PDA

View Full Version : Separation Of church and State?



Gayle in MD
10-31-2004, 09:56 AM
Isn't that what this country was founded on? I hope women will stop and think before they co into the poles on Tuesday, and remember what women went through in order to have the right to use birth control. When you consider that our next president my appoint two (three possibly) to the Supreme Court, and that birth control pills actually ARE abortion, who knows how much damage this religeous right could do and how far women's right could be set back if dufus gets re-elected?

ouch!
Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

landshark77
10-31-2004, 11:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> and that birth control pills actually ARE abortion,<hr /></blockquote>

FAR from it Gayle. Birth control pills PREVENT pregnancy, abortion TERMINATES an EXISTING one.

Please do not confuse me with some Right to Life protester. What a person does with their body is their business. My only hope is that they are educated to what they are choosing to do. Your comparison is WAY off.

Gayle in MD
10-31-2004, 11:39 AM
Dear friend,
When on the pill, fertilized eggs are aborted, period.
I am not confused. Thanks for the warning anyway though. It's nice to know that you understand the important of a woman's right to chose.
Love,
Gayle

landshark77
10-31-2004, 11:55 AM
You are still off. When on Birth control pills the egg can not get fertilized. It can not get that away because the egg does not exist. The hormones that the pills contain force the body to memic pregnancy, thus no ovulation. With out ovulation there is no egg for the sperm to come into contact with, thus nothing is fertilized. Thus, no abortion.

Of course, nothing is perfect and even on the pill you could still stand the chance of ovulating and have an unwanted pregnancy...which could lead to an abortion.

Troy
10-31-2004, 01:07 PM
On Birth Control there should be no doubt.
On Abortion, being male I am out of the equation.
It is the WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
I do get real tired of MEN suggesting that Adoption is the answer when generally
the MEN don't do the adopting.

sliprock
10-31-2004, 02:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> and that birth control pills actually ARE abortion, who knows how much damage this religeous right could do and how far women's right could be set back if dufus gets re-elected?

ouch!
Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif <hr /></blockquote>

I'm not sure which scares me most.. The "religious" right or The Ignorant Left. If the non-issues of abortion and birth control are what drive your decision to vote, I'd suggest doing some research and find out what really is going on, and what your vote represents. I'm not saying that you are wrong in caring about a woman's right to chose. I'm saying that of all the issues in this election, Abortion rights are way down near the bottom(not likely to change anytime soon). I would suggest talking to your parents or other trusted adults about the birth control thing. It's a big decision in a young woman's life. A decision best made after a little knowledge. Good Luck.

Gayle in MD
10-31-2004, 03:42 PM
During the first several months on the pill, ovulation continues, most of the time eggs which are fertilized, are aborted because there is not enough of the right kind of hormone to promote continued development. For some women, whose hormonal make up is such that they cannot handle a strong hormonal interference, eggs are fertelized and aborted regularly.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
10-31-2004, 03:44 PM
Words of an intelligent and compassionate individual. I agree completely.
Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
10-31-2004, 04:11 PM
Hark, do I recognize the thought processes of a republican, oh yes, presumption, things taken out of context, and blown out of proportion, and name calling, yep, you're republican, lol.

My dear man, I am fifty-nine years old, LOL, pregnancy is no longer an issue for me, but I certainly want my grand daughter, and great grand daughters, and all women unable to justify bringing a child into this world, whatever their reasons, to contimue to have a choice, and to be able to take advantage of those opportunities which were so hard bought by our grandmothers and mothers.

If George Bush wants a Constitutional Ammendment to prohibit gay people from marrying, (This week, or was it last week) I can just imagine what he might try to pull off as regards womens rights! What is the problem with those folks getting married anyway other than the religeous taboo? As I stated in another post, the religeous right in this country is much scarrier than Bin Ladden.

Non issues??????????????????????????????????????????
Personally, I think that separation of church and state is a pretty important issue, (Especially if you are president and you think that God is advising you) along with counting all the votes, and listening to your advisors before you make a pre-emptive strike on another country.


Gayle in Md.

landshark77
10-31-2004, 04:14 PM
Well, I can not comment any further, as this is something that I am unsure of. I have in the past EXTENSIVELY researched how birth control affects your body. Not once have I heard that ovulation continues during the first several months. I realize that based on missed pills and pure chance that ovulation may occur and the continued use of the pill there after could interfere IF a pregnancy occurred.

landshark77
10-31-2004, 04:21 PM
Just figured that I would throw this in here. I am a 27 year old woman. I have stated on this forum several times my views on abortion. I even did it in this thread. As you can see my views on it are not that diffrent than yours. Bush is the man this year. He was also the man 4 years ago. You threw in alot of political mumbo jumbo in your reply to Sliprock. As a fellow woman, I ain't buying it. Incase you missed it W stands for women. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

JMO

eg8r
10-31-2004, 07:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Seperation of Church and State...Isn't that what this country was founded on? <hr /></blockquote> I think you need to take American History over. Your last couple posts, this and our nation as a true majority rules democracy, lead me to believe your memory is not all that clear.

[ QUOTE ]
I hope women will stop and think before they co into the poles on Tuesday, ... <hr /></blockquote> I guess I would hope all women take this advice.

[ QUOTE ]
ouch!
<hr /></blockquote> Well, I guess you beat me to the punch. With all your misrepresentation of the facts and history, I would have to absolutely agree with you.

eg8r

eg8r
10-31-2004, 07:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle:</font><hr> who knows how much damage this <font color="red">religeous right</font color> could do ...how far women's right could be set back if <font color="red">dufus</font color> gets re-elected <blockquote><font class="small">Quote sliprock:</font><hr> The <font color="blue"> "religious" right or The Ignorant Left. </font color> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote gayle:</font><hr> Hark, do <font color="red"> I recognize the thought processes of a republican </font color> , oh yes, presumption, things taken out of context, and blown out of proportion, <font color="red"> and name calling,</font color> yep, you're republican, lol.
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> You sound quite hypocritical or you are just trying to be sly in stating your political affiliation. While I doubt the latter, the former is glaring. Odd as it may be, Sliprock actually even used one of the names YOU chose, however he took more care in addressing the "name" calling imposed.

[ QUOTE ]
My dear man, I am fifty-nine years old, LOL, pregnancy is no longer an issue for me, but I certainly want my grand daughter, and great grand daughters, and all women unable to justify bringing a child into this world, whatever their reasons, to contimue to have a choice, <hr /></blockquote> A not-so-close friend of mine made a very touchy statement the other day and I timidly post it here..."For every abortion out there, there is one less liberal voting in 18 years".

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think that separation of church and state is a pretty important issue, <hr /></blockquote> If it is so important I would suggest you go revisit it and adress your original post accordingly.

eg8r &lt;~~sorry for the cold and unsensitive comment, this is not totally how I believe but it is interesting

Gayle in MD
11-01-2004, 06:09 AM
Sorry for the gender mistake, that was presumptuous of me, lol.

Well, what the hey, go on out there and vote for Bush then, if four more years of no health care improvment, no Bin Ladden capture, tax breaks for the rich (Average Millionaire realized an extra $78,000.00 in the pocket versus average middle class family's $1,00.00) a surplus of 200 billion turned into a deficit of 400 billion, and projected to be well into the trillions if his policy's continue, more of a mismanaged war in Iraq, more dilution of the line of separation of church and state, a projected crises in the social security system, but hey, I fully support your right to your opinion, and to a vote!

Love,
Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Gayle in MD
11-01-2004, 06:26 AM
Hi Ed, I've been waiting for you,LOL. Guess now you are going to tell me our country wasn't founded on the principle of separation of church and state. I think when Catholic priests take time off from their usual, shall we say "Hobbies" to instruct their congregations how to vote, we are in trouble.

Sure I'm a hypocrite, last time I checked, most of us are, LOL.

Also, out of context, I said, when there is conflict in the election, such as last time, I think we should go by the popular vote, instead of crippling the country for months. Or was that in another post? I guess we should do what we did last time, let two republicans stop the vote counting, and then let the Supreme Court appointees of little Bushy's daddy chime in so save the day...

And BTW, it isn't the "Ignorant liberals" who are voting for Bush, the polls have shown that the Bush supporters are the least educated lower income religeous right, while the Kerry voters are of higher education, and financially more prosperous.

I didn't call anyone ignorant, We're all ignorant and hypocrital, it's a matter of degree.

Love,
Gayle /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

hondo
11-01-2004, 06:43 AM
W stands for Women?????!!!!??? Now I've heard it all!
Good grief, Girl, you're living in a vacuum.


quote=landshark77] Just figured that I would throw this in here. I am a 27 year old woman. I have stated on this forum several times my views on abortion. I even did it in this thread. As you can see my views on it are not that diffrent than yours. Bush is the man this year. He was also the man 4 years ago. You threw in alot of political mumbo jumbo in your reply to Sliprock. As a fellow woman, I ain't buying it. Incase you missed it W stands for women. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

JMO <hr /></blockquote>

Wally_in_Cincy
11-01-2004, 06:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
...I said, when there is conflict in the election, such as last time, I think we should go by the popular vote...

<hr /></blockquote>

You would have to suspend the Constitution to do that. I don't think that is a good idea.

pooltchr
11-01-2004, 07:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Hi Ed, I've been waiting for you,LOL. Guess now you are going to tell me our country wasn't founded on the principle of separation of church and state. <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle,
This may be a fine point, but if this old man's memory is correct, there is nothing in any document that mentions separation of church and state. I believe there is something to the effect that the government will not create an official state religeon. There is a difference. The government can not proclaim that the Catholic Church will be the official church. (Baptist, Presbyterian, or any other religeon) Too many people take this to mean that there can be no religeous references in any government or government funded organization. Our founding fathers did not want this country to end up like the country they left where there was one official church. They rather wanted everyone to have the freedom to choose their own religeon without facing persicution from the government. The way I see that, If a group of people want to pray at a school football game, they have that right. If someone chooses not to participate, that is their freedom. But just as they have that freedom, those who want it also have that freedom. Everyone can choose at will, but no one can stop anyone else from expressing their religeous freedom.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
Steve

landshark77
11-01-2004, 07:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> W stands for Women?????!!!!??? Now I've heard it all!
Good grief, Girl, you're living in a vacuum.
<hr /></blockquote>

Actually Hondo, when Bush was up here for his rally he had signs that said W is for women. I thought it was funny, so I quoted it. But don't take me the wrong way, I'm not saying that Bush ISN'T for women either.

Qtec
11-01-2004, 08:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]

The separation of church and state

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the 1st Amendment erected a "wall of separation" between the church and the state (James Madison said it "drew a line," but it is Jefferson's term that sticks with us today). The phrase is commonly thought to mean that the government should not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion, though it is more accurate to say that the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a national religion, and protects the individual's right to worship, or not worship, however the individual sees fit.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances <hr /></blockquote>


I would say you are correct. It doesnt say that the Govt should ban people from practicing their faith in public buildings.

Somebody finds a sticker on the wall in a Library saying "Jesus loves you" and before you know it, the Govt is being sued for promoting Christianity.

If somebody wants to pray to God or get his carpet out and pray to Allah, what do I care? As long as he is not forcing his idea's on me, its cool.

Like that incident with the rock with Ten Commandments carved on it at the Court House? If nobody had made a fuss, people would be today walking right by it not even noticing that it was there.

Q

Deeman2
11-01-2004, 09:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Hi Ed, I've been waiting for you,LOL. Guess now you are going to tell me our country wasn't founded on the principle of separation of church and state. I think when Catholic priests take time off from their usual, shall we say "Hobbies" to instruct their congregations how to vote, we are in trouble.

Gayle, So I take it your are really insensed when Kerry panders to the black churches and they endorse him from the pulpit? Right? Why haven't you shown that same rightous indignation over this?

Sure I'm a hypocrite, last time I checked, most of us are, LOL.

Also, out of context, I said, when there is conflict in the election, such as last time, I think we should go by the popular vote, instead of crippling the country for months. Or was that in another post? I guess we should do what we did last time, let two republicans stop the vote counting, and then let the Supreme Court appointees of little Bushy's daddy chime in so save the day...

I agree, a popular vote is acceptable. It is obvious that you don't remember that Bush would have won, 4 independent recounts later, even if the court had not ruled, which, was a mistake. Now we have set a very poor path by allowing the courts to become involved.

And BTW, it isn't the "Ignorant liberals" who are voting for Bush, the polls have shown that the Bush supporters are the least educated lower income religeous right, while the Kerry voters are of higher education, and financially more prosperous.

How arrogant. This is the same garbage that has been put forth for many years. The liberal left feeling that they are the enlightened ones. Now that they have published Bush's I.Q as higher than Kerry's, the left is saying, "Well, it's not I.Q. it's some other intellegence pattern that matters." Gayle, you are a wanna be elitist. That's o.k. Just don't pretent to have the higher ground here. Both sides are doing exactly the same thing in this election and to pretend otherwise is to have your Terrapin head in the sand. I, like you, am all for abortion. Anyone who thinks we will go back to the days before abortion is just using scare tactics to elicit anger. Let's, both as male and females, let this stupid argument go. It is not germain to this election, that was twenty-five years ago. I'll even agree that we can take down any reference to God off our money, take prayer out of schools, rip the veils off moslum women's heads and whack off the ppe-pee's of all Catholic priests. Just don't slander a man who holds his faith dear to him when his political rival is doing exactly the same thing every Sunday since the campaign got serious.

I didn't call anyone ignorant, We're all ignorant and hypocrital, it's a matter of degree.

Never truer words spoken.

Make fun of Bush. Say he is accountable for 9/11. The twin towers were bombed on Clinton's watch. He said, "This will not stand." It stood. The terrorist bombings on our warships, our overseas military barrackes were bombed. "We will hunt down those who did this!" We didn't. When we were hit on 9/11, Bush waited an excruiating 7 minutes before reacting while Kerry admits he could get himself together for 45 minutes. Understandable, It shocked us all. But, Bush did something. Yes, he might have waited a few more decades to act until the UN got bombed, but he didn't. Has he handled the war perfectly? No. Can he admit that? No. Do you know what they do to standing presidents who admit wrong moves? They use it to break our resolve. Bush, after his presidency will fess up to these errors as all presidents do. As leader, he can't now. Kerry knows this and it's despicable that he does not own up to it.

If you believe Kerry is the right man to lead us out of troubled waters, vote for him. I don't think so. However, if he is elected, I will support him. I will have too much respect for the office to belittle him out of hatred. If he screws up, I'll call him on it. However, if he does his best and operates on the principals he has campaigned on, it won't be a disaster during my lifetime anyway and I'll call him my rightful president, not reproach him for his true beliefs and certainly not hate him as a human being.

Troy
11-01-2004, 09:31 AM
Actually, it's called a Constitutional Amendment which requires an affirmative vote of 3/4 of the State Houses.

Colorado will be voting on another approach. If passed, it will allow the Electoral College to apportion their votes based on the popular vote. This approach does NOT require a Constitutional Amendment at the Federal level and would much more closely resemble the real wishes of the voters.
All States should consider this approach IMO.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> You would have to suspend the Constitution to do that. I don't think that is a good idea. <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
11-01-2004, 09:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
When we were hit on 9/11, Bush waited an excruciating 7 minutes before reacting <hr /></blockquote>

This was after the second plane hit the TTs.

The fact is, while those around GW were waiting for GW to take control of the situation, GW was waiting for somebody to tell him what to do.
Its that simple!
How did he know that another plane wasnt heading for that school, at that momment?
Maybe there was a bomb in the school that was planted beforehand?
Why didnt security get him out straight away?
The fact is, the US was under attack and it doesnt make any differerence what Kerry did- he was not Com.in Chief. It wasnt his job.

GW failed the test.
He was presented with the opportunity to be the hero and he choked.

Q

sliprock
11-01-2004, 09:47 AM
First off Gayle, I want to apologize for my assumption that you were a young,mis-guided, youth just turning of age to vote.

Secondly, my remark about the Ignorant left wasn't a slam on you or anyone else that agree's with the policies of the Democratic party. My comment was aimed at the people that blindly go into the polls and vote for a candidate because he or she represents a particular party. They base their votes on old stereo-types , half-truths, or they are just ignorant of how the Government works. I read an article the other day and it had some results from a poll taken of likely voters. This poll didn't ask "who are you voting for?" It asked people to name their current congressman, or to name one of their states senators. It asked questions concerning the war in Iraq, Stem cell research, unemployment,along with other "hot" issues of the day. It also asked questions on Government structure. What branches are resposible for what. The results were 70% failed miserably. These are the people that frustrate me. I know that we have these people on both sides, but in my part of the country, the Majority of voters are registered Dems, and everyday I work with people that complain about things in this country, and then on election day, they vote for the very people who represent the very things they hate. If you ask why they voted the way they did, They say " My family has always voted Democrat". Ignorance.

