|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/04/2004 05:34:00 PM · #51 |
By the way, Stormshadow was the coolest of all the GI Joe guys!
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 05:36:54 PM · #52 |
why thank you!didn't see that, but it is cited from the sept 6 issue of TIME.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 05:38:07 PM · #53 |
| however due to the consistency of the other polls i would say that there could possibly be an error with this one. |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 05:56:10 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
If the shoe fits.. |
Would you say Kerry has done a good job as a US Senator over the last 20 years? (just curious, I'm not setting up a attack or anything)
I only ask because I notice you spend a lot of time on the forums posting stuff negative to the right/conservative/republican/bush... but I don't recall you posting much positive stuff on Kerry. (Please correct me and many apoligies if I'm wrong) |
This is a simplified way of how I look at it.
The future of human life on earth is in the balance right now. The US is the most powerful and influential country in the world. We have important choices to make on what we will leave our children, grandchildren and so on, to live with.
#1 factor: Oil
Oil = Cheap energy
Oil = Almost all major human advancements in the last 140 years were able because of.
Oil = Our civilization depends on it.
Is Bush going to keep starting wars in the Middle East to "liberate" and "fight terrorism" for the next 4 years? He wants to fight terrorism yet our nuclear power plants, our boarders and our ports are barely protected and mostly overlooked. Invading Iraq has created more terrorism in the Middle East and probably will at home soon.
I think Kerry will not jump to create war so quickly and certainly not 2 wars at once abroad practically without ally support. He will more likely try to dig more in the US (maybe Alaska. I donât condone this but desperate times...) if he chooses to continue the oil trend of the US. He will do more funding and research into alternative energy's and hopefully try and wean the US from using as much energy and oil. And one of the most important things, he is not George Bush. He is worthy of respect and will serve as a much better symbol of the US to the rest of the world. The US can have a somewhat clean slate to fix the skrewups we made in the last few years.
Message edited by author 2004-09-04 18:00:41. |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 06:34:51 PM · #55 |
Sorry for the delayed response, Ron, I've been ..umm... taking photos. :-)
You're right, I meant the majority of people that voted, voted for a Democratic or liberal President. Sorry for the mis-statement.
Now, are you going to get all over graphicfunk for all his unsubstantiated accusations and propaganda, or is ok, since he's a conservative?
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by cbeller:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
... You see the majority of Americans are conservative. These are the people who do not believe the government owes them anything... |
Actually, the majority of Americans voted Democratic (or liberal) in the last election. |
If you insist on this absurd argument, then at least get it right - it wasn't "the majority of Americans", it was the majority of VOTING Americans; and you don't know whether they voted Democratic or not - they could have very easily split their ticket. You are inferring "Democratic" based on the number who voted for Al Gore for President in the last election.
First, only 76% of the voting age population are even REGISTERED, and of those, only 67.5 % actually voted. When distilled, that means that only slightly more than 25% of the voting age population of America voted for Al Gore - and 25% is not a "majority of Americans".
Ron |
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 06:42:12 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Ron youâre starting to get lame.
You actually stated molesting children and DUI as comparisons to having an abortion and marrying someone you love. |
Sorry, I thought you were saying "AMEN" in support for having government "stay out of people's lives allowing them to make choices."
I guess that that's another of the "only if it's a position I agree with" AMEN's.
Ron |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 06:47:44 PM · #57 |
| Thanks graphicfunk! You said exactly what I feel but don't have the words to express it as you do. |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 07:13:29 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
If the shoe fits.. |
Would you say Kerry has done a good job as a US Senator over the last 20 years? (just curious, I'm not setting up a attack or anything)
I only ask because I notice you spend a lot of time on the forums posting stuff negative to the right/conservative/republican/bush... but I don't recall you posting much positive stuff on Kerry. (Please correct me and many apoligies if I'm wrong) |
This is a simplified way of how I look at it.
The future of human life on earth is in the balance right now. The US is the most powerful and influential country in the world. We have important choices to make on what we will leave our children, grandchildren and so on, to live with.
#1 factor: Oil
Oil = Cheap energy
Oil = Almost all major human advancements in the last 140 years were able because of.
Oil = Our civilization depends on it.
Is Bush going to keep starting wars in the Middle East to "liberate" and "fight terrorism" for the next 4 years? He wants to fight terrorism yet our nuclear power plants, our boarders and our ports are barely protected and mostly overlooked. Invading Iraq has created more terrorism in the Middle East and probably will at home soon.
I think Kerry will not jump to create war so quickly and certainly not 2 wars at once abroad practically without ally support. He will more likely try to dig more in the US (maybe Alaska. I donât condone this but desperate times...) if he chooses to continue the oil trend of the US. He will do more funding and research into alternative energy's and hopefully try and wean the US from using as much energy and oil. And one of the most important things, he is not George Bush. He is worthy of respect and will serve as a much better symbol of the US to the rest of the world. The US can have a somewhat clean slate to fix the skrewups we made in the last few years. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your simplification invites a response. Can you tell me why we were unable to get the French, the German and Russia to join our coalition?
