. Bayh with Sen. Clinton as running mate. If not Bayh I hope we pick a Gov. (Bayh used to be Gov. of Indiana). As far as being liberal yes Boxer, Kerry, et. al. are liberal, just like more and more mainstream middle class Americans are. Conservativism is going to be thrown on the trash bin of history and George W. Bush is the biggest reason why.

Qikdraw

11-01-2005, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Qik:my right to speak up is guarenteed by my being an American citizen. I choose to support the war and knew beforehand that it was going to be a long stay in Iraq. As I told Albinus, I am prepared to support my troops staying in Iraq for decades or for however long they need to be over there. I am prepared to support any politician that supports that goal.

Bob, I don't question your right to speak up at all. I don't question anyone's right to speak up, I wish more people would speak up actually. No matter how you think politically, we need more poeople out voting, currently only about 20-30% of voting age people in America actually go out and vote, so any "majority" win really isn't. It would be nice if we could get at least 50% of people to vote. Unfortunately I have the feeling that most people dont vote because they don't think their vote will make any difference, no matter who ends up in power. I can't disagree with that, but I have hope that we can change the political process if enough people cared about it.

That was also not what I was saying, about your right to speack up. I was asking by what right do you, or America as a whole, have the right to decide to stay for decades. Kirk says: Yes but their way of life was clearly not better. And the question is: Which way of life is best? How ought man to live? It is not arrogant to strive for what is good and to oppose what is bad. I don't disagree with that statement, but my issue with something like that is who gets to decide how a man should live? Who gets to decide what is good an evil? Would you support another nation attacking the US saying we are living "wrong"? Or does it only work as long as the US is doing the changing of other countries?

Qikdraw

NudeAl

11-01-2005, 06:37 PM

posted by hm0504

Excellent point KirkOntario! A recent, secret poll conducted in by the UK Ministry of Defence indicates just how delighted Iraqis are by the Bush administration's handling of their country -- "65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks (against the Allies) and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country":

I would gladly agree if anyone who matters could guarantee no one else would decide we needed to send the troops back in to clean up the mess. To HELL with Iraq!!! I could give two sh*ts and a rats a$$ about that sh*t hole! I seriously doubt any government we sanction will ever evolve into what we here in the west would recognize as a democracy. Let the whole damn country disintegrate in a civil war as long as I don't have to go back there an unf*** it. I have no problem with taking a flamethrower to the entire country as long as no one expects me to put put it out.

NudeAl

11-01-2005, 06:48 PM

Posted by Quikdraw

Who gets to decide what is good an evil? Would you support another nation attacking the US saying we are living "wrong"?

Okay, this is just my opinion but, cutting a guys head off is normally evil. Suicide bomb attacks also normally evil. Anyone who supports the attacks of September 11, 2001 evil!

jon71

11-01-2005, 07:41 PM

One more point. Why would it be outrageous to not certify an election where it is undisputed that there was fraud and error. It is likely but not certain that Bush won in '04 (and undeniable he lost Fla. and the election in '00) but why rubber stamp fraud and error. I wish no one approved it.

Qikdraw

11-01-2005, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by NudeAl:
Posted by Quikdraw

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Who gets to decide what is good an evil? Would you support another nation attacking the US saying we are living "wrong"?

Okay, this is just my opinion but, cutting a guys head off is normally evil. Suicide bomb attacks also normally evil. Anyone who supports the attacks of September 11, 2001 evil! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But what about supporting dictators? (Pakistan, Uzbekistan, etc...) How about supporting dictators while they massacre thousands of people? (Reagan administration, Saddam) How about helping overthrow a democratically elected leader and installing thugs who are human rights abusers? (Haiti, 2004) How about trying to get thugs into power, over a democratically elected leader, and failing (Venezuela, 2002)? Abu Grahib and Guantanimo?

How about a history of the US performing biological tests on citizens of the US (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/experiment.htm) WITHOUT their knowledge? (both Republican & Democrat administrations I might add)

Other people can point to the US and say that we are a problem in the world. That the US has also done a lot of good in the world, does not negate the bad it has done.

The problem with the whole "good & evil" thing is that it is subjective. I think we can all agree that Saddam gassing his own people is a bad thing, but by supporting this curent administration you are supporting people that helped Saddam, and supported him while he gassed those people. Isn't that wrong? Isn't Rumsfeld guilty for those deaths by not stopping Saddam, and instead going over and shaking his hand, and not meantioning it, after he gassed those people? Would you not consider that wrong?

See its really all in how you look at something. But if you support one thing, you should support the reverse, or you end up being hypocritical.

Qikdraw

NudeAl

11-01-2005, 08:41 PM

Maybe it should be the lesser of two evils?

Here's a test. Which would you rather have happen? A.) be locked in a prison and have someone put women's under ware on your head while standing there naked or B.) having someone cut your head off with a butcher knife?

I guess it depends on your culture and there by your perspective.

Or, if you prefer, how about good old, old fashioned, us and them? I'm for us. I hope we win no matter what. I'm for my team over anyone else no matter how valid their argument may be. I like it just fine when our side wins. Now we may end up with some blood on our hands but if you play in this game (world politics,) for more than a minute anyone will.

It takes a certain amount of courage to step up to the plate in an unpopular unfriendly world like ours. Just ask our European friends how long it took them to decide to do something about the genocide that happened in their own backyard in Bosnia.

I'm not saying we are perfect but on the whole we have been more right than wrong, more good than bad. Do we support evil dictators? Sure some of the time. But, we usually try to pick the lesser of two evils. If there were a better choice we would back that one instead.

Sometimes you gotta take what you can get, a bird in the hand etc.

I suppose I'm an old dinosaur. I love my country. I firmly believe it is the greatest nation on the face of the earth. I have fought and shed my blood for it, seen my buddies die for it. I just want it to continue to be worthy of the sacrifices of all who have gone before and all who serve her now and all future generations.

Most of the time the answers are not right or wrong good or bad but shades of gray. When they are I will choose the answer that supports my side. Oh, and my side happens to be the nation I live in. I suppose if I lived in another part of the world it would be different. We all have to choose a side, even if we choose not to decide we still have made a choice.

jon71

11-01-2005, 09:30 PM

Every time an American is wounded or dies in Iraq America loses. NudeAl said it is us or them. Because I choose us (U.S.) I want a full and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The war against terrorism has been abandoned by the Bush admin. while the quagmire of Iraq continues. Good Americans are dying and our nation is more at risk because of it. We will only win when this travesty is over.

NudeAl

11-02-2005, 05:08 AM

I want a full and immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

If we could get a promise to not send them back in there in a year or two I would agree. The middle east has been a tar baby since the end of WWII. Anyone who touches it is going to get dirty.

In my opinion only two things keep us going back in there Isreal and Oil. I'd much rather we just carpet bomb the place from 30,000 feet and call it a day next time. That's the trouble there will always be a next time, maybe not for a year or a decade or two but we keep going back again and again. I guess we can never get enough.

11-02-2005, 06:34 AM

One of my web friends told me about Google getting in on the Bush bashing! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif I couldn't believe my eyes!!!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Go to http://www.google.com and type in the word failure then click on I'm feeling lucky.

<span class="ev_code_RED">BAD GOOGLE</span>!

I, for one, will take my searches elsewhere!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

jon71

11-02-2005, 07:16 AM

Bush and failure are synonymous.

KirkOntario

11-02-2005, 07:54 AM

To all Republicans everywhere. Today we celebrate the historic election victory of George W. Bush November 2nd 2004. Critics may rail but this man transforming the Middle East permanently and bringing hope and freedom to millions. He has a great opportunity to shape the US Supreme Court for years to come. Let's all celebrate!

hm0504

11-02-2005, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
To all Republicans everywhere. Today we celebrate the historic election victory of George W. Bush November 2nd 2004. Critics may rail but this man transforming the Middle East permanently and bringing hope and freedom to millions. He has a great opportunity to shape the US Supreme Court for years to come. Let's all celebrate!

KirkOntario, you a Republican? I never would have guessed!

As you are a nudist who has strongly supported anti-nudist legislation and an atheist who unabashedly defends the causes of religious fundamentalists, I naturally assumed, from your endless and absolute support for anything President Bush does, that you were a card-carrying, fervent Marxist-Leninist.

Man, I just can't figure you out. Mea culpa!

Oh, and Happy New Bush Year to you!

KirkOntario

11-02-2005, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
To all Republicans everywhere. Today we celebrate the historic election victory of George W. Bush November 2nd 2004. Critics may rail but this man transforming the Middle East permanently and bringing hope and freedom to millions. He has a great opportunity to shape the US Supreme Court for years to come. Let's all celebrate!

KirkOntario, you a Republican? I never would have guessed!

As you are a nudist who has strongly supported anti-nudist legislation and an atheist who unabashedly defends the causes of religious fundamentalists, I naturally assumed, from your endless and absolute support for anything President Bush does, that you were a card-carrying, fervent Marxist-Leninist.

Man, I just can't figure you out. Mea culpa!

Oh, and Happy New Bush Year to you! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll take that as a compliment. If I were otherwise I'd be labelled predictable and narrow minded, which doesn't describe me at all. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Oh, and it's not 'happy Bush year' but about 3 Bush years and a 1/4/.

11-02-2005, 02:05 PM

Today we celebrate the historic election victory of George W. Bush November 2nd 2004.

Wow, so 41 pages of bashing in one year!!!!!!
Three more to go?
Maybe, the Forum computer memory space will have to be increased??????

Naturist Mark

11-02-2005, 02:58 PM

Here is why George Bush says he will veto any bill with McCain's anti torture amendments unless they excempt the CIA from the torture ban:

CIA 'running secret terror jails' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4400728.stm)

These prisons violate US domestic law, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Of course, this administration has demonstrated it doesn't have to follow any laws or treaties if it doesn't want to.

-Mark

Naturist Mark

11-02-2005, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Today we celebrate the historic election victory of George W. Bush November 2nd 2004.

You mean the first anniversary of the second stolen election.

The 2004 US Elections: The Mother of all Vote Frauds (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html)

2004 Election: Why we must not get over it (http://election.solarbus.org/2004)

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>Alex Pelosi's new film "Diary of a Political Tourist" catches a tipsy Congressman Peter King making a comment at a White House function before the election had been finished that, "It's already over. The Election's over. We Won."

When Pelosi asks, "How do you know that?" King replies, "It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting." [Common Dreams] (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1115-24.htm)
<LI> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/king.jpg (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/peterking.wmv)
WMV Video [/list]

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin

-Mark

KirkOntario

11-02-2005, 03:59 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Naturist Mark:You mean the first anniversary of the second stolen election.

The 2004 US Elections: The Mother of all Vote Frauds (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html)

It's called 'denial'. Time to get over that.

Naturist Mark

11-02-2005, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

It's called 'denial'. Time to get over that.

Time to get over that wistfull desire for democracy?

It is denial to ignore all the evidence of fraud. Or to dismiss it without an investigation because you are afraid of what you will find.

"It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting."

-Mark

Baron Lake

11-02-2005, 04:20 PM

Yeah Kirk we know it's denial and except for the lies that's about all we have been getting from our bush league Pres. The Hague awaites.
Blood smeared walls and body counts are not east to get over.
b.l.

NudeTopher

11-02-2005, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by NudeAl:
I'd much rather we just carpet bomb the place from 30,000 feet and call it a day next time. .

I fully understand that lawyers are trained to argue, physicians to heal, surgeons to operate, and the armed forces to kill. But, what I will never understand is what (and who) would give you the moral authority to murder all Middle Easterners.

WNYjoe17

11-02-2005, 04:34 PM

There's a deep seated concept here.
De-humanize the enemy.
Make them no longer lives.
Make them unlikable
Then, they must be bad. And anyone like them is bad.
Thus all of therms through out the years: Waps, Gooks, Japs, we know them all.

Once we look at them as other humans who happen to be from a different culture and that the two or more cultures CAN co-exist is the day we start to realize
"it is not just the middle East.
It is not just THIS war.

BUT ALL WAR IS STUPID.
Peace and love and acceptance of all, and acceptance of diversity make us grow!!

Bring our troops home.
Joe

11-02-2005, 04:38 PM

Former President Carter was on TV this morning and said that our government had lost it's morals and that Bush had changed it in ways no other president had ever done. He was really upset and with him being such a gentle man I was surprised at his direct words about Bush and his regime.

NudeAl

11-02-2005, 04:55 PM

posted by NudeTopher,

I fully understand that lawyers are trained to argue, physicians to heal, surgeons to operate, and the armed forces to kill. But, what I will never understand is what (and who) would give you the moral authority to murder all Middle Easterners.

I would because I would be the one who had to answer for it. There are tens of thousands of American military personnel making life and death decisions everyday in Iraq. Anyway, it was a wasn't a serious suggestion just wishful thinking. I would compare it to the decision to use the atomic bomb on the Japanese durring WWII. It was a question of saving US lives at the terrible cost of the enemies lives. Say what you want about that it did end that war in days rather than months or years. Something you may not understand is that war is killing and like anything else the more of it you do the better at it you get.

"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't.” George S. Patton

KirkOntario

11-02-2005, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Time to get over that wistfull desire for democracy?

We definitely saw democracy in action last year and the democratic position made zERO sense and they appropriately lost the 2004 election. Voted for it before I voted against it. Not to mention voting for the war and trying to re-write history. Sheesh. Had Kerry won it would have been a total surprise. He was just sad.

11-02-2005, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by hw:
One of my web friends told me about Google getting in on the Bush bashing! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif I couldn't believe my eyes!!!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Go to http://www.google.com and type in the word failure then click on I'm feeling lucky.

<span class="ev_code_RED">BAD GOOGLE</span>!

I, for one, will take my searches elsewhere!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Google wasn't responsible for that. I'm embarrassed to have to explain it to you. I'm sure you'd be embarrassed too if you understood how it's possible to manipulate searches.

Naturist Mark

11-02-2005, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
We definitely saw democracy in action last year and the democratic position made zERO sense and they appropriately lost the 2004 election.

Half the voters (or well more than half according to the exit polls) chose the democratic position. The vast amount of evidence you are in denial about argues that democracy was subverted. Or perhaps you meant is was democracy "inaction".

President Carter says "no doubt" Gore won the 2000 election. (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Carter_says_Gore_won_2000_el_0922.html)

The Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election (http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html) By Dennis Loo, Ph.D
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> In order to believe that George Bush won the November 2, 2004 presidential election, you must also believe all of the following extremely improbable or outright impossible things.(1)

1) A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate favored the GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in history.(2)

2) Even though first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didn’t vote in 2000), and undecideds went for John Kerry by big margins, and Bush lost people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election, Bush still received a 3.5 million vote surplus nationally.(3)

3) The fact that Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida Republicans’ votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than 100% of the registered Republican votes in 47 out of 67 Florida counties, 200% of registered Republicans in 15 counties, and over 300% of registered Republicans in 4 counties, merely shows Floridians’ enthusiasm for Bush. He managed to do this despite the fact that his share of the crossover votes by registered Democrats in Florida did not increase over 2000 and he lost ground among registered Independents, dropping 15 points.(4)

4) The fact that Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the fact that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic strongholds in Ohio and Florida fell to as low as 8%, do not indicate a rigged election.(5)

5) Bush won re-election despite approval ratings below 50% - the first time in history this has happened. Truman has been cited as having also done this, but Truman’s polling numbers were trailing so much behind his challenger, Thomas Dewey, pollsters stopped surveying two months before the 1948 elections, thus missing the late surge of support for Truman. Unlike Truman, Bush’s support was clearly eroding on the eve of the election.(6)

6) Harris' last-minute polling indicating a Kerry victory was wrong (even though Harris was exactly on the mark in their 2000 election final poll).(7)

7) The “challenger rule” - an incumbent’s final results won’t be better than his final polling - was wrong;(8)

8) On election day the early-day voters picked up by early exit polls (showing Kerry with a wide lead) were heavily Democratic instead of the traditional pattern of early voters being mainly Republican.

9) The fact that Bush “won” Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote doesn’t cast any suspicion upon the official tally.(9)

10) Florida computer programmer Clinton Curtis (a life-long registered Republican) must be lying when he said in a sworn affidavit that his employers at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) and Tom Feeney (general counsel and lobbyist for YEI, GOP state legislator and Jeb Bush’s 1994 running mate for Florida Lt. Governor) asked him in 2000 to create a computer program to undetectably alter vote totals. Curtis, under the initial impression that he was creating this software in order to forestall possible fraud, handed over the program to his employer Mrs. Li Woan Yang, and was told: “You don’t understand, in order to get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source code. This program is needed to control the vote in south Florida.” (Boldface in original).(10)

11) Diebold CEO Walden O’Dell’s declaration in a August 14, 2003 letter to GOP fundraisers that he was "committed to helping Ohio to deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" and the fact that Diebold is one of the three major suppliers of the electronic voting machines in Ohio and nationally, didn’t result in any fraud by Diebold.

12) There was no fraud in Cuyahoga County Ohio where they admitted counting the votes in secret before bringing them out in public to count..

13) CNN reported at 9 p.m. EST on election evening that Kerry was leading by 3 points in the national exit polls based on well over 13,000 respondents. Several hours later at 1:36 a.m. CNN reported that the exit polls, now based on a few hundred more - 13,531 respondents - were showing Bush leading by 2 points, a 5-point swing. In other words, a swing of 5 percentage points from a tiny increase in the number of respondents somehow occurred despite it being mathematically impossible.(11)

14) Exit polls in the November 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections, paid for in part by the Bush administration, were right, but exit polls in the U.S., where exit polling was invented, were very wrong.(12)

15) The National Election Pool’s exit polls (13) were so far off that since their inception twenty years ago, they have never been this wrong, more wrong than statistical probability indicates is possible.

16) In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the discrepancy favored Bush, even though statistical probability tells us that any survey errors should show up in both directions. Half a century of polling and centuries of mathematics must be wrong. [/list]

-Mark

Conor B

11-02-2005, 07:02 PM

.[/QUOTE]...otherwise I'd be labelled predictable and narrow minded, which doesn't describe me at all. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Oh, and it's not 'happy Bush year' but about 3 Bush years and a 1/4/.[/QUOTE]

K,
The problem is, your high self opinion of your , uh, unpredictability is actually, and drearily predictable, unsurprising, common,tedious and worst of all, shaming and discrediting of your observations.
C.

Unwired

11-02-2005, 07:07 PM

CONOR!! Welcome back, dude! Your voice has been sorely missed around here!