Deeman2
11-01-2004, 10:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
When we were hit on 9/11, Bush waited an excruciating 7 minutes before reacting <hr /></blockquote>

This was after the second plane hit the TTs.

Qtec,

As much as I appreciate your input, I think those wooden shoes are once again too tight. See, until the second plane hit, no one, except the terrorists and you clairvoints knew this was an intensional attack! I remember sitting, watching TV while it happened and thinking what a terrible accident, not having the benefit of thinking, as a prepared liberal would have, "that's an intensional foul."

I am not arrogant enough, not quite yet, to assume that I would have reacted faster. It is so easy for those of us who didn't have to do anything to judge Bush in the harsh and always correct hine sight that we all bring with us each day. No, I didn't jump up and get my family to a shelter immediately as might be prudent under your assumptions. Why didn't the Secret Service spirit him away that very second? I don't know. I just bet, if he had jumped up and ran out, you'd be blasting him for that now. That's, sadly, just how partisan hate motivates us these days.

The fact is, while those around GW were waiting for GW to take control of the situation, GW was waiting for somebody to tell him what to do.
Its that simple!

I don't think that's really fair as I have not heard of him waiting for direction from anyone else. He was roundly applauded for his actions that day by both sides of the isle until someone figured, "Hey, we gotta run against this guy in three years."

How did he know that another plane wasnt heading for that school, at that momment?

He probably didn't. He didn't run out in fear, did he? Is that what you propose as a hero?

Maybe there was a bomb in the school that was planted beforehand?

That's always a danger when the President is at a school.

Why didnt security get him out straight away?

The fact is, the US was under attack and it doesnt make any differerence what Kerry did- he was not Com.in Chief. It wasnt his job.

Believe me, there are many out here who are thankful for that, at least. But it might show how he may have reacted. If he had waiting 45 minutes I hope I would have the courage to think he was using the judgement we had elected him for.

GW failed the test.
He was presented with the opportunity to be the hero and he choked.

NO, he did not choke and that sticks in your craw. I am sorry, but the days of judging our heros by those macho European cowboy standards are over. Some of us value steady resolve over hyperbola and glitz. If this costs George Bush another term in office he can live with that. I believe history will be a kinder judge of him. He may be the last American to say, "That's enough! If so, we can all know he, at least, went out on his values and not those of Europeans who consume our movies, send their kids ot our schools, copy our culture all while holding there noses up in comtempt. If we had not been there when everyone needed us, your German would be dead on by now. When we need some small measure of support, we get that, "Aboive the fray attitude from everyone."

People in Europe gleefully smirked at us on 9/11. They offered condolences while saying, "America finally got it's comeuppance." We call that fair weather friends. The next time some one invades Europe (and it may be Arabs) they will whine and clammor for us to come to their rescue. You can only hope we have a President who does not wait for a majority of world opinion and approval before we do so.

Is Iraq bad, yep. Is it getting better, yes. What will free unraped women in Arabia think of us in 20 years? I bet they will still hate us. But they may be free to do so. I still think there is value there. Please provide a list of countries that the UN has freed. O.K., maybe a list that Holland has liberated. No?, o.k. how about France, No? Germany, sent it in.

My country has done a lot of things wrong in it's history. We have apoligized for most of them. We have also done a lot of good and not just many years ago. I am somwhat tired of our apologizing for everything and wanting everyone to love us. I won't say I'm sorry for George Bush. I think he will sleep very well at night after his tenure. I pray we can say the same if John Kerry has the ball next.

Deeman

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
11-01-2004, 10:59 AM
For you 9/11 is an emotional subjct, I appreciate that.

But......

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that's really fair as I have not heard of him waiting for direction from anyone else <hr /></blockquote>

Its a fact that Al Fliescher held up a sign that said,"dont say anything yet". Check it out.

GW, for some reason took that to mean, "dont DO anything yet", which is exactly what he did until eventually somebody made the descision to get the hell out of there.
The last thing I expected was for him to sit there while the country was under attack! GW didnt know if there was a 5th,6th,7th plane coming in or what!

The difference between you and me is that I can judge his reactions without looking to someone elses actions and saying, "look, he,s not as bad as him!".

If we are going to judge, we should judge GW on what he did or did not do, not what somebody else did or would have done or might have done.

Off to play some pool now. pool baby ! (http://www.thurstonrotterdam.nl)

Nice talking to you.

Q

SPetty
11-01-2004, 12:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Troy:</font><hr> Colorado will be voting on another approach. If passed, it will allow the Electoral College to apportion their votes based on the popular vote. This approach does NOT require a Constitutional Amendment at the Federal level and would much more closely resemble the real wishes of the voters.
All States should consider this approach IMO. <hr /></blockquote>Hi Troy,

According to something I read recently at www.HowStuffworks.com (http://www.HowStuffworks.com), there are currently two states that do it this way, I believe it was Maine and Nebraska.

Gayle in MD
11-01-2004, 12:08 PM
No problem my friend. we probably think much more alike than we realize. I agree with everything you just wrote. I think we all need to do a lot of debating, and that that is the American way. I am also impatient about folks who don't watch and read and learn about the issues of the day, don't use their own minds and calculations in order to reach conclusions. I hope you have a nice day.

Love,
Gayle

Deeman2
11-01-2004, 12:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> For you 9/11 is an emotional subjct, I appreciate that.

For me, an American Republican, I think 9/11 should be an emotional subject for every free person...to you it is not.

But......

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I don't think that's really fair as I have not heard of him waiting for direction from anyone else <hr /></blockquote>

Its a fact that Al Fliescher held up a sign that said,"dont say anything yet". Check it out.

So, what if someone held a sign up saying, "Nuke Canada?" Political aids told Clinton to keep his pants zipped, they do what they want, not what someone holds up on a sign.

GW, for some reason took that to mean, "dont DO anything yet", which is exactly what he did until eventually somebody made the descision to get the hell out of there.

You are truly amazing in your ability to see into the mind of our political leaders. The Secret Service, who guard our President, made the decision to move him. They don't ask, for instance, during a assasination attempt, "Mr. President, can we now move you to a new location?" They have very prescribed rules, not made up by Bush on how to handle threats.


The last thing I expected was for him to sit there while the country was under attack! GW didnt know if there was a 5th,6th,7th plane coming in or what!

My expectations of him were quite different from yours. Of course, Kerry would worry about your opinion needing the Holland vote. GWB doesn't. If Mr. Kerry had put in quick calls to Berlin or Paris, so he could decide what to do, maybe this would be a more enlivened discussion.

The difference between you and me is that I can judge his reactions without looking to someone elses actions and saying, "look, he,s not as bad as him!".

No, I clearly told you I thought he acted appropriately. However, you just can't make your "I expect your Pres. to be a hero and not expect comparisons with the guy who wants his job.

If we are going to judge, we should judge GW on what he did or did not do, not what somebody else did or would have done or might have done.

If we are going to judge, we should look for some fairness in our judgement. I respect someone's objection to Bush policy, his values compared to your's and even his honesty in application fo those policies and values. However, you want to nit pik on words, make fun of his style and devalue his contributions while holding up a person who has clearly changed his entire value system of 40 years. You laud a man who you say has the courage to stand up to atrocitoes in Vietnam when it was hard to do so. Standing up against the war was admirable and many of us did so. However, in 1972 Mass. politics it was a planned and needed political move to get elected and anyone honest enough with themselves, both dem and rep. know that was the case. There's nothing wrong with admitting that and going on. That does not preclude Kerry from being preseident, let's just not act like history didn't happen. Bush avoided vietnam, drank to excess and partied like he was Ted Kennedy but that does not mean he is not the better leader now. I don't even mind having Teresa Heinz as a first lady, we have not had any real entertainment from a first family since Billy Carter, we need some comedy relief.

Off to play some pool now. pool baby ! (http://www.thurstonrotterdam.nl)

Nice talking to you.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
11-01-2004, 12:28 PM
I agree with you, people can pray till the cows come in as far as I am concerned, but I find it deeply offensive when the President of the United States tells the public that he "Consulted a higher authority" as regards his decision to thumb his nose at the rest of the world, and occupy another country in order to impose our form of government upon them. The definition of evil "The exercise of ones will, in other words, the exercise of political power by overt or covert coersion, in order to avoid spiritual growth"


There are a billion muslims in the world, and they hate us.
Dick Cheney lied to us.
Condi Rice lied to us.
This tax policy is immoral.
Iraq isn't better, it is radicalized beyond what it ever was before we got there. Occupations always fail. Bush, at a time when he had the world at his feet, after 9/11, committed the greatest strategic miscalculation of our times. Yet, when asked what mistakes he made, his face goes blank?

Politics and government is about economics, not family values, not messages from the devine, not faith based incentives. Bush has done nothing but mobilize fear in order to confuse the American public and avoid taking responsibility for the mess he has made and the dishonor, yes dishonor, which he has so arrogantly brought upon the American spirit.

Whatever happened to diplomacy?

Ouch, my brain has a bushy schorch!, lol.
Have a nice day friend,
Love,
Gayle /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
11-01-2004, 12:42 PM
Arrogant elitist huh? I'll tell you what arrogance is, arrogance is when you didn't even win the popular vote, and then you turn around and thumb you nose at the rest of the world and decide to replace the will of a nation by your will, and later defend it as a "MESSEGSH" from God.

600.000 jobs lost
400 billion deficit
thousands of people dead
a failing social security system
no multi-lateral cooperation
no treaty's
no diplomacy
no flue facine
no improvment in health care costs
Lies from the Vice President
Lies from condi Rice
$78,000 tax relief for the rich
$1200. tax relief for the lower middle class
Bigest loss of jobs in of any administration.

"What Mistakes have you made in four years Mr. President?"

Poor George, /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif his face is blank.
Now that's what I call arrogance my friend.

Have a nice day,
Gayle

Chopstick
11-01-2004, 01:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

Its a fact that Al Fliescher held up a sign...

<hr /></blockquote>

It's Ari Fleischer Qtec and the only fact is that were weren't there so we don't know what happened. You shouldn't put so much trust in our news media. We don't trust them.

During the first Gulf War I sat and watched CNN while an American news reporter standing in downtown Tel Aviv announced that an Iraqi Scud had struck the city and it was a chemical warhead. This was about a week after Israel declared that if Iraq fired any WMD warheads into Israel, it would respond with nuclear weapons. If anyone took that reporter seriously it would have been World War III.

eg8r
11-01-2004, 01:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
There are a billion muslims in the world, and they hate us.
<hr /></blockquote> They have hated us for a long time, why are you ignoring our history and placing all blame on W?

[ QUOTE ]
Dick Cheney lied to us.
Condi Rice lied to us.
<hr /></blockquote> Half your "facts" have been lies, and given your earlier responses, you will probably state, "We are all liars to some degree". If we were to take your stand these "points" are moot.

[ QUOTE ]
This tax policy is immoral.
<hr /></blockquote> What is immoral about allowing a US citizen to keep more of the money they earn?

[ QUOTE ]
Politics and government is about economics, not family values, not messages from the devine, not faith based incentives. <hr /></blockquote> If you truly believed this, then why do you make your posts sound like you think another politician would do a better job? Wouldn't the next guy continue to care as little as all the others about family values? Tell me, what is it about Kerry that instills such calmness in your heart when you think about family values?

[ QUOTE ]
Ouch, my brain has a bushy schorch!, lol.
<hr /></blockquote> I hope, while you were typing this, you laughed as hard as I have while reading it.

eg8r

Deeman2
11-01-2004, 01:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Arrogant elitist huh?

Yes...


I'll tell you what arrogance is, arrogance is when you didn't even win the popular vote, and then you turn around and thumb you nose at the rest of the world and decide to replace the will of a nation by your will, and later defend it as a "MESSEGSH" from God.

600.000 jobs lost
400 billion deficit
thousands of people dead
a failing social security system
no multi-lateral cooperation
no treaty's
no diplomacy
no flue facine
no improvment in health care costs
Lies from the Vice President
Lies from condi Rice
$78,000 tax relief for the rich
$1200. tax relief for the lower middle class
Bigest loss of jobs in of any administration.

"What Mistakes have you made in four years Mr. President?"

Poor George, /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif his face is blank.
Now that's what I call arrogance my friend.

Have a nice day,
Gayle <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle,

Just notice how you cleaverly avoided addressing the very items I questioned you about by re-citing the Democratic Party line and not saying, "Yes, you are right, no you are wrong and here is why." You are a victim of the very thing you complain about, ignorance of the facts and spouting whatever you have heard from a particular party. All I ask is that you try to think for yourself a little. Yes, I am not proud of some things conservatives have done but you can't even break with the pary line to see the spel you have put yourself under. At 59 you need to be critical but don't just say things you have heard because they are the campaign yell of one group or another, That is even more dangerous than simply being a liberal.

List those things you know GWB to be responsible for, then hold him accountable. You really believe the President has caused us the job losses and that Kerry can bring them back? Do you really believe he made the flu vacine go bad in Britian?

If you can't even answer my first question about the black churces, why do you bother to spout these other items? Because you have heard them so many times...

Will you lamblast Kerry the first time he says, "I am guided by my faith?" Oh. I forgot, you don't answer questions.....

You are as guilty of making fun of others faith as you would be upset if someone else questioned your lack of faith.

Yes, that's arrogance....but I still love you and defend your right to stay arrogant....

hondo
11-01-2004, 01:38 PM
Egg, you should get a job with the bush administration
the way you spin the truth. I can only pray that
you are disappointed in the results tomorrow but
I'm afraid bush has conned enough people into voting
for him.

Deeman2
11-01-2004, 02:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> Egg, you should get a job with the bush administration
the way you spin the truth. I can only pray that
you are disappointed in the results tomorrow but
I'm afraid bush has conned enough people into voting
for him. <hr /></blockquote>

Hondo,

I sincerely hope we can all come together tomorrow no matter who wins and support our President. Believing in God, I hope whomever is elected has the strength to provide leadership and hope to all of us and that we give him a fair chance.

There have been hard things said and done by all sides but it is in all our interests to support our leaders in difficult times and question them at times like these. If you believe something but don't express it, you are not an American. If you don't want to hear all sides, you are missing much of the privledge of being from this great country.

I salute all of you with like and different opinions. While we debate in earnest, we should all be willing to fight for the other's right to disagree. If not, we will surely lose more important things than political elections.

Best of luck on all sides....

Deeman

highsea
11-01-2004, 02:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> ...when there is conflict in the election, such as last time, I think we should go by the popular vote, instead of crippling the country for months. <hr /></blockquote>Well, there is already a system in place that addresses a close election. There have been 4 cases in US history where the elected president did not win the popular vote:

1824: John Quincy Adams, the son of former President John Adams, received more than 38,000 fewer votes than Andrew Jackson, but neither candidate won a majority of the Electoral College. Adams was awarded the presidency when the election was thrown to the House of Representatives.

1876: Nearly unanimous support from small states gave Rutherford B. Hayes a one-vote margin in the Electoral College, despite the fact that he lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden by 264,000 votes. Hayes carried five out of the six smallest states (excluding Delaware). These five states plus Colorado gave Hayes 22 electoral votes with only 109,000 popular votes. At the time, Colorado had been just been admitted to the Union and decided to appoint electors instead of holding elections. So, Hayes won Colorado's three electoral votes with zero popular votes. It was the only time in U.S. history that small state support has decided an election.

1888: Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland, but won the electoral vote by 65. In this instance, some say the Electoral College worked the way it is designed to work by preventing a candidate from winning an election based on support from one region of the country. The South overwhelmingly supported Cleveland, and he won by more than 425,000 votes in six southern states. However, in the rest of the country he lost by more than 300,000 votes.

In 2000, Al Gore received 50,992,335 votes nationwide and George W. Bush received 50,455,156 votes. After Bush was awarded the state of Florida, he had a total of 271 electoral votes, which beat Gore's 266 electoral votes.

In cases where no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the decision is thrown to the House of Representatives by virtue of the 12th Amendment. The House then selects the president by majority vote with each state delegation receiving one vote to cast for the three candidates who received the most electoral votes.

Here are the two elections that were decided by the House of Representatives:

1800: Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, both Democrat-Republicans, received the same number of electoral votes, despite the fact that Burr was running as a vice presidential candidate, not for the presidency. Following 36 successive votes in the House, Jefferson was finally elected president.

1824: As mentioned above, Andrew Jackson received a majority of the popular vote over John Quincy Adams, but neither man received a 131-vote majority of electoral votes needed at the time to claim the presidency. Adams won the House vote on the first ballot.