I think you seem informed and you know the answer. Let me be redondent.
The UN, the French, German and the Russians were dealing with Sadam. The Russians were helping the Iraqs and when they failed with their technology they ran off under our fire in one case. The oil for food was and is a disgrace of corruption. This tells you that these same people actually ganged up on the US. All of this is available for your perusal if you care to look into it.
9/11 started the War. We may have not taken the immediate stance if not for 9/11.
To say that the current elimination of many terroist is flaming the situation and creating more is to say that you favor no retaliation because you will make them madder. This is a non-sensical argument which has no teeth at all. These people have made up their mind to eliminate freedom in the entire world. These are fanatic who are ready to die.
With great respect, I disagree with your assessmnent. We did not start the war and I am for eliminating as many of these creeps as we can. Look at their mode of operation: they use barbaric and dark age behaviour such as beheading in public. Look what they did to the French, taking reporters hostage so that the countries laws fit their way.
Here is a piece of advise....these people hate Bush more than the Liberals do. They love Michael Moore and yes, the French looking candidate, Kerry is also loved.
Addendum: For those who say this war is about oil, you are right but not in the way you suppose. If there is any obstructions to the deliveries of oil they will render the larger part of the globe non-functional and great peril can ensue. So yes, we will fight for any illegal interruption of oil. Notice that we did not confiscate Iraqui oil. We are happy to pay for it.
Message edited by author 2004-09-04 19:21:49. |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 07:37:11 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by cbeller:
Sorry for the delayed response, Ron, I've been ..umm... taking photos. :-)
You're right, I meant the majority of people that voted, voted for a Democratic or liberal President. Sorry for the mis-statement.
Now, are you going to get all over graphicfunk for all his unsubstantiated accusations and propaganda, or is ok, since he's a conservative?
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by cbeller:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
... You see the majority of Americans are conservative. These are the people who do not believe the government owes them anything... |
Actually, the majority of Americans voted Democratic (or liberal) in the last election. |
If you insist on this absurd argument, then at least get it right - it wasn't "the majority of Americans", it was the majority of VOTING Americans; and you don't know whether they voted Democratic or not - they could have very easily split their ticket. You are inferring "Democratic" based on the number who voted for Al Gore for President in the last election.
First, only 76% of the voting age population are even REGISTERED, and of those, only 67.5 % actually voted. When distilled, that means that only slightly more than 25% of the voting age population of America voted for Al Gore - and 25% is not a "majority of Americans".
Ron |
|
I would if he were. But he speaks the truth, according to George Washington University Battleground Poll 2004 (XXVI), a bi-partisan survey ( ref here note: PDF file ). Here are the results of question D3.
When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be... (READ LIST, ROTATE TOP TO BOTTOM, BOTTOM TO TOP)
Very conservative ....................................19%
Somewhat conservative ................................41%
MODERATE (DNR) ........................................3%
Somewhat liberal .....................................26%
Very liberal ..........................................8%
UNSURE/REFUSED (DNR) ..................................3%
Distilled, that looks like
Conservative ( very or somewhat ) ...................60%
Moderate .............................................3%
Liberal ( very or somewhat ) ........................34%
That looks like a majority being Conservative to me ( I will admit that the survey didn't include children, but they usually mirror the views of their parents ).
As to whether "These are the people who do not believe the government owes them anything...", I can't prove definitively - though most surveys do indicate that Conservatives believe in smaller government. I did find an article by the Hoover Digest ( ref here ) that says:
"Compassionate conservatives believe that most people, most of the time, have the capacity to run their own lives and affairs for themselves (i.e., to be self-governing citizens, not passive clients of government or helpless victims of external social forces). Their compassion is defined by their belief that, where citizens presently lack the means or the capacity for self-governance, they must indeed be helped. Insofar as possible, that means allowing citizens to select for themselves how they wish to be helped, to demonstrate faith that people can indeed run their own affairs."
Ron
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 08:07:40 PM · #60 |
| i'm in the middle some conservative beliefs and some liberal. I do believe that there should be less government also, and that people can lead their own lives. But if most conservatives want this also, then shouldn't they be outraged by the Patriot Act? Just something to think about. |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 08:52:45 PM · #61 |
Thanks for the info, Ron, that is what I like about your posts. If you present your argument with substantiating information, it makes your argument more valid and doesn't appear to be partisan propaganda.
The main comments I was referring to though, were some of the seemingly wild accusations made in graphicfunk's original post.
Alright, back to editing photos and waiting for the Notre Dame game to start.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 09:04:21 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by stormshadow:
i'm in the middle some conservative beliefs and some liberal. I do believe that there should be less government also, and that people can lead their own lives. But if most conservatives want this also, then shouldn't they be outraged by the Patriot Act? Just something to think about. |
I'm with you - some ( O.K., mostly ) conservative beliefs ( some even libertarian ), and some liberal beliefs. My view of the Patriot Act is that it was put together hurriedly and under pressure, hence was too reactionary, leading to an overkill approach. It SHOULD have undergone critcal scrutiny since then and been revised/ammended in many respects. But all things considered, much of it IS necessary to prevent another major attack on our homeland. I'm not OUTRAGED by it, but I am saddened and upset that it exists in its current form.