UW

Qikdraw

11-02-2005, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by NudeAl:
Maybe it should be the lesser of two evils?

But that gets into the whole subjective thing again doesn;t it? Who gets to decide what is good and evil?
Having said that, normal people, not politicians, know what the difference is, regardless of culture, but once you get into politics your vision is skewed.

Here's a test. Which would you rather have happen? A.) be locked in a prison and have someone put women's under ware on your head while standing there naked or B.) having someone cut your head off with a butcher knife?

How about change option A) to include beatings to death? (which has happened)
Plus it has been well documented that far more than "panties on head" happened. Real torture has happened, as evidenced by beatings to death.

I guess it depends on your culture and there by your perspective.

Well as I said I think that normal people across the globe, regardless of culture know what is right and wrong, its when you get into politics that you lose touch with reality.

My brother has spent time in teh middle east, dealing with Palestinian refugees, and when he talked with them, and asked what he could pray for them on, the number one responce was "Peace, and a future for the children". I think we can agree that that is pretty much what any normal person wants.

Or, if you prefer, how about good old, old fashioned, us and them? I'm for us. I hope we win no matter what. I'm for my team over anyone else no matter how valid their argument may be. I like it just fine when our side wins. Now we may end up with some blood on our hands but if you play in this game (world politics,) for more than a minute anyone will.

The only problem with that arguement is how far do you go? Are you willing to have the US viewed as another Nazi Germany, because we had the "us over them" mentality and did anything we could to win? Look at how history looks back at Nazi Germany and ask yourself if in 50 years you want these times to be thought of in those terms.

It takes a certain amount of courage to step up to the plate in an unpopular unfriendly world like ours. Just ask our European friends how long it took them to decide to do something about the genocide that happened in their own backyard in Bosnia.

True, but what happens if the world steps up and says the US needs to stop doing what it is doing?

I'm not saying we are perfect but on the whole we have been more right than wrong, more good than bad. Do we support evil dictators? Sure some of the time.

Actually I think since WWII we haven't stopped supporting dictators.

But, we usually try to pick the lesser of two evils. If there were a better choice we would back that one instead.

I donno, was Saddam a better choice? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Sometimes you gotta take what you can get, a bird in the hand etc.

I don't disagree, but I think steps need to be taken to make sure your bird in hand is behaving properly. (like not gassing people)

I suppose I'm an old dinosaur. I love my country. I firmly believe it is the greatest nation on the face of the earth. I have fought and shed my blood for it, seen my buddies die for it. I just want it to continue to be worthy of the sacrifices of all who have gone before and all who serve her now and all future generations.

There is nothing wrong with loving your country, I love the US and I too hope it continues to be worthy of the sacrifice so many have made.

Most of the time the answers are not right or wrong good or bad but shades of gray. When they are I will choose the answer that supports my side. Oh, and my side happens to be the nation I live in. I suppose if I lived in another part of the world it would be different. We all have to choose a side, even if we choose not to decide we still have made a choice.

The problem I have with "choosing" the nation you live in as being the right side no matter what is that that starts getting into nationalism, and not patriotism. Your nation "right or wrong" can lead your nation into things that would invalidate the sacrifice so many have made for their country. That is my worry with that.

Like you I think the US is a great nation, full of great people, and built upon an awesome foundation. My view is that I would like the US to keep living up to the ideals set forth in the Decalration of Independance and the Constitution.

I looked in my "Quotes" file and pulled up some thng which you may, or may not, find interesting. I just thought I'd share. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
John Quincy Adams

Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the people.' 'We the people' tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. 'We the people' are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which 'We the people' tell the government what it is allowed to do. 'We the people' are free.
Ronald Reagan

To criticize one's country is to do it a service .... Criticism, in short, is more than a right; it is an act of patriotism - a higher form of patriotism, I believe, than the familiar rituals and national adulation.
William Fulbright, American senator

Qikdraw

jon71

11-02-2005, 08:48 PM

I was actually struck by the Reagan quote. It's a shame Bush has absolutely no clue what "we the people" want. We the people want the Iraq war to end. We the people want a pro-choice moderate or liberal justice. We the people want the govt. to tell the truth and come clean about lies to lead us into war, no bid contracts to haliburton et. al. We the people want to preseve the environment for ourselves and especially our children. We the people want action to improve education, not rhetoric. We the people want jobs and a strong economy not five years of recession or almost recession. In short We the people want Bush to resign on grounds of dishonesty, moral failure, and gross incompetence.

KirkOntario

11-03-2005, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by jon71:
Bob I'm not questioning your right to have an opinion I was and do question the statement "I am willing to stay". You aren't the one risking your life for a pack of lies. I hope everyone is watching "Dead Wrong" on CNN. It explains all the lies of the Bush admin. to start an unjust and unnecessary war.

Jon are you sure the 'lies' you are referring to aren't these 'whoppers' told by democrats?

1.Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

2. Al Gore September 23rd, 2002

"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

3. Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

4. Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

5. John Kerry, January 23rd, 2003

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

smoothm

11-03-2005, 06:32 AM

This thread is a typical example of what is wrong with the country. We can't find common ground because of the severe devisivness that permeates. How many opportunities have been lost to discuss our strengths and commonalities so that we may find answers instead of fault.

jon71

11-03-2005, 07:19 AM

We don't have to agree smoothm. We are a nation of citizens not pod people. Dissent is one of our fundamental rights. It will be a tragic day when all decisiveness is gone. Additionally all of the Democrats Kirk mentioned took Iraq seriously but favoring weapons inspections, enforcing the no-fly zone, economic sanctions. They understood that we don't send Americans to die on a whim or lies like Bush did. Continued weapons inspections proved that Hussien had no W.M.D.s and the no fly zone and sanctions kept him a non threat. None of those mentioned were as evil as Bush to start a bogus war.

hm0504

11-03-2005, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Bob I'm not questioning your right to have an opinion I was and do question the statement "I am willing to stay". You aren't the one risking your life for a pack of lies. I hope everyone is watching "Dead Wrong" on CNN. It explains all the lies of the Bush admin. to start an unjust and unnecessary war.

Jon are you sure the 'lies' you are referring to aren't these 'whoppers' told by democrats?

1.Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

2. Al Gore September 23rd, 2002

"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

3. Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

4. Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

5. John Kerry, January 23rd, 2003

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The quotations from Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry were all taken from speeches where they were OPPOSING President Bush's plan to invade Iraq [1] [2] [3].

Bill Clinton's and Madeleine Albright's quotations were taken from February 1998 when the U.S. (under Bill Clinton) was engaged in a number of bombing missions against Iraq and were explaining why.

There is a difference between (mistakenly) believing that Iraq had WMDs after the mid-90s and specifically supporting Bush's invasion of Iraq in lieu of other military measures. This distinction seems to be very hard for neo-cons to understand.

[1] Full text of Gore speech:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

[2] Full text of Hilary Clinton speech:
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[3] Full text of John Kerry speech:
http://kerry.senate.gov/text/cfm/record.cfm?id=189831

KirkOntario

11-03-2005, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by hm0504:
The quotations from Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry were all taken from speeches where they were OPPOSING President Bush's plan to invade Iraq [1] [2] [3].

Bill Clinton's and Madeleine Albright's quotations were taken from February 1998 when the U.S. (under Bill Clinton) was engaged in a number of bombing missions against Iraq and were explaining why.

There is a difference between (mistakenly) believing that Iraq had WMDs after the mid-90s and specifically supporting Bush's invasion of Iraq in lieu of other military measures. This distinction seems to be very hard for neo-cons to understand.

]

You miss the point. All of these people agreed on to the same facts about Saddam's intentions, his ambitions for WMD and the existence of WMD. You can't call Bush a liar without calling Madeleine Albright, Clinton, Gore, Hillary and Kerry and many more demoocrats too numerous to mention liars as well.

jon71

11-03-2005, 01:12 PM

Yes we can too. Bush was told by weapons inspectors in '01 and '02 THERE WERE NO W.M.D.'S. These repotrs were not given to Clinton, Gore, Kerry, et. al.

hm0504

11-03-2005, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
The quotations from Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry were all taken from speeches where they were OPPOSING President Bush's plan to invade Iraq [1] [2] [3].

Bill Clinton's and Madeleine Albright's quotations were taken from February 1998 when the U.S. (under Bill Clinton) was engaged in a number of bombing missions against Iraq and were explaining why.

There is a difference between (mistakenly) believing that Iraq had WMDs after the mid-90s and specifically supporting Bush's invasion of Iraq in lieu of other military measures. This distinction seems to be very hard for neo-cons to understand.

]

You miss the point. All of these people agreed on to the same facts about Saddam's intentions, his ambitions for WMD and the existence of WMD. You can't call Bush a liar without calling Madeleine Albright, Clinton, Gore, Hillary and Kerry and many more demoocrats too numerous to mention liars as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You miss the point. It is not about knowing absolutely whether Saddam had WMDs as of the late 90's or early 00's, but whether he, and whatever WMDs he had, had to be dealt with through a full-scale invasion. Even when Saddam had them in 1990, Bush Senior knew it would be a dumb idea to actually invade Iraq.

Bush, Cheney, et al. are liars if they intentionally falsified, or unduly exaggerated what scraps of evidence there were. As Jon points out, they were running the U.S. government in 2002, not Clinton, Gore, or Kerry. Where Clinton, Gore, and Kerry erred, like much of America, was accepting the word of their President on this vital topic.

Naturist Mark

11-03-2005, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

You miss the point. All of these people agreed on to the same facts about Saddam's intentions, his ambitions for WMD and the existence of WMD. You can't call Bush a liar without calling Madeleine Albright, Clinton, Gore, Hillary and Kerry and many more demoocrats too numerous to mention liars as well.

No you missed the point, or are trying to obfuscate.

In 1998 Scott Ritter and his UN inspections team made their final report, they had destroyed a number of WMD related materials and had found no others, but they said there is a list of sites which they had not been permitted to inspect. This is the context in which Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright made the statements you quoted. Their response was to bomb every site that Scott Ritter's team was not permitted to inspect. It turns out that there was nothing remaining after that bombing campaign, although without new inspections we couldn't be sure of that. That is context of Al Gore's comment.

However - the CIA, DIA and several other security agencies did say that Iraq had no WMD's early in 2001. In the month's prior to 9/11 both Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell made public statements affirming that Iraq was no threat. This 'knowledge' was changed after 9/11, a change which we now know was erroneous. It was this errroneous and falsified intelligence that was given to Senators Clinton and Kerry - they were basing their statements on lies told to them by the administration.

The Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation of the "intelligence failures" stopped short of reporting how the administration used and shaped intelligence information - i.e. how correct intelligence was turned into incorrect intelligence after 9/11 in order to justify the Iraq war. In July of 2004 Intelligence Committee Chairman Roberts promised to address this issue shortly in "phase II" of their report. Then they did nothing for 15 months. This week Minority Leader Reid forced the Senate into closed session in order to shame the Senate leadership into fulfilling its promise.

The quotes you provided just illuminate the criminality of the administration which lied to Congress, to the Military, to the American People, and to the world community in order to start on war under false pretenses. Nice going.

Intelligence manipulation (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/5170011252/r/1370011252#1370011252)

More on suborning intelligence (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/1810038223/r/4580026833#4580026833)

-Mark

gormenghast20

11-03-2005, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
I love this argument...how a pacifist can call someone a coward for supporting the war just because they haven't been "over there."

How do you get off calling me a pacifist? I'm not a pacifist at all. Just because I disagree with the Iraq war does not make me a pacifist.

Yes, you are absolutely right...I was wrong to assume that you were a pacifist based on one controversial war...so I'M SORRY [capitalized so that all can see!] about that. But don't you feel that your position is that of an apologist? It disturbs me when people equate Abu Ghraib/Gitmo and the behavior of the jihadist/terrorists without agreeing that there is a world of difference in the gradation of "evil" between the two. It reminds me of something I saw in the German weekly "Zeit"...it was of two photographs (I don't have access to the photos, but you don't really need to see them based on the captions I'm about to quote). Caption of pic 1: American Lynndie England in a horrifying, typical American display of brutal American torture. Caption of pic 2: Members of a resistance group doing their faith-based beheading routine. Now, isn't that special???

Plus, I did NOT call Bob a coward, so please stop putting words in my mouth.

Then you need to keep your posts more concise...when you say "In actual fact YOU are not prepared to do anything, but allow others to lay down their lives so you can make nice sound bites on how you support the war" it can LOOK like you ARE calling someone a coward.

And I stopped reading your post after that because you were so off base.

What base was I off...third, second or first? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

gormenghast20

11-03-2005, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by jon71:
I was actually struck by the Reagan quote. It's a shame Bush has absolutely no clue what "we the people" want. We the people want the Iraq war to end. We the people want a pro-choice moderate or liberal justice. We the people want the govt. to tell the truth and come clean about lies to lead us into war, no bid contracts to haliburton et. al. We the people want to preseve the environment for ourselves and especially our children. We the people want action to improve education, not rhetoric. We the people want jobs and a strong economy not five years of recession or almost recession. In short We the people want Bush to resign on grounds of dishonesty, moral failure, and gross incompetence.

I don't know about "we the people" but I would settle for a strict interpretation of the Constitution. I would also say the freedom to say the Pledge of Allegiance (gasp!) in school, but my daughters don't face that problem...they go to Catholic school where they're safe from the clutches of the ACLU (Anti Christiam Liberties Union).

gormenghast20

11-03-2005, 03:13 PM

Naturist Mark

11-03-2005, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Qikdraw:
It disturbs me when people equate Abu Ghraib/Gitmo and the behavior of the jihadist/terrorists without agreeing that there is a world of difference in the gradation of "evil" between the two.

Yes, there is a BIG difference. WE claim to be better. The SHAME is upon us when we fail to live up to our standards. We expect evil people to be evil. We don't expect our side to be evil. At least we didn't.

All those who dishonor our military men and women by these dispicable acts deserve a long prison sentence. And we are dishonoring them all over again if we fail to hold anyone over the rank of Sergeant to account.

-Mark

gormenghast20

11-03-2005, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by jon71:
Gormenghast20 dream on. Every poll says that if the elections were today the Democratic party would win a clean sweep, White house, Senate, and Congress. The popular vote would be between 55-45 to 60-40 Democratic. Yes I know the Reps. have a year to lie and slander to stop their hemorraghing of support of the American people but it's only a question of how bad will bad be for them. For America '06 will be a vicory party. I GUARANTEE net gains in each house and the likely hood of a Dem. White house in '08 grows daily. My dream ticket would be Sen. Bayh with Sen. Clinton as running mate. If not Bayh I hope we pick a Gov. (Bayh used to be Gov. of Indiana). As far as being liberal yes Boxer, Kerry, et. al. are liberal, just like more and more mainstream middle class Americans are. Conservativism is going to be thrown on the trash bin of history and George W. Bush is the biggest reason why.

Who's doing these polls? The good Herr Doktor Dean? Anyways, why not Mark Warner of Virginia running as President for the Democratic party? What's the matter with him? Hell, I'd vote for a centrist like him! It's a good thing you don't want Hillary on the top of the Democratic ticket...post-election analysis has revealed that a key factor in Kerry's defeat was a problem for which Hillary Clinton could never be the solution.

Asked what single factor played the chief role in determining their choice, some voters cited terrorism, Iraq or the economy - but the greatest number picked "moral values".

Translation: faith, flag and family. Cruder translation: God, guns and gays. These are the social, cultural questions that mattered to millions of Americans more than jobs, healthcare or an ongoing war. And this group simply felt George Bush shared their core values while John Kerry did not. To these conservatives, Kerry seemed to inhabit a different culture. Voters said they felt comfortable with Bush even if they disagreed with him; they said he was like them.

This leaves a twin challenge for the Democrats if they are ever to win back power. They need to reconnect with those cultural conservatives, the millions of Americans living in states that turned the map red on election day, in both their values and their way of life. New York senator Hillary Clinton, lawyer, arch-liberal and feminist, could never hope to make that connection. She is every bit as "coastal" - remote from the rural heartland - as Kerry.

So Democrats will have to find a candidate who, at the very least, can get a hearing from this vast slice of the electorate. A look at the map, and past experience, suggests it will most likely be a southerner, comfortable speaking about faith. After all, the only Democrats elected in the past 35 years were Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, both southern Baptists.

Finding a messenger is the easy bit. Adjusting the message will be harder. It starts with a long, cold look at the numbers. Nearly one in four of Tuesday's voters were white evangelical or born-again Christians: of those, nearly 80% went for Bush. The president won thumping majorities of all Protestant and Catholic voters. Almost the only religious group that went for Kerry, by three to one, were Jews - who make up just 3% of the electorate.

No party that wants power in America can afford to cede this vast demographic - white Christians - to their opponents. Democrats have to learn to speak to them anew.

Other facts: The population of red states is growing 12% faster than that of blue states; Bush won 26 of the 28 most economically deprived areas in the country and also won 98 of the 100 fastest growing areas in the country.

Naturist Mark

11-03-2005, 03:32 PM

The high cost of lies:

Short flash video (http://theunitedamerican.blogs.com/Movies/2000A/2000.html)

-Mark

Naturist Mark

11-03-2005, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:

Here's something I found regarding why the Democrats can't win anything...

Democrats HAVE been winning the votes. They just aren't winning the counting of the votes. Even Congress' own (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAO) investigatory agency agrees the 2004 election was fraudulent.

GAO report upholds Ohio vote fraud claims (http://www.rockrivertimes.com/index.pl?cmd=viewstory&cat=2&id=11529)

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin

-Mark

gormenghast20

11-03-2005, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Qikdraw:
It disturbs me when people equate Abu Ghraib/Gitmo and the behavior of the jihadist/terrorists without agreeing that there is a world of difference in the gradation of "evil" between the two.

Yes, there is a BIG difference. WE claim to be better. The SHAME is upon us when we fail to live up to our standards. We expect evil people to be evil. We don't expect our side to be evil. At least we didn't.

All those who dishonor our military men and women by these dispicable acts deserve a long prison sentence. And we are dishonoring them all over again if we fail to hold anyone over the rank of Sergeant to account.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, we should have higher standards than others. Our country has always prided itself upon that...but in war terrible things happen. But of all the terrible things happening (on purpose) I would suppose that the vast majority are done by the "other side." Also, it's not like we're not over there trying to improve the Iraqis lives...we're not targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. It's like my friend, who's an Egyptian, said "My brother against my cousin...my cousin against anyone else" or something like that. Arabs, at least outside of Iraq, feel that it's shameful that it takes non-Arabs to do anything beneficial for Iraq. I, personally, think it's shameful that the rest of the world isn't doing anything to help the Iraqi people...no matter the reasons for the war.