The electoral college serves a distinct purpose in preventing the disenfranchisement of less populous States. If the election were to be decided solely on popular vote, then urban centers would elect every president, and rural areas would lose their influence. Basically, the entire Mid-West would lose their voice, and the election would be decided by about 5 States.

The US is a Republic, not a pure democracy. The heart of this is the States, and the current system protects State rights by giving them a say in the national elections that is proportional to their population.

It should be noted that you are not really voting for a President, you are voting for electors. It is the electors that vote for the President.

Qtec
11-01-2004, 04:36 PM
you are correct,its Ari.

"Who was really in control? Certainly not Bush. In the back of the room, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer caught Bush's eye and held up a pad of paper for him to see, with "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET" written on it in big block letters. [Washington Times, 10/7/02]"

You should read this.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html


Q

Sid_Vicious
11-01-2004, 06:50 PM
"It should be noted that you are not really voting for a President, you are voting for electors. It is the electors that vote for the President."


I heard a factoid I didn't know the other day...the electors are not required to go with the popular vote in that state. Kinda waters down what you stated here, huh...sid

highsea
11-01-2004, 08:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr>I heard a factoid I didn't know the other day...the electors are not required to go with the popular vote in that state. Kinda waters down what you stated here, huh...sid <hr /></blockquote>That's true. Electors are not bound by law to support their party. I don't know how it waters down anything though, it's just the way it works.

BTW, if an elector didn't go along with his party, he would not be an elector for very long. It has happened in the past, but it's not at all common. Electors are usually chosen by the party and are pretty loyal as a whole.

Sid_Vicious
11-01-2004, 10:05 PM
"It has happened in the past, but it's not at all common"

You mean like the popular vote not decisively important(has happened in the past, but it's not at all common) at being the electing vote? Yea well popular vote actually losing has now happened in our lifetime, and more than expected to cloud the citizen voting process maybe twice in a row. Both of these factoids, imo, should dismay new, and old alike, in joining the voting world. Who's really in charge anyway, Americans, as individuals, or??????sid~~~feels some major election reform is sorely needed

eg8r
11-02-2004, 06:01 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I can only pray that
you are disappointed in the results tomorrow <hr /></blockquote> Well, I have to say, this is the difference as to where our minds are at. I personally would not be praying that someone be disappointed. Thanks for the prayers, but really, if you have nothing good to pray about, why waste your time?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid bush has conned enough people into voting
for him. <hr /></blockquote> Well don't you fret, he has not been able to sway you, no way mister, you are way to clever to fall for that.

eg8r

cheesemouse
11-02-2004, 06:49 AM
Ed,

This is serious question Ed. I'm not trying to trick you into some kind of dead end debate. The question is: if GW prayers to be re-elected and he is not, does that mean his God has abandoned him?

eg8r
11-02-2004, 07:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]

This is serious question Ed. I'm not trying to trick you into some kind of dead end debate. The question is: if GW prayers to be re-elected and he is not, does that mean his God has abandoned him? <hr /></blockquote> No.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
11-02-2004, 07:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
...Electors are not bound by law to support their party....
<hr /></blockquote>

I think the founding fathers did this because they deep down did not trust the voters 100%.

For instance if the people voted in a charming rogue or scalawag who was a known criminal or traitor, the Electoral College was always there as a stopgap or safety valve.

Gayle in MD
11-02-2004, 11:21 AM
In this post, you call me arrogant, lol. I have stated a statistic to you about the demographics which were on EVERY new channel this week, It isn't my opinion, it is simply a fact.

As regards church going, Yeah, It didn't endear me to Bush, either, when I saw him going into the Catholic church last sunday. I suppose you missed it when I stated, "Politians are not my cup of tea anyway!"

There is a biography which compares Bush and Kerry, as they go through their lives, where they were, what they were doing. It was shown twice on Frontline PBS. If everyone had seen it, I doubt Bush would get any votes. LOL.

I'm not angry with you for having a different opinion. I find it interesting how SOME people, as soon as they hear that one thinks differently, start to degrade, condescend, and riducule the opinion of the other person.

Here are some facts for you and for Ed. Bush chose to have his daddy call his friend and help him get into the national gaurd so he would not have to go to Vietnam. Even then, he didn't show up on the one weekend per month when he was suppose to be there, Now all this is documented in the biography. I'm quite sure if none of it were true, bushy's daddy would sue them. Then he failed to show up for drug testing, and lost his flying privelidges. Every friend of his interviewed made it clear the only thing he was drawn to doing was partying all through college. When he ran for Govenor, it was documented by many who spoke on the program how the Bush spin machine works, how they get others to do their mud slinging slander work, then jump back and ssy they didn't do it. Even John McCain has been a victum of their dirty rotten politics. In my opinion, I have observed the absolute same thing in this election.

In my opinion, when Bush grabbed that young girl who had lost a parent on 911 and hugged her, checking to see if the camera was getting it, he looked just like William Hurt in the movie Broadcast News, same phoney stunt.

It was when Bush found out that the Team he had bought, needed a new stadium, when he suddenly became "Born Again," a phrase which totally gags me anyway, and started visiting all the churches in Texas promoting collections of financial support for the building of the new stadium.

Jeeze, I gotta go vote,, go to PBS.org and read it all for yourself. Then read Bob Woodwards new book.

As I have stated many times, everybody has opions, and everybody elses stinks, Leaving out the nasty part.

I can't stand George Bush, his father, his mother or his stepford wife. That is my opinion. I form my opinions by reading, watching the news, and most of all watching what a person DOES, not what they say.

I was very much more impressed with the life that Kerry lead, and very much aware of how beginning with Nixon, (who was the first republican to use this O'Neal Jerk who attacked Kerry long ago,) the republican slander machine has been after a guy who was affected by what he saw in Vietnam, and has lived his life never forgetting what he knows and saw regarding how we approach war in this country, and how we have broken the Geneva Convention and committed war crimes. Now don't try to tell me we didn't, because I have many many friends who fought in Vietnam, and many more who didn't come home, and my information comes from those who were there, and whom I have known for most of my life.

I love my country, but I don't love the corruption I learn about. And also, we all have a little flag, a little flag that comes from our instincts, Mine went up over Richard Nixon, Kenneth Starr, Lynden Johnson, Dick Cheney, and both Bushes. I'm sick of our presidents lieing to us, but I keep voting and hope someone will get it right.

If you are so insecure that you have to degrade psople who think differently from you, then I feel sorry for you. It has no effect on my life what you think of me.

As far as the last election goes, it was reported that in many poles, after Al Gore had been reported as the winner, many people didn't bother to go out and vote, they thought he had already won. We do have time zones you know.

Let's all get out and VOTE, and thank God we live in a country where we have a vote.
Love,
Gayle /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
11-02-2004, 11:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I love my country, but I don't love the corruption I learn about. And also, we all have a little flag, a little flag that comes from our instincts, Mine went up over Richard Nixon, Kenneth Starr, Lynden Johnson, Dick Cheney, and both Bushes. I'm sick of our presidents lieing to us, but I keep voting and hope someone will get it right.
<hr /></blockquote> Without even bothering to respond to rest of the post, save both you and I, I did find this portion pretty interesting. Your intense hatred for being lied to by politicians did not include the latest perjured president. You have your reasons for not including him, I just hope they are further developed than some of the other stuff you passed off as "facts".

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
11-02-2004, 12:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> In this post, you call me arrogant, lol. I have stated a statistic to you about the demographics which were on EVERY new channel this week, It isn't my opinion, it is simply a fact.
<hr /></blockquote>

From the Pew research center:

As far as income levels go, the least well-off are overwhelmingly Democratic: Those earning less than $20,000 a year call themselves Democratic 43 percent to 18 percent and those earning $20,000 to $30,000 Democratic 37 percent to 24 percent. Those making between $30,000 and $50,000 are Democrats, 34 percent to 30 percent, while those making between $50,000 and $75,000 are more Republican, 35 percent to 29 percent. People who make $75,000 or more are strongly GOP, 39 percent to 28 percent.

Wally_in_Cincy
11-02-2004, 12:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> As regards church going, Yeah, It didn't endear me to Bush, either, when I saw him going into the Catholic church last sunday.
<hr /></blockquote>

Why would that bother you? Does it bother you when the white Democrats go to black churches?

Wally_in_Cincy
11-02-2004, 12:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
There is a biography which compares Bush and Kerry, as they go through their lives, where they were, what they were doing. It was shown twice on Frontline PBS. If everyone had seen it, I doubt Bush would get any votes. LOL.

<hr /></blockquote>

I heard that it made Kerry look like an extreme pacifist, which is really not a quality that is good for the Commander-in-Chief.

Being against a particular war is understandable. Being against war at any cost is just plain foolish.

Ask Neville Chamberlain.

Wally_in_Cincy
11-02-2004, 12:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
I'm not angry with you for having a different opinion. I find it interesting how SOME people, as soon as they hear that one thinks differently, start to degrade, condescend, and riducule the opinion of the other person.

<hr /></blockquote>

The same way you degrade, condescend, and ridicule Dubya, because you don't agree with his policies?

Wally_in_Cincy
11-02-2004, 12:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
Here are some facts for you and for Ed. Bush chose to have his daddy call his friend and help him get into the national gaurd so he would not have to go to Vietnam. Even then, he didn't show up on the one weekend per month when he was suppose to be there, Now all this is documented in the biography. I'm quite sure if none of it were true, bushy's daddy would sue them.

<font color="blue">Don't you think if there were "documentation" of this that it would be all over the major media? </font color>


Then he failed to show up for drug testing, and lost his flying privelidges.

<font color="blue">The military did not test for drugs at that time. </font color>

Every friend of his interviewed made it clear the only thing he was drawn to doing was partying all through college.

<font color="blue">I am shocked that a young man would party in college. </font color>

When he ran for Govenor, it was documented by many who spoke on the program how the Bush spin machine works, how they get others to do their mud slinging slander work, then jump back and ssy they didn't do it. Even John McCain has been a victum of their dirty rotten politics. In my opinion, I have observed the absolute same thing in this election.

<font color="blue">Good old Lee Atwater, God rest his soul /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font color>

In my opinion, when Bush grabbed that young girl who had lost a parent on 911 and hugged her, checking to see if the camera was getting it, he looked just like William Hurt in the movie Broadcast News, same phoney stunt.

<font color="blue">My goodness your partisanship has made you awfully callous. </font color>


I can't stand George Bush, his father, his mother or his stepford wife.

<font color="blue">Why on earth do you feel the need to ridicule her? She seems like a pretty nice lady to me. </font color>


That is my opinion. I form my opinions by reading, watching the news, and most of all watching what a person DOES, not what they say.

<font color="blue">I'm sure you read those things that buttress your opinion. </font color>
we all have a little flag, a little flag that comes from our instincts, Mine went up over Richard Nixon, Kenneth Starr, Lynden Johnson, Dick Cheney, and both Bushes.


<font color="blue">eg8r beat me to it but I'll ask you anyway. Your little flag did not go off when Clinton allowed Loral to sell missle technology to the Chinese? </font color>


As far as the last election goes, it was reported that in many poles, after Al Gore had been reported as the winner, many people didn't bother to go out and vote, they thought he had already won. We do have time zones you know.

<font color="blue">The people that did not vote were in the panhandle, which is heavily Republican. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

Deeman2
11-02-2004, 01:04 PM
Wally, my slightly right of Stalin friend, you have responded to each platitude she has invoked with well thought out and solid observations. How dare you?

You may notice that in reams of back and forth posts here, she still hasn't responded in a cogent manner to any of the questions I asked, even the one you have put forward about the black churches. I think, by now, it is apparent they will go ignored or a non-pertenent blast on a completly different subject will be all that is forthcoming.

I'll just have to be happy, as will you, that intelligent political discussion is only possible when two sides exchange ideas openly and debate based on facts, not ramdon rantings.

Funny, I just heard another story where they are blasting Fox for it's biased coverage all while Fox is the only national poll that is putting Kerry ahead! What can we possible say to them?

It is even humorous but sad when a mis-giuded but honestly feeling pacifist from Holland has more information, no matter how tainted, than our own Komrads in the Northeast.

I bid you luck if you expect more than the same answers you are getting from the party line as the Clinton years were surely an abberation when those items you mentioned were taking place. I don't remember hounding Clinton when he didn't respond to those terror attacks and I even remember not questioning the bombing of the baby food plant and children's hospital as he was my commander in chief then and I felt the need to support him, not respect him but support his efforts. Where was the democratic outcry then? Locked in a stubborn Women's Right's closet where they wouldn't even critize him for taking advantage of a young, if naive, volunteer staffer....I give up...

Let's pray we get what we deserve tonight, my friend.

Good shooting....

Deeman

Wally_in_Cincy
11-02-2004, 01:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman2:</font><hr>

...Let's pray we get what we deserve tonight,...<hr /></blockquote>

It don't matter to me. I won my 8-ball match last night so all is sunshine and lollipops in Wally World.

cheesemouse
11-02-2004, 01:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
There is a biography which compares Bush and Kerry, as they go through their lives, where they were, what they were doing. It was shown twice on Frontline PBS. If everyone had seen it, I doubt Bush would get any votes. LOL.

<hr /></blockquote>

I heard that it made Kerry look like an extreme pacifist, which is really not a quality that is good for the Commander-in-Chief. <font color="blue"> Wally,

When President Kerry addresses the troops in the 'war' zone he will get the welcome of warriors to a fellow warrior. It will probably even impress you. </font color>

Being against a particular war is understandable. Being against war at any cost is just plain foolish.

Ask Neville Chamberlain. <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
11-03-2004, 05:14 AM
Deeman, hate is a word I never use. Hate does not exist in my approach to the world. I can't support a president who puts us in such a mess economically. Our supposed potential enemy's are buying our debt, and there will be very far reaching consequences for our country because of it.
Iraq is a rich country. I, for one, do not want to pay taxes to re-buiold iraq.
Gayle in Md.
Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
11-03-2004, 05:42 AM
Eg8r, you must have misunderstood my post. I said Politics and government is about economics, NOT family values.

My personal opinion is that Bush is for the big corporations, and as long as the big corporations run this country, we are doomed.

My biggest concern regarding Bush is the economic mess he is making for our future, and the fact that potential enemy's are buying our debt, which I think is very dangerous. That, along with the FACT that he thinks he is Goid's messenger. Guess you can justify anything you do if you think God is talking to you.

The 9/11 commission proved that Bush and Rice were warned, not only of an eminent attack, but also of planes being used. Then Rice said later, "Before 9/11, no one had ever thought about planes being used as missiles? HELLO, why not, you had a warning, guess she didn't read it.
What is immoral about allowing a US citizen to keep more of their money, LMAO, Guess you didn't read all of my post, but really Eg8r, excuse me but that is really the dumbest response you've ever given me. The statement should be, what is fair about allowing people who make 1.2 million dollars a year to keep an extra $78,000, while at the same time allowing people who make $35,000.00 keep only $1,100.00 dollars. BTW, I am in neither category.

They have hated us for a long time? How very simplistic. America has never had so many enemies as since little Bushy took office. He has alienated the world, my friend. We have never been so hated. He has made everything worse, everything.
Gayle in Md,

Gayle in MD
11-03-2004, 06:00 AM
that's right, I do have my reasons, that being that I don't give a damn about what a president does with his D**K, AS far as I am concerned, the right wing spent billions making a issue on something that according to the people polled, nobody cared about.

Lieing about our national security, trying to squelch the 9/11 commissions, which he wanted to do until his advisors told him he would never get re=elected if he did it, that concerns me, ED, yeah that concerns me a lot more than what Clinton did with his um, cigar. What a waste of our money.

Gayle in Md.

Oh yes, and BTW, Ed, I never say I hate anyone, Intense hatred, Don't put words in my mouth, and don't presume to know what I feel.

Gayle in MD
11-03-2004, 06:06 AM
Walley,
The demographics addressed the Voters, not the parties.
Gayle in Md,
How you been anyway Walley?

Gayle in MD
11-03-2004, 06:12 AM
Then you heard wrong, I watched it twice, it showed what a difference there was, is always has been between these two men. I found absolutely nothing to admire in little Bushy.

Gayle in Md....You should watch it if you get the chance, also Bob Woodwards new book on Bushes War.

Gayle in MD
11-03-2004, 06:19 AM
Walley,
I'm not having a debate with George W, AKA Little Bushy, LOL. In my world, if you are in the public eye, having put yourself there one way or another, you are fair game for scrutiny. I try to respect the opinions of those people with whom I have discussions.

Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

pooltchr
11-03-2004, 06:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Eg8r, you must have misunderstood my post. I said Politics and government is about economics, NOT family values.

My personal opinion is that Bush is for the big corporations, and as long as the big corporations run this country, we are doomed.