I'll be interested to see what kind of "Patriot Act" the Russians come up with now, in the light of the recent terrorist attacks on their homeland. I doubt that their's will be as ( relatively ) restrained as ours.
Ron
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 09:08:38 PM · #63 |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 09:20:01 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your simplification invites a response. Can you tell me why we were unable to get the French, the German and Russia to join our coalition?
I think you seem informed and you know the answer. Let me be redondent.
The UN, the French, German and the Russians were dealing with Sadam. The Russians were helping the Iraqs and when they failed with their technology they ran off under our fire in one case. The oil for food was and is a disgrace of corruption. This tells you that these same people actually ganged up on the US. All of this is available for your perusal if you care to look into it.
9/11 started the War. We may have not taken the immediate stance if not for 9/11.
To say that the current elimination of many terroist is flaming the situation and creating more is to say that you favor no retaliation because you will make them madder. This is a non-sensical argument which has no teeth at all. These people have made up their mind to eliminate freedom in the entire world. These are fanatic who are ready to die.
With great respect, I disagree with your assessmnent. We did not start the war and I am for eliminating as many of these creeps as we can. Look at their mode of operation: they use barbaric and dark age behaviour such as beheading in public. Look what they did to the French, taking reporters hostage so that the countries laws fit their way.
Here is a piece of advise....these people hate Bush more than the Liberals do. They love Michael Moore and yes, the French looking candidate, Kerry is also loved.
Addendum: For those who say this war is about oil, you are right but not in the way you suppose. If there is any obstructions to the deliveries of oil they will render the larger part of the globe non-functional and great peril can ensue. So yes, we will fight for any illegal interruption of oil. Notice that we did not confiscate Iraqui oil. We are happy to pay for it. |
First off, your argument assumes I was against the Afghanistan war, which I wasnât, since that is the war that was against terrorism. The Iraq war was not.
2nd off, France, Russia and Germany had nothing to do w/ why Bush told Americans why he was sending their children to die.
Also your "French looking" comments against Kerry in a negative way just go to show your prejudice. I would like to look French. French guys get the most chicks.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 09:22:02 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by cbeller:
The main comments I was referring to though, were some of the seemingly wild accusations made in graphicfunk's original post |
Well, I can understand why some might consider some of graphicfunk's statements to be "seemingly wild". Those that are clearly matters of opinion or clearly not meant to be accepted as fact, I will not comment on. Neither will I parse his entire post at the behest of a third party. If you excerpt a particular statement or two that you find troubling and ask if I agree with them ( if stated as opinion ) or support them ( if proferred as fact ) I might be persuaded to respond. Then again, perhaps graphicfunk would be a better person to ask for substantiation.
On another note, thanks for the compliment. As I stated in an earlier post in one of these threads, numbers and statistics without reference to even a somewhat credible source leaves me with a degree of doubt - in this day and age it's far too easy to just make up some "reasonable" numbers that people will accept at face value without verification of any kind. With surveys in particular, I like to see not only the actual question, but those that preceded it - since many times earlier questions create a mind-set that influences the answer to later questions.
Ron |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 10:34:06 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The object of these lies were engineered to create a hatred for Bush. Much like they created a hatred for Reagan.
These people do not understand freedom and they attack and insult the very people who have shed their blood for their very freedom. |
***This is a false statement of YOURS. The most respect and support you can give our troops fighting a false war in Iraq would be to bring them home. I appreciate very much what our military does for us. It's the current administration who has none of their interests in mind and use them like pawns in a game of chess.***
***It's democratic to question and dissent against governments. |
Hmmm. Good to see that you're still able to post, Olyuzi. Since you never responded to the last question I posed to you in the "Appalling New Prison Photos" thread on 9/01, I thought that you had been called out of town or something. But here I see you pushing the same old tiresome solutions: "Bring them home". In case you have forgotten already ( it HAS been over two days ), you had already agreed that we can't just "bring them home" without creating increased ( not decreased ) conflict, potentially even civil war, in Iraq. You then suggested that we would first have to get other countries and the U.N. involved first. Then I responded with this - which you have not answered yet:
----------------
How do we get "more countries and the UN involved"?
Most other countries are being targeted by the Islamic Terrorists both in Iraq ( kidnappings and beheadings of their nationals ) and on their own sovereign soil ( as in the Madrid bombings, for example ). Some are already pulling out of Iraq as a result. What argument can the U.S. provide for them to go back in? For other countries under attack to remain?
The U.N. has already demonstrated that they cut and run as soon as they come under attack. What would entice them to become involved, other than diplomatically - which we already know doesn't solve the problem.
Ron |
***
***Ron, finally got home and now can respond to the above, but first let me say that I hope you and your family are on safe ground as the storm in Fla. bears down. I have family down in the Broward County area and they have told me the storm has been downgraded. Still serious and dangerous, but hopefully less powerful and less destructive.
I am commuting to upstate NY for work at least twice a week, so sometimes you may post a response to one of mine, but since I don't have my own computer up there it is possible that I will miss it, so thanks for the reminder. Feel free to give me a nudge if I'm remiss in posting a reply.