I think if I were a soldier, I would get my orders in writing before I'd do anything that went against the Code of Conduct.

Ah, you recognize that the opposition are "evil"...how would you combat them? I tell you,, I think there'll be a major war involving Iran (no matter who's party is in power) within 10-15 years. Europe is scared, just like they were at the start of WWII, they're not going ot do anything...plus, they can't really go at Iran because they need their oil. Anyone who can't see why Iran wants nuclear reactors is just hiding their heads in the sand. A nuke is a despot's/tyrant's ultimate weapon...they can't count on their army to do their bidding for numerous reasons (One, who wants to defend a regime which is stepping on their throats -- this is why so many despot's conventional armies fold up like lawn chairs. Nazi Germany was about the only exception that I can think of, but there were many reasons for their military prowess) but they can depend on one stoodge to push a button. Of course, their likely target (Israel) would retaliate massively...which is probably what the 19th Imam...or whatever mythical figure the Iranians believe is currently in their country...would want.

This is one commentator's take on the Iran situation... Iran (http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/ledeen/ledeen200510310826.asp) I'd be interested in hearing your reaction to the article, if you have the time to read it all.

gormenghast20

11-03-2005, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:

Here's something I found regarding why the Democrats can't win anything...

Democrats HAVE been winning the votes. They just aren't winning the counting of the votes. Even Congress' own (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAO) investigatory agency agrees the 2004 election was fraudulent.

GAO report upholds Ohio vote fraud claims (http://www.rockrivertimes.com/index.pl?cmd=viewstory&cat=2&id=11529)

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a little misleading...although the newspaper report says that the "report supports the contention that the election was stolen" it then goes on only to point out various methods by which the software (or the actual machines) could have been tampered with...it doesn't point any fingers or name any names.

Naturist Mark

11-03-2005, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:

That's a little misleading...although the newspaper report says that the "report supports the contention that the election was stolen" it then goes on only to point out various methods by which the software (or the actual machines) could have been tampered with...it doesn't point any fingers or name any names.

Nope it did more than that “some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes.”

More: Powerful Government Accounting Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_16.shtml)

-Mark

Naturist Mark

11-03-2005, 04:32 PM

KirkOntario

11-03-2005, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
That's a little misleading...although the newspaper report says that the "report supports the contention that the election was stolen" it then goes on only to point out various methods by which the software (or the actual machines) could have been tampered with...it doesn't point any fingers or name any names.

Of course. These are just fantasies of those who just cannot accept that they lost the 2004 election and for good reason to. Just look at the platform and the candidate.

jon71

11-03-2005, 05:57 PM

in 2004 51% of the public made a stupid decision and many now regret it. As for the ludicrous claim that morals were the number one issue, and that means supporting a candidate supported by the unchristian right (Falwell, Robertson etc.) what a crock. The number one issue by a mile was foreign policy. The catch was it was divided. Those who said Terrorism voted for Bush (how gullible did they have to be) and those who said Iraq voted for Kerry. Then others just said foreign policy in general. Economic issues and morals were basically tied for second polling in the teens.
As for the polling putting the Democratic party far ahead in public support look at Gallop, Harris, Cnn, and USA Today, amongst others.

NudeAl

11-03-2005, 06:23 PM

in 2004 51% of the public made a stupid decision and many now regret it.

The only thing I regret is that the Democratic party couldn't offer a better candidate, and I'm a registered Democrat! Where was the alternative? Where was the modern day Kennedy or Roosevelt? If Democrats want to win then stop pandering to the leftist liberal extremists in the party who think Woodstock was last year! Get out the vote indeed! Get off your A$$ and find me a candidate I can vote for!!!

NudeAl

11-03-2005, 06:29 PM

By Qikdraw

But that gets into the whole subjective thing again doesn;t it? Who gets to decide what is good and evil?.......

Well as I said I think that normal people across the globe, regardless of culture know what is right and wrong, its when you get into politics that you lose touch with reality.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either we all know what is evil or we all don't know. You can't use one argument for one cause then reverse yourself for the next one.

We could have poll. Who thinks cutting a human head off aliving person is bad raise your hand?

By the way loved your quotes. I prefer something more traditional like...

Walk softly and carry a big stick. Teddy Roosevelt

or

‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’ Edmund Burke, English Philosopher

One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Winston Churchill

or perhaps,

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.

also by Churchill

Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem.

Ronald Reagan

Qikdraw

11-03-2005, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by NudeAl:
Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either we all know what is evil or we all don't know. You can't use one argument for one cause then reverse yourself for the next one.

Actually I'm not reversing myself at all. Some people are fine with cutting people's heads off, or beating people to death, and others do not. So obviously some people don't know what normal people consider to be evil.

Politicians, of any sort, seem to forget that decisions they make effect real people, not just numbers. I am reminded of this quote:

"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber."
--Plato

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

We could have poll. Who thinks cutting a human head off aliving person is bad raise your hand?

How many people think beating people to death is a bad thing?

By the way loved your quotes. I prefer something more traditional like good ol' Teddy Roosevelt. Walk softly and carry a big stick.

or

All evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Churchill? I forget but not the quote.

Actually is was Edmund Burke, and English philosopher. The actual quote is: ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’

If you like Teddy one of my favorites is:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt

Its also one I quote fairly often.

Here is one I think you might get a chuckle over:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
Benjamin Franklin

Qikdraw

NudeAl

11-03-2005, 07:50 PM

How about walking a mile or two in my shoes along a certain street I know in Iraq? You can carry what ever you want but I'll be carrying an M-16. Care for a stroll with me?

Since you seem to like my quotations how about another?

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill

NudeTopher

11-04-2005, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
I don't know about "we the people" but I would settle for a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Does that mean you consider Brown V. Board of Education to be activist. I suppose a strict view of the Constitution would be your justification for the continuation of enslavement and the lack of civil rights for those of color</span>

...safe from the clutches of the ACLU (Anti Christiam Liberties Union). <span class="ev_code_BLUE">It's the ACLU that has done more to protect freedoms and liberties for ALL then any other organization. Their committment even protects the rights of people with your political, social, and religious views. </span>

...Asked what single factor played the chief role in determining their choice, some voters cited terrorism, Iraq or the economy - but the greatest number picked "moral values".

Translation: faith, flag and family. Cruder translation: God, guns and gays
<span class="ev_code_BLUE">And now even those Christians realize they were misled by Bush. In this morning's polls his approval rating dropped two more points from an already historic low. No doubt you think Bush's lies to Congress and the American people to be quite moral. No doubt you will defend him as the details of his secret jails and interrogation camps, operated by the CIA, come to light. Yes, the ACLU does work to protect your right to have and express these views.</span>

Edited by moderator. - UW

Naturist Mark

11-04-2005, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Of course. These are just fantasies of those who just cannot accept that they lost the 2004 election and for good reason to. Just look at the platform and the candidate.

How about the delusions of those who willingly blind themselves to fact after fact (http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html) that show the election result was illegitimate? And those who ridicule what they cannot refute?

-Mark

krcNY

11-04-2005, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by NudeAl:
How about walking a mile or two in my shoes along a certain street I know in Iraq? You can carry what ever you want but I'll be carrying an M-16. Care for a stroll with me?

Since you seem to like my quotations how about another?

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill

In the beginning, I was deceived(like many americans) and was all for the war. Now I do not think that it was wise to go to war at that time.

I do however, believe that now is NOT the time to leave. We need to finish what was started. We would be sending the wrong message if we just left. I will support the Troops for as long as they are there. I will pray for their wellbeing and that the task at hand is completed quickly and efficiently.

I no longer support Bush, but the Troops are in Iraq and we need to support them. The Troops need to know that we are behind them and will celebrate their sacrifices and their homecomings. So Nude Al, I'm rooting for you guys and gals.

KirkOntario

11-04-2005, 12:05 PM

KirkOntario

11-04-2005, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by krcNY:
I do however, believe that now is NOT the time to leave. We need to finish what was started. We would be sending the wrong message if we just left. I will support the Troops for as long as they are there. I will pray for their wellbeing and that the task at hand is completed quickly and efficiently.

I no longer support Bush, but the Troops are in Iraq and we need to support them. The Troops need to know that we are behind them and will celebrate their sacrifices and their homecomings. So Nude Al, I'm rooting for you guys and gals.

The country is moving forward and inevitably will get back on its feet. American loses have been very small by any standard and the importance of this project to the region cannot be understated. Those who oppose the war oppose every war. The reasons they give change but you find they cannot support any conflict and have a deep disklike of the United States.

krcNY

11-04-2005, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
[ Those who oppose the war oppose every war. The reasons they give change but you find they cannot support any conflict and have a deep disklike of the United States.

I do not oppose war, I just do not like being pushed into a war under false pretense. I no longer trust or even like Bush. I feel strongly that we need to finish what we started. We went after Saddam when Osama is still out there, we were told Saddam was a worse threat due to Weapons of Mass Destruction.

hm0504

11-04-2005, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:

This is one commentator's take on the Iran situation... Iran (http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/ledeen/ledeen200510310826.asp) I'd be interested in hearing your reaction to the article, if you have the time to read it all.

I generally agree with article with the following provisos:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI> The UN has condemned Iran's anti-Israel statements (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4387206.stm) as have many other nations (e.g. "Prime Minister Paul Martin is condemning an anti-Israeli diatribe from Iran's President as a racist relic from a past age. The federal government also called in Iran's top diplomat in Canada for a formal reprimand.": http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.2005...027/BNStory/National (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051027.wbadiran1027/BNStory/National))

<LI> not complete sure of al-Qaeda links, though they are conceivable

[/list]

I recommend Gwyn Dyer's recent article on the upcoming war with Iran:
http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20arti...0Coming%20Crisis.txt (http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Iran%20Coming%20Cris is.txt)

Also, in addition to the two reasons that NudeAl mentioned for invading Iraq, I would add Iran. I believe that when the U.S. went into Iraq, the White House believed "they would be greeted as liberators", that Chalabi could be installed, and the U.S. would quickly nation of American-loving people led by a stalwart pro-American leader. Then, of course, the U.S. could re-arm Iraq to the teeth and use Iraq to help subdue Iran.

Well, Chalabi turned out to be not so quite well connected (remember that Bush's style of government is the ole' boys network) and about 2/3 of the non-Kurdish Iraqi people say they support killing Coalition troops (and that percentage is probably increasing month by month). And, in my view, due to the abject failure by the White House to put in enough troops from the beginning to lock down Iraq, Iran has deftly filled the void and has now thoroughly infiltrated much of the Iraqi police, military, government, and social institutions.

Rather the becoming the planned bulwark against Iran, the White House's unbelievable incompetence, namely its failure to study Iraqi history and listen to its own Generals, has eseentially put Iraq "in Iran's pocket".

So, like Mark, I don't think a large-scale invasion is possible. What I expect though is one morning we'll wake up and we'll hear from CNN that there has been a massive aerial bombardment of anything connected with Iran's nuclear program.

WacoTX

11-04-2005, 12:52 PM

krcNY I agree with you.

I didn't vote for Bush for governor, I didn't vote for Bush for president. I was unhappy that we were "pushed" into this war. BUT, now that we are there, we need to finish it. Our troops deserve our support.

hm0504

11-04-2005, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by WacoTX:
krcNY I agree with you.

I didn't vote for Bush for governor, I didn't vote for Bush for president. I was unhappy that we were "pushed" into this war. BUT, now that we are there, we need to finish it. Our troops deserve our support.

But, as I have been asking for about two years, what precisely does "finish the war" mean? Iraq has generally been a low-intensity military conflict with the U.S. getting its behind kicked in the political realm. Please define what finishing the war means AND how that would happen.

(BTW, I'm asking everyone, not just WacoTX.)

KirkOntario

11-04-2005, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by hm0504:But, as I have been asking for about two years, what precisely does "finish the war" mean? Iraq has generally been a low-intensity military conflict with the U.S. getting its behind kicked in the political realm. Please define what finishing the war means AND how that would happen.

(BTW, I'm asking everyone, not just WacoTX.)
Finishing the war means keeping the insurgency in check which is happening and in training up the Iraqis army to a level where they can suppress the insurgency. That is happening too.

hm0504

11-04-2005, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:But, as I have been asking for about two years, what precisely does "finish the war" mean? Iraq has generally been a low-intensity military conflict with the U.S. getting its behind kicked in the political realm. Please define what finishing the war means AND how that would happen.

(BTW, I'm asking everyone, not just WacoTX.)
Finishing the war means keeping the insurgency in check which is happening and in training up the Iraqis army to a level where they can suppress the insurgency. That is happening too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

About a year ago, the number of "trustworthy" Iraqi batallions (those who could fight ably, for the Allies, independently), of the 100 or so being trained, was put at 3. Last month, the number was put at 1. That's increase of, let me do the math, -2 -- wait! that's a decrease.

Why? Because insurgents (of all types) have infiltrated the Iraqi forces from "top to bottom".

As Colin Powell said late last year (to friends), the insurgency is winning the war and, unfortunately, that continues to be the case. The U.S./UK military knows that, intelligence agencies know that, everyone but the neo-cons seem to know it:

Judd (director of Canada's spy agency,) said the U.S. war in Iraq was creating "long-term problems" for other countries. And testifying before the Senate committee he said Iraq provides militants with both motive and opportunity.

"It's been an issue in terms of providing individuals more of an opportunity to learn new techniques and expertise in this. And more generally, it may serve as a motivation. It's a serious concern," he said.

Judd's assessment is nothing new in intelligence circles, says intelligence expert Wesley Wark of the University of Toronto. "We've created in Iraq, as many experts now recognize, a virtual failed state where one didn't exist before. A huge set of problems have been created there."

Wark says spies and politicians increasingly don't agree. "It's a very acute problem, I think, this divide between the professional view and the political view, in terms of how we're really going to run a broad-based war on terror in the future."

[1]

[1] http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/10/31/csis051031.html

hm0504

11-04-2005, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
...Those who oppose the war oppose every war...

Umm, doesn't that logically mean, if everyone either supports or doesn't support the war, that anyone who supports the Iraq war supports every war?

gormenghast20

11-04-2005, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
I don't know about "we the people" but I would settle for a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Does that mean you consider Brown V. Board of Education to be activist. I suppose a strict view of the Constitution would be your justification for the continuation of enslavement and the lack of civil rights for those of color</span>

...safe from the clutches of the ACLU (Anti Christiam Liberties Union). <span class="ev_code_BLUE">It's the ACLU that has done more to protect freedoms and liberties for ALL then any other organization. Their committment even protects the rights of people with your political, social, and religious views. </span>

...Asked what single factor played the chief role in determining their choice, some voters cited terrorism, Iraq or the economy - but the greatest number picked "moral values".

Translation: faith, flag and family. Cruder translation: God, guns and gays
<span class="ev_code_BLUE">And now even those Christians realize they were misled by Bush. In this morning's polls his approval rating dropped two more points from an already historic low. No doubt you think Bush's lies to Congress and the American people to be quite moral. No doubt you will defend him as the details of his secret jails and interrogation camps, operated by the CIA, come to light. Yes, the ACLU does work to protect your right to have and express these views.</span>
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly when have I used "hateful comments, bad language, and other transgressions"? My niece is a lesbian, which is fine, and she has no problem with the word "gay"...I assume that's you are talking about my use of the word "gay"?

I stand by my view of the ACLU...they have an atheistic agenda, which is well documented by former lawyers who worked for that organization. Their goal is to get anything dealing with religion out of the public domain.

"Their committment even protects the rights of people with your political, social, and religious views." -- is that right? If you can show me one instance of the ACLU going to court to defend a Christian in any kind of lawsuit involving freedom of religion I'd really be interested in seeing that!

And how would a strict interpretation of the Constitution provide for the continued enslavement of anyone? Have you read the Constitution lately? I imagine not.

gormenghast20

11-04-2005, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:

That's a little misleading...although the newspaper report says that the "report supports the contention that the election was stolen" it then goes on only to point out various methods by which the software (or the actual machines) could have been tampered with...it doesn't point any fingers or name any names.

Nope it did more than that “some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes.”

More: Powerful Government Accounting Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_16.shtml)

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I didn't catch that the first time I read it.

gormenghast20

11-04-2005, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:

This is one commentator's take on the Iran situation... Iran (http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/ledeen/ledeen200510310826.asp) I'd be interested in hearing your reaction to the article, if you have the time to read it all.

We have a lot more reason to invade Iran than we did to invade Iraq in 2003. Iran has actually attacked US territory (our embassy), it has held Americans hostage, it has committed terrorism against Americans (in Beirut) and supports anti-western terrorists like Hezballah. Not to mention their role in the current Iraqi civil war. We are rightly suspicious about their nuclear ambitions.

But would we be better off invading Iran? We couldn't possibly rule that nation. What possible post-invasion strategy could we have?

There is a large pent up yearning for reform in Iran, when the clerics permit them to the Iranian people always vote for reformers who want better relations with the west and a more peaceful foreign policy. That is what we need to support, and I don't see any way to do that militarily. But I'm open to suggestions.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the world has been waiting for the young population of Iran to rise up...whether it will or not, who knows. Of course, I doubt seriously that Iran will be allowed to bring their nuclear ambitions to fruition. Still, I believe it surprised everyone when Pakistan unveiled it's nuke(s).

gormenghast20

11-04-2005, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either we all know what is evil or we all don't know. You can't use one argument for one cause then reverse yourself for the next one.

Actually I'm not reversing myself at all. Some people are fine with cutting people's heads off, or beating people to death, and others do not. So obviously some people don't know what normal people consider to be evil.

Politicians, of any sort, seem to forget that decisions they make effect real people, not just numbers. I am reminded of this quote:

"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber."
--Plato

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

We could have poll. Who thinks cutting a human head off aliving person is bad raise your hand?

How many people think beating people to death is a bad thing?

By the way loved your quotes. I prefer something more traditional like good ol' Teddy Roosevelt. Walk softly and carry a big stick.

or

All evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Churchill? I forget but not the quote.

Actually is was Edmund Burke, and English philosopher. The actual quote is: ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’

If you like Teddy one of my favorites is:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt

Its also one I quote fairly often.