Gayle in Md,
<hr /></blockquote>

If Government is about the economy, and the economy is driven by business, then why shouldn't the government support business?????

hondo
11-03-2004, 06:36 AM
Hey, egg, shove it up your .... Sincerely, Hondo.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I can only pray that
you are disappointed in the results tomorrow <hr /></blockquote> Well, I have to say, this is the difference as to where our minds are at. I personally would not be praying that someone be disappointed. Thanks for the prayers, but really, if you have nothing good to pray about, why waste your time?

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I'm afraid bush has conned enough people into voting
for him. <hr /></blockquote> Well don't you fret, he has not been able to sway you, no way mister, you are way to clever to fall for that.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Wally_in_Cincy
11-03-2004, 06:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> Hey, egg, shove it up your .... Sincerely, Hondo.<hr /></blockquote>

Another lucid, well thought out statement from the angry Left.

Love and kisses to you and yours hondo /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Viva Bush

eg8r
11-03-2004, 08:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yes, and BTW, Ed, I never say I hate anyone, Intense hatred, Don't put words in my mouth, and don't presume to know what I feel. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, I would ask you to go back and read what I posted but I really don't think you care. I did not say you "hate" anyone either. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif This is very simple english, I said you had an intense hatred to being lied to. This DOES NOT mean you hate someone, it does mean you hate being lied to. Maybe you are right, I should not presume to know what you feel, maybe you really enjoy being lied to, and you are just fibbing a little here on the board. It appears, you did not mind 8 years of lying under Clinton, so I guess my corrected view would be closer to the truth than just an extreme description as hate.

As far as not caring what Clinton did with the intern is not the point and I really don't believe you will ever understand the point. However, since you are so caught up with that fiasco, I would like to remind you he was around for 8 years and there was plenty more. If you find yourself unable to remember anything else, you can start with reading Wally's post, he mentions a very significant lie. If that is not enough we could continue, the problem is that you don't care to see the whole picture, you just want Bush out.

By your response to some other posts of yours, it seems you really don't care if anyone lies because we all have lied to some degree or another. That seems to be the gist of your past replies, so I guess this is all futile anyways.

eg8r

Qtec
11-03-2004, 09:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If you find yourself unable to remember anything else, you can start with reading Wally's post, he mentions a very significant lie. <hr /></blockquote>

What lie?

Also, what has family values got to do with electing a President?
IMO, you elect a Pres. to run the country, not to dictate to you how you should live your life.
I thought you were against Govt 'interference 'in your daily affairs.

Sounds like a flip-flop to me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q

eg8r
11-03-2004, 09:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Eg8r, you must have misunderstood my post. I said Politics and government is about economics, NOT family values. <hr /></blockquote> You are right, I misread that. For some reason I thought you might care about family values and how your elected official might care. However, given the fact that you cleared all that up for me, let me be a little extreme...If the man you like was "great" for the economy, there is no question is far superior than his opponent, but he supported incest, would you be able to ignore his lapse in family values simply because you believe an elected office is only about economics?

I would like to mention that politics and government only being about economics is a bit out in left field.

[ QUOTE ]
My personal opinion is that Bush is for the big corporations, and as long as the big corporations run this country, we are doomed. <hr /></blockquote> Do you have any examples of this happening? Or is this really just an opinion based on lack of fact?

[ QUOTE ]
That, along with the FACT that he thinks he is Goid's messenger. <hr /></blockquote> I hope I am strong enough to avoid any more nonsense posts of your after this quote. Since you have very little regard to what a "fact" is, I don't think either of us will be able to discuss anything.

However, back to the quote that has lead me to believe without doubt, you don't care about facts...Please give me an example that would prove the quote above. Are there any sound bites, or quotations of Bush in which he states he is God's messenger?

[ QUOTE ]
The 9/11 commission proved that Bush and Rice were warned, not only of an eminent attack, but also of planes being used. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, before you go any further, please, by all means tell us what you would have done if you were given the same information. This should be great, with hindsight being 20/20, please clearly explain what you would have done differently.

[ QUOTE ]
What is immoral about allowing a US citizen to keep more of their money, LMAO, Guess you didn't read all of my post, but really Eg8r, excuse me but that is really the dumbest response you've ever given me. The statement should be, what is fair about allowing people who make 1.2 million dollars a year to keep an extra $78,000, while at the same time allowing people who make $35,000.00 keep only $1,100.00 dollars. BTW, I am in neither category.
<hr /></blockquote> I really could care less what category you are in, however you inability to see the very simplest of views is astounding. The rich received a 3-5% tax break, the middle received a 10% tax break. How is that fair? Take you head out of the sand and think for a once. If one guy pays in $1000 and another pays in $100, and they both get a 3% break, would you call it unfair because one guy got $27 more than the other? You don't find that thought process a bit sketchy?

[ QUOTE ]
They have hated us for a long time? How very simplistic. America has never had so many enemies as since little Bushy took office. <hr /></blockquote> Can you please, for everyone reading, name our "new" enemies?

[ QUOTE ]
He has made everything worse, everything.
<hr /></blockquote> Doom and Gloom. That is all you have mentioned, and now we get to hear it for 4 more years. I would have to say, I am willing to endure it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
11-03-2004, 09:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Hey, egg, shove it up your .... Sincerely, Hondo.
<hr /></blockquote> I must have struck a chord. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Not sure if it was asking you not to pray in such a manner, or if it was mentioning your rock solid stance about something you believe. Either way, don't take it too personal, I certainly am not.

eg8r &lt;~~~I find it odd that you abbreviate a 4 letter name with a 3 letter name. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r
11-03-2004, 09:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What lie? <hr /></blockquote> Read the post, you are a big boy, you don't need anyone holding your hand.

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, you elect a Pres. to run the country, <hr /></blockquote> To be completely honest, no one really cares about your opinion, you don't get to vote.

[ QUOTE ]
...not to dictate to you how you should live your life.
I thought you were against Govt 'interference 'in your daily affairs.
<hr /></blockquote> By seeing where a person stands on family values, gives you a good understanding of the man as a whole. Since most people in the US look at family values in high regard, this should not be too tough to comprehend. As far as this influencing my daily affairs, what are you talking about? This has nothing to do with daily affairs.

eg8r

Deeman2
11-03-2004, 09:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Eg8r, you must have misunderstood my post. I said Politics and government is about economics, NOT family values.

Gayle, Apparently the popular vote, something you have longed for, disagrees with you. Still want to eliminate the Electorial College? I will go for that.

My personal opinion is that Bush is for the big corporations, and as long as the big corporations run this country, we are doomed.

The big corporations have always run this country and long before Bush was here. Look at the countries where the goverments runs the coutries, that is called communism and socialism. Thankfully, we have avoided that for at least another four years.

My biggest concern regarding Bush is the economic mess he is making for our future, and the fact that potential enemy's are buying our debt, which I think is very dangerous.

If you think the Bush years is the first time other countries have bought our debt, you just didn't pay enough attention in history class. The short boom of the eighties and ninties was one of the the few exceptions to this. By the way, if that was your biggest concern about Bush, you have not been honest in your posts. Dare I say, "Flip Flop!"

That, along with the FACT that he thinks he is Goid's messenger. Guess you can justify anything you do if you think God is talking to you.

This is not a fact. He never claimed it was a fact. He only says God is an influence in his life as the too late blooming born again Kerry has also said in the "questions Gayle can't answer sections". Get a new spin. You'll need it for Hilary in 4 years when she "finds" the minority churches again.


The 9/11 commission proved that Bush and Rice were warned, not only of an eminent attack, but also of planes being used. Then Rice said later, "Before 9/11, no one had ever thought about planes being used as missiles? HELLO, why not, you had a warning, guess she didn't read it.

If we reacted to very threat we would be outlawing jump cues and not attacking poor harmless countries like Iraq. It is grossly appartent that you have only read excerpts frm the 9/11 report.


What is immoral about allowing a US citizen to keep more of their money, LMAO, Guess you didn't read all of my post, but really Eg8r, excuse me but that is really the dumbest response you've ever given me. The statement should be, what is fair about allowing people who make 1.2 million dollars a year to keep an extra $78,000, while at the same time allowing people who make $35,000.00 keep only $1,100.00 dollars. BTW, I am in neither category.

I am in one of those categories. Why should I pay more? I already do pay more than 95% of the others. Should I feel guilty that we carry 80% of the tax burden in this country? Move to a socialist country and see how you like their tax rates!

They have hated us for a long time? How very simplistic. America has never had so many enemies as since little Bushy took office.

Do you remember how hated Reagen was? Do you rememebr his world approval ratings? Why would Kerry, Clinton and the other democrats call him a a beacon of freedom and the man who led us to a safer world? I think, because they knew they would ever have to run against him. I have lived and worked in over 20 countries. You have to do so to really understand the attitude toward America which fluxiates over time. What you should do is become less concerned about what others think in the short term. I can't teach you these lessons, you will have to learn this for yourself.

He has alienated the world, my friend. We have never been so hated. He has made everything worse, everything.
Gayle in Md,
<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle, you have the right to your opinions. Just don't pretend they are rooted in anything other than petty, unknowledgable hatred.

If you win, you may have some claim to resonance with the electorate. If you lose, try to figure out why. There are plenty here that can help you. If intellectual pretense won elections, I'd gladly vote for your team....

Nothing but love for you Komrad....
/ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif
Deeman
should let Eg8r speak for himself as he is more than capable....

eg8r
11-03-2004, 09:38 AM
[ QUOTE ]
should let Eg8r speak for himself as he is more than capable.... <hr /></blockquote> I am too wordy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Deeman2
11-03-2004, 09:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
should let Eg8r speak for himself as he is more than capable.... <hr /></blockquote> I am too wordy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

You, my friend, are intellegent, thoughtful, independent, fair-minded and eloquent. How dare you!
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Deeman

Qtec
11-03-2004, 10:15 AM
[ QUOTE ]
By seeing where a person stands on family values, gives you a good understanding of the man as a whole. <hr /></blockquote>

Bull$(*t. Hitler also was very hot on family values, at least thats what he said.If fact he was so hot on the subject, he didnt want his race contaminated....and we know how that turned out.

What politicians say is not worth 2ct, GW and Co are a prime example.
GW proclaimed himself a uniter and the world has never been so divided since WW2.!
He certaily got that one wrong!
Oh wait, it was probably the fault of someone he appointed.
Talk about resposibility!!!!

Q

Qtec
11-03-2004, 10:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
To be completely honest, no one really cares about your opinion <hr /></blockquote> LOL Do you think anybody cares about your opinion? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Also, since when do you speak for the board? Who died and made you king?
Maybe your last name is Bush!!!?????


BTW, you should learn to read. I said, " a President " not "the President".
It was a hypothetical question which obviously went way over your head. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I can sense you lip quivering. LOL /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

Barbara
11-03-2004, 11:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> That, along with the FACT that he thinks he is Goid's messenger. Guess you can justify anything you do if you think God is talking to you.
<hr /></blockquote>

Back in 1985, a younger John Edwards "stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl,"

John Edwards (http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/kob200402050836.asp)

Barbara

eg8r
11-03-2004, 11:22 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It was a hypothetical question which obviously went way over your head. <hr /></blockquote> You are right, I was astounded to notice you even knew what the word "hypothetical" meant, let alone actually venture into uncharted territories and try and use it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I am just wondering if you really mean "rhetorical" question and not hypothetical. I really don't see any indication of a hypothesis anywhere.

eg8r

eg8r
11-03-2004, 11:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What politicians say is not worth 2ct, <hr /></blockquote> Like the dutch?

[ QUOTE ]
GW proclaimed himself a uniter and the world has never been so divided since WW2.!
<hr /></blockquote> Sounds like you want it both ways, now you say the world is divided, yet in other posts you mention how much more the world dislikes the US. Would not that mean (in your twisted view of things) that the world is MORE united in disliking the US than ever before?

eg8r

hondo
11-03-2004, 12:24 PM
I enjoy your posts, Q. If I ever get back to The
Netherlands, how about showing me around?


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
To be completely honest, no one really cares about your opinion <hr /></blockquote> LOL Do you think anybody cares about your opinion? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Also, since when do you speak for the board? Who died and made you king?
Maybe your last name is Bush!!!?????


BTW, you should learn to read. I said, " a President " not "the President".
It was a hypothetical question which obviously went way over your head. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I can sense you lip quivering. LOL /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q <hr /></blockquote>

hondo
11-03-2004, 12:28 PM
Good Lord, Barbara, surely you realize that was a
different John Edwards? I hope you were kidding.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Barbara:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> That, along with the FACT that he thinks he is Goid's messenger. Guess you can justify anything you do if you think God is talking to you.
<hr /></blockquote>

Back in 1985, a younger John Edwards "stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl,"

John Edwards (http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/kob200402050836.asp)

Barbara <hr /></blockquote>

Chopstick
11-03-2004, 12:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>

I am too wordy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

You, my friend, are intellegent, thoughtful, independent, fair-minded and eloquent. How dare you!
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Deeman <hr /></blockquote>

And he plays One Pocket.

Hey Gator.

eg8r
11-03-2004, 12:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Good Lord, Barbara, surely you realize that was a
different John Edwards? I hope you were kidding.
<hr /></blockquote> How many trial attorneys, channeling the dead are named John Edwards?

eg8r

eg8r
11-03-2004, 12:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And he plays One Pocket.
<hr /></blockquote> Whoa, thanks for leaving out all negative, well-earned descriptors. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

We need to get together again to play some more.

eg8r &lt;~~~hates walking up to the table thinking, "Oh crap, now what do I do" /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

highsea
11-03-2004, 01:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> Good Lord, Barbara, surely you realize that was a different John Edwards? I hope you were kidding.
<hr /></blockquote>Different in what way?

That story is about the John Edwards who was Kerry's pick as running mate. The absentee Senator from North Carolina who made millions on malpractice lawsuits by swaying teary-eyed jurors with junk science. The John Edwards who then dodged hundreds of thousands of dollars in medicare taxes by expoliting a loophole in the IRS code by collecting the money as dividends from a solely owned Subchapter S Corporation.

Yes, that John Edwards. The one you were going to entrust to reform health care in the US.

Deeman2
11-03-2004, 01:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> <hr /></blockquote>

Bull$(*t. Hitler also was very hot on family values, at least thats what he said.If fact he was so hot on the subject, he didnt want his race contaminated....and we know how that turned out.

If memory serves me correctly, Hitler didn't even marry until the day before he died, then married a woman he had been abusing for many years. His familiy values, that you hold up, not me, included forcing twins to mate, genocide of families, killing millions, all while pacifists from European countries tried to pacify him lining the streets of Paris, Amsterdam while a misery few hide families like the Ann Franks' until a Dutch man betrayed them for a few pieces of silver. How dare you compare the President with such a man. GWB has been a loyal family man who has not cheapened the Presidency by polking interns with cigars, now has he?

What politicians say is not worth 2ct, GW and Co are a prime example.
GW proclaimed himself a uniter and the world has never been so divided since WW2.!
He certaily got that one wrong!

Well, as he got the largest majority of any politician since 1982, he certainly seems to have a less divided country than in recent years. As for the world being divided, do you really think Europe's opinion matters? Let's all stop pretending you guys are a global force. Hell, you can't even defend yourselves against Mad Cow disease, what chance do you have with the real isues?

You certainly have the right to post here. Many here are certainly concerned that we might offend the Never,Neverlands adn dry up the world tulip supply. Sadly, most of us don't. How often do I come over to the Dutch Billiard Chalk Board and tell you who to vote for? Oh. That's right, you don't have a forum.

Oh wait, it was probably the fault of someone he appointed.
Talk about resposibility!!!!

Have you heard Bush appologize for not being on Europe's Christmas card list? I have not. Does it irritate you that maybe, just maybe, Europe is a little less than irrevelant these days? If you principal export is overpriced, poor wine, cars that rattle and your biggest recent feat id the rescue of Yes Sir, Arofat, maybe you need to put in a call to American Democrat strategists and get another game plan.

My greatest surprise with you is that, after your journalist was savagely murdered, you didn't jump on his corpse yelling that he had it coming. Making those awful accusations against the poor people who were just exercising their religeous will for that women's benefit. If that had been an American soldier freeing women in Bagdad, you would have proclaimed him an evil infidel.

Besides, Hitler could'nt run 20 balls!

Deeman
we have a politician with plenty of time on his hands if Holland needs one...

Qtec
11-04-2004, 09:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
By seeing where a person stands on family values, gives you a good understanding of the man as a whole. Since most people in the US look at family values in high regard, this should not be too tough to comprehend <hr /></blockquote>

That all depends on what you mean by 'Family values'.

Do you mean things like truth, honesty ,morals etc?