One of the main errors that the Bush administration made prior to going to war was that no plan was in place for reconstruction of the country and the government there. I do believe that one of our main goals is to greatly reduce our presence there. It doesn't have to happen overnight, but, imo, there needs to be major changes in the way we are going about the reconstruction of Iraq and how the US govt/military/intelligence communities are approaching it. First off, the US government has to get rid of John Negroponte as ambassador to Iraq. He is a well known human rights abuser from his days in Honduras and Nicaragua. Also, the Iraqi Governing Council needs to be completely overhauled because its members were chosen soley by the US and is looked upon by the Iraqi people as a puppet institution for US interests. In addition, the CIA also needs to have less of a say in Iraqi affairs and get rid of Illawi as prime minister (he's not trusted either by the people there as he has a history of working with the CIA).
These gestures will be looked upon by the Iraqi people as sincere attempts by the US to establish a government in Iraq that is more responsive and accountable to the Iraqis, and not to the US government. This would also stem the tide of increased terrorism and would allow the UN and other countries to come in and share the responsiblities of reconstructing Iraq. That would be a great start, imo. Do you agree? |
|
|
|
09/05/2004 02:47:58 AM · #67 |
Also your "French looking" comments against Kerry in a negative way just go to show your prejudice. I would like to look French. French guys get the most chicks.
***********************************************************************
Madmorgan: It is obvious you lack a sense of humor and you speak with a tone of of self assured pomposity. I refered to Kerry as the French looking candidate because (imagine you hear his bombastic voice) "I have spoken with world leaders and they know best what is for us. Me kerry and not G. Bush" He also boasted to friends that when speaking with his brother they would switch from English to french to avoid being overheard. Nothing wrong with speaking any other language. I just do not want an elitist who is going to tell me that my salvation is with the french and the UN. I knowm he touches a chord in you because you believe as he does. That is okay. I simply disagree with him.
There were contacts with Iraq. Now, did you ever hear about a pipeline to Syria? Did you know that Iraq supplied this oil to Syria. I think you also know what Syria is known for. Can you honestly say that Iraq was totally innocent. Even the 9/11 commission, which was a ploy to crucify Bush, found contacts although not related to 9/11. But I know, Michael Moore told you different.
The war is not with one of these dictatorships...it involves the whole lot and we just hope that we can clean house before they do. As a result of the Iraqi war, Kadafi surrendered the arsenal they were building underground. While you are going on with your life, Iran is flexing its muscles. They have good control of the waters and the looming fear is that they will mined the water outlets to stop the oil deportation. There is so much afoot that you should listen to the democratic John Loftus.
Prejudiced I am not. I have argued with your blindness in my youth. Both the republican and democratic parties have changed dramatically and as usual I am like I always have been all my life. I feel like a misfit. I am a conservative but Bush is too liberal for me. Yet, he is the closer to my beliefs than the unhinged liberal wing which has taken over the democratic party.
So you see, men of good will can differ on any given opinion, but I feel that the Liberals, to win power, have downplayed the war and wants people to believe that 9/11 did not happen and if it did it was an aberration. To this end all these massive lies have risen which even refer to Bush as someone worst than Sadam and worst than Hitler. The Liberal choir chant these lies and some even believe them.
I do not present facts in my arguments because I am not here to teach anybody anything. However, my statements are true and if you chose you can verify them. I am not listing sources otherwise I would need page after page, after page. I do my research and I do it thoroughly. The facts then become elementary...we need not keep posting surveys and quotes. Do you your homework and reach your own conclusions. Allow truth to over ride the pettiness part of our nature.
A faction believes the war in Iraq is wrong. Another faction, as big believes the war is justified. Also remember....remeber...Bush did not start this war nor did he decide it on his own...We do not allow presidents to act so. The war got congressional approval. However, the same Liberals that signed on to the war...suddenly made it seem like they never signed and they ran a propoganda blaming Bush for the war.
Are you people for real. Look, as we speak, history is being recorded of what all these politicians say and do. Are they not ashamed that they stand and lie. Are we that dumb? They know we are not dumb, but they know that liberals justify the end with any means. They also have a very dumb following because I hear Liberals who mean well, repeat these lies as if they were truth.
In view of the above, who can take any of these ranting Liberals seriously? I just came back from New York via Path which was rebuilt in the identical area that the Twin Towers stood. The war has only just begun and I rather have Bush at the helm than a man who voted for it before he voted against it.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2004 01:39:48 PM · #68 |
graphicfunk, as you did not respond to my main points again and brought up more ridiculous generalizations and saying that liberals say Bush is worse than Saddam and Hitler, this should be my last response to any of your posts. I only hope others can see through your fancy writing and realize the folly in what you post. Also for the record, the 9/11 commission was not a âploy to crucify Bushâ. For god sakes he was the only person who had to have a buddy to go in with him to testify. Can you imagine if Clinton had said âno I wont testify without Goreâ. Ya friggin right, he would have been shredded. Bush was handled with child gloves.