Here is one I think you might get a chuckle over:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
Benjamin Franklin

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about this quote:

"To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice." -- Confucius

Unwired

11-04-2005, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
If you can show me one instance of the ACLU going to court to defend a Christian in any kind of lawsuit involving freedom of religion I'd really be interested in seeing that!

There are more instances (http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/01/aclu_defending.php) of that happening than most people ever hear about.

UW

gormenghast20

11-04-2005, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:

This is one commentator's take on the Iran situation... Iran (http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/ledeen/ledeen200510310826.asp) I'd be interested in hearing your reaction to the article, if you have the time to read it all.

I generally agree with article with the following provisos:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI> The UN has condemned Iran's anti-Israel statements (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4387206.stm) as have many other nations (e.g. "Prime Minister Paul Martin is condemning an anti-Israeli diatribe from Iran's President as a racist relic from a past age. The federal government also called in Iran's top diplomat in Canada for a formal reprimand.": http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.2005...027/BNStory/National (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051027.wbadiran1027/BNStory/National))

<LI> not complete sure of al-Qaeda links, though they are conceivable

[/list]

I recommend Gwyn Dyer's recent article on the upcoming war with Iran:
http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20arti...0Coming%20Crisis.txt (http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Iran%20Coming%20Cris is.txt)

Also, in addition to the two reasons that NudeAl mentioned for invading Iraq, I would add Iran. I believe that when the U.S. went into Iraq, the White House believed "they would be greeted as liberators", that Chalabi could be installed, and the U.S. would quickly nation of American-loving people led by a stalwart pro-American leader. Then, of course, the U.S. could re-arm Iraq to the teeth and use Iraq to help subdue Iran.

Well, Chalabi turned out to be not so quite well connected (remember that Bush's style of government is the ole' boys network) and about 2/3 of the non-Kurdish Iraqi people say they support killing Coalition troops (and that percentage is probably increasing month by month). And, in my view, due to the abject failure by the White House to put in enough troops from the beginning to lock down Iraq, Iran has deftly filled the void and has now thoroughly infiltrated much of the Iraqi police, military, government, and social institutions.

Rather the becoming the planned bulwark against Iraq, the White House's unbelievable incompetence, namely its failure to study Iraqi history and listen to its own Generals, has eseentially put Iraq "in Iran's pocket".

So, like Mark, I don't think a large-scale invasion is possible. What I expect though is one morning we'll wake up and we'll hear from CNN that there has been a massive aerial bombardment of anything connected with Iran's nuclear program. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it was a shame that Shinseki (sp?) was really railroaded out after saying that several hundred thousand troops would be necessary...how could there not have been that many needed when the ruling party(ies) of every surrounding country is against democracy?

gormenghast20

11-04-2005, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Unwired:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
If you can show me one instance of the ACLU going to court to defend a Christian in any kind of lawsuit involving freedom of religion I'd really be interested in seeing that!

There are more instances (http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/01/aclu_defending.php) of that happening than most people ever hear about.

UW </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, that is interesting (and surprising, frankly) but I was looking for something more...such as defending the child who took a bible to school to read during his recess...read it to himself, by the way.

By the way, this is a list of books that I plan on reading this year...currently, I've only finished "The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership," which is excellent. Also, in parentheses is what was written by the original lister. I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who's read any of them (were they good, boring, etc...).

"Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror" by Michael Scheuer
(Fills in some gaps)

"The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Authorized Edition)"
by National Commission on Terrorist Attacks (Very comprehensive)

"Chain of Command : The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib" by Seymour M. Hersh
(A devastating description of US intelligence and military failures)

"Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward
(An impressive detailed and systematic investigation of the administration on the Iraq war decision)

"Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror" by Richard A. Clarke
(One of the best books. Excellent insider view of security and Al Qaeda pre and post 9-11. No one book is the best but this gives lots of information and opinion.)

"House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties" by Craig Unger
(Excellent book. First 10 pages are "wow", then slows, then last part is just riveting. He thinks "W's" money is linked to Saudi's investment in Harken Energy in Texas)

"America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between America and Its Enemies" by George Friedman
(Brilliant writing and analysis. Highly recommend: a balanced discussion of the whole problem.)

"The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership" by Zbigniew Brzezinski
(His ideas are closer to realistic solutions. Very well formulated and reasoned logic for long term solution. I call it "baby steps" with the EU.)

"The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America" by Stephen F. Hayes
(Adds some missing links. Hot newer read.)

"Tony Blair : The Making of a World Leader" by Philip Stephens
(Excellent Biography of Blair tells why he developed his ideas of supporting US in Iraq. Not surprisingly he agrees with ideas in book by Zbigniew Brzezinski.)

"America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy" by Ivo H. Daalder, James M. Lindsay
(Surprisingly good chronology of events since Bush took over power - agrees with many other inside stories. Could not put the book down.)

"Bush at War" by Bob Woodward
(Sympathetic personal portrait and he makes some good points. He depicts Bush as an intelligent and determined personality, someone not to be underestimated, and who will keep his word.)

"Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project)"
by Noam Chomsky
(Great read. Chomsky has been a thorn in the side of the US govt since Vietnam. It is like going to the dentist. In your heart you know he is 90% right and sometimes it is hard to admit our mistakes.)

"Disarming Iraq" by Hans Blix
(Blix had a thankless job, was villified in the press - but he got the last laugh, He was right, no WMDs found. This is a short but excellent book - an easy read.)

"Colossus: The Price of America's Empire" by Niall Ferguson
(An excellent read and another solutions book: fixing failed states. Forget about quick military action, think about re-building states.)

"The Future of Iraq : Dictatorship, Democracy or Division?" by Liam Anderson, Gareth Stansfield
(A newer book that is not popular yet but documents the fundamental and potentially impossible job in attempting to forge a democracy among the three independent and incompatible ethnic groups.)

"Shield of the Great Leader: The Armed Forces of North Korea (The Armed Forces of Asia)" by Joseph S. Bermudez Jr
(This book indicates North Korea had plutonium and/or uranium as early as 1993 to make weapons. So how many nukes do they have: 25? The government is downplaying this.)

"The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone" by Joseph S. Nye Jr.
(Heavy on logic like Brzezinski and Chomsky. Dean of Government at Harvard.)

"The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill" by Ron Suskind
(Paul O'Neill was a straight shooter. Book seems accurate. Iraq was a preoccupation from day one. No budget controls.)

"Bin Laden: Behind the Mask of the Terrorist" by Adam Robinson
(I liked this book but it was never popular. Here is a person with personal issues, but strong convictions and power. Supported by many in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.)

"Why America Slept : The Failure to Prevent 9/11" by Gerald L. Posner
(The history of 9-11 jihad fighters if you need it with some new information. This is a decent book, well written, and engaging.)

"Thirty Days: Tony Blair and the Test of History" by Peter Stothard
(Interesting book - for 30 days "you are Blair" - starting 10 days before Iraq invasion. I prefer the biography above. But this is a good read.)

"Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001" by Steve Coll
(Very popular. I have not read yet but has good reviews. 700 plus pages all on CIA and some reviewers think a bit long on small details.)

Warrior: An Autobiography by Ariel Sharon, David Chanoff
(Suprisingly good book. He has overcome many personal losses including death of a child, won a slander trial in NYC over Lebanon, and fought in every battle since 1948. Also he has some good ideas.)

"Hatred's Kingdom : How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism" by Dore Gold
(Generally well regarded.)

jon71

11-04-2005, 05:26 PM

The A.C.L.U. supports freedom of religion which means seperation of church and state. Many, many Christians including myself support this. Also "finishing what we started" means sending more Americans to die in vain until a future leader brings them home. Look at vietnam, Johnson said things like that all the time but eventually Nixon (belatedly) ended it. That is happening now. It will be chaos if we leave and chaos if we stay but if we leave then Americans won't be dying in Iraq. As for the Iraq military they will never take care of themselves if we are there, never. Why should they if we do the work and the dying for them.

Naturist Mark

11-05-2005, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:Still, I believe it surprised everyone when Pakistan unveiled it's nuke(s).

Only the general public was surprised.

India exploded a test nuke back in the 70's, so everyone knew they had the bomb even if they claimed it was a 'research' explosion only.

It was known that Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction) then embarked on a massive program, and our intelligence agencies knew they were engaged in proliferation of that knowledge with Libya, North Korea and others. Many defense analysis groups (such as the publication Jane's Defence Weekly (http://www.janes.com/)) have listed both Pakistan and India (and South Africa and Israel) as undeclared nuclear powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons) since the 80's.

-Mark

Naturist Mark

11-05-2005, 06:24 AM

11-05-2005, 07:29 AM

Thanks, that is interesting (and surprising, frankly) but I was looking for something more...such as defending the child who took a bible to school to read during his recess...read it to himself, by the way.

But that was never banned anyplace that I know of. Bibles weren't totally banned from schools.

hm0504

11-05-2005, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thanks, that is interesting (and surprising, frankly) but I was looking for something more...such as defending the child who took a bible to school to read during his recess...read it to himself, by the way.

But that was never banned anyplace that I know of. Bibles weren't totally banned from schools. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, gormenghast20 please show us a court case where a child has been banned from quietly reading the Bible at school.

One has to remember that many North American evangelical, fundamentalist Christians are caught up in the idea that they are being persecuted. This has led to the production of urban legends in this regard.

Trailscout

11-05-2005, 07:57 AM

Chalabi is a remarkably resilient resourceful man and has indeed delved out a pretty powerful position of influence for himself. He may never be the president of Iraq, but he is way too clever to sit on the sidelines the rest of his life.

As commander-in-chief, Bush must take the rap for failing to oversee a more timely transition of power to Iraqi troops. He should hasten the pace and overcome any resistance to this transition. Iraq may require a long-term US presence at the Iranian and Syrian borders in the form of self-contained military bases, but by and large, Iraq should be self-policing and have a standing army capable of mounting a formidable defense against foreign aggressors.

hm0504

11-05-2005, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Trailscout:
Chalabi is a remarkably resilient resourceful man and has indeed delved out a pretty powerful position of influence for himself. He may never be the president of Iraq, but he is way too clever to sit on the sidelines the rest of his life.

As commander-in-chief, Bush must take the rap for failing to oversee a more timely transition of power to Iraqi troops. He should hasten the pace and overcome any resistance to this transition. Iraq may require a long-term US presence at the Iranian and Syrian borders in the form of self-contained military bases, but by and large, Iraq should be self-policing and have a standing army capable of mounting a formidable defense against foreign aggressors.

My view is that Bush should take the rap for not expecting a very long (20 year), very expensive (eg. 2 trillion dollars per year) occupation if he was expecting to create some kind of American-friendly state out of Iraq.

Trailscout, if there is no dominant power structure in place, organized crime (including that organized by Iran in the case of Iraq) is going to be the dominant power structure. It would be extremely knieve to think one could just throw out Saddam and the Baathists in Iraq and expect goodness and light to fill the void (which seems to have been Bush's expectation).

Trailscout

11-05-2005, 08:29 AM

hm0504,

True, nature and the world of man abhor a vacuum. With Sadaam out of power, the results are plain for all to see. But I don't know if Iraq is doomed to perpetual chaos in the absence of a dictator.

A functional republic tends to counter inordinate presumption of power by virtue of the opposing power of rival factions, balance of power within legislative, judicial and executive branches of government, the illumination of a free press and rule of law.

It has been said that democracy cannot always exist in a totally depraved society, it does require that a critical mass of the people believe in liberty, justice and equality.

Naturist Mark

11-05-2005, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Trailscout:
hm0504,

True, nature and the world of man abhor a vacuum.

So does my dog!

-Mark

hm0504

11-05-2005, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Trailscout:
hm0504,

True, nature and the world of man abhor a vacuum. With Sadaam out of power, the results are plain for all to see. But I don't know if Iraq is doomed to perpetual chaos in the absence of a dictator.

A functional republic tends to counter inordinate presumption of power by virtue of the opposing power of rival factions, balance of power within legislative, judicial and executive branches of government, the illumination of a free press and rule of law.

It has been said that democracy cannot always exist in a totally depraved society, it does require that a critical mass of the people believe in liberty, justice and equality.

It is not simply a matter of a vacuum, but the fact there were lots of interested parties, other than the United States and democratically-minded Iraqis, who wanted to reshape Iraq. One of the reasons brutal dictators exist, is that there is never a shortage of people who want to change things for either good or bad (often bad, very often bad) reasons. Even with Saddam's brutality, post-Iraq shows there were lots of anti-Saddam nasties ready to ready to replace Saddam's brutality with their own brutality. When Saddam is attacked by 10 people, he assumes (probably correctly) that there are a hundred more behind them. Of course, he does not know which 100, so to be on the safe side, he kills 1000 or so. And so, brutality breeds brutality.

Hey, I'm rambling. Back to your point. As I said, in a region known for an overflowing surplus of well-funded, sufficiently-organized nasty people, the failure of the U.S. to send in 400,000 or so troops immediately left a vacuum happily filled by what we see today.

gormenghast20

11-05-2005, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thanks, that is interesting (and surprising, frankly) but I was looking for something more...such as defending the child who took a bible to school to read during his recess...read it to himself, by the way.

But that was never banned anyplace that I know of. Bibles weren't totally banned from schools. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, gormenghast20 please show us a court case where a child has been banned from quietly reading the Bible at school.

One has to remember that many North American evangelical, fundamentalist Christians are caught up in the idea that they are being persecuted. This has led to the production of urban legends in this regard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There hasn't been a court case to my knowledge, at least yet...I'm speaking of a case that I saw on television where the child was banned by the school from reading the bible at recess. Apparently the school's position was that even at recess the student is on the school's time, not the student's own. When the parents hired a lawyer to sue the school, the ACLU said it would go to court to defend the school's decision. I'll have to do some Internet research to find out if I can find something more about it.

Bob S.

11-05-2005, 07:06 PM

Albinus:"please show us a court case where a child has been banned from quietly reading the Bible at school."

I don't know of any specific court cases, but this has happened. An elementary student was not allowed to read a Bible story (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11230) in front of his first grade class even though the story was in the form of a picture book. As a kindergartener he also, according to the article, had a schoolwork poster removed because he had said that he was thankful for Jesus. Boy, twice bucking the establishment by his seventh birthday! The book incident was what got his parents to file suit.

Another student was not allowed to read his Bible during SSR (Sustained Silent Reading).

gormen was referring to this case (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44223) about a fifth grade boy who was reading his Bible with his friends during recess.

Yes, it happens. And yes, it has been taken to court. But the good thing is the ACLU will help those Christians. They are not the bad guys.

Bob S.

Naturist Mark

11-06-2005, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
I'm speaking of a case that I saw on television where the child was banned by the school from reading the bible at recess. Apparently the school's position was that even at recess the student is on the school's time, not the student's own. When the parents hired a lawyer to sue the school, the ACLU said it would go to court to defend the school's decision. I'll have to do some Internet research to find out if I can find something more about it.

I can find no source showing that the ACLU is involved in this case. I did find this story which actually gave a little bit of background: <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>No rule against student Bibles
Principal says read on free time, not recess

By ERICKA MELLON, mellone@knews.com
May 13, 2005

Karns Elementary School Principal Cathy Summa spent Thursday reading hate e-mail calling her a "fascist" and a "communist."

The scorn stemmed from a story posted on the Web site WorldNetDaily.com, which said Summa "barred students from reading the Bible during recess" and forbid Bibles at school.

That's not exactly true, Summa said Thursday. She said students can bring Bibles to school - in fact, she has one in her own office.

But the trickier question is: When can students read their Bibles?

The answer, according to the Knox County public school system's attorney, is, during "free time."

And free time does not necessarily include recess, said the attorney, Marty McCampbell.

"I think recess is part of the school day. I wouldn't call it free time," she said.

In elementary school, educators schedule recess for a reason, McCampbell said, and they might decide they don't want students reading the Bible or any other books then.

"For little kids, it's important to get them out, to get oxygen in their brains," McCampbell said. "Having that time, it's structured into the day for a purpose, because little kids at that age do need that kind of physical outlet."

Summa said she has never been asked whether a student could read the Bible during recess. But earlier in the school year, three students and a parent asked her if they could have a Bible study group during recess, she said.

"My response was, children could not have a Bible study during the school day," Summa said.

The district only allows such groups to meet before or after school hours, said Russ Oaks, spokesman for Knox County Schools.

Representatives of a national legal group called the Alliance Defense Fund are speaking out against Knox County.

Joseph Infranco, a senior attorney with the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based group, said the law does not prevent students from studying the Bible during recess.

"I think we understand that the school does not have a monopoly over children. They're not robots," he said.

Cindy Buttry, the Knox County school board member who represents Karns Elementary, said she supports the school's principal. But Buttry said she personally thinks students should be able to conduct Bible study during some parts of the school day.

"If it's not being led by an adult, if it's not something that is structured, in my opinion, I don't see a problem with it," said Buttry, who remembers reading her own Bible at school when she was in high school. "Lunch and recess, technically to me, they're on their own time."

Summa said she learned about the controversy surrounding Karns when she arrived at school Thursday morning. Upset parents were calling after they heard the Internet article discussed on Hallerin Hilton Hill's radio show.

"I was shocked," said Summa, who tuned in to the show herself.

Summa said she is scheduled to be a guest on Hill's show this morning.

"My feeling is, I want to be very respectful to the parents and children certainly," she said. "Elementary children are young, and my job is to protect them and keep them safe. I think having a Bible at school is fine." [/list]

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the ACLU does file an Amicus curiae brief on the side of the parents. I'm not convinced that 'recess' isn't free time in which children may study, play or engage in independent activities.

-Mark

Naturist Mark

11-06-2005, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
I was looking for something more...such as defending the child who took a bible to school to read during his recess...read it to himself, by the way.

Well this one is close, the ACLU refused a case where Bibles were being distributed (by the Gideons) to students at a public school:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>You let my son have a BIBLE? You bastards!
Published on May 20, 2003
By Al Barger

I'd like to take just a quick moment to heap a little derision and mockery on one Bonnie Matthews from Belle Fourche, SD.

Her son came home from school with (grab your smelling salts) a Bible! The son told her a guy in the hallway gave it to him. She complained to the school, and found out it was some Gideons passing them out.

The fact that it was not being read or taught in a class or by a teacher or administrator at all did not placate her. Nosiree. She took it to the ACLU.