Q

silverbullet
11-04-2004, 07:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
If George Bush wants a Constitutional Ammendment to prohibit gay people from marrying, (This week, or was it last week) I can just imagine what he might try to pull off as regards womens rights! What is the problem with those folks getting married anyway other than the religeous taboo? As I stated in another post, the religeous right in this country is much scarrier than Bin Ladden.

Non issues??????????????????????????????????????????
Personally, I think that separation of church and state is a pretty important issue, (Especially if you are president and you think that God is advising you) along with counting all the votes, and listening to your advisors before you make a pre-emptive strike on another country.


Gayle in Md.


<hr /></blockquote>

Those without a knowlege of history are doomed to repeat it. Our country was set up as 'separation of church and state' in response to many coming here to escape the tyranny of religious represion which was going on in Britian at the time. We fought the revolution against this, taxation without representation, and a few other things, and look at how things have slowly become and seem to be getting worse.

The fundamentalists scare me more than Bin Laden too. I know the history of the fundamentalist movement, as they began to build up steam about 20+ years ago. When they were successful taking over some rather large religious organizations and the likes of Fallwell were mixing religion and politics, it was obvious where this was going.

There is a big difference between bonafide christians and 'fundamentalists', and I was pretty sure and feared that one day they would control the politics of the nation.

My worst fears are now coming true, and when you have ministers telling their congregation that a vote against Bush is a vote against God and you have zeolots standing behind voters in the polls in certain states pressuring them on who to voter for, we could end up with zeolots every bit as bad as the muslim zeolots, indeed.

Then, how far are we from losing our other rights of 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of press'?

The only thing good I can say about Bush is that he seemed to be the right person to do the stuff in the middle east. I may end up being wrong about that too, but that was the only possible good that I saw in that man.

Gays have just gotten to the point where they had some freedoms, and women too and we could be entering the dark ages with that. With fundamentalists in charge, we have judgementalism and hatred towards all gay people, in particular, as they spout their venom from the old testiment book 'deuteronomy', about 'homosexuality being an abomination'. I have actually seen private fundamentalist schools, where male teachers were paid way more than women, spouting biblical references about men being the God ordained head of household, and this kind of thinking was gathering steam 20 years ago. 20 years ago, when they were not nearly as powerful, These people even said of my mom, a good christian southern baptist, that she was damned because she thought that God would not turn away a good buddist. It gets really really weird, and having been part of that movement, 20 years ago, before leaving it in disgust, I know them all too well.

Where current fundamentals are more 'civilized' than those who participated in the 'christian crusades', they could be flipped over in a religious war and I fear a 3rd world war between religious zealots, christians vs muslims.

I will not post the whole history of what I know about this movement, which I have been following for 20 years, nor some of the horrendous heinous things I have seen happen, because it is rather lengthy, but if anyone wants the whole story, from what I know, pm me.

To any of you conservatives who have said to Que, that what happens in the US in politics does not concern others in other countries, you are dead wrong. America is the most powerful nation in the world and what decisions are made by our politicians affect the whole world, not just us.

Just my not so humble opinion.

sb

Chopstick
11-05-2004, 05:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

What politicians say is not worth 2ct,

<hr /></blockquote>

That's a problem in any democratic government. Politicians don't have any real skills at running things. Their only skill is how to get elected. There isn't a one of them who has a clue about project management. We've had congressmen with elementary school educations. If you want a government that can get things done, stop electing politicians.

Wally_in_Cincy
11-05-2004, 06:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote silverbullet:</font><hr>

...The fundamentalists scare me more than Bin Laden too....


...My worst fears are now coming true...

...I will not post the whole history of what I know about this movement, which I have been following for 20 years, nor some of the horrendous heinous things I have seen happen......<hr /></blockquote>

Oh don't hold back. Tell us about the "horrendous" things those evil Christains have done.

Let me guess. They handed you a can of Coke on a steet corner and told you Jesus loves you and you recoiled in horror and scampered away to a safe place.

Gayle in MD
11-05-2004, 06:46 AM
Amen Friend, unfortunately, trying to reason with the likes of those who read the Weekly Review or Report, whatever that rag is called, is impossible. I certainly wouldn't waste my time reading that Neoconservative rag. Too bad the Repubs didn't read "The Power Of Myth, by Joseph Campbell, so they could understand the tactics of the Bush Campaign.

Now here we are, just days after his election, and he says,
"I don't think you ought to read anything into the politics of the moment about whether this nation will become divided over religeon"
HA HA HA HA HA HA, Like this hasn't already happened!
When has this nation ever been so divided? Guess he doesn't realize that half of us don't want his butt in there.

What a joke, his very campaign tactics have already divided our nation by using the Evangelical Zealots to get his a$$ back into office. That was and has been Karl Rove's tactic for the last fifteen years. He organized a strategic assembly of (Brace yourself friend) 80 million evangelists and fiscal conservatives in his "Religeon" of Winning political office.

Bush is going to now have to payoff his voters by changing the balance of the Supreme Court to reflect the HIS values and the values of his constituates, and Oh my God, we sure know who they are.

This morning on the news one of our troops said, "Sometimes it feels like we're training the enemy, we're giving them weapons and we're making them (stronger) better. I guess he knows something about what is going on overthere, albiet I am sure eg8r and Deeman have much more sophisticated knowlege of the situation, LOL.

I guess Little Bushy thinks that Iran and Syria are just going to fold their hands and do nothing if they see Iraq become democratic, lol. a pipe dream anyway. Bush will be the first president to create multi-national civil war on both sides of the world at the same time.

His debt to the bible thumpers who put him in there will now be to;
Overturn Roe V. Wade
Reignite oppisition toward our gay population. part of his payoff for the Evangelical Voters.

He will then totally screw up the Social Security system in order to cover up the results of his deficit and the crises he has created in the SS system in the first place.

And then, Oh yes, he says he will cut the deficit in half in four years, LMAO, even HE doesn't think he can pay down this financial mess he has made before he leaves office.

I feel sorry for our next president. I just hope the Dems can find a good mud slinging lieing BSer like Rove to run their campaign in four years.

PS This post is for democrats only, right wing conservatives are forbidden to post to me since they haven't learned the etiquette familiar to high schoolers on a debating team.
Anyway, thanks for the post, nice to read something posted by someone other than a misguided conservative.

Gayle in Md. Oh jeeze, I can't believe it, four more years of Little Bushy, YUK!

Gayle in MD
11-05-2004, 07:01 AM
Now that we know who voted for Little Bushy and why, I wonder what you think about my concerns. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

gayle in Md.

Wally_in_Cincy
11-05-2004, 07:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Amen Friend, unfortunately, trying to reason with the likes of those who read the Weekly Review or Report, whatever that rag is called,

<font color="blue">You are soooo well informed. </font color>

is impossible. I certainly wouldn't waste my time reading that Neoconservative rag.

<font color="blue">Why not? I read stuff written by leftists all the time. I don't agree with everything but I read it. </font color>

Too bad the Repubs didn't read "The Power Of Myth, by Joseph Campbell, so they could understand the tactics of the Bush Campaign.

Now here we are, just days after his election, and he says,
"I don't think you ought to read anything into the politics of the moment about whether this nation will become divided over religeon"
HA HA HA HA HA HA, Like this hasn't already happened!
When has this nation ever been so divided? Guess he doesn't realize that half of us don't want his butt in there.

<font color="blue">During every Presidential election there are approximately half of the people who don't want the guy in there. How is this election different? </font color>

What a joke, his very campaign tactics have already divided our nation by using the Evangelical Zealots to get his a$$ back into office. That was and has been Karl Rove's tactic for the last fifteen years. He organized a strategic assembly of (Brace yourself friend) 80 million evangelists and fiscal conservatives in his "Religeon" of Winning political office.

<font color="blue">I'm not sure what you are insinuating as your post is somewhat obtuse, but of course he was counting on the religious conservatives just as the Dems count on gays and blacks. Is there something evil about that? </font color>

Bush is going to now have to payoff his voters by changing the balance of the Supreme Court to reflect the HIS values and the values of his constituates, and Oh my God, we sure know who they are.

<font color="blue">Every President does that. Clinton appointed Ruth Ginsberg. </font color>

This morning on the news one of our troops said, "Sometimes it feels like we're training the enemy, we're giving them weapons and we're making them (stronger) better.

<font color="blue">That's the whole point. The Iraqi government has to have a force to maintain control of the nation. Would you prefer the Americans remain there forever to keep the peace? </font color>

I guess he knows something about what is going on overthere, albiet I am sure eg8r and Deeman have much more sophisticated knowlege of the situation, LOL.

I guess Little Bushy thinks that Iran and Syria are just going to fold their hands and do nothing if they see Iraq become democratic,

<font color="blue">Syria won't do squat. They know better. As far as Iran, they won't do anything different than they otherwise would have done. </font color>


...Bush will be the first president to create multi-national civil war...

<font color="blue">Interesting concept. </font color>

on both sides of the world at the same time.

His debt to the bible thumpers who put him in there will now be to;
Overturn Roe V. Wade

<font color="blue">That's not going to happen and you know it. Why don't you say something that makes sense? </font color>


Reignite oppisition toward our gay population. part of his payoff for the Evangelical Voters.

<font color="blue">The gays have suffered a backlash because of their agenda which offends most Americans. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with this. </font color>

He will then totally screw up the Social Security system in order to cover up the results of his deficit and the crises he has created in the SS system in the first place.

<font color="blue">What SS crisis has Bush created? </font color>

And then, Oh yes, he says he will cut the deficit in half in four years, LMAO, even HE doesn't think he can pay down this financial mess he has made before he leaves office.

<font color="blue">If the economy does ok the deficit should come down. We shall see. </font color>

I feel sorry for our next president. I just hope the Dems can find a good mud slinging lieing BSer like Rove to run their campaign in four years.

<font color="blue">James Carville? Paul Begala? Michael Moore? </font color>

PS This post is for democrats only, right wing conservatives are forbidden to post to me since they haven't learned the etiquette familiar to high schoolers on a debating team.

<font color="blue">oopsy. my bad. </font color>

Anyway, thanks for the post, nice to read something posted by someone other than a misguided conservative.

Gayle in Md. Oh jeeze, I can't believe it, four more years of Little Bushy, YUK!

<font color="blue">Calm down. Everything will be OK. </font color>


<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
11-05-2004, 08:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
HA HA HA HA HA HA, Like this hasn't already happened!
When has this nation ever been so divided? Guess he doesn't realize that half of us don't want his butt in there.
<hr /></blockquote> This is not for him to realize. This is, for you and the rest of the Dems to realize that if you don't like the incumbent, then put someone up against him whom might have a fighting chance. Al Gore did better against Bush. Bush did a much better job this year at the polls which goes to show, that the majority of the people voting would rather KEEP his butt in office than elect Kerry.

The left like to mention how much smarter they are than the right, however they are too dumb to remedy the situation. Once again, in this election the Repubs have gained more seats. If the left was as smart as they say they are, why aren't they gaining any ground? They seem to be losing more and more each election. With all the intelligence floating around on the left, you would think they would nominate someone that is electable.

Once you get to that point, the Dems might want to re-evalutate their situation and maybe take a look at why the majority of the voting population continues to disagree with the left. You would think such a smart group of people could figure this out. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ QUOTE ]
PS This post is for democrats only, right wing conservatives are forbidden to post to me since they haven't learned the etiquette familiar to high schoolers on a debating team.
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, now that is a real stand-up statement, restrict free-speech. WTG. As far as etiquette, would you mind explaining how your mudslinging, name-calling, and lying is any different than elementary playground interaction. Should you not practice what you preach?

[ QUOTE ]
Gayle in Md. Oh jeeze, I can't believe it, four more years of Little Bushy, YUK! <hr /></blockquote> /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Deeman2
11-05-2004, 08:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Amen Friend, unfortunately, trying to reason with the likes of those who read the Weekly Review or Report, whatever that rag is called,

<font color="blue">You are soooo well informed. </font color>

is impossible. I certainly wouldn't waste my time reading that Neoconservative rag.

<font color="blue">Why not? I read stuff written by leftists all the time. I don't agree with everything but I read it. </font color>

Too bad the Repubs didn't read "The Power Of Myth, by Joseph Campbell, so they could understand the tactics of the Bush Campaign.

Now here we are, just days after his election, and he says,
"I don't think you ought to read anything into the politics of the moment about whether this nation will become divided over religeon"
HA HA HA HA HA HA, Like this hasn't already happened!
When has this nation ever been so divided? Guess he doesn't realize that half of us don't want his butt in there.

<font color="blue">During every Presidential election there are approximately half of the people who don't want the guy in there. How is this election different? </font color>

What a joke, his very campaign tactics have already divided our nation by using the Evangelical Zealots to get his a$$ back into office. That was and has been Karl Rove's tactic for the last fifteen years. He organized a strategic assembly of (Brace yourself friend) 80 million evangelists and fiscal conservatives in his "Religeon" of Winning political office.

<font color="blue">I'm not sure what you are insinuating as your post is somewhat obtuse, but of course he was counting on the religious conservatives just as the Dems count on gays and blacks. Is there something evil about that? </font color>

Bush is going to now have to payoff his voters by changing the balance of the Supreme Court to reflect the HIS values and the values of his constituates, and Oh my God, we sure know who they are.

<font color="blue">Every President does that. Clinton appointed Ruth Ginsberg. </font color>

This morning on the news one of our troops said, "Sometimes it feels like we're training the enemy, we're giving them weapons and we're making them (stronger) better.

<font color="blue">That's the whole point. The Iraqi government has to have a force to maintain control of the nation. Would you prefer the Americans remain there forever to keep the peace? </font color>

I guess he knows something about what is going on overthere, albiet I am sure eg8r and Deeman have much more sophisticated knowlege of the situation, LOL.

I guess Little Bushy thinks that Iran and Syria are just going to fold their hands and do nothing if they see Iraq become democratic,

<font color="blue">Syria won't do squat. They know better. As far as Iran, they won't do anything different than they otherwise would have done. </font color>


...Bush will be the first president to create multi-national civil war...

<font color="blue">Interesting concept. </font color>

on both sides of the world at the same time.

His debt to the bible thumpers who put him in there will now be to;
Overturn Roe V. Wade

<font color="blue">That's not going to happen and you know it. Why don't you say something that makes sense? </font color>


Reignite oppisition toward our gay population. part of his payoff for the Evangelical Voters.

<font color="blue">The gays have suffered a backlash because of their agenda which offends most Americans. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with this. </font color>

He will then totally screw up the Social Security system in order to cover up the results of his deficit and the crises he has created in the SS system in the first place.

<font color="blue">What SS crisis has Bush created? </font color>

And then, Oh yes, he says he will cut the deficit in half in four years, LMAO, even HE doesn't think he can pay down this financial mess he has made before he leaves office.

<font color="blue">If the economy does ok the deficit should come down. We shall see. </font color>

I feel sorry for our next president. I just hope the Dems can find a good mud slinging lieing BSer like Rove to run their campaign in four years.

<font color="blue">James Carville? Paul Begala? Michael Moore? </font color>

PS This post is for democrats only, right wing conservatives are forbidden to post to me since they haven't learned the etiquette familiar to high schoolers on a debating team.

<font color="blue">oopsy. my bad. </font color>

Anyway, thanks for the post, nice to read something posted by someone other than a misguided conservative.

Gayle in Md. Oh jeeze, I can't believe it, four more years of Little Bushy, YUK!

<font color="blue">Calm down. Everything will be OK. </font color>


<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

Wally,

Good try but why bother. Gayle is right. look at her considered and well studied references.

The biggest rejection of the liberal agenda since 1968. Even many democrats had to jump across the line to make this come out well. They "rocked the vote" with 10% of young voters. They make light of other's spiritual beliefs. They are still pandering to the gays long after that group has been accepted into the mainstream and even Kerry would not have let them marry. Fortunately, for us moderates, /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif the democratic party still doesn't get it insuring probably the next three or four elections. We won. The American people won and Gayle now wants to reject our right to answer her posts! /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif Who is for censorship here. I'll post what I damn well please and even encourage the ones I oppose to do so. That is freedom. Thank God we will still have it for at least another four years.

By the way, "Little Bushy" just kicked your candidate's butt, your elitist friends forgot that middle America is the mainstream, not the East &amp; West Coast. You didn't believe we'd have four more years of Bush and you were wrong. The great thing is you don't have a clue of how to overcome that even in the next several elections. I think that is even more humorous than your unsupported claims in your posts.

Micheal Moore and his Holliwood cronies did as much to re-elect our President as the Christian right. That's the beauty of letting the lies catch up with you. Please keep helping us prove our points.

Deeman
I think Gayle is a mole for the right...

Wally_in_Cincy
11-05-2004, 08:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle:</font><hr> This post is for democrats only, right wing conservatives are forbidden to post to me since they haven't learned the etiquette familiar to high schoolers on a debating team.
<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r, correct me if I am mistaken, but isn't it traditional in high school debating for an opponent to answer a rebuttal, which Gayle seems incapable of doing?