And implying Iraq was in the terrorism bed with Syria and that somehow that was the cause for going into Iraq, though the president never mentioned it.
Even if the above were true, Bush still mislead the American people and he still tried to fight two very expencive wars at once in the Middle East, one of the most unstable places on earth, without a full plan whatsoever, leading to constant American soldier deaths and .injuries, and creating a new terrorist state and with the kidnappings that started happening after we invaded and with Iraqi Policeand people getting blown up by the dozens daily and hundreds weekly and the recent attacks on a Russia school (10 of the men were Arab); it would appear that the world is far more dangerous now.
Bush; Unfit to command
Message edited by author 2004-09-05 14:05:08. |
|
|
|
09/05/2004 02:15:10 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
How do we get "more countries and the UN involved"?
Most other countries are being targeted by the Islamic Terrorists both in Iraq ( kidnappings and beheadings of their nationals ) and on their own sovereign soil ( as in the Madrid bombings, for example ). Some are
already pulling out of Iraq as a result. What argument can the U.S. provide for them to go back in? For other countries under attack to remain?
The U.N. has already demonstrated that they cut and run as soon as they come under attack. What would entice them to become involved, other than diplomatically - which we already know doesn't solve the problem.
Ron |
***
***Ron, finally got home and now can respond to the above, but first let me say that I hope you and your family are on safe ground as the storm in Fla. bears down. I have family down in the Broward County area and they have told me the storm has been downgraded. Still serious and dangerous, but hopefully less powerful and less destructive.
I am commuting to upstate NY for work at least twice a week, so sometimes you may post a response to one of mine, but since I don't have my own computer up there it is possible that I will miss it, so thanks for the reminder. Feel free to give me a nudge if I'm remiss in posting a reply.
One of the main errors that the Bush administration made prior to going to war was that no plan was in place for reconstruction of the country and the government there. I do believe that one of our main goals is to greatly reduce our presence there. It doesn't have to happen overnight, but, imo, there needs to be major changes in the way we are going about the reconstruction of Iraq and how the US govt/military/intelligence communities are approaching it. First off, the US government has to get rid of John Negroponte as ambassador to Iraq. He is a well known human rights abuser from his days in Honduras and Nicaragua. Also, the Iraqi Governing Council needs to be completely overhauled because its members were chosen soley by the US and is looked upon by the Iraqi people as a puppet institution for US interests. In addition, the CIA also needs to have less of a say in Iraqi affairs and get rid of Illawi as prime minister (he's not trusted either by the people there as he has a history of working with the CIA).
These gestures will be looked upon by the Iraqi people as sincere attempts by the US to establish a government in Iraq that is more responsive and accountable to the Iraqis, and not to the US government. This would also stem the tide of increased terrorism and would allow the UN and other countries to come in and share the responsiblities of reconstructing Iraq. That would be a great start, imo. Do you agree? |
Well, although you did not answer my questions in a direct fashion, you did offer logical opinions of the kind of changes you would envision leading to a lessening of "insurgent" attacks and facilitate withdrawal
of coalition troops - both good things. Your observations appear to closely represent the opinions of a large group of the Iraqi's - as can be seen by the popularity surrounding Muqtada Al-Sadr.
I can certainly agree with much of what you say, but have some difficulty in envisioning at least part of what you propose. As you know there are three major political/religious factions in Iraq, all of whom want to have the majority representation ( read: power ) in the new ( democratic ) Iraq: the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds. It was virtually impossible for the Coalition to appoint a representative intermediate governing council that would satisfy all three factions, so they chose members that hit the middle ground, thus satisfying the Coalition, and dis-satisfying all three of those factions - but at least dis-satisfying them equally. I am hoping that Al-Sadr's recent indications ( at the request of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani ), to pursue change through political means rather than through insurrection, will lead to greater stability and result in effective and peaceful elections in January.
Unfortunately, I think that it is too late to stem the tide of increased terrorism. That tide began long before the Iraqi conflict and has already spread beyond terrorism aimed only at the U.S. At the present time, MOST of the active wars/conflicts/insurgencies in the world are Islamic Terrorists versus whoever. Russia, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, the Philippines, the Middle East - everywhere you look it's Islamic Terrorists versus the current government. And, unfortunately, say as you may, I believe that they will NOT negotiate anything short of surrender.
Ron
P.S. Hurricane Frances is perhaps not as powerful as Charley was, but it is moving so slowly that its damages will exceed those inflicted by Charley. Charley passed just to the east of where I live, and Frances is passing south of here. We are currently at the mid-point of its crossing Florida, and so far we've only seen a lot of gusting wind ( 40 mph gusting to around 60 ) and about 4 inches of rain at my house. The east coast was battered severely. Luckily, those areas were evacuated ahead of the storm. By tonight, the evacuees will be heading back to the east coast, only to have their hotel rooms in center-state re-occupied - this time by those evacuating the western part of the state, once Frances heads into the gulf, and picks up some strength before hitting the panhandle. Its not over yet. |
|
|
|
09/05/2004 09:31:50 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
graphicfunk, as you did not respond to my main points again and brought up more ridiculous generalizations and saying that liberals say Bush is worse than Saddam and Hitler, this should be my last response to any of your posts. I only hope others can see through your fancy writing and realize the folly in what you post. Also for the record, the 9/11 commission was not a âploy to crucify Bushâ. For god sakes he was the only person who had to have a buddy to go in with him to testify. Can you imagine if Clinton had said âno I wont testify without Goreâ. Ya friggin right, he would have been shredded. Bush was handled with child gloves.