I tend to be pretty skeptical of the ACLU, but I'll give them some credit here. From the AP story:

While Matthews didn't like it, she isn't getting any support from the American Civil Liberties Union. Jennifer Ring, who heads the ACLU in the Dakotas, said distribution of religious materials in school is a form of free speech and religious freedom.

The ACLU is typically very hostile to Christianity. They are pretty good at hollering like the princess feeling the pea under 10 mattresses at any mention of Jesus within 500 yards of any government building. Yet even they said the woman's full of it.

How far out into dumbassery do you have to get to lose the sympathy of even the ACLU in an anti-Christian case? Yowsa!

She probably wouldn't have batted an eye if they were passing out Eminem CDs and porno.
[/list]

Note how the article is derisive and critical of the ACLU even though it agrees with them on this case. Typical. Most people on the religious right assume the ACLU is anti-religion instead of pro-freedom of religion.

-Mark

hm0504

11-06-2005, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Albinus:"please show us a court case where a child has been banned from quietly reading the Bible at school."

I don't know of any specific court cases, but this has happened. An elementary student was not allowed to read a Bible story (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11230) in front of his first grade class even though the story was in the form of a picture book. As a kindergartener he also, according to the article, had a schoolwork poster removed because he had said that he was thankful for Jesus. Boy, twice bucking the establishment by his seventh birthday! The book incident was what got his parents to file suit.

Another student was not allowed to read his Bible during SSR (Sustained Silent Reading).

gormen was referring to this case (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44223) about a fifth grade boy who was reading his Bible with his friends during recess.

Yes, it happens. And yes, it has been taken to court. But the good thing is the ACLU will help those Christians. They are not the bad guys.

Bob S.

I have no doubt that parents, pupils, teachers, school councils, and school boards can do all sorts of stupid things -- they are people after all. To me, it doesn't become an issue until it goes to court.

The real problem is that because the ACLU protects everyone's rights, including those such as gays, authors, artists, etc., they often run in conflict with the religious right who want to control what everyone thinks and does. The religious right then figures that the ACLU is anti-Christian and is always anti-Christian, and if some incident like this comes up, the RR doesn't think "the ACLU defends people's rights and would be for us"; they think "the ACLU is anti-Christian and is against us". As the RR makes little distinction between their homegrown myths and objective fact, it quickly becomes common "knowledge" that the ACLU is endlessly seeking to stop people from reading Bibles.

gormenghast20

11-06-2005, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Albinus:"please show us a court case where a child has been banned from quietly reading the Bible at school."

I don't know of any specific court cases, but this has happened. An elementary student was not allowed to read a Bible story (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11230) in front of his first grade class even though the story was in the form of a picture book. As a kindergartener he also, according to the article, had a schoolwork poster removed because he had said that he was thankful for Jesus. Boy, twice bucking the establishment by his seventh birthday! The book incident was what got his parents to file suit.

Another student was not allowed to read his Bible during SSR (Sustained Silent Reading).

gormen was referring to this case (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44223) about a fifth grade boy who was reading his Bible with his friends during recess.

Yes, it happens. And yes, it has been taken to court. But the good thing is the ACLU will help those Christians. They are not the bad guys.

Bob S.

I have no doubt that parents, pupils, teachers, school councils, and school boards can do all sorts of stupid things -- they are people after all. To me, it doesn't become an issue until it goes to court.

The real problem is that because the ACLU protects everyone's rights, including those such as gays, authors, artists, etc., they often run in conflict with the religious right who want to control what everyone thinks and does. The religious right then figures that the ACLU is anti-Christian and is always anti-Christian, and if some incident like this comes up, the RR doesn't think "the ACLU defends people's rights and would be for us"; they think "the ACLU is anti-Christian and is against us". As the RR makes little distinction between their homegrown myths and objective fact, it quickly becomes common "knowledge" that the ACLU is endlessly seeking to stop people from reading Bibles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it appears that I don't know as much as I should about the ACLU so I just started reading up on the organization...picked up a book at Border's called "The Aclu Vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values."

Haven't read much of it yet, but I did run across some interesting quotes:

"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for aboloshing the state itself as an instrument for violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." --ACLU founder Roger Baldwin

"The American Civil Liberties Union is Roger Baldwin." --former ACLU counsel Arthur Garfield Hays

It goes on to say:

"One of the great myths of the twentieth century and now the the twenty-first century is that the ACLU started out as a good, pro-America, pro-liberty organization that somehow got off the track.
When we look closely at the ACLU's roots, the evidence shows something else. From the very start, the ACLU wanted to destroy from within the America our founders intended, with the use of lawyers and the courts as the chief weapons.
Baldwin's type of thought also fed the elitist mind-set that permeated much of the ACLU -- the view that only a small group of intellectuals has the capability of understanding and dictating what everyone else should believe. Former ACLU president Norman Dorsen explained, "Baldwin thought of the ACLU as a group of elitists, of highly educated people, a few thousand at most throughout the country, who would be the vanguard of a movement to protect individual rights in this society."
This mind-set, that the ACLU knows what's best for the great unwashed masses, drives the ACLU's disdain for the will of the people. This mind-set also is behind its use of the judiciary, rather than the electorate, to implement its agenda. In addition, the promotion of "individual rights" ultimately results in a society in which the rights of individuals drastically outweigh the collective responsiblilty individuals should have to society or the concept of a higher law or duty individuals are responsible to follow. The result is a modernistic, media-driven, self-centered society that has evolved to "all about me" instead of "all about us," a nation that no longer, in too many instances, lives up to the challenge of our late President John F. Kennedy: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Baldwin's philosophy still permeates the ACLU today, as it advocates that people can do virtually anything at anytime and no individual, no religion or its God, and no government entity has the legitimate power to stop them (except they have no objection to using the power of the state -- through agreeable activist judges to crush opposition to their anti-"coercive" legal agendas). Understanding this mind-set helps to make sense of some of the ACLU's actions..."

Once I've read more...I'll quote some other examples to get your reaction. While this is just one side (perhaps) of the issue, this isn't the only book on the ACLU I plan to purchase.

gormenghast20

11-06-2005, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
I was looking for something more...such as defending the child who took a bible to school to read during his recess...read it to himself, by the way.

Well this one is close, the ACLU refused a case where Bibles were being distributed (by the Gideons) to students at a public school:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>You let my son have a BIBLE? You bastards!
Published on May 20, 2003
By Al Barger

I'd like to take just a quick moment to heap a little derision and mockery on one Bonnie Matthews from Belle Fourche, SD.

Her son came home from school with (grab your smelling salts) a Bible! The son told her a guy in the hallway gave it to him. She complained to the school, and found out it was some Gideons passing them out.

The fact that it was not being read or taught in a class or by a teacher or administrator at all did not placate her. Nosiree. She took it to the ACLU.

I tend to be pretty skeptical of the ACLU, but I'll give them some credit here. From the AP story:

While Matthews didn't like it, she isn't getting any support from the American Civil Liberties Union. Jennifer Ring, who heads the ACLU in the Dakotas, said distribution of religious materials in school is a form of free speech and religious freedom.

The ACLU is typically very hostile to Christianity. They are pretty good at hollering like the princess feeling the pea under 10 mattresses at any mention of Jesus within 500 yards of any government building. Yet even they said the woman's full of it.

How far out into dumbassery do you have to get to lose the sympathy of even the ACLU in an anti-Christian case? Yowsa!

She probably wouldn't have batted an eye if they were passing out Eminem CDs and porno.
[/list]

Note how the article is derisive and critical of the ACLU even though it agrees with them on this case. Typical. Most people on the religious right assume the ACLU is anti-religion instead of pro-freedom of religion.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mark, actually I think the Karns Elemenatary story was probably the one that I mentioned about seeing it on TV.

--Benton

Bob S.

11-06-2005, 01:41 PM

Mark:"I'm not convinced that 'recess' isn't free time in which children may study, play or engage in independent activities."

Recess is just that, a time for children to get away from the learning process and have fun, play, or do whatever they want. In elementary school, my friends and I didn't always run around. We sometimes sat down and talked, wrote down plans for some upcoming activities, etc. I don't see where anyone can tell a child that he or she cannot read the Bible during recess. IF they would be allowed to read some other book during that time, then the Bible is also applicable.

gormen, the reason why the ACLU seems to be anti-Christian to so many people is because this is a heavily Christian nation. Most of the incidents of religious issues deal with Christians.

Sometimes complacency comes with numbers and a group starts to do things that they really shouldn't. Christianity is behind a lot of issues regarding overstepping the bounds. Yes, there may be other issues regarding Judaism, Islam, Wicca, etc. but they are far less likely to overstep the law as the public will steer them away.

But sometimes, the pendulum swings too heavily against the Christians and that is when they need to fight back. Religion is a slippery topic. We still haven't found a happy medium between individual rights vs. the public's rights. I doubt we ever will.

Bob S.

jon71

11-06-2005, 05:21 PM

I would hope every Christian would embrace the A.C.L.U. and/or Americans united for seperation for church and state. As for the Gideon case that would be my preference. If you allow the gideons to distribute Bibles you must be prepared for American Atheists (the group founded by Madeline O'Hare) to follow right behind handing out tracts saying "GOD is like Santa Claus". I would not want that. The better choice is to skip that mess altogether.

missouriboy

11-07-2005, 03:00 AM

(the group founded by Madeline O'Hare) O'Hair.

O'Hare is an airport serving Chicago. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Naturist Mark

11-07-2005, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by jon71: As for the Gideon case that would be my preference. If you allow the gideons to distribute Bibles you must be prepared for American Atheists (the group founded by Madeline O'Hare) to follow right behind handing out tracts saying "GOD is like Santa Claus". I would not want that. The better choice is to skip that mess altogether.

The ACLU opposed putting limits on the Gideons: While Matthews didn't like it, she isn't getting any support from the American Civil Liberties Union. Jennifer Ring, who heads the ACLU in the Dakotas, said distribution of religious materials in school is a form of free speech and religious freedom.

But you make a good point. Most of the people who rail against the ACLU for keeping "God out of the Classroom", only want their God in the public schools. They'd come out with torches and pitchforks if you put up idols to Krishna or said Wiccan prayers to the Goddess at the beginning of class.

They aren't interested in having Native American or Shinto or Zoroastrian creation taught in science classes. The only religion they are interested in the public schools teaching is their own. The ACLU and Americans for Separation of Church and State are protecting them from having the public schools teach those other religions to their children.

"Class, today's opening prayer will be NeoDruid. Everybody get skyclad and gather under the Oak Tree."

-Mark

Boreas

11-07-2005, 06:08 AM

They aren't interested in having Native American or Shinto or Zoroastrian creation taught in science classes. The only religion they are interested in the public schools teaching is their own. The ACLU and Americans for Separation of Church and State are protecting them from having the public schools teach those other religions to their children.

If you believe that your religion is the one and only true faith and the only path to God, then how could you do anything else.

I personally believe that thinking you hold the monopoly on truth limits your spiritual experience and limits God.

hm0504

11-07-2005, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:

Well, it appears that I don't know as much as I should about the ACLU so I just started reading up on the organization...picked up a book at Border's called "The Aclu Vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values."

Haven't read much of it yet, but I did run across some interesting quotes:

"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for aboloshing the state itself as an instrument for violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." --ACLU founder Roger Baldwin

"The American Civil Liberties Union is Roger Baldwin." --former ACLU counsel Arthur Garfield Hays

It goes on to say:

"One of the great myths of the twentieth century and now the the twenty-first century is that the ACLU started out as a good, pro-America, pro-liberty organization that somehow got off the track.
When we look closely at the ACLU's roots, the evidence shows something else. From the very start, the ACLU wanted to destroy from within the America our founders intended, with the use of lawyers and the courts as the chief weapons.
Baldwin's type of thought also fed the elitist mind-set that permeated much of the ACLU -- the view that only a small group of intellectuals has the capability of understanding and dictating what everyone else should believe. Former ACLU president Norman Dorsen explained, "Baldwin thought of the ACLU as a group of elitists, of highly educated people, a few thousand at most throughout the country, who would be the vanguard of a movement to protect individual rights in this society."
This mind-set, that the ACLU knows what's best for the great unwashed masses, drives the ACLU's disdain for the will of the people. This mind-set also is behind its use of the judiciary, rather than the electorate, to implement its agenda. In addition, the promotion of "individual rights" ultimately results in a society in which the rights of individuals drastically outweigh the collective responsiblilty individuals should have to society or the concept of a higher law or duty individuals are responsible to follow. The result is a modernistic, media-driven, self-centered society that has evolved to "all about me" instead of "all about us," a nation that no longer, in too many instances, lives up to the challenge of our late President John F. Kennedy: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Baldwin's philosophy still permeates the ACLU today, as it advocates that people can do virtually anything at anytime and no individual, no religion or its God, and no government entity has the legitimate power to stop them (except they have no objection to using the power of the state -- through agreeable activist judges to crush opposition to their anti-"coercive" legal agendas). Understanding this mind-set helps to make sense of some of the ACLU's actions..."

Once I've read more...I'll quote some other examples to get your reaction. While this is just one side (perhaps) of the issue, this isn't the only book on the ACLU I plan to purchase.

Baldwin started the ACLU in the early 1920s when the idea of Communism was going into practice in the Soviet Union. At that time, he was a big fan of Communism but by the time the 1940s rolled in and Communism was exposed as a catastrophe as it was practised in the Soviet Union, Baldwin rejected Communism and removed all Communists from the ACLU board.

It is not unusual for organizations to start off with some bad baggage and then later become good citizens (e.g. Democrats, various large church organizations, etc.). By the way, the reverse happens too where organizations start with a good set of ideals and then become warts on society.

The questions is where is the ACLU, or any organization, today? In my view, the ACLU performs quite admirably and if one has to dredge up stuff that happened at its birth, and that has been long since rejected by the ACLU, then that implies that the detractors do not have much to go on.

I find it amusing that criticism of the ACLU starts out with an admonishment of its early support for communism, but then says the problem with the ACLU is that it protects individual's rights over "outweigh the collective". I think I know the problem though. With Communism, the collective is supposedly regarded as humanity and humanity alone. But the modern detractors of the ACLU want to the protect the collective that is the religious right.

Personally, I'm all for individual rights up to where an individual's right impacts the physical safety of society. For example, an individual does not have an right to pollute a river that everyone else uses.

gormenghast20

11-07-2005, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:

Well, it appears that I don't know as much as I should about the ACLU so I just started reading up on the organization...picked up a book at Border's called "The Aclu Vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values."

Haven't read much of it yet, but I did run across some interesting quotes:

"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for aboloshing the state itself as an instrument for violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." --ACLU founder Roger Baldwin

"The American Civil Liberties Union is Roger Baldwin." --former ACLU counsel Arthur Garfield Hays

It goes on to say:

"One of the great myths of the twentieth century and now the the twenty-first century is that the ACLU started out as a good, pro-America, pro-liberty organization that somehow got off the track.
When we look closely at the ACLU's roots, the evidence shows something else. From the very start, the ACLU wanted to destroy from within the America our founders intended, with the use of lawyers and the courts as the chief weapons.
Baldwin's type of thought also fed the elitist mind-set that permeated much of the ACLU -- the view that only a small group of intellectuals has the capability of understanding and dictating what everyone else should believe. Former ACLU president Norman Dorsen explained, "Baldwin thought of the ACLU as a group of elitists, of highly educated people, a few thousand at most throughout the country, who would be the vanguard of a movement to protect individual rights in this society."
This mind-set, that the ACLU knows what's best for the great unwashed masses, drives the ACLU's disdain for the will of the people. This mind-set also is behind its use of the judiciary, rather than the electorate, to implement its agenda. In addition, the promotion of "individual rights" ultimately results in a society in which the rights of individuals drastically outweigh the collective responsiblilty individuals should have to society or the concept of a higher law or duty individuals are responsible to follow. The result is a modernistic, media-driven, self-centered society that has evolved to "all about me" instead of "all about us," a nation that no longer, in too many instances, lives up to the challenge of our late President John F. Kennedy: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Baldwin's philosophy still permeates the ACLU today, as it advocates that people can do virtually anything at anytime and no individual, no religion or its God, and no government entity has the legitimate power to stop them (except they have no objection to using the power of the state -- through agreeable activist judges to crush opposition to their anti-"coercive" legal agendas). Understanding this mind-set helps to make sense of some of the ACLU's actions..."

Once I've read more...I'll quote some other examples to get your reaction. While this is just one side (perhaps) of the issue, this isn't the only book on the ACLU I plan to purchase.

Baldwin started the ACLU in the early 1920s when the idea of Communism was going into practice in the Soviet Union. At that time, he was a big fan of Communism but by the time the 1940s rolled in and Communism was exposed as a catastrophe as it was practised in the Soviet Union, Baldwin rejected Communism and removed all Communists from the ACLU board.

It is not unusual for organizations to start off with some bad baggage and then later become good citizens (e.g. Democrats, various large church organizations, etc.). By the way, the reverse happens too where organizations start with a good set of ideals and then become warts on society.

The questions is where is the ACLU, or any organization, today? In my view, the ACLU performs quite admirably and if one has to dredge up stuff that happened at its birth, and that has been long since rejected by the ACLU, then that implies that the detractors do not have much to go on.

I find it amusing that criticism of the ACLU starts out with an admonishment of its early support for communism, but then says the problem with the ACLU is that it protects individual's rights over "outweigh the collective". I think I know the problem though. With Communism, the collective is supposedly regarded as humanity and humanity alone. But the modern detractors of the ACLU want to the protect the collective that is the religious right.

Personally, I'm all for individual rights up to where an individual's right impacts the physical safety of society. For example, an individual does not have an right to pollute a river that everyone else uses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL...like I said, I haven't read but the first couple of pages -- I'll see if anything else is worth bringing up.

Sauna

11-08-2005, 05:04 AM

Have you tested

http://www.google.com

write there "failure"

click I'm Feeling Lucky

Read what you get

KirkOntario

11-08-2005, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:

I personally believe that thinking you hold the monopoly on truth limits your spiritual experience and limits God.

And doesn't that claim itself monopolize truth? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Boreas

11-08-2005, 09:54 AM

And doesn't that claim itself monopolize truth?