Wally &lt;~~ just wondering /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

highsea
11-05-2004, 09:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>...He organized a strategic assembly of (Brace yourself friend) 80 million evangelists and fiscal conservatives in his "Religeon" of Winning political office. <hr /></blockquote>Odd claim. If Rove organized 80 Million envangicalists and fiscal conservatives, why did 1 in 4 not bother to vote? That's assuming every Bush voter was part of this "assembly" of Rove's...makes no sense.

eg8r
11-05-2004, 09:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
eg8r, correct me if I am mistaken, but isn't it traditional in high school debating for an opponent to answer a rebuttal, which Gayle seems incapable of doing?
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, as far as her political posts, she has been incapable of putting together one post that did not involve name-calling, or lies either. I would not guess she would be worrying herself with whether or not a rebuttal was allowed. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Troy
11-05-2004, 09:53 AM
I just heard a little ditty on the morning newa that said the "Catholic" vote in Ohio was 51%-48% for Bush and that if Kerry had carried the "Catholic" vote in Ohio he would have won the election.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>.....Tell us about the "horrendous" things those evil Christains have done.<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
11-05-2004, 10:04 AM
While "horrendous" or heinous are probably descriptors first used by Gayle, I wonder what she thinks about all these "horrendous" people that voted for Kerry. What if the "little ditty" was true and that helped Kerry win, would Gayle change her outlook on those evil religious people? My gosh, she even completely ignores the 48% of these evil people. She also ignores the fact that Kerry spent nearly every Sunday for the past few months, pandering to black churches trying to win their vote. Maybe Gayle was going for Nader, I don't remember him trying to win the vote of the evil religious.

Also, provided the "little ditty" was true and had the Catholic vote in Ohio helped Kerry win the electoral votes in Ohio, would the the entire Democratic nation have the guts to call the election a hoax because their guy still did not have the popular vote?

eg8r

hondo
11-05-2004, 10:14 AM
I agree with everything you say, Gayle. All we
can do is pray that we are wrong. I'm planning
on drowning my sorrow tonight.

highsea
11-05-2004, 10:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>I guess Little Bushy thinks that Iran and Syria are just going to fold their hands and do nothing if they see Iraq become democratic, lol. a pipe dream anyway. <hr /></blockquote>A pipe dream. That's what the left said about Afghanistan also. Amazing how far from reality that turned out to be. The US has overwhelming support among Afghan voters. Do you think it's a bad thing that Bush has turned an enemy into a friend?

What about Libya? Khadaffi did a 180, and gave up his Nuke program and made peace with the US. He took the blame for Libya's terrorist sponsorship and made reparations to the families of the victims.

I'm curious, Gayle, are you opposed to a Iraqi's picking their own leaders? What do you think Syria and Iran will do after elections are held in Iraq? Did you take note of the demonstrations in Iran the other day? It was the 25th anniversary of the 1979 revolution and the hostage crisis. It was pretty much a "Death to the US" party. This has been going on in Iran for 25 years now. What did Clinton do about it? For that matter, what did Clinton accomplish anywhere in the Mid East in his 8 years? Al-Qaeda attacked the US 4 times in Clinton's tenure. What did he do about it?

Are you aware that Iran and Saudi Arabia are at "daggers drawn" right now? How do you think the rest of the Sunni Muslim countries will react to a nuclear Iran?

The schism between Sunnis and Shias is a very deep one. If Iran goes nuclear, then Saudi Arabia will have to also. What will this portend for Israel, and the greater Mid-East peace process? Will the US then have to place Nukes in Iraq?

How do you think a nuclear Iran will affect the India-Pakistan tensions? Remember, Pakistan is overwhelmingly Sunni. Do you think they will sit back and do nothing as they are encircled by enemies?

Syria is wisely keeping their heads down right now, and moving their troops out of Lebanon. US popularity in Lebanon is on rise. If the past 50 years tells us anything, it should be that a weak Mid-East policy will not solve the problems there.

Troy
11-05-2004, 10:44 AM
Just wondering why you felt the need to put those two words of mine in quotes ???

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>....."little ditty".....
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
11-05-2004, 11:16 AM
Because I thought it would be fine. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Deeman2
11-05-2004, 11:37 AM
Highsea,

Very nice. However, she won't understand a thing you have explained. That's the sad part of it. Wish I had your boat!

Deeman

highsea
11-05-2004, 11:52 AM
Dee, the Mid-East is a very convoluted place. On one hand they hate us, and on the other they envy us.

One thing that surprised me was the reaction to F911 in Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. The majority of the people that watched it laughed all the way through. Of course there were some people that were inflamed, but most, when asked for their reaction, said "Isn't America a great place, where a guy can make millions of dollars just for criticizing the President!"

hondo
11-05-2004, 12:03 PM
How could he carry the Catholic vote when you had
Bishops telling Catholics they would go to Hell if
they voted for Kerry?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Troy:</font><hr> I just heard a little ditty on the morning newa that said the "Catholic" vote in Ohio was 51%-48% for Bush and that if Kerry had carried the "Catholic" vote in Ohio he would have won the election.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>.....Tell us about the "horrendous" things those evil Christains have done.<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

hondo
11-05-2004, 12:17 PM
I think it is shameful the way you fine Christian
bushites are picking on that little lady. MY BIBLE
says be humble, not arrogant; the meek shall inherit
the earth, show compassion for the poor. I do not
see that from Bush or you "moderate" (ha, ha) thugs.
I mean Chritians, excuse me. Gayle may be going overboard
but the moral majority, the religious right, the voices
in Bush's head are all as phony as the tele-evangelists.
Those of us who believe in compassion are labeled as
evil by right wing fanatics while our kids are dying
in Iraq just to prove that George doesn't make mistakes.

Qtec
11-05-2004, 12:37 PM
Tap,Tap,Tap.
So far, 1100 US and 100,000 civilians have died and there are more terrorists than ever.


Q http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/10/5d9141da-97ce-4bd1-8fb8-33fe10415b0e.html

highsea
11-05-2004, 12:46 PM
Hondo, I wasn't picking on anyone. I was commenting on geopolitics, and asking Gayle if she cared to elaborate on her statement based on certain realities that I pointed out.

You can call me a thug, religious fanatic, whatever. It doesn't affect me. You do seem fond of throwing labels around. I have not labeled anyone as "evil", or a "fanatic", and there is no need for you to put words in my mouth. I just happen to think that the left tends to look at the world through rose colored glasses. Nothing wrong with being idealistic, I just don't think the US's foreign policy should hinge on idealism.

For the record however, I happen to be an atheist, and my vote for Bush was based on National Security, not any sort of religious conviction.

highsea
11-05-2004, 12:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> So far, 1100 US and 100,000 civilians have died and there are more terrorists than ever.

Q <hr /></blockquote>
I would be interested in seeing your statistics on the number of terrorists.

I did not bother to read your article, I assume it was the Ritter article or another one citing the Lancet Medical Journal.

Ritter's claims vary drastically from the Iraqi Body Count Project, which places the civilian deaths between a minimum of 14,219 and 16,352. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation. So even though the majority of civilian deaths are caused by insurgents or terrorist acts, the coalition still takes the blame.

While Ritter quotes only one study, the IBC project gets it's information from a wide variety of news sources including the following:

ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post

The complete database can be viewed here:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/

hondo
11-05-2004, 01:03 PM
I apologise to you, hi-c.

quote=highsea] Hondo, I wasn't picking on anyone. I was commenting on geopolitics, and asking Gayle if she cared to elaborate on her statement based on certain realities that I pointed out.

You can call me a thug, religious fanatic, whatever. It doesn't affect me. You do seem fond of throwing labels around. I have not labeled anyone as "evil", or a "fanatic", and there is no need for you to put words in my mouth. I just happen to think that the left tends to look at the world through rose colored glasses. Nothing wrong with being idealistic, I just don't think the US's foreign policy should hinge on idealism.

For the record however, I happen to be an atheist, and my vote for Bush was based on National Security, not any sort of religious conviction. <hr /></blockquote>

hondo
11-05-2004, 01:07 PM
Not 100000? Only 16000? Aren't you ashamed of yourself,
Q?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> So far, 1100 US and 100,000 civilians have died and there are more terrorists than ever.

Q <hr /></blockquote>
I would be interested in seeing your statistics on the number of terrorists.

I did not bother to read your article, I assume it was the Ritter article or another one citing the Lancet Medical Journal.

Ritter's claims vary drastically from the Iraqi Body Count Project, which places the civilian deaths between a minimum of 14,219 and 16,352. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation. So even though the majority of civilian deaths are caused by insurgents or terrorist acts, the coalition still takes the blame.

While Ritter quotes only one study, the IBC project gets it's information from a wide variety of news sources including the following:

ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post

The complete database can be viewed here:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/
<hr /></blockquote>

highsea
11-05-2004, 01:07 PM
Lol, it's all good. I'm sure I rub people the wrong way from time to time. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

highsea
11-05-2004, 01:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> Not 100000? Only 16000? Aren't you ashamed of yourself,
Q?
<hr /></blockquote>Perhaps I should clarify a bit. My post had nothing to do with justifying anything. I simply pointed out that the IBC project, (which is not a US or UK project) disagrees with Ritter's claims. If you are truly interested in the facts, peruse the database I linked. There you can see how many civilian casualties were caused by coalition bombing versus carbombs, roadside bombs, etc.

Also, if you look at the list of sources that the IBC project uses, you can clearly see that they are not coalition controlled. While Ritter cites only one report, the IBC project distills it's information from many sources and cross checks for accuracy.

Every death is a tragic one. There are 1.2 Muslims that are dead because Saddam Hussein is the person he is. All of the critisism of the US in the world cannot erase that fact.

Deeman2
11-05-2004, 02:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> I think it is shameful the way you fine Christian
bushites are picking on that little lady. MY BIBLE
says be humble, not arrogant; the meek shall inherit
the earth, show compassion for the poor. I do not
see that from Bush or you "moderate" (ha, ha) thugs.
I mean Chritians, excuse me. Gayle may be going overboard
but the moral majority, the religious right, the voices
in Bush's head are all as phony as the tele-evangelists.
Those of us who believe in compassion are labeled as
evil by right wing fanatics while our kids are dying
in Iraq just to prove that George doesn't make mistakes. <hr /></blockquote>

I am not a fine Christian, I struggle with my faith but a fine Christian I have never claimed to be. I will, however, fight for your right not to believe and would not want any political decisions based on my faith or others. Guidance in your moral decisions is fine. Atheists are as moral as most religous people. I know that. Faith is personal and not a claim to superiority, just a way some of us try to live. I am not evangelical.

I am sorry to jump on Gayle but when you throw things against the wall and then won't directly defend them, we have a right to answer. I believe my only name calling was saying she was an elitist and uninformed. Her posts demonstrated the former and the latter.

I have no anomosity toward anyone on this board and have taken my share of fair knocks. I do apoligise if anyone was personally offended. I have locked horns with some pretty tough skined folks here. If there are people who only want to throw darts in one direction please have them state in their posts that they can't fathom honest debate and are only posting a weak, undefendable position and I'll just not reply.

I think you are refering to me as the "moderate". I believe in a woman's right to choose, despite my religous convictions. I believe in Gay rights, if not their marriage, although it does not threaten my status or even upset me. I hate that any are dying overseas but know it is sometimes the price of other's liberty as well as our own that generations have had to pay, mine included. I believe Bush has spent too much money, but will spend less than Kerry would have.

I, even as a conservative, have taught 4 adults how to read, give what I can to help AIDS in Africa and am shortly giving up a daughter to the Peace Corps in that same continent. I am no better nor worse than most on this board and do what I can. None of us do enough. Most republicans are not greedy and thoughless as you portray us. We all believe a little differently on different subjects, sometimes a lot differently. But we do let you know where we stand as the voters did on Teusday. Do we have the higher ground. No, but we ain't punting either.



Deeman

silverbullet
11-05-2004, 03:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Amen Friend, unfortunately, trying to reason with the likes of those who read the Weekly Review or Report, whatever that rag is called, is impossible. I certainly wouldn't waste my time reading that Neoconservative rag. Too bad the Repubs didn't read "The Power Of Myth, by Joseph Campbell, so they could understand the tactics of the Bush Campaign.

Gayle in Md. Oh jeeze, I can't believe it, four more years of Little Bushy, YUK!


<hr /></blockquote>
Gayle, it tickles me everytime I see that 'Little Bushy' in your posts. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I grew up in a conservative, everything repub was good and dem was bad kind of family. But...we were not put down for having different views, so when we grew up, we started thinking for ourselves.

The last election was the first time I voted dem. In this one, I realized I knew nothing at all about kerry and I started reading some books. I think you referred to Woodward in one of your posts. Now, I have read the biased stuff on both sides, but that was about the most tell the events, unbiased book I have read. I missed the one by campbell, however, perhaps I should read it.

Unfortunately, you, I, Hondo and a couple of others seem to be surrounded by intractible minds, and to reason with such minds is pretty much futile.

Not all those with 'family values' were fundamentalist, but those who werent were conned, pure and simple and perhaps the fundamentalists will 'convert' them. A horrible thought. I guess all we can do is speak to those who have ears and also hear, and hope that the zeolots do not gain too much more steam in 4 years, preventing the next pres to bring us back to a more moderate stance.

For those who do not know, Bush, cheyny etc, are not conservatives, they are 'neoconservatives'. On a continuum from socialism to naziism, extreme left is the closest to socialism and the extreme right or 'neoconservatism' is closest to naziism. But few want to hear about any of that.

Gayle, I applaud your courage for continuing to state what you believe against such a crowd, while we do still have freedom of speech, but I think I will duck out on this one and go shoot pool... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Am I afraid of a debate? No. For me, if my opinions are to count, it seems that they will count more with those who are not vehemently defending their little demigod 'bushy', ignoring the horrible facts, but are listening with reason and concern.

SB

Qtec
11-05-2004, 07:29 PM
Ye of little faith!

Q

highsea
11-05-2004, 07:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote silverbullet:</font><hr> On a continuum from socialism to naziism, extreme left is the closest to socialism and the extreme right or 'neoconservatism' is closest to naziism. But few want to hear about any of that.<hr /></blockquote>Lol, thanks for the lesson in semantics.

neoconservative. Dissect the word, and it means "new" conservative. It's a label invented by liberals and anti-semites. It's a code word for "Jew".

It has nothing to do with fascism, except for people who don't understand the origin.

Qtec
11-05-2004, 08:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> So far, 1100 US and 100,000 civilians have died and there are more terrorists than ever.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

I would be interested in seeing your statistics on the number of terrorists.

I did not bother to read your article, I assume it was the Ritter article or another one citing the Lancet Medical Journal.

Ritter's claims vary drastically from the Iraqi Body Count Project, which places the civilian deaths between a minimum of 14,219 and 16,352. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation. So even though the majority of civilian deaths are caused by insurgents or terrorist acts, the coalition still takes the blame.

While Ritter quotes only one study, the IBC project gets it's information from a wide variety of news sources including the following:

ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post

The complete database can be viewed here:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/
<hr /></blockquote>



Yes, this was the report in the Lancet, a highly respected scientific journal I might add.

I am well aware of the IBC but their total is drawn exclusivley from the media.
From their website,
[ QUOTE ]
Casualty figures are derived solely from a comprehensive survey of online media reports. <hr /></blockquote>
Basically , they get their info from counting the number of deaths reported in the press.
Considering the fact that journalists rarely venture outside the 'Green Zone' in Baghdad, it can hardly be claimed that they can be accurate about the number of casualties.
The true figure should lie somewhere between the two estimates. The only reason we dont know the true number is because the US doesnt keep count!
You always talk about respect. If you were an Iraqi, how would you view this?

Q [ OK Hondo? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif]

[BTW, Are you claiming that there are LESS terrorists today than in 2000?]

silverbullet
11-05-2004, 08:34 PM
Neo-main character in the movie, the Matrix. LOL

In reality, I loved kerry as a person. I hated Bush for reasons I will not go into. I figured that Bush needed to finish IRAQ and that might even end up being wrong.

But....

Both repubs and dems want to take my freedoms away, they just have different ways of doing it.

I hate that wicked thief the IRS and I do not want any federal laws about abortion, gay rights, gun control or anything else. The federal govt should mind their own business and keep their noses out of my personal and economic rights.

In this bipartisan country, I hope for a moderate in 2008. Perhaps Mccain.

sb

highsea
11-05-2004, 08:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Yes, this was the report in the Lancet, a highly respected scientific journal I might add.<hr /></blockquote>Highly respected by whom? Anyone can claim to be highly respected. Michael Moore is highly respected in France. How many reporters from the Lancet Medical Journal were outside the Green Zone? From what do they derive their estimates? What were their assumptions? Is their data public?