And implying Iraq was in the terrorism bed with Syria and that somehow that was the cause for going into Iraq, though the president never mentioned it.
Even if the above were true, Bush still mislead the American people and he still tried to fight two very expencive wars at once in the Middle East, one of the most unstable places on earth, without a full plan whatsoever, leading to constant American soldier deaths and .injuries, and creating a new terrorist state and with the kidnappings that started happening after we invaded and with Iraqi Policeand people getting blown up by the dozens daily and hundreds weekly and the recent attacks on a Russia school (10 of the men were Arab); it would appear that the world is far more dangerous now.
Bush; Unfit to command |
Do not bother to respond but it is clear that you do not have your facts straight. You are blind with rage and hatred when you conclude with the Liberal wimp line that out initiative is making the enemy madder. You are subscribing to liberal slants and your sources are not reliable. Did you forget that when Clinton testified he dod so with the aid of Sandy Berger who was walking around with top secret papers in his trousers. The 9/11 was a ploy..it was an excuse to place the administration under scrutiny. Clinton's representative, remember the wall, was placed in this commission. No, this was a ploy and others remain afoot to try to impeach the president. We all knew what had taken place and this was bad timing, simply because we are at war. But the left pretends we are not at war and seeks a blind vengeance.
Look, I think a sincere part of you will see the following. First the Book by Woodward to prove that Bush is a relogious fanatic, then Clark who was quickly dismantled, then Michael Moore, who again was dismantled even by some of his own party. With Rather now joining the fray to run a special on the pull of the Busch family.
Notice how all of these attempts have fallen by the wayside while Kerry cries foul by a group of vets. Shameless Kerry with his seared memories of Cambodia and his display of honors, one with a "V," which the Navy says: no such thing. I can see your viewpoint and I understand why someone like you wishes to replace Busch, but look at the man you are betting on. Result is the polls rise to favor Busch.
Both our post are duly recorded and the readers, depending on their affiliation and the grasp of the facts will be able to sort out the facts and the opinions. The middle east is a cauldron and what the administration reveals is only part. It is too complicated and does not lend itself to your black and white comprehension. For the administration to drop all the names would have the libs climbing the wall because it begs the questions, "Just how many wars will we have to fight?" Rightfully so, they conclude that after we unarm a couple the rest may fall in place. This is only an opinion. Yet you sit back and can not even admit that getting rid of Sadam is good because it broke the viscious ring of the UN, the French, Russian and German governments.
If we are going to fight the terroist, these countries can not be allowed to be dealing in the backdoor. Consider this ring and see why these countries opposed us. Prior to all this, Libya had created an underground, beneath a mountain, to go nuclear.
Consider all of the above. You have a bunch of rougue dictatorships arming themselves and moving rods and military equipment and parts and you have foul play. Thiese are the facts and not many people can understand the entire scope. But Sadam was in cahoots with the above countries and the UN and was in violation and we got the congressional okay to go to war.
Please tell me which of these are generalizations? You do not even see the peril we face because you are too busy displaying a blind hatred without having all the facts in your hands.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2004 10:02:35 PM · #71 |
Last response.
None of your post has any merit in what my argument is, again. It doesnât matter if France even gave nukes to Saddam. The point is, Bush mislead the Nation, made many miscalculations and mistakes which have lead to a more unstable and dangerous world situation that he wont own up to and should not be given 4 more years to make things worse.
Message edited by author 2004-09-05 22:03:26. |
|
|
|
09/05/2004 10:22:33 PM · #72 |
And here is my last:
The result of the election will prove that your democratic talking points are wrong and false.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2004 11:23:12 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
If the world were a Utopia and it was all socialist, just the way the new democratic party wants....there will arise some Vikings or some Hitlers. Check your history. Now, since these aggressors consider the socialist lambs, they will overide the herd. Look at your socialist countries now and show me their military budgets. Ah, yes you say, we can always bring the aggressors to the bargaining table. |
***It was with the help and support of industrialists like Henry Ford, JP Morgan, Prescott Bush and Wall Street and US banks that Hitler ascended to power.***
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
That is the big difference of people who do not understand the conservative philosophy. They do not comprehend the meaning of freedom nor its cost. This is where the new democratic party fails miserably.
Freedom requires that our blood be shed to conserve it. This is a very sad fact of life. Think about it carefully and you will come to the conclusion that not all men are honorable and some will kill you because you have something they want. Think of what would have taken place had the USA refused to confront Hitler? |
***Very good point and exactly why liberals see through all the rhetoric of the Bushites to realize and acknowledge their neocon agenda of American imperialistic domination of the world's resources. As you point out, not all men are honorable and some will kill you because of what you have. In the case of Bush and the neocons, it's oil and world domination they want. ***
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
I am a conservative and therefore vote republican. But, as much as you want to hate me and my kind, remember that freedom has a price attached and the very freedom that you employ to rant and protest and demostrate was given to you by the blood of the soldier. This is a sad fact about life and freedom, it can not be had in no other way.