I suppose that is true if you presume to know the truth. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

hm0504

11-12-2005, 11:55 AM

ACLU ad:
http://www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=5927

NudeTopher

11-25-2005, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by NudeAl:
posted by NudeTopher,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I fully understand that lawyers are trained to argue, physicians to heal, surgeons to operate, and the armed forces to kill. But, what <span class="ev_code_RED">I will never understand is what (and who) would give you the moral authority to murder all Middle Easterners.</span>

I would because I would be the one who had to answer for it. There are tens of thousands of American military personnel making life and death decisions everyday in Iraq. Anyway, it was a wasn't a serious suggestion just wishful thinking. I would compare it to the decision to use the atomic bomb on the Japanese durring WWII. It was a question of saving US lives at the terrible cost of the enemies lives. Say what you want about that it did end that war in days rather than months or years. Something you may not understand is that war is killing and like anything else the more of it you do the better at it you get.

"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't.” George S. Patton </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
-----------------------------------------------
You seem to have lost sight of the fact that in WWII Japan was the agressor and attacked us. Arguements for/against the use of atomic bombs aside; we had the moral high-ground.

In Iraq, who was the agressor? It was the US that invaded a nation that while not friendly was not a direct threat to the US. In Iraq, it's pretty difficult to decide who has the moral high-ground. There is only one issue on which all three Muslim factions agree - they want the US to leave immediately? Isn't this a bit different then the picture Bush/Cheney/Rummy & Rove painted? They had us believing that the American invaders would be welcomed with open arms.

KirkOntario

11-25-2005, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):-----------------------------------------------
You seem to have lost sight of the fact that in WWII Japan was the agressor and attacked us. Arguements for/against the use of atomic bombs aside; we had the moral high-ground.

In Iraq, who was the agressor? It was the US that invaded a nation that while not friendly was not a direct threat to the US. In Iraq, it's pretty difficult to decide who has the moral high-ground. There is only one issue on which all three Muslim factions agree - they want the US to leave immediately? Isn't this a bit different then the picture Bush/Cheney/Rummy & Rove painted? They had us believing that the American invaders would be welcomed with open arms.

Oh dear. How short a memory. You seem to have forgotten your nation was at war with Iraq but Iraq violated the terms of peace. You seem to forget that Saddam tried to have President Bush Sr. assassinated in Kuwait. If that is not an act of war I don't know what is.

NudeTopher

11-25-2005, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
]

Oh dear. How short a memory. You seem to have forgotten your nation was at war with Iraq but Iraq violated the terms of peace. You seem to forget that Saddam tried to have President Bush Sr. assassinated in Kuwait. If that is not an act of war I don't know what is.

Once again, I request that you read exactly what Bush I said in his book about invading Iraq. He was against the invasion and the reasons he stated that an invasion would not lead to success are being seen on a daily basis.

KirkOntario

11-25-2005, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
]

Oh dear. How short a memory. You seem to have forgotten your nation was at war with Iraq but Iraq violated the terms of peace. You seem to forget that Saddam tried to have President Bush Sr. assassinated in Kuwait. If that is not an act of war I don't know what is.

Once again, I request that you read exactly what Bush I said in his book about invading Iraq. He was against the invasion and the reasons he stated that an invasion would not lead to success are being seen on a daily basis. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be a completely different subject wouldn't it. I never knew you were such an admirer of Bush Sr. How interesting. Bush Sr was never so wise in the eyes of the left until he differed from Jr. LOL

hm0504

11-25-2005, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
You seem to forget that Saddam tried to have President Bush Sr. assassinated in Kuwait. If that is not an act of war I don't know what is.

Actually, it is not completely clear that there really was an assassination attempt. Anyway, Clinton did try to kill Saddam in 1993 in retaliation with a cruise missile attack, but ended killing 8 innocent civillians instead.

I think attempted assassination is grounds for trying to assassinate the other guy, but I'm not sure it is grounds for a full war. Interestingly, the Bush Senior assassination attempt is NOT on the list of charges now facing Saddam.

KirkOntario

11-30-2005, 04:25 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/30/051130163113.y2qc1yav.html

Let's give credit where credit is due. The American economy is booming. Thank you President George Bush.

11-30-2005, 04:33 PM

It's not booming where I am.

KirkOntario

11-30-2005, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
It's not booming where I am.

That's called an anecedote.Overall things are very good. YOu should thank President Bush as you credited President Clinton during his years. I know you would do so out of a sense of fairness.

Qikdraw

11-30-2005, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/30/051130163113.y2qc1yav.html

Let's give credit where credit is due. The American economy is booming. Thank you President George Bush.

Its nice to admire a system from outside the country isn't it Kirk?

Why is personal debt at an all time high? Why did credit card spending go up 22% this past black friday? Why are starting wages falling? Why are the people who fell off the rolls of UI not counted? (people not recieving any more UI benifits are not counted in unemployment numbers, so the real numbers of unemployed are not given)

Its nice to point to an article about GDP, but ignore what is happening to people.

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

11-30-2005, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
Let's give credit where credit is due. The American economy is booming. Thank you President George Bush.

Its nice to admire a system from outside the country isn't it Kirk?

[/QUOTE]
You mean the thousands of illegals who risk life and limb to sneak into the United States. Yup. It's a pretty good life and a pretty good economy despite democratic attempts to smear it --but note: only when their guy is not in office. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

hm0504

11-30-2005, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
It's not booming where I am.

That's called an anecedote.Overall things are very good. YOu should thank President Bush as you credited President Clinton during his years. I know you would do so out of a sense of fairness. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is one thing to have a good economy AND a balanced budget; quite another to have a good economy and massive deficits (which I regard as a fake economy). Of course, as KirkOntario, has explained before: deficits do not matter under a Republican regime.

KirkOntario

11-30-2005, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by hm0504:It is one thing to have a good economy AND a balanced budget; quite another to have a good economy and massive deficits (which I regard as a fake economy). Of course, as KirkOntario, has explained before: deficits do not matter under a Republican regime.

Where did I say deficits do not matter under a Republican regime. The deficit and the economy are two very different things. The first is not a good thing. Many conservatives includng myself do not support such large deficits but Bush has had help from Congress. He DOES deserve credit for the strength he has brought the American economy.

hm0504

12-01-2005, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:It is one thing to have a good economy AND a balanced budget; quite another to have a good economy and massive deficits (which I regard as a fake economy). Of course, as KirkOntario, has explained before: deficits do not matter under a Republican regime.

Where did I say deficits do not matter under a Republican regime. The deficit and the economy are two very different things. The first is not a good thing. Many conservatives includng myself do not support such large deficits but Bush has had help from Congress. He DOES deserve credit for the strength he has brought the American economy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

About a year and a half ago, when Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was fired by Bush [1] for disagree on the massive tax cuts, Cheney was quoted as saying that "deficits don't matter" [2] -- based on supply side economics. Naturally, you were completely agreeing with him and parroting his comments.

At the same time, you castigate Democrats and Liberals for their "tax and spend" ways when in fact the stats show that spending is relatively lowered under Democrat/Liberal governments and spending goes wild in the so-called fiscally prudent Republican/Conservative governments.

[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
[2] http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_52/b3914021_mz007.htm

nacktman

12-01-2005, 06:11 AM

Democratic governments are brought in by the people to clean up and restore our government after it has been f*@#ed up by the republicans.

And they stay in office until the republicans can commit another criminal act to steal the office back.

As to bush bashing we really do not need to, he does a good enough job of that himself...never in living memory have we suffered with such a stupid person in the office as we suffer now.

Trailscout

12-01-2005, 06:31 AM

Putting aside the possibility of a stolen election, it is obvious that nearly the same number of people support Republicans as Democrats.

Until Democrats clean up their own house, many people will continue to support Republicans as the lesser of two evils.

Ren

12-03-2005, 08:46 PM

Except Trailscout, it seems the Republican house is mighty mighty dirty. Between Scooter Libby, Karl Rove (allegedly, *cough*), Dick Cheney (allegedly, *ahem*), Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Bill O'Reilly, and Ken Lay, the Republican establishment seems to be the more soiled party.

usmc1

12-09-2005, 07:48 AM

Here, for the 35 - 40% of Americans that still support the dry-drunk, sociopath currently in the White House, a few facts which shriek.."have you lost your freeking minds?"

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2005/12/questions-for-tho...ll-approving-of.html (http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2005/12/questions-for-those-still-approving-of.html)

hm0504

12-09-2005, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by usmc1:
Here, for the 35 - 40% of Americans that still support the dry-drunk, sociopath currently in the White House, a few facts which shriek.."have you lost your freeking minds?"

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2005/12/questions-for-tho...ll-approving-of.html (http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2005/12/questions-for-those-still-approving-of.html)

Oh but here's another link, from only two weeks ago, from Ann Coulter saying that Saddam was in league with al-Qaida and was trying to acquire enriched uranium from Niger:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter112505.asp

What you suggesting, usmc1, requires independent thinking. A lot of people do not seem to have even the least inclination for that sort of thing. Why?

usmc1

12-09-2005, 11:37 AM

A few days ago, maybe yesterday, time just kicks my butt sometimes, some students hooted her down and one of the news sites ran a stupid poll, who is stupider (sic) Ann Coulter or the students, it was something like 65% that Annie was "stupider".

hm0504

12-09-2005, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by usmc1:
A few days ago, maybe yesterday, time just kicks my butt sometimes, some students hooted her down and one of the news sites ran a stupid poll, who is stupider (sic) Ann Coulter or the students, it was something like 65% that Annie was "stupider".

I would still find the idea that 35% of Americans find Ann Coulter, at least her public persona, to be anything less than an extreme, dangerous radical, to be quite alarming.

jon71

12-09-2005, 01:50 PM

That blog was excellent. Bush is the biggest failure as president of all time and anyone who doesn't agree doesn't have a clue what's going on. That certainly included the shrill air-head Ann Coulter.

ken0254

12-09-2005, 02:10 PM

I agree, the blog is excellent. Good points are brought up. Unfortunately, people like Hannity, O'Riley, and Limbaugh will just carry on and say it's more Bush bashing. After all, they don't want to be confused by the facts now do they? Why is it when so called liberals call these radio hosts on they carpet they want specifics, but with the radio hosts make points against Dems and liberals, they use generalities? By the way, what WAS the reason we went to war with Iraq? My head is spinning from all the spinning......

ken

nacktman

12-09-2005, 03:13 PM

Great blog. It is sad that ken0254 is correct, those he cited will never let facts get in the way of dogma.

Kenv

12-09-2005, 05:49 PM

I think Bush bashing, or Clinton bashing, in a very public way, is a negative and devisive thing for America. If you hate Bush or any politician, vote him out!!!

If he doesn't get voted out,,,Oh Well!
Maybe your opinion is wrong, so wait for when he does get voted out.

Naturist Mark

12-09-2005, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Kenv:
If you hate Bush or any politician, vote him out!!!

If he doesn't get voted out,,,Oh Well!
Maybe your opinion is wrong, so wait for when he does get voted out.

How can you "vote" someone out when they were put in office - twice - by election fraud. I've posted many times about the election frauds in 2000 and 2004, and no I'm not just going to 'get over it', to accept election fraud is the death of democracy.

Read all of these posts before you tell any of us that "Bush won, get over it": Naturist Mark's election fraud posts. (http://tinyurl.com/e2vux)

-Mark

12-09-2005, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Kenv:
I think Bush bashing, or Clinton bashing, in a very public way, is a negative and devisive thing for America. If you hate Bush or any politician, vote him out!!!

If he doesn't get voted out,,,Oh Well!
Maybe your opinion is wrong, so wait for when he does get voted out.

It's not a question of hating Bush. I don't hate him.

The posts are about his mistakes and how they have harmed us. This is truth and should be discussed.

And, as Mark said, how can you vote out someone who was put in office by fraud?

nudetone

12-09-2005, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kenv:
If you hate Bush or any politician, vote him out!!!

If he doesn't get voted out,,,Oh Well!
Maybe your opinion is wrong, so wait for when he does get voted out.

How can you "vote" someone out when they were put in office - twice - by election fraud. I've posted many times about the election frauds in 2000 and 2004, and no I'm not just going to 'get over it', to accept election fraud is the death of democracy.

Read all of these posts before you tell any of us that "Bush won, get over it": Naturist Mark's election fraud posts. (http://tinyurl.com/e2vux)

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a shame Kerry, and especially Ralph Nader, didn't make an issue out of this at the time. I was deeply disappointed that they both dropped off the face of the Earth for about six months after the election.

Qikdraw

12-09-2005, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Kenv:
I think Bush bashing, or Clinton bashing, in a very public way, is a negative and devisive thing for America.

Actually this is what democracy is all about. Its supposed to help hold the government accountable to the people. If we can't debate about what the government is doing, we are not in a democracy.

There are a few people who agree with me...

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
Benjamin Franklin

It is the fist responsibility of every citizen to question authority.
Benjamin Franklin

It is a very great mistake to imagine that the object of loyalty is the authority and interest of one individual man, however dignified by the applause or enriched by the success of popular actions.
Samuel Adams

The objector and the rebel who raises his voice against what he believes to be the injustice of the present and the wrongs of the past is the one who hunches the world along.
Clarence S. Darrow

Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

All discussion, all debate, all dissidence tends to question and in consequence, to upset existing convictions; that is precisely its purpose and its justification.
Judge Learned Hand (1872-1961), Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals

Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the people.' 'We the people' tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. 'We the people' are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which 'We the people' tell the government what it is allowed to do. 'We the people' are free.
Ronald Reagan

To criticize one's country is to do it a service .... Criticism, in short, is more than a right; it is an act of patriotism - a higher form of patriotism, I believe, than the familiar rituals and national adulation.
William Fulbright, American senator

Qikdraw

12-10-2005, 02:20 AM

And here is a prime example of why he's badly needing the criticism....

Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a *******ed piece of paper'

By Doug Thompson
Capitol Hill Blue
Friday, December 9, 2005

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a *******,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a *******ed piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a *******ed piece of paper.”

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the **** that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “*******ed piece of paper” used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine – in the end – if something is legal or right.

Every federal official – including the President – who takes an oath of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a “living document.”

“"Oh, how I hate the phrase we have—a 'living document,’” Scalia says. “We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake.”

As a judge, Scalia says, “I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else.”

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a “union between a man and woman.” Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

“We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,” Scalia warns. “Don't think that it's a one-way street.”

And don’t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just “a *******ed piece of paper.”

Kenv

12-10-2005, 02:48 AM

Election fraud?? That has been disproven, even by the liberal media. Any system has failures and glitches. I remember people here in Massachusetts saying at the time,,"why don't they have machines like we do?".
Well, what they didn't know was that our voting machines had problems too, and occasionally votes were throw out.

What my point was about "voting them out", was that we have a system. A system that works. In fact I think it's the best in the world. So when the majority of voters think that a politicion has to go,,,he will be gone!!
The key word here is majority.

Kenv

12-10-2005, 03:09 AM

Qikdraw- I couldn't agree with you more about debate.
What I was making reference to was "bashing".
The harder someone bashes your guy, or your cause, the harder people push back.

just a thought.

nacktman

12-10-2005, 03:12 AM

Kenv, the majority does not elect anyone, if so, Mickey Mouse has been robbed of his Office for the last fifty years.

Bush LOST both times with the number of votes and was not the majority vote getter (with even less votes the second time).

It was criminal fraud in Florida in 2000...Bro's state I believe...and criminal fraud in Ohio in 2004...the headquarters for the voting machine manufacturing company (who also gave multi-millions to Bushie's run for office and programmed the machines internal computers), I think, that put him in office instead of prison where he belongs.

shomymojo

12-10-2005, 03:26 AM

Jon...embrace the ACLU...you MUST be kidding !!!...they seem anti- American..in almost everyway...and what have they ever done for nudists...LOL
Originally posted by jon71:
I would hope every Christian would embrace the A.C.L.U. and/or Americans united for seperation for church and state. As for the Gideon case that would be my preference. If you allow the gideons to distribute Bibles you must be prepared for American Atheists (the group founded by Madeline O'Hare) to follow right behind handing out tracts saying "GOD is like Santa Claus". I would not want that. The better choice is to skip that mess altogether.

NudeTopher

12-10-2005, 03:41 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by shomymojo:
Jon...embrace the ACLU...you MUST be kidding !!!...they seem anti- American..in almost everyway...and what have they ever done for nudists...LOL

You might want to do a search on the ACLU. We discussed them on a different thread. Many here were shocked that they are not what they have previously thought - particularly when it came to defending the right to practice religion. Too many have thought that the ACLU only fights Christianity when the facts show they have fought quite hard for Christianity. Similarly, they have done more to fight for democracy then any other group.

Is democracy really the best political system? I'm not so sure. A benevolant dictatorship would actually be best. In fact, I am considering just such a career. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif [

NudeTopher

12-10-2005, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by Kenv:
Election fraud?? That has been disproven, even by the liberal media. .

I take it that you didn't take the time to read the links that Mark and others have provided. Take a few minutes to read them.

Naturist Mark

12-10-2005, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by Kenv:
Election fraud?? That has been disproven, even by the liberal media.

How about backing up that statement.

For the most part the mass media has ignored and ridiculed charges of US election fraud, but has not disproved anything. Every serious investigation has found plenty of evidence.

-Mark

usmc1

12-10-2005, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by Kenv:
Election fraud?? That has been disproven, even by the liberal media. Any system has failures and glitches. I remember people here in Massachusetts saying at the time,,"why don't they have machines like we do?".
Well, what they didn't know was that our voting machines had problems too, and occasionally votes were throw out.

What my point was about "voting them out", was that we have a system. A system that works. In fact I think it's the best in the world. So when the majority of voters think that a politicion has to go,,,he will be gone!!
The key word here is majority.

What liberal media? Be specific, which media outlet is that you suspect of being "liberal"?Because what you will find on close examination that which is commonly called the "liberal media" are the cable news, networks and major metro newspapers along with weekly "news" magazines are owned by corporations disposed to the Bush way of thinking. War is good for their business! The scum!

And, also please grace us with what you mean by "liberal", what makes a particular outlet "liberal? I've got a flash for you, just because an outlet doesn't take its stories straight from the Whitehouse press office does not make it "liberal".

And this Bulletin just IN! Shrub's approval ratings just rose in one poll all the way to 42%
--not bad, I guess, for a dry-drunk, sociopath taht's been in office five years and now back out on the "campaign" trail for two-weeks.

58% disaprove or or indifferent or have no clue one way or the other. So, there it is, the 35% hard-core lunatic fringe that support this nit-wit administration along with 7 - 10% of the easily influenced that will swing with the latest headlines.