The IBC publishes all their data in a public database. Sources come from all over, Human Rights Watch, Arab sources like Al-Jazerra, Middle East News Online, European sources like your favorite, the Guardian, French and German sources, etc. Not coalition controlled by any stretch. Sorry, but Lancet needs to show where they come up with thier numbers if they expect to be taken seriously. Anyone can pull a number out of their a$$ and say BAD, BAD US.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>[BTW, Are you claiming that there are LESS terrorists today than in 2000?]<hr /></blockquote>I made no claims whatsoever. I simply wondered if you had any statistics on the number of terrorists to back up your statement, or if it's just your personal assessment. It wasn't a particularly difficult question, but I'll give you a little more time if you need it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Qtec
11-05-2004, 10:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/Scientists-100000-Iraqis-have-died-since-war/2004/10/29/1098992290312.html?oneclick=true


"This remarkable piece of work represents the efforts of a courageous team of scientists," he wrote.

To conduct the survey, investigators visited 33 neighbourhoods spread evenly across the country in September, randomly selecting clusters of 30 households to sample. Of the 988 households visited, 808, consisting of 7,868 people, agreed to participate. Each was asked how many people lived in the home and how many births and deaths there had been since January 2002.

The scientists then compared death rates in the 15 months before the invasion with those during the next 18 months. They adjusted those numbers to account for the different time periods.

Even though the sample size appears small, this type of survey is considered accurate and acceptable by scientists and was used to calculate war deaths in Kosovo in the late 1990s.

There were 46 deaths in the surveyed households before the war. After the invasion, there were 142 deaths. That is an increase from 5 deaths per 1,000 people per year to 12.3 per 1,000 people per year - more than double.

However, more than a third of the post-invasion deaths were reported in one cluster of households in the city Fallujah, where fighting has been most intense recently.

Because the fighting was so severe there, the numbers from that location may have exaggerated the overall picture.

When the researchers recalculated the effect of the war without the statistics from Fallujah, the deaths end up at 7.9 per 1,000 people per year - still 1.5 times higher than before the war.

Even with Fallujah factored out, the survey "indicates that the death toll associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq is more likely than not about 100,000 people, and may be much higher," the report said.

<hr /></blockquote>

If you want read the whole report,graphs etc you need to register.
BTW, it was a joint US/Iraqi survey.

Q

highsea
11-06-2004, 03:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;snip&gt; BTW, it was a joint US/Iraqi survey.

Q <hr /></blockquote>I thought you said the US was afraid to keep a count?

Gayle in MD
11-06-2004, 06:45 AM
Ed,
The term, Religeous Right, is not name-calling as far as I am concerned. I don't think that I make it a practice to call people names in my posts. As regards Little Bushy, AKA Dufus, I think he is fair game being a public figure. If you want to read some name calling, please re-read the posts made by yourself and Deeman2 in this thread.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
11-06-2004, 07:28 AM
I think you need to re-read your original post to me, your friendly "Arrogant, wannabe elitist" (Just a few of your insults)I don't intend to try to have a debate with someone like you who's first priority is to degrade and insult your oponent. I have a right to my opinion, with no obligation to try to respond to a post which is so obviously intended to be personally insulting. I also never back down to a reasonable exchange of thoughts and ideas. Your intention to degrade and intimidate me, I assure you, has failed. I simply don't respond to those tactics.

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religeon, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." The words of great man who also beleived in separation of church and state.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
11-06-2004, 09:01 AM
Hi Ed,

To me, an individual's sex life is personal, and should never be fodder for political debate. I certainly did not admire former President Clinton for his lack of good judgment with Monica Lewinsky, however, I also did not see her to be an innocent, virginal non participant, especially since she had indulged in a long term affair with a married professor, and joked with her friends about taking her "Knee pads" with her when she left for Washington.

I also thought that the right wing rebublicans and Kenneth Starr wasted millions in a disgusting republican smear attack against our President.

It is therefore of no interest to me when the president lies about his sex life, but of great interest to me when he lies about going to war.

It has been documented in many books that Bush wouldn't hear of anything else but war with Iraq, and even sent advisors back to their desks to reform their memos to coordinate with his desire to go to war.

Much has been written regarding his immediate desire to go to Iraq when he took office, and his pre-determined agenda, and how much twist and spin has been utilized in this administration, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to run through all my reading material in order to prove the "Facts" behind my statements for the benefit of winning an arguement on an internet forum, especially when those efforts are called for by folks who would respond by insulting my intelligence, and who come from a mind-set that all those with differenct opinions are ignorant and misinformed.

And yes, since I hate the hell of war, and particularly the devastating results of war, invariably on innocent children and women, and our young men who pay the price for it, I do hate it when a president fails to exhaust efforts of diplomacy and lies about events in order to justify putting our boys on the battlefield.

I still think that Bush has stirred things up more than he has settled things down, and that his inability to scrutinize his positions, and take responsibility for his poor planning and mistakes of diplomacy will in the long run cause unessessary fatalities for our troops, to say the least.

To me, Bush is the epitomy of arrogance, and there is little to admire in his stubborn failure to understand the value of diplomacy and the treaty process, and support from the United Nations and a coalition of world involvment diring a time when nuclear results could be potentially devastating for us all.

He further has created an environment, along with his republican spin-masters, which seems to suggest that global unity through diplomatic efforts which could lead to the destruction of nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and a coalition of nations in that resolve, is not only beneath him, but is folly, and the path of whimpish statesmen. This, in my mind, indicates that George Bush is the most dangerous man ever to occupy the whitehouse.


I dare say, historians will have a field day with Bush when all is said and done. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the world will be here long enough for any of us to see that day arrive. Surely we have reached a level of intelligence and awareness in our evolution when issues can be settled without bombs and the occupation of other countrys. This quest in my opinion is worthwhile given the potential nuclear consequences.

The tactics used by religeous organizations in an effort to influence our election is in my opinion a dangerous course to be taken. Religeon, in my opinion, has no place in politics. Organized religeon should hold itself firmly behind the doors of worship, and maintain itself in the private conscience of its followers if the world is to survive.


I further blame every preident to hold office since the late fifties for failing to address our dependence of foreign energy, and failing to use the intellectual resources of our great country, while at the same time saving our environment, by reducing our dependence on fossil fuel through job enhancing government financed research and production of alternative energy, instead of being bought off by corporate funding.

After the gas lines of the seventies, those at the top should have made energy independence our number one priority.

Oh, and someone made the remark about no drug testing regarding Bush's failure to show up and the loss of his flying priviledges, and I mispoke, and should have said Blood Test, my mistake, semantics are so import to nit-pickers, I really should be more careful, LOL.


Gayle in Md.

Ross
11-06-2004, 11:46 AM
Damn, when I just glanced at this "church and state" thread the number of views was "666"! ....I'm getting off the computer now....

Qtec
11-06-2004, 11:51 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Now that they have published Bush's I.Q as higher than Kerry's, <hr /></blockquote>

Now that IS news. Do you have a link?

Q [ didnt think Kerry was so dumb] /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

silverbullet
11-06-2004, 12:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>

To me, an individual's sex life is personal, and should never be fodder for political debate. I certainly did not admire former President Clinton for his lack of good judgment with Monica Lewinsky, however, I also did not see her to be an innocent, virginal non participant, especially since she had indulged in a long term affair with a married professor, and joked with her friends about taking her "Knee pads" with her when she left for Washington. It is therefore of no interest to me when the president lies about his sex life, but of great interest to me when he lies about going to war.

<font color="brown">Hi, again Gayle. I really do not care what someone does sexually either. That is me, I am Libertarian and therefore do not believe in interfering with anyone's liberties. But, I will say this.

In Richard Clarke's book- 'Against all Enemies', he stated that all of that mess with ML and Clinton, was pulling him away from what they were trying to get going against AlQuada. Clarke was the anti-terrorist guy, so that was what he was concerned with. He was disappointed with Clinton, not because he cared about his sexual stuff, but because, all of the hearings came at a crucial time, that they were getting awefully close, and that mess kept Clinton from working on what was so critical to national security. Now is not that a shame, that the lynch mobs were so determined to get him, that he was prevented from working on something far more important than whether he kept his pants zipped?

Some can say that Clinton brought on the attacks, but the response of those involved kept him from doing what he was supposed to be doing. At that point, Gore was being brought into the anti terrorism stuff more and more.</font color>

It has been documented in many books that Bush wouldn't hear of anything else but war with Iraq, and even sent advisors back to their desks to reform their memos to coordinate with his desire to go to war.

Much has been written regarding his immediate desire to go to Iraq when he took office, and his pre-determined agenda, and how much twist and spin has been utilized in this administration, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to run through all my reading material in order to prove the "Facts" behind my statements for the benefit of winning an arguement on an internet forum, especially when those efforts are called for by folks who would respond by insulting my intelligence, and who come from a mind-set that all those with differenct opinions are ignorant and misinformed.

<font color="brown">I did not have time to read all of the books you read. But...I heard Bush was hopping to go to war, but Woodward's book made it seem he was getting ready for war, kind of like, we have fire drills and we may have all our guns 'cocked and locked'. Some of the things I have heard about Bush 'going to Iraq to finish his daddy's business', may be true but it sounds like opinion to me. Picking up pieces here and there, it did sound like Bush wanted to go to war, but without true inside sources, I cannot prove that. For instance, what his intentions were prior to 9-11 are harder to substantiate, but... during the 9-11 attack, even though they knew that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, witnesses heard Bushes team talking about war with Iraq.

So, with the nature of these things, if one wants to get to any truth, in reading the books, you almost have to read between the lines since there is very little that is not biased. I know with the books I read, I found some good stuff. Much of it was true, some was 'propaganda', but the way I figured, if only 10% of what I was reading about Bush and Cheyny was true, then it was looking very very bad.

So I found out enough about Bush to horrify me and really upset me almost to the point of having my beliefs shattered, and learned a little about how liberals think economically, also. I do not have their econ views but they were very good writers and very convincing, and I still loved reading about their views from their point of view.</font color>

I still think that Bush has stirred things up more than he has settled things down, and that his inability to scrutinize his positions, and take responsibility for his poor planning and mistakes of diplomacy

<font color="brown">In following what you are saying, someone sent me a link this morning. It is simply the view of two people put into a letter to Bush, not knowing if he will ever read it. It is their opinion based on the way they see things, but I will post it here anyway. It did seem to put some of the concerns I had in print, but with a different spin.</font color>

http://www.portalsofspirit.com/bush2.htm


<font color="brown">Have a good day, Gayle. You r truly a person of passion, just don't let it get to you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif We have four years to get through. Or less. If Bush does not get assasinated, or at least shot and injured, he will be the first president to escape this, who was elected in a year ending with -0- since Abraham Lincoln. I hope this does not happen though because cheyny is worse, IMO.

sb</font color>

Gayle in MD
11-06-2004, 06:28 PM
Hi, and thanks. thanks for the link also, I will check it out.
Gayle In Md.

eg8r
11-06-2004, 09:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The term, Religeous Right, is not name-calling as far as I am concerned. <hr /></blockquote> Well, you just pick the line up and move it when it suits you.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to read some name calling, please re-read the posts made by yourself and Deeman2 in this thread.
<hr /></blockquote> Not sure what I have called, I don't care to go back and look, however I do remember calling you a hypocrite. If I remember correctly you agreed. Need I say more?

eg8r

eg8r
11-06-2004, 09:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
To me, an individual's sex life is personal, and should never be fodder for political debate. <hr /></blockquote> This was the least of his worries. However, like you said in another post, he is a political figure so he is fair game.

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly did not admire former President Clinton for his lack of good judgment with Monica Lewinsky, however, I also did not see her to be an innocent, virginal non participant, especially since she had indulged in a long term affair with a married professor, and joked with her friends about taking her "Knee pads" with her when she left for Washington.
<hr /></blockquote> After all that typing, please, tell me, what does it have to do with a President purjuring himself??????

[ QUOTE ]
I also thought that the right wing rebublicans and Kenneth Starr wasted millions in a disgusting republican smear attack against our President. <hr /></blockquote> If he was an honest President do you think they would have continued?

[ QUOTE ]
It has been documented in many books that Bush wouldn't hear of anything else but war with Iraq, <hr /></blockquote> I believe you have mentioned some of the books you have read. Doesn't really reinforce anything you are saying.

[ QUOTE ]
but I have neither the time nor the inclination to run through all my reading material in order to prove the "Facts" behind my statements for the benefit of winning an arguement on an internet forum, <hr /></blockquote> Is this some competition? If you want to come on here and spew lies, back it up. Sorry you don't have the time to find the facts, but that gives us a good inclination just how strong they probably are.

[ QUOTE ]
especially when those efforts are called for by folks who would respond by insulting my intelligence, and who come from a mind-set that all those with differenct opinions are ignorant and misinformed.
<hr /></blockquote> You don't want your intelligence insulted (don't think that was me) but you preface this by saying, believe what I say since I don't have time to prove it.

[ QUOTE ]
I do hate it when a president fails to exhaust efforts of diplomacy <hr /></blockquote> We have waited a very long time for someone to explain when this magical moment in time would have been. Do you think you might spend a little time and tell us just when you think the point in time would be at which time all efforts of diplomacy had been exhausted? This is a party line of the left and they cannot even explain it.

[ QUOTE ]
I still think that Bush has stirred things up more than he has settled things down, and that his inability to scrutinize his positions, and take responsibility for his poor planning and mistakes of diplomacy will in the long run cause unessessary fatalities for our troops, to say the least. <hr /></blockquote> I guess we will just have to wait and see. However, you calling him a dufus would imply you might have been able to do better. In answering this, you might be able to help support any description of "all exhausted efforts of diplomacy". I guess that too will be a point in time in which we will "just have to wait and see".

[ QUOTE ]
To me, Bush is the epitomy of arrogance, and there is little to admire in his stubborn failure to understand the value of diplomacy and the treaty process, <hr /></blockquote> Could you explain what that value might be, and maybe for bonus points explain how short W has fallen.

[ QUOTE ]
Surely we have reached a level of intelligence and awareness in our evolution when issues can be settled without bombs and the occupation of other countrys. This quest in my opinion is worthwhile given the potential nuclear consequences.
<hr /></blockquote> Sounds worthy, neverless a bit far fetched, but maybe you could cite a few examples of a "reasonable" terrorist.

eg8r

silverbullet
11-06-2004, 11:22 PM
As far as Gayle's quote about not exhausting all diplomatic alternatives, I assume we are referring the war with IRAQ?

While it did seem that some of the intelligence was sketchy and Bush may have had hidden agenda's, I do think he went to the UN or Powell did, prior to the invasion.

If I am understanding this correctly, what other diplomatic options are we talking about here?

Or are we talking about the possibility of hidden agendas?

BTW-I do believe that Bush thinks he is right. History will be the judge, no matter what I or anyone else may believe. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

sb

Wally_in_Cincy
11-07-2004, 08:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote silverbullet:</font><hr>
...I think I will duck out on this one and go shoot pool... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Am I afraid of a debate? No. <hr /></blockquote>

I guess this means you are not going to defend this statement or answer my question.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote silverbullet:</font><hr>

...The fundamentalists scare me more than Bin Laden too....


...My worst fears are now coming true...

...I will not post the whole history of what I know about this movement, which I have been following for 20 years, nor some of the horrendous heinous things I have seen happen......<hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Tell us about the "horrendous" things those evil Christains have done.

<hr /></blockquote>

I won't hold my breath.

Gayle in MD
11-07-2004, 11:38 AM
I guess you don't get it Ed. As long as you are rude, I won't answer you questions, so save your time. Sorry I hit such a nerve for you, but I guess you'll just have to lump it.

Try and have a nice day... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Gayle in Md.,

Gayle in MD
11-07-2004, 12:02 PM
Sorry, I have mistyped this. It should have read (BTW, there are 80 million Etc) AND ...organized an assembly of Evangelists and fiscal conservatives.

My mistake
Gayle

highsea
11-07-2004, 12:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>It should have read (BTW, there are 80 million Etc) AND ...organized an assembly of Evangelists and fiscal conservatives. <hr /></blockquote>So what were the 80 Million? There are 217 million voting age persons in the US. A little over 1/2 of these people voted.

80 Million represents about 37% of the total voting age population in the country. If Rove (or anyone else for that matter) organized this many people for anything it would be quite remarkable. If this "organization" were all voters, it would have represented 72% of the electorate.

Where does this statistic come from, if I may ask?

silverbullet
11-07-2004, 05:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote silverbullet:</font><hr>
...I think I will duck out on this one and go shoot pool... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Am I afraid of a debate? No. <hr /></blockquote>

I guess this means you are not going to defend this statement or answer my question.