Right now, we are in a state of war. There is no doubt that we have the worst enemy you can face...a backward people who are ready and willing to die to destroy us. The enemy matrix is all over the globe and please do not forget 9/11. |
***Who can forget 9/11 when Bush and the republicans keep rubbing our faces in and using it to their political benefits provoking fear with the false color alerts?***
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The enemy has served notice and it can strike us or our loved ones. Under such circumstannces just what is it that we are supposed to do? The question is: What would you do to protect the USA from these attackers? |
***Good question! 1. Change our energy dependencies from fossil fuels to other alternatives. 2. Help to resolve the Palestinian issue. 3. Remove US military bases from Muslim countries that don't want us. 4. Stop the CIA from meddling with the politics of local governments and start empowering the people there to have control over their own lives so they can live them the way they want to. 5. Stop the neocon invader/imperialistic methods.***
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
You see, life can not go on as it did prior to 9/11. Our freedoms must be temporarily checked because we do know that the enemy is within us. |
t of ***I do not agree with that and do not want to live in the totalitarian governmenfascists.***
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The current democratic party wants political power so bad that it invents lies which intelligent people go about and repeat with their very own lips as if it were gospel. Long after all these lies are exposed for what they are, there is a diehard faction which continue to repeat the lie. I hear otherwise intelligent people talking dumb. |
***Interesting point in that it's exactly the Bushites who invented the lies of Iraq and Hussein that were perpetuated to go to war for phoney reasons. Iraq and WMDs...LIES. Husseing and al Qaeda...FALSE. Military solution to terrorism...FALSE.***
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The object of these lies were engineered to create a hatred for Bush. Much like they created a hatred for Reagan.
These people do not understand freedom and they attack and insult the very people who have shed their blood for their very freedom. |
***This is a false statement of YOURS. The most respect and support you can give our troops fighting a false war in Iraq would be to bring them home. I appreciate very much what our military does for us. It's the current administration who has none of their interests in mind and use them like pawns in a game of chess.***
***It's democratic to question and dissent against governments. |
Okay. Let me address your replies in order. Before we came into power, world histoty shows that many countries were subdued. This is a peculiar trait of the human being where the mean, evil and strong always seek the subjugation of the weak. This has nothing to do with the capitalistic picture you portray. On a smaller level, notice that we have jails and that policing is needed to avoid the bad people from taking the lives and goods of the innocent. I know, you think man, if left to his own devices, he will be good and peace loving, but in real life this is a dream.
Your point about Bush and neocons. How you arrive at this conlusion escapes logistics. Look at this scenario for a clue. The USA is most dependent on oil. If shipments were to be stopped, it would bring us to a screeching halt. Big nightmare, because we would not be able to transfer food to your markets, all production dependent on oil and there are many will freeze. Yes, we will be catapulted into oblivion.
It is the job of all administrations to maintain the flow of oil. Do you honestly believe that Bush is making an illegal dollar. The paper trails are too excessive for the democratic party to overlook such involvements. Of course, you can look at the USA as the culprits. Think what a disaster it would prove if we went under. The massive hand out that we extend the globe will be no more because no other country can match our resources. You are saying shoot down America and let these poor countries do without our generosity.
You say America is imperialistic. Show me, in the last hundred years where we have taken posession of other countries. You forget, we liberate, and we give up lives because that is what we believe. You see, without doubt, I would rather be dead than live in a communist or socilist regime. What your argument does is merely present an accusation which is taught be leftist professors. Go with it, if it makes you feel good. It is always nice to accuse others in order to lift your own rightousness. We do not seek to dominate. It is call trading, you give me bread and I will give you eggs.
"change your energies..." How can we. The Liberals have resisted the USA from tapping its own resources. They prefer that we let other countries dirty their own back yard. Well, alternate source is certainly the wave of the future. Do you think that we loved being held hostage by foreign oil? Even if we could tap our own, the influx of immigrants along with production of goods and services, call it growth, keep upping our needs. Tell me, the countries we liberated, are they not running their own affairs. We liberate and with liberation comes the reward to deal in free trade with these countries. That is the goodness of capitalism which the socialist fail to see. You have a dynamo that can multiply to profit and enhance the global realm. We want countries to be on their own and we know that the best way for them to care for themselves is to copy the model of freedom. Please tell me how you empower any people?
Who can forget 9/11....here you reveal a panic opinion which is geared towards election tactics. I live right next to 9/11 with many dead..To say that other attempts have not been foiled and that every warning is geared towards creating fear...then you are much better than me. One 9/11 for me with its monumental loss is enough. Nothing will ever frighten me more. Give me all the warnings. I go about my life and when my number is up, so be it.