But, keep your eye on that bouncing ball, because the next revelation in the ONGOING Plame investigation coupled with what is shortly going to come out of the Abramoff/Lott/ et al case is going to rock!

missouriboy

12-10-2005, 05:03 AM

the 35% hard-core {pejorative redacted} fringe 35% is "fringe?" http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

35% is more than one-third. I thought "fringe" was just a little bit around the edges...

(BTW, I'm not in the 42%. It's just my oxymoron detector going off again. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif )

missouriboy

12-10-2005, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by nudetone:
It's a shame Kerry, and especially Ralph Nader, didn't make an issue out of this (vote fraud) at the time. Not a shame, just real life in politics. Think about it: if the Democrat candidate would holler "Republican vote fraud" he knows any investigation will expose his own party's equally nefarious tactics. Don't be so naive as to think it's only the Republicans who commit fraud. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The name of the game is: "Let the voting begin, and may the most successful frauds win!" Both party's insiders know this, so what's to complain about after it's over?

12-10-2005, 05:31 AM

The ACLU is what protects our Constitution which is very American if you ask me, especially when we have a president that considers the Constitution as "just another g*d d*mn piece of paper" (direct quote)

Read this latest article describing another of Bush's temper tantrums.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

12-10-2005, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by missouriboy:

The name of the game is: "Let the voting begin, and may the most successful frauds win!" Both party's insiders know this, so what's to complain about after it's over?

The complaints started way before the election here in Florida, with demands that they put printers with the machines so we could do real recounts. It was totally ignored and seems to still be ignored.

nudeM

12-10-2005, 08:04 AM

Quoted by Cyndiann:
The complaints started way before the election here in Florida, with demands that they put printers with the machines so we could do real recounts. It was totally ignored and seems to still be ignored. .................................................. .......................

Seems that the Democrats will try anything, to gain any leverage or anyway to steal votes. It's beginning to backfire and the results were well noted at the last election.

12-10-2005, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by nudeM:
Quoted by Cyndiann: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The complaints started way before the election here in Florida, with demands that they put printers with the machines so we could do real recounts. It was totally ignored and seems to still be ignored. .................................................. .......................

Seems that the Democrats will try anything, to gain any leverage or anyway to steal votes. It's beginning to backfire and the results were well noted at the last election. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please back up that statement with factual evidence that Democrats were stealing votes. There is tons of it that show the Republicans were certainly doing it. Your statement really makes no sense. What backfired and what was "well noted"?

And how does your statement relate to what I had posted? I didn't mention Democrats. What I did mention was that many people saw the fraud that happened in the first Bush election and so there was an investigation done that came up with solutions to the problems. One solution was to have printers to do recounts with and to be able to determine if there was fraud. It was ignored by Gov Bush.

Sometimes you post the strangest things!

NudeTopher

12-10-2005, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nudeM:
Quoted by Cyndiann: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The complaints started way before the election here in Florida, with demands that they put printers with the machines so we could do real recounts. It was totally ignored and seems to still be ignored. .................................................. .......................

Seems that the Democrats will try anything, to gain any leverage or anyway to steal votes. It's beginning to backfire and the results were well noted at the last election. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please back up that statement with factual evidence that Democrats were stealing votes. There is tons of it that show the Republicans were certainly doing it. Your statement really makes no sense. What backfired and what was "well noted"?

And how does your statement relate to what I had posted? I didn't mention Democrats. What I did mention was that many people saw the fraud that happened in the first Bush election and so there was an investigation done that came up with solutions to the problems. One solution was to have printers to do recounts with and to be able to determine if there was fraud. It was ignored by Gov Bush.

Sometimes you post the strangest things! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't be shocked if you don't see a reply with any links to back up those statements. Lately I have noticed in the media then when the right is presented with facts or asked to back-up their statements that they tend to get flustered and attempt to change the topic.

Qikdraw

12-10-2005, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by Kenv:
Qikdraw- I couldn't agree with you more about debate.
What I was making reference to was "bashing".
The harder someone bashes your guy, or your cause, the harder people push back.

just a thought.

The problem is what is considered "bashing"? If I post that a policy of Bush is bad for America, and follow it up with links to explain my reasoning, there are people on this board, and across the US, that consider that to be "bashing", or even treason, if one were silly enough to listen to Ann Coulter.
Many times people on here have noted the hypocracy of people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, Bush admin people, etc... All to be shot down as "bashing", or "Bush hating", when its nothing of thr sort.

The problem with 'some' of the right is that anything that goes against their beliefs is considered un-patriotic, or anti-American. The problem with that attitude is that attitude itself goes against the very nature of the US. Those with the pretenses of being patriotic are the very ones that are bringing down what America is supposed to stand for.

"If fascism ever came to the United States, it would be wrapped in an American flag."
Huey Long

"To understand free speech means freedom to speak what others do not like and even cannot stand to hear? ... Tolerating what you like is hardly a major achievement. Hitler tolerated what he liked. So did Stalin. Idi Amin did too. So did Genghis Khan, the Shah, and Henry Kissinger. Free speech only becomes an issue when someone says what others don't want to hear."
Michael Albert

"If the test of patriotism comes only by reflexively falling into lockstep behind the leader whenever the flag is waved, then what we have is a formula for dictatorship, - not democracy... But the American way is to criticize and debate openly, not to accept unthinkingly the doings of government officials of this or any other country."
Michael Parenti

"The fact that we've been a great democracy doesn't mean we will automatically keep being one if we keep waving the flag."
Norman Mailer

(Yes, I did more searches for quotes last night!!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

Qikdraw

nacktman

12-10-2005, 10:29 AM

Here, here, now folks, the aforementioned quartet and the bush admininsrtation always speak the truth and rely on facts, don't they?

Pardon me, I think the brainwashing was beginning to take effect for a moment, either that or senility.

The anti-American and unpatriotic among us are those that rail at those who express their own minds and opinions...Huey Long was correct, Fascism is always wrapped in the flag and the current Fascist regime in these United States is the prime example.

One must remember the last two major Fascist regimes were in Germany and Italy...in one the people executed the dictator, in the other the dictator killed himself.

This begs the question...what will happen to this current Fascist dictator?

gormenghast20

12-10-2005, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
The ACLU is what protects our Constitution which is very American if you ask me, especially when we have a president that considers the Constitution as "just another g*d d*mn piece of paper" (direct quote)

Read this latest article describing another of Bush's temper tantrums.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

The ACLU used the U.S. Constitution to further their agenda...they just don't have the brass to come out and say so. I've been reading "The ACLU vs. America"...here are some links to some commentary regarding this book. I'd be interested in hearing your comments on this commentary.

Muzzling the American people (http://www.acluvsamerica.com/news/story.aspx?cid=157)

ACLU's war on American sovereignty (http://www.acluvsamerica.com/news/story.aspx?cid=155)

ACLU's enthusiasm for death (http://www.acluvsamerica.com/news/story.aspx?cid=154)

ACLU's latest mischief in its war on American values (http://www.acluvsamerica.com/news/story.aspx?cid=153)

ACLU's contempt for America (http://www.acluvsamerica.com/news/story.aspx?cid=152)

The ACLU's war on parents (http://www.acluvsamerica.com/news/story.aspx?cid=151)

Why does the ACLU want to divorce marriage from morality? (http://www.acluvsamerica.com/news/story.aspx?cid=150)

gormenghast20

12-10-2005, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
The ACLU is what protects our Constitution which is very American if you ask me, especially when we have a president that considers the Constitution as "just another g*d d*mn piece of paper" (direct quote)

Read this latest article describing another of Bush's temper tantrums.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

Oops, I left out a few more:

The ACLU's Shocking Legacy (http://www.acluvsamerica.com/news/story.aspx?cid=146)

First Amendment: Not a Religion Free Land (http://www.acluvsamerica.com/news/story.aspx?cid=133)

Avoid the Siren Song of Foreign Law (http://www.acluvsamerica.com/news/story.aspx?cid=136)

Where is That in the Constitution (http://www.acluvsamerica.com/news/story.aspx?cid=132)

The ACLU: Lost Without a Compass (http://www.acluvsamerica.com/news/story.aspx?cid=134)

It's OK to Say "Merry Christmas" (http://www.acluvsamerica.com/news/story.aspx?cid=135)

nacktman

12-10-2005, 01:04 PM

Cyndiannaked did you hear that squriming mouse noise when you walked on it with facts?

You know that gurgling sound the dying vermin make when caught in the trap.

jon71

12-10-2005, 01:31 PM

The A.C.L.U. is probably the most patriotic, most truly American organization is America today. I could tell from the titles of the links that it's just right wing fanaticism. Case in point "Why does the A.C.L.U. want to divorce marriage from morality?". I'll tell you why. Because they and I believe in freedom. Marriage is a state institution with legal ramifications. Matrimony is a church thing and one has nothing to do with the other. Morality is completely irrelevant when it comes to legal rights. The A.C.L.U. protects America in it's fight while certaian "churches" attack America with their Taliban-esque agenda.

Unwired

12-10-2005, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
I'd be interested in hearing your comments on this commentary.

Mr. Sears seems a bit preoccupied...all but two of the links provided make some mention of same-sex marriage and/or homosexuality, usually to deride any judicial decision or policy that protects gays and lesbians from harrassment and discrimination. Beyond that, there's very little new about any of this; it's more of the same rhetoric we've been hearing (and will continue to hear) for years to come...that our nation is going to hell in a handbasket, and it's the ACLU- backed by the homosexual activists, secular humanists, and Christian-haters- who are to blame.

Then again, I wouldn't really expect anything different from the leader of the Alliance Defense Fund (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4457), a right-wing legal organization whose founders include...guess who? Mr. Focus on the Family himself...http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BTW gormenghast20: what does any of the above have to do with the Bush administration's own apparent disregard for the Constitution? Because those links, while entertaining...don't really address the issue.

hm0504

12-12-2005, 07:35 AM

Hey, this is fun, repeating the same arguments we made just over two months ago on this thread. So to save time, I'll just repeat here my post from Nov 7:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:

Well, it appears that I don't know as much as I should about the ACLU so I just started reading up on the organization...picked up a book at Border's called "The Aclu Vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values."

Haven't read much of it yet, but I did run across some interesting quotes:

"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for aboloshing the state itself as an instrument for violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." --ACLU founder Roger Baldwin

"The American Civil Liberties Union is Roger Baldwin." --former ACLU counsel Arthur Garfield Hays

It goes on to say:

"One of the great myths of the twentieth century and now the the twenty-first century is that the ACLU started out as a good, pro-America, pro-liberty organization that somehow got off the track.
When we look closely at the ACLU's roots, the evidence shows something else. From the very start, the ACLU wanted to destroy from within the America our founders intended, with the use of lawyers and the courts as the chief weapons.
Baldwin's type of thought also fed the elitist mind-set that permeated much of the ACLU -- the view that only a small group of intellectuals has the capability of understanding and dictating what everyone else should believe. Former ACLU president Norman Dorsen explained, "Baldwin thought of the ACLU as a group of elitists, of highly educated people, a few thousand at most throughout the country, who would be the vanguard of a movement to protect individual rights in this society."
This mind-set, that the ACLU knows what's best for the great unwashed masses, drives the ACLU's disdain for the will of the people. This mind-set also is behind its use of the judiciary, rather than the electorate, to implement its agenda. In addition, the promotion of "individual rights" ultimately results in a society in which the rights of individuals drastically outweigh the collective responsiblilty individuals should have to society or the concept of a higher law or duty individuals are responsible to follow. The result is a modernistic, media-driven, self-centered society that has evolved to "all about me" instead of "all about us," a nation that no longer, in too many instances, lives up to the challenge of our late President John F. Kennedy: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Baldwin's philosophy still permeates the ACLU today, as it advocates that people can do virtually anything at anytime and no individual, no religion or its God, and no government entity has the legitimate power to stop them (except they have no objection to using the power of the state -- through agreeable activist judges to crush opposition to their anti-"coercive" legal agendas). Understanding this mind-set helps to make sense of some of the ACLU's actions..."

Once I've read more...I'll quote some other examples to get your reaction. While this is just one side (perhaps) of the issue, this isn't the only book on the ACLU I plan to purchase.

Baldwin started the ACLU in the early 1920s when the idea of Communism was going into practice in the Soviet Union. At that time, he was a big fan of Communism but by the time the 1940s rolled in and Communism was exposed as a catastrophe as it was practised in the Soviet Union, Baldwin rejected Communism and removed all Communists from the ACLU board.

It is not unusual for organizations to start off with some bad baggage and then later become good citizens (e.g. Democrats, various large church organizations, etc.). By the way, the reverse happens too where organizations start with a good set of ideals and then become warts on society.

The questions is where is the ACLU, or any organization, today? In my view, the ACLU performs quite admirably and if one has to dredge up stuff that happened at its birth, and that has been long since rejected by the ACLU, then that implies that the detractors do not have much to go on.

I find it amusing that criticism of the ACLU starts out with an admonishment of its early support for communism, but then says the problem with the ACLU is that it protects individual's rights over "outweigh the collective". I think I know the problem though. With Communism, the collective is supposedly regarded as humanity and humanity alone. But the modern detractors of the ACLU want to the protect the collective that is the religious right.

... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

gormenghast20

12-13-2005, 05:56 PM

Albinus,

Yeah, but your statements made some time ago don't answer at all any of those specific "charges" which I provided links to.

jon71

12-13-2005, 07:18 PM

The links were a joke. Just your usual conservatives howling at the wind.

12-14-2005, 01:12 AM

I agree. The links are just some madman's opinions which proves that anyone can own a website.

You know what they say about opinions.

missouriboy

12-14-2005, 01:35 AM

Yes I know, and remember that it includes all opinions.

nacktman

12-14-2005, 05:24 AM

Remember, facts confuse conservatives.

missouriboy

12-15-2005, 02:05 AM

HEY, I believe I will. WHEN I get back from Sandpipers Resort in mid-February, that is. Maybe this place will have cooled down some by then. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bye for now, everybody!

NudeTopher

12-15-2005, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Albinus,

Yeah, but your statements made some time ago don't answer at all any of those specific "charges" which I provided links to.

No doubt your ability to both extrapolate and consider the source has been impaired. When your abilit to connect the dots reappears you will no doubt scream "EUREKA".

When all else fails, follow the wisdom of the phrase coined in the Watergate investigation, "follow the money". When you realize that the organizations that support this writer (and others) raise millions of dollars and enrich themselves by reving up their base it will all become clear to you.

usmc1

12-16-2005, 03:58 AM

Back to Bush!

Recently The White House Conference on Aging was held in Washington, D.C.. This is an event that occurs only once every ten years. It was from such a conference back in the 60s that the concept of Medicare was born.

This conference was to be critical:Medicare Part D = boondoggle, Boomer bubble has arrived, Social Security under attack, we're creating a whole new generation of veterans that will have special needs. An important and crucial point in history, don't you think?

But, did you hear of it? Cable-News, Networks, talk-radio, newspapers? No? Wonder why?

Well for one, Bush did not bother to show up to address the more than 1200 delegtes from around the nation. This is the president who was going to make seniors the corner post of his domestic policy--and he couldn't be bothered to come to his own conference on aging.

Secondly, it was obvious that the whole thing was a sham (add an "e" and you have (shame). This White House did not want dialogue, it merely wanted to tell seniors and boomers: eat right, exercise, do better retirement planning, work until you're 70 or 75, take care of your aging parents yourself because there are no resources left to help you. Those tax breaks to the rich and the war in Iraq come first.

It was even worse than that, strictly tops down with delegates asked to rubber stamp White House designed policy recommendations. The Alliance for Retired Americans circulated a imprompteau petition which within a few hours got 20% of the delegate's signatures calling for reinstatement of rules (which the Bush White House had nullified for this conference) which would allow for amendments to resolutions from the floor. The chair refused to accept the petition despite and outcry from the room and various delegates calling for Point of Order.

Once again Democracy got trampled under the boots of right-wing Republican idealogues.

The Alliance for Retired Americans was very active during the conference reaching out to seniors and trying to democratize the conference. Oh yeah, the AARP sponsored a reception and handed out membership solicitations and was never seen again.

http://www.retiredamericans.org/

And try to imagine how the delegates from Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Alabama felt when they heard the wonderful CNN story about how the U.S. is rebuilding the marshes of Southern Iraq. Of course, that story did not mention anything at all about how the Katrina & Rita victims still live in tents, motels and lean tos.

Bush Bashing, you damn straight, and every word of it is documented fact.

Get involved! Let's drive this dry-drunk sociopath from office along with his crypto-nazi, fascist, religious-fanatic administration. As to his whack-job supporters, just scream in their face when they start their BS.

12-16-2005, 04:32 AM

Thanks usmc for the reality check. If one more ignoramus tells me we have a "liberal media" I think I'll scream.

This is really sad when our president ignores the elderly, especially since they vote in such high numbers.

It's a repeat pattern though. His MO is to praise a particular group like the old or veterans and then to cut their benefits behind their backs.

12-16-2005, 04:43 AM

http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/200...sion.320.240.mov.htm (http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2005/invasion.320.240.mov.htm)

Another example of him contradicting himself.

nacktman

12-16-2005, 05:14 AM

Well said usmc1. Reality is reality, one day all will live in it.

gormenghast20

12-16-2005, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
I agree. The links are just some madman's opinions which proves that anyone can own a website.

You know what they say about opinions.

LOL...if you want to influence me to your way of thinking you have to offer me something besides your opinion. You took neither the time to refute any of the author's assertions not to disparage his logic. Just calling someone a name because he doesn't share your viewpoint doesn't cut it.

p.s. Hope ya don't think this is "personal" because it isn't...just calling it like I see it. Also, I appreciate the advice you gave me earlier.

p.p.s. He may, in fact, be a nutbag...but you have to show that!

gormenghast20

12-16-2005, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
Thanks usmc for the reality check. If one more ignoramus tells me we have a "liberal media" I think I'll scream.

This is really sad when our president ignores the elderly, especially since they vote in such high numbers.

It's a repeat pattern though. His MO is to praise a particular group like the old or veterans and then to cut their benefits behind their backs.

But the Democrats have angered probably one of the biggest growing voting blocs in America today: that of the investor...over 60 millions families now have investments.

gormenghast20

12-16-2005, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Albinus,

Yeah, but your statements made some time ago don't answer at all any of those specific "charges" which I provided links to.

No doubt your ability to both extrapolate and consider the source has been impaired. When your abilit to connect the dots reappears you will no doubt scream "EUREKA".

When all else fails, follow the wisdom of the phrase coined in the Watergate investigation, "follow the money". When you realize that the organizations that support this writer (and others) raise millions of dollars and enrich themselves by reving up their base it will all become clear to you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, you're saying that organizations that DON'T support this writer aren't interested in money?

gormenghast20

12-16-2005, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Unwired:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
I'd be interested in hearing your comments on this commentary.

Mr. Sears seems a bit preoccupied...all but two of the links provided make some mention of same-sex marriage and/or homosexuality, usually to deride any judicial decision or policy that protects gays and lesbians from harrassment and discrimination. Beyond that, there's very little new about any of this; it's more of the same rhetoric we've been hearing (and will continue to hear) for years to come...that our nation is going to hell in a handbasket, and it's the ACLU- backed by the homosexual activists, secular humanists, and Christian-haters- who are to blame.

Then again, I wouldn't really expect anything different from the leader of the Alliance Defense Fund (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4457), a right-wing legal organization whose founders include...guess who? Mr. Focus on the Family himself...http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BTW gormenghast20: what does any of the above have to do with the Bush administration's own apparent disregard for the Constitution? Because those links, while entertaining...don't really address the issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See previous page:

"The ACLU is what protects our Constitution which is very American if you ask me, especially when we have a president that considers the Constitution as "just another g*d d*mn piece of paper" (direct quote)

Read this latest article describing another of Bush's temper tantrums.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

http://www.mynudelife.com"

12-16-2005, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
Thanks usmc for the reality check. If one more ignoramus tells me we have a "liberal media" I think I'll scream.

This is really sad when our president ignores the elderly, especially since they vote in such high numbers.

It's a repeat pattern though. His MO is to praise a particular group like the old or veterans and then to cut their benefits behind their backs.

But the Democrats have angered probably one of the biggest growing voting blocs in America today: that of the investor...over 60 millions families now have investments. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In what way?

usmc1

12-16-2005, 01:22 PM

"But the Democrats have angered probably one of the biggest growing voting blocs in America today: that of the investor...over 60 millions families now have investments.[/QUOTE]

Well, let's play the numbers game and drive some facts home. There are more than 48-million Americans on Social Security--57% of them are women. There are 73-78 million baby boomers heading to the system with the first batch to hit next month. Even with mortality, in less than a decade, there will be 120 million families looking on Social Security and Medicare to help sustain their sunset years.

Now, of your "60-million investing families" how many of those "investments" are merely IRAs, 401Ks, KEOGH and other such retirement or pension fund or mutual fund accounts? Do you know? Did the thought occur to you to look beyond the surface of that number to see what it really meant? And, prefacing the whole thing with "probably" signals to me you are relatively clueless and just blowing smoke.

I know a lot about politics and you need to read this from someone who knows: There is no voting bloc of (60-million) investors. Nope, none. Nary a one.

Anyway, that aside, find out and extract the IRAs, 401Ks and such from your count, and you will find something around the real figure of "investors" unhappy with Democrats--it will be about the same number of those who still think that shrub is the beans (about 35% - 40%).

But, pal, I've got to tell you, seniors ain't even close to being happy with this dry-drunk sociopath, and his coven of crypto-nazi, neo-facist, religious fanatic whack-job administration and their attempts to privatize Social Security in the way they've "privatized" plan D. And they ain't even blaming that on the Democrats.

And now, today, we've found out that the President violated his oath to upahold the Constitution by authorizing illegal wire-taps and e-mail covers on American Citizens. And, you've got a leading, long-term, very respected Republican Senator that is opening an investigation into that, while Fitzgerald is on the verge of indicting Rove. And, the whole Abramoff/Lott is 60 to 90 days from exploding. No, it's not Democrats with which the people are angry.

Back to e-mail covers. If you've e-mailed someone from out of the country, or have gotten e-mail from out of the country, then there is a possibility that your governemnt was spying on you and you're now part of a federal data-base. Did you mention nudism, a nude beach, or nude vacation cruise? If so, you're most likely now identified as a "fringe" type, perhaps even an undesireable element of society. No it's not the Democrats that are pissing people off.

In short; the game is up, lies are unraveling, chickens are coming home to roost, truth is outing, so get out of town, because the hangman is buying hemp, twining it and setting aside some money for a train ticket to DC.

nacktman

12-16-2005, 03:56 PM

Bravo usmc1.

Naturist Mark

12-16-2005, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
But the Democrats have angered probably one of the biggest growing voting blocs in America today: that of the investor...over 60 millions families now have investments.

The majority - over half - of all private investments are owned by the top 1/20th of Amercicans. And even among that top 5%, most of these people have their investments in tax sheltered retirement plans like 401(k)s. Almost all of the benefit from Bush's slashing of capital gains and other non-wage taxes goes to the top 1% or better.

The rest of us see our small investments increasingly endangered by unrestrained deficits, the willful destruction of our economic infrastructure, and fiscal (not to mention moral) irresponsibility.

While technically incomes may be on the rise because the extremely wealthy have seen their wealth explode, the middle class is growing poorer, the poor are growing even poorer, and their ranks are swelling.

http://tinyurl.com/claq8
http://tinyurl.com/cfs8e
http://tinyurl.com/7d2nx

-Mark

12-17-2005, 01:12 PM

Report: Bush authorised spying on Americans (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FCBE61F5-6FE9-45FD-8153-A76532D4D8EA.htm)

gormenghast20

12-17-2005, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:
"But the Democrats have angered probably one of the biggest growing voting blocs in America today: that of the investor...over 60 millions families now have investments.

Well, let's play the numbers game and drive some facts home. There are more than 48-million Americans on Social Security--57% of them are women. There are 73-78 million baby boomers heading to the system with the first batch to hit next month. Even with mortality, in less than a decade, there will be 120 million families looking on Social Security and Medicare to help sustain their sunset years.

Now, of your "60-million investing families" how many of those "investments" are merely IRAs, 401Ks, KEOGH and other such retirement or pension fund or mutual fund accounts? Do you know? Did the thought occur to you to look beyond the surface of that number to see what it really meant? And, prefacing the whole thing with "probably" signals to me you are relatively clueless and just blowing smoke.

I know a lot about politics and you need to read this from someone who knows: There is no voting bloc of (60-million) investors. Nope, none. Nary a one.

Anyway, that aside, find out and extract the IRAs, 401Ks and such from your count, and you will find something around the real figure of "investors" unhappy with Democrats--it will be about the same number of those who still think that shrub is the beans (about 35% - 40%).

But, pal, I've got to tell you, seniors ain't even close to being happy with this dry-drunk sociopath, and his coven of crypto-nazi, neo-facist, religious fanatic whack-job administration and their attempts to privatize Social Security in the way they've "privatized" plan D. And they ain't even blaming that on the Democrats.

And now, today, we've found out that the President violated his oath to upahold the Constitution by authorizing illegal wire-taps and e-mail covers on American Citizens. And, you've got a leading, long-term, very respected Republican Senator that is opening an investigation into that, while Fitzgerald is on the verge of indicting Rove. And, the whole Abramoff/Lott is 60 to 90 days from exploding. No, it's not Democrats with which the people are angry.

Back to e-mail covers. If you've e-mailed someone from out of the country, or have gotten e-mail from out of the country, then there is a possibility that your governemnt was spying on you and you're now part of a federal data-base. Did you mention nudism, a nude beach, or nude vacation cruise? If so, you're most likely now identified as a "fringe" type, perhaps even an undesireable element of society. No it's not the Democrats that are pissing people off.

In short; the game is up, lies are unraveling, chickens are coming home to roost, truth is outing, so get out of town, because the hangman is buying hemp, twining it and setting aside
some money for a train ticket to DC.[/QUOTE]

Well, here's some more smoke for you to consider:

"The Tax Foundation has data showing roughly 20 percent of individuals between ages 45 and 64 claim capital gains, while about 30 percent of seniors over 65 claim them. Roughly half of seniors rely on dividend income, with about one-third of the 45 to 64 crowd. Also, over 80 percent of taxpayers claiming dividend income, and 76 percent claiming capital gains, earned less than $100,000 dollars in 2004. And, of course with 57 million households owning stock these days, the younger cohorts that have 15-20 percent of their incomes from capital gains and dividends will only rise as they get older."

Investors are always the most likely to vote in elections...because their economic futures are at stake. Angering these voters is both politically and economically stupid.

American Shareholders Association (http://www.americanshareholders.com/news/article.php?article=70)

Pay attention to the third paragraph.

I never said I was for roving wiretaps.

As for your last paragraph...I guess we'll see what the people say in a few years...won't we.

gormenghast20

12-17-2005, 01:15 PM

nacktman

12-17-2005, 02:00 PM

Here is why we invaded Iraq which was no threat to us and not North Korea which IS a threat to us.

sdson

12-17-2005, 02:30 PM

Right on brother!

Originally posted by jon71:
The A.C.L.U. is probably the most patriotic, most truly American organization is America today. I could tell from the titles of the links that it's just right wing fanaticism. Case in point "Why does the A.C.L.U. want to divorce marriage from morality?". I'll tell you why. Because they and I believe in freedom. Marriage is a state institution with legal ramifications. Matrimony is a church thing and one has nothing to do with the other. Morality is completely irrelevant when it comes to legal rights. The A.C.L.U. protects America in it's fight while certaian "churches" attack America with their Taliban-esque agenda.

Naturist Mark

12-17-2005, 02:58 PM

"The Tax Foundation has data showing roughly 20 percent of individuals between ages 45 and 64 claim capital gains, while about 30 percent of seniors over 65 claim them. Roughly half of seniors rely on dividend income, with about one-third of the 45 to 64 crowd. Also, over 80 percent of taxpayers claiming dividend income, and 76 percent claiming capital gains, earned less than $100,000 dollars in 2004. And, of course with 57 million households owning stock these days, the younger cohorts that have 15-20 percent of their incomes from capital gains and dividends will only rise as they get older."

This is misleading because it makes little attempt to quantify the amount of capital gains taxes those households pay. It is a very small amount for most people in the bottom 95%. Capital gains are less than income tax - a tax paid on wages. The neo-con class warriors want it to be zero, so that only working people have to pay taxes. Sound fair to you?

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>According to James Poterba and Andrew Samwick (of Dartmouth), although 36.8 percent of families held some stock, directly or indirectly in 1992, only 28.9 percent of families owned more than $2,000 worth of stock. Stock ownership is highly skewed: Half of all stock held by U.S. families is owned by the best-off 5 percent. In contrast, the bottom three-fourths of households own less than 20 percent of all stock, with the bottom half owning less than 5 percent. I wonder whom Samuel son considers "middle class."

There may be millions of people who own stock, but the gains from higher profitability and the stock market boom primarily benefit the best-off families and not the typical working family. Ordinary people still depend mainly on salaries and wages, and capital income has soared at the expense of their livelihood.
http://tinyurl.com/cfs8e[/list]

-Mark

12-17-2005, 03:51 PM

This is what my mother has to say about Bush's admission that he's been spying on us right here at home.

""After hearing about the President's approving "eavesdropping" without following the legal path of obtaining court warrants, I have to wonder.....where should we be fighting for a democratic system....Iraq or here?"

NudeTopher

12-17-2005, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
This is what my mother has to say about Bush's admission that he's been spying on us right here at home.

""After hearing about the President's approving "eavesdropping" without following the legal path of obtaining court warrants, I have to wonder.....where should we be fighting for a democratic system....Iraq or here?"

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Your Mom is a very smart and perceptive woman!

nacktman

12-17-2005, 06:30 PM

Indeed, Mom is a most wise woman.

Conor B

12-17-2005, 08:09 PM

Capital gains tax.

Investers did OK under clinton w/o the 15% rate; of course, Things haven't been that good in a long (well 5 years).

I Remember George Will saying, in argument against Gun Control Laws, 'Democracy is messy'. I was shocked that I'd agreed w/him and it firmed up my skepticism of gun control and anti-hate laws. BECAUSE such acceptance of Democracy's messiness includes All That The ACLU stands for. God/Allah/Yahweh/Bruce Sprinsteen Bless the ACLU. Reminding us that people we hate have as much right to speak as people we love.

And that the US in not a theocracy, Was created by men who in no way trusted nor desired anything other than symbolic acceptance of a diplomatically un-named (though kinda Masonic) sort of diety (or something) whose functions to remind us that we are, well, not the center of the universe.

Da** it, will those who attack the ACLU or any contrary organization please actually read the history and papers dealing with the founding of the country they proclaim to defend. Da**.

And study the performance of Wall Street under Dems vs. Reps.

And please tell me about the percentage of times the Reps use Faith to further charity and love of fellow man vs the % of the time they abuse the Christian tradition to defend Ceasar rather than god, to defend the money changers rather than the meek and to ignore the horrible fact that all that Jesus himself taught is traditional liberal values.

Hello UnWired. I've been so busy I only check in once in awhile. Comforting that these boards continue to fight the good cause.

as they say in Gospels, Peace.

Conor B

12-17-2005, 08:17 PM

And, re: extra-legal 'protecting us from the terrrrrrists':

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Love Ya all

NudeTopher

12-18-2005, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Conor B:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Capital gains tax.

Investers did OK under clinton w/o the 15% rate; of course, Things haven't been that good in a long (well 5 years).

<edited>

And study the performance of Wall Street under Dems vs. Reps.

<edited>

as they say in Gospels, Peace. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's about time somebody told the truth!

In another thread awhile ago I mentioned what my family has experienced after being in business for generations. In short:During Republican administrations there is always talk about tax reducations. Of course, during these administrations there are also revenue and profit reductions. During Democratic administrations, both revenue and profits are greater. We'd rather pay our fair share of taxes and have greater revenue and greater profits then worry about where our next dollar is coming from.

NudeTopher

12-18-2005, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by Conor B:
[QUOTE]
And please tell me about the percentage of times the Reps use Faith to further charity and love of fellow man vs the % of the time they abuse the Christian tradition to defend Ceasar rather than god, to defend the money changers rather than the meek and to ignore the horrible fact that all that Jesus himself taught is traditional liberal values.

Not being a Christian, I try never to comment on issues of Christianitybut from everything that I have ever heard about Jesus he lived his life according to "traditional liberal values" and taught/preached these values. JC - the original liberal.

But over time both religion and religious institutions have become big business. Christian Mega Churches, the Catholic Church, and The Mormon Church are all multi-billion dollar organizations. Preaching "traditional liberal values" will do nothing to enrich their respective organizations. They have found that by exploiting their (bully) pulpits their faithful contribute greater amounts.

God Bless the Pulpit Pimps!

NudeTopher

12-18-2005, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Albinus,

Yeah, but your statements made some time ago don't answer at all any of those specific "charges" which I provided links to.

No doubt your ability to both extrapolate and consider the source has been impaired. When your abilit to connect the dots reappears you will no doubt scream "EUREKA".

When all else fails, follow the wisdom of the phrase coined in the Watergate investigation, "follow the money". When you realize that the organizations that support this writer (and others) raise millions of dollars and enrich themselves by reving up their base it will all become clear to you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, you're saying that organizations that DON'T support this writer aren't interested in money? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said any such thing. But you still refuse to consider the source. This writer's odds of stating the truth is no greater then the odds of the stories that the Pentagon paid to appear in Iraqi newspapers honestly discussing Bush and his motives.

When money from mega churches are siphoned off to right wing think tanks do you think that they will pay for writing that is contrary to their belief without regard to the truth? Of course not. They only pay for that which supports their viewpoint - truth, lies, and intellectual dishonesty notwithstanding.

Unwired

12-18-2005, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by Conor B:
Hello UnWired. I've been so busy I only check in once in awhile. Comforting that these boards continue to fight the good cause.

Hi Conor, welcome back, check your PMs cos I've been trying to get in touch with you for-like-ever. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

OK, we now return you to your regularly scheduled back-n-forth.

usmc1

12-18-2005, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
"The Tax Foundation has data showing roughly 20 percent of individuals between ages 45 and 64 claim capital gains, while about 30 percent of seniors over 65 claim them. Roughly half of seniors rely on dividend income, with about one-third of the 45 to 64 crowd. Also, over 80 percent of taxpayers claiming dividend income, and 76 percent claiming capital gains, earned less than $100,000 dollars in 2004. And, of course with 57 million households owning stock these days, the younger cohorts that have 15-20 percent of their incomes from capital gains and dividends will only rise as they get older."

Investors are always the most likely to vote in elections...because their economic futures are at stake. Angering these voters is both politically and economically stupid.

Now, since Mark did his usual outstanding job filtering out the smoke of this cut & paste "statement" of yours, and identifying its misleading points; and, taking the third paragraph, which you directed us to, into consideration, allow me to launch into a brief discourse on why it was misleading from the git go.

Tax Foundation fails to count all income. It counts capital gains taxes as part of the taxes people pay but fails to count the capital gains income on which these taxes are levied as part of people's incomes. Counting taxes while failing to count the income on which the taxes are paid makes taxes appear larger as a percentage of income than they actually are

But, setting that aside, much of what you cite is all right-wing , neo-con BS originating with and emanating from a guy heading up various right-wing, front organizations in D.C.

Start with Americans For Tax Reform which was founded in the mid-80s inside the Reagan White House. Your boy Clifton Daniels was the prime instigator taking the title of Federal Affairs Manager.

ATR Foundation has received a number of grants from right wing foundations, including Olin, Scaife, Bradley, etc.

ATR is heavily funded by a number of corporate backers, with the tobacco, gambling and alcohol industries figuring most prominently in 1999. Other recent ATR funders have included Microsoft, Pfitzer, AOL Time Warner and UPS.

The denouement..Your boy, Clifton Daniel from ATR, is now, Daniel Clifton, Executive Director of American Shareholders Association from whose site you seem to have gleaned much of your "information".

Danny Boy once testified before a congressional committee that the Asbestos suits and settlements were counter productive to American business because they would force companies into bankruptcy. Never mind, he means, that those businesses were "counter productive" to millions of Americans who died, or were dying, or were going to be very, very ill and then die from the effects of breathing asbestos all their lives.

This is the morally squalid thinking from which you derive your inspiration?

Again, filtering through the smoke, you will find another player, Grover Norquist who sits on the boards of the National Rifle Association of America and the American Conservative Union.

Both men have integral connections with the Heritage Foundation, the 300-pound mother hen of right-wing action and front organizations, and from which much of the current White House staff came.

So Gormenghast, I am aghast, absolutely aghast that you have not yet learned your lesson.

Cut and paste jobs filled with murky, misleading numbers from wing-nut, disinformation factories just will not suffice.