***I do not agree with that and do not want to live in the totalitarian governmenfascists.***
Now her you present an opinion that contradicts the danger. Is what you mean, "that you would rather let the terroist kill you than be beholding to protection?"
***Interesting point in that it's exactly the Bushites who invented the lies of Iraq and Hussein that were perpetuated to go to war for phoney reasons. Iraq and WMDs...LIES. Husseing and al Qaeda...FALSE. Military solution to terrorism...FALSE.***
Check current history. Clinton, Kerry, the UN had all said and agreed that Sadam posted a threat. Even Kerry says that knowing the information we had he would have done the same only differently, whatever that means. The facts are there for your study if you care to look. This was the general vote...and you know that a while back Sadam's atomic plant was destroyed. He is not just a regular nice guy.
Since we have not seen the conclusion it is easy to say false. Loose yourself in this thought if it makes you feel better.
********************************************************************
***This is a false statement of YOURS. The most respect and support you can give our troops fighting a false war in Iraq would be to bring them home. I appreciate very much what our military does for us. It's the current administration who has none of their interests in mind and use them like pawns in a game of chess.***
***It's democratic to question and dissent against governments. [/quote
This is not a false statement. No one has questioned your right to dissent...soldiers have already died and continue to die to insure you this right, but you do not get it. You forget the basis of freedom. They die in honor and while there are miscalculations, the overall good is demonstrated. Remember, it is the Republicans who go to war to defend liberty. To denigrade their purpose is a disservice to all soldiers and veterans.
Message edited by author 2004-09-05 23:42:23. |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 11:18:55 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by e301:
Interesting and lucid.
But 'our globe sees the rise of aggressors' - I must take issue here. whist that statement is true, 'our' globe (yours, mine) does not universally see the US as the only defence against them. A large part of the world actually sees the US as self-centred to a fightening degree, and unwilling to comprehend the often circular and complex xituations and motivations of others, not to mention their different priorities, and rather fond of it's oil-burners.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please be advise that I understand your point of view. However, there is a time line that must be addressed in order to bring your points home. The moment you take the argument to address human suffering, we are in a different debate altogether.
My point is that a government must have the means to protect themselves against invadors. If the defense budget is allocated to solve other problems then we will one day not be here to help anybody. Keep in mind that the USA does more than any other countries to help the smaller countries. We are generous but consider that we are indeed a baby in the time line of history, yet we continue to grow. We are not as bigoted or as insensitive as you state. It is the capitalist formula with freedom that makes us great and gives us the right to discuss and express open hatred for out leaders. Other places would shut us up at once.
In this timeline, the aggressors have changed the very map with their conquest and they do not give up. But look at history and ask yourself the question: should not one of these old countries have addressed the human suffering you mention. I am sure many have addressed the problem, but limited resources always intervene. I think Christ put it best when he said that the poor will always be with us.
Look, I truly see your lofty vantage, but bear in mind that at one point the rubber must hit the road and this is reality. Man always falls short of his aspirations. It serves no purpose to attack the end results as total failures because I doubt that any of us have the answer.
With all I our defects, we remain the super structure because we produce to an uncanny degree and the moment we stop the global economy will die. We are that big but we are not as bad as you paint us.
There is a lot of dishonesty world wide and countries attack us, but the big wars have brought many of these countries to their knees and they are no longer what they once were.
Administrations come and go and the replublicans feels just as threatened as the democrats. It does not matter who holds the reign, they both manage to mess things up. And we the people, are asked to take sides and we are pitted against each other with both side turning logic on its very head just to win the power. What is it for us?
Right now we have a deadly enemy that if left unchecked, will render us all dead and void. The complications have weaved through the years and not one of us is able to unravel this mess. The recent Russian incidents leaves a very bad taste in ones' mouth. We are dealing with barbaric enemy who is attaining nuclear power. It is a serious problem which is overtaking all the better dreams of man of good will.
Many people I know are far more worried about the economic potential of another Bush administration - many foresee a continuance of the budgetary mishandling, ultimately leading to serious defaulting on obligations to creditor countries: this would be completely in line with current isolationist US economic policy. The consequences of this would be quite horific worldwide, especially as ever for the poor and disposessed, though it would actually be a rather good thing for Europe, as we have little liability (comparatively) in the US budget deficit.
Your own post makes the tautologous point that throughout history the world's freedoms have always been paid for with the blood of it's soldiers. That is most often true. Many of the world's attempted hegemonies have likewise been built on the blood of soldiers (Hitler, Alexander, Rome, the USSR, Napoleon, Khan to name the obvious ones), and mostly with the propaganda elements to accompany it. The belt-buckle inscription of the Nazi armies was 'Gott mit uns' - God With Us. That people die for a cause does not make it right, no more than it makes it wrong.
That much of the world starves, that much of the world lives in peril of the rising seas, that much of the world stuggles pitifully to scrape some kind of existence, whilst the leaders prosecute wars against one another with billion-dollar machines and all the resources that 'progress' has put in the hands of those with money; now that, certainly, is wrong.
And our governments do nothing about it. |
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/13/2025 04:57:27 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/13/2025 04:57:27 AM EDT.
|