I won't hold my breath. <hr /></blockquote>

Sorry, Wally. I do not remember the question, since that was a few pages back. Anyway, I had my say, when the guy I wanted did not win. It is time to move on. We know who is going to be president for the next four years and it is not kerry.

sb

pooltchr
11-07-2004, 06:23 PM
[quote=Gayle in MD

Surely we have reached a level of intelligence and awareness in our evolution when issues can be settled without bombs and the occupation of other countrys

Gayle in Md.
<hr /></blockquote>

You are quite right on this point, Gayle. Our enemy's have decided passenger jets are a much better weapon.

eg8r
11-07-2004, 07:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I guess you don't get it Ed. As long as you are rude, I won't answer you questions, so save your time. Sorry I hit such a nerve for you, but I guess you'll just have to lump it. <hr /></blockquote> There will be no lumping, you are hiding behind some facade of truth, but it just is not there. I could sugar-coat my replies, but they would probably be replied to with more lies. You have already stated that you have no intention of proving any of your posts resemble any portion of factual evidence. You are the one that does not "get" it. My posts to you have mainly been rhetorical. I know that you have no desire to answer these questions with proof of the fact (you said so yourself), and you have already agreed your participation has been hypocritical, with all that going for you, do you think it really matters if you spend a little extra time and actually supply any facts? I don't.

eg8r &lt;~~~much rather hear about your trip to Cuba

eg8r
11-07-2004, 07:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
While it did seem that some of the intelligence was sketchy and Bush may have had hidden agenda's, I do think he went to the UN or Powell did, prior to the invasion.
<hr /></blockquote> I guess the only thing I could say to this is, "You must be asleep at the wheel". Why would France bother to threaten to use their veto power if the US did not go to the UN and receive the needed support?

[ QUOTE ]
If I am understanding this correctly, what other diplomatic options are we talking about here?

Or are we talking about the possibility of hidden agendas?
<hr /></blockquote> You brought up hidden agendas. Why on earth would you feel we were talking about them when you are the first to mention it and this is a couple days old already? Gayle mentioned she did not feel Bush exhausted all diplomatic whatever. I said this was all stump speech that the left does not care to define. I was asking Gayle to take the time to clarify her "version" of what it means. It appears I was "rude" in asking for this clarification, so she has run and hid behind the "he's mean wall" and decided to not reply. This has been true of her response to about 95% of the questions asked.

eg8r

eg8r
11-07-2004, 07:37 PM
Oh thank goodness. I read bw's reply first... [ QUOTE ]
Sorry, Wally. I do not remember the question, since that was a few pages back. Anyway, I had my say, when the guy I wanted did not win. It is time to move on. We know who is going to be president for the next four years and it is not kerry.
<hr /></blockquote> Then I read Wally's... [ QUOTE ]
I guess this means you are not going to defend this statement or answer my question.

I won't hold my breath. <hr /></blockquote> You could have died by now. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Similar to Gayle, bw does not have any desire to answer the call. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r &lt;~~~Never hold my breath waiting on a reply from anyone /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
11-08-2004, 12:54 AM
Q, I agree, and not only the world, but our country. I saw a newspaper headline from a London(?) paper on the news, "How can 59 million be so dumb?" referring to the Bush re-election"
I posted facts regarding Bush, Rice, and Cheney, which have been in every newspaper, all over the news programs, but some here want to attack the information? Don't they read the newspaper? I would have thought that everyone knew about Bush and Rice ingnoring the warnings about Terrorists possibly using planes as weapons, yet Rice stands before us and says, "Before 911, no one ever heard (or thought) of terrorists using planes as weapons"
That was a lie, and she knew it.
Bush has been dishonest about his reasons for going to war with Iraq. For heavens sake, there has been so much information out there which proves this. This is about oil, always was, not WMD's, and not terrorists, it is about oil, period.
Again, in my lifetime I have never witnessed such division among our people, and Bush ran on the promise to bring us together as a nation. He failed.
His tax structure encourages outsourcing, yet the very areas in the country where job losses have been the greatest have suported Bush. They bought into the family values BS that Bush campaigned on, which IMO, and in the opinion of many others I might add, were issues used to distract the voters from his poor record.

Seeing him get re-elected reminds me of how I felt when the OJ verdict came out, lol

I don't think it is necessary to document every point discussed when the issues I have referred to have been so prominent in the news, lol.

highsea
11-08-2004, 01:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>...I would have thought that everyone knew about Bush and Rice ingnoring the warnings about Terrorists possibly using planes as weapons, yet Rice stands before us and says, "Before 911, no one ever heard (or thought) of terrorists using planes as weapons"
That was a lie, and she knew it.<hr /></blockquote>This is the problem with buying into and repeating media distortions. You seem like you do not want to know the truth.

The PDB you refer to mentioned the possibility of al-Qaeda hijacking a US airliner. No mention of using airliners as a missile, it had never happened before, and no one had considered the possibility. Rice was not lying.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0409041pdb1.gif

Gayle in MD
11-08-2004, 01:22 AM
Hi there Firend,
Well you are right, Government should suppost business, and Jobs,, here in this country, not jobs for people in other countrys. Bush's corporate tax structure actually encourages outsourcing, but ofcourse, such non issues as gay mirriage were more on the minds of the people in Ohio apparently than jobs, although that state has beem among the biggest losers in the jobs category.

I just think that given the severity of our war and job loss record, that issues such as gays marrying or not marrying are non issues. Such issues were used by the Bush campaign to distract the public from their poor record in many other areas, and unfortunately, along with their "Fear Tactics" and their slandering of John Kerry's honorable war record, when their own candidate had Daddy pull strings to get him into the National Guard, (the friend whom he called for this favor actually told this story in the biography shown on PBS) was very dishonest of them, just to mention a few things they did.

And also, it is a fact that Bush was suspended from flying because he didn't show up for his physical, and also didn't show up on weekends when he was suppose to report for duty. That also was in the documented biography, yet Eg8r and Deeman call ME a liar and a hypocrite, LMAO, that IS funny.

Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
11-08-2004, 02:04 AM
There are 80 million Evangelists in this country. Although I did not do a good job of it, I admit, what I was trying to point out is that the right has targeted the evangelistic segment of our society, a vast number (80 M.) available from which to draw. I don't know the statistics off hand of the Bush voters other than that they were a large percentage of Bush Votes. I am trying to point out that with this great number of evangelists, (And no, I don't recall where I got that number, but have read it a number of times, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong) this election takes on the color of a religeous movement.

I understand Catholic priests were telling their congregations that a vote for Kerry would be a ticket to hell, now this I heard from my aunt, she was there.

And also, I am proud to say that my 79 year old aunt marched right up to that priest after the service and gave him a lecture about the separation of church and state, which actually prompted my original post, along with things I was reading and hearing on the news.

Is not the thrust of the indignation against the gay people in general religeously based?

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
11-08-2004, 02:16 AM
Ed, for the last time, I do not think religeon has a place in our national elections, period. Is that clear enough for you? That is my opinion.

Gayle

Gayle in MD
11-08-2004, 02:19 AM
LMAO, you are the one who brought Clinton up.

Gayle in MD
11-08-2004, 02:57 AM
I wish to thank you for your permission for me to have opinions, lol, and I ask that you not assume that I "pretend" anything.

The big corporations of today are sending our jobs overseas, their corruption has screwed their employees out of their retirement, or haven't you noticed.

Never before has it been so dangerous to be in debt to other countrys, I did not say it was the first time this has happened, perhaps you should take out your first grade reader.

Rice, last time I checked it was her JOB to know these things.

He absolutely has stated that he felt the presidency was a "Calling" from God, why don't you watch the pbs biography?

You have attributed this word hate to me over and over, and it surely does not apply to anything I have written here.

My dear man, if there is anyone on this board who displays intellectual pretense, I dare say you are smelling him.

Although you have been around the world and talked to everyone in it twice, I think I can manage my life without your instruction.

I think it was obvious that my posts reflected my opinions, It is unfortunate that someone such as yourself, who claims to have an education, would have to use a rash of name calling in order debate issues.

Have a nice day
Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
11-08-2004, 03:17 AM
Stop twistin my words, I did not say that my thoughts were hypocritcal, and I said that we are all hypocrits, all except for you I guess Ed.

I do a lot of reading, and watch a good bit of news, and I do not have the time to search through all that just to satisfy someone who likes to argue and degrade everyone else's opinion.

I am getting sick of your calling me a liar. I thought that you and I were friends, and could banter about issues without the name calling you have engaged in. The things I listed about the Bush administration have been all over the news. Maybe you need to check out another channel other than Fox.
This discussion has beed degraded into mud slinging by you and Deeman, and I for one do not intend to continue.

As Teresa would say, shove it.

Gayle in MD
11-08-2004, 03:26 AM
Hi q, it was only one point difference, typical right overblowing. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
11-08-2004, 05:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, for the last time, I do not think religeon has a place in our national elections, period. Is that clear enough for you? That is my opinion.
<hr /></blockquote> Why? Your position in the past was you welcomed majority rules, correct? Well, if the majority of the people in this country want to nominate a guy depending on where he stands as a Christian, then how can you fault them.

Bush trying to win the religious communities vote is no different than the democrats going after the elderly. All politicians do it. Apparently you are giving Kerry a free ride on this religious issue. He has spent the last couple months pandering to them, the good thing is that the religious community saw him as the fraud he is.

eg8r

eg8r
11-08-2004, 05:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Stop twistin my words, I did not say that my thoughts were hypocritcal, and I said that we are all hypocrits, all except for you I guess Ed.
<hr /></blockquote> If it was not stated, I meant your participation was agreed by you as being hypocritical. I don't feel in this post I have been hypocritical.

[ QUOTE ]
I do a lot of reading, and watch a good bit of news, and I do not have the time to search through all that just to satisfy someone who likes to argue and degrade everyone else's opinion. <hr /></blockquote> I am not trying to degrade your opinion (although, quite hypocritically, you feel it is alright for yourself to degrade the President). I am trying to get you to back up your opinion. If, your opinion is not based on fact (which I presume) then that is fine, just say it.

[ QUOTE ]
I am getting sick of your calling me a liar. I thought that you and I were friends, and could banter about issues without the name calling you have engaged in. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, I think we are friends also. If a friend cannot ask you to prove what you say, who can?

[ QUOTE ]
The things I listed about the Bush administration have been all over the news. <hr /></blockquote> I believe at one point a lot of people thought Dan Rather was reputable and newsworthy.

[ QUOTE ]
As Teresa would say, shove it. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, that is funny you say this, I remember Teresa taking a lot of heat from the Democrats for resorting to this type of behavior. They felt it did not help them one bit, I would venture to believe it was true, each time it is said. However, hondo on the other hand has not taken as much heat on the national level for the same type of reaction. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
11-08-2004, 05:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
LMAO, you are the one who brought Clinton up. <hr /></blockquote> You are right. I needed to as it was quite evident you did not mind all the lying when he was Pres but now you have had enough. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
11-08-2004, 05:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Bush has been dishonest about his reasons for going to war with Iraq. For heavens sake, there has been so much information out there which proves this. This is about oil, always was, not WMD's, and not terrorists, it is about oil, period.
<hr /></blockquote> Can you prove this? Are there any examples of Bush exploiting the oil supply?

[ QUOTE ]
His tax structure encourages outsourcing, <hr /></blockquote> This is ridiculous. The high-tax lifestyle of the Democrats does more to encourage outsourcing than anything. If you would like proof of this fact, take a look at California. They taxed the crap out of everyone, even more so they taxed the crap out of the businesses. What happened, the companies slowly began to leave.

What Bush has offered is to reduce the tax burden on businesses so that it will be more affordable to operate in the US. I just have a question for all those who don't understand this concept, what do you think a pair of Nikes would cost if they were made here in the US?

I believe you will have a hard selling time trying to prove Bush encourages outsourcing (if you mean sending jobs overseas), because the proof of the matter is the Dems FORCE it to happen.

Here is another idea, if everyone is completely against all this outsourcing, why not vote to allow drilling in ANWR? We can keep our oil industry right here at home.

eg8r

eg8r
11-08-2004, 05:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I did not say it was the first time this has happened, perhaps you should take out your first grade reader.
[ QUOTE ]
It is unfortunate that someone such as yourself, who claims to have an education, would have to use a rash of name calling in order debate issues.
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> So here we are in full circle in one post. It is bad to name call, but degrading ones comprehension is alright?

I can't say I have never called attention to a reading comprehension issue, but I am not telling them to be nice in the same post. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
11-08-2004, 05:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Well you are right, Government should suppost business, and Jobs,, here in this country, not jobs for people in other countrys. Bush's corporate tax structure actually encourages outsourcing, <hr /></blockquote> How? Please tell us, what is it about the actual "tax structure" in which Bush has put in place, encourages outsourcing?

What is it about the tax happy Democratic position, makes you feel more comfortable, as far as business and outsourcing is concerned.

You continue to state Bush is encouraging business to outsource however he is the first President in 12 years to actually reduce their burden to help make it more feasible to stay here.

In Florida, the people voted in favor of increasing minimum wage. How in the world would that benefit the businesses operating here? What sort of incentive does this offer to the business in order to entice them to continue operating here?

There is a lot more that goes along with taxes here in the US that makes it hard for businesses to stay here and be profitable. Profit is the only reason to be in business so one could understand higher profits in a less taxed area would be enticing. Along with added taxes (business taxes, sales taxes, state fees, utility taxes, property taxes, etc. I could go on for a while.), there are tougher environmental policies (I am for this just not the way it has been handled in the past), increasing minimum wage, etc.

eg8r

pooltchr
11-08-2004, 06:27 AM
Gayle,
You speak of John Kerry's "honorable war record", but as a Viet Nam Vet myself, I seriously question that comment. I have many friends who served honorably who agree with my opinion that there are strong indications that Mr Kerry may have enhanced his "war record" just a bit. But the real dagger in my heart was the way he behaved after he returned home. I did not enjoy my time in the military, and it does not define my life, but tucked away in a box in a closet are the medals I was awarded. I take pride that I did what was asked of me by my country even at a time when I did not personally think the whole Viet Nam issue was being handled properly. At no time would I have considered throwing them over a fence, or slamming my brothers in the military for doing their duty and serving their country. We all took an oath to defend the country and the constitution, and understood that we would have to follow orders whether or not we personally liked them.

For many weeks, the Kerry campaign was built entirely on his Viet Nam record. I think that was a fatal mistake in opening up a topic that brings back some very strong emotions, particularly among those of us who were closely involved. There is a reason that the military was overwhelmingly supportive of GW in the election. A large majority of us just didn't think Mr. Kerry was qualified to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces he denounced 30 years ago. He opened Pandora's box when he made it an issue and it may have cost him the election.

I don't agree with everything GW has done in office, but there was no way in Hell I could have supported Kerry.
JMHO
Steve

Deeman2
11-08-2004, 07:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Now that they have published Bush's I.Q as higher than Kerry's, <hr /></blockquote>

Now that IS news. Do you have a link?

Q [ didnt think Kerry was so dumb] /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Que,

No, I caught this on ABC Evening News last Wednesday night. It was just a short notation on a story. I hope someone else saw it as I don't want to be taken as just making hay here.

it was a reference to how smart both men are but that GW outdid JFK a few point in I.Q. on the standardized tests.

Deeman

Wally_in_Cincy
11-08-2004, 09:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote silverbullet:</font><hr> Sorry, Wally. I do not remember the question, since that was a few pages back. <hr /></blockquote>

Allow me to reiterate:

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Tell us about the "horrendous" things those evil Christains have done.

<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
11-08-2004, 09:56 AM
I was there, friend. Also, you may want to read Richard Clarks assessment of these issues in "Against All Enemies"
for a list of lies told by Rice in her testimony.

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
11-08-2004, 10:41 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What Bush has offered is to reduce the tax burden on businesses so that it will be more affordable to operate in the US. I just have a question for all those who don't understand this concept, what do you think a pair of Nikes would cost if they were made here in the US?

<hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
When the June, 1996 issue of Life magazine carried an article about child labor in Pakistan, Nike knew that it was
in trouble. The article's lead photograph showed 12-year-old Tariq surrounded by the pieces of a Nike soccer ball
which he would spend most of a day stitching together for the grand sum of 60 cents. In a matter of weeks, activists all across
Canada and the United States were standing in front of Nike outlets, holding up Tariq's photo.

And yet, Nike has not done an especially good job of scrutinizing the subcontractors with which it's working. Nor has it been open about its labor practices in the way public companies should be expected to be. Cameramen have been pushed out of factory floors. Supervisors at a plant in Vietnam apparently beat workers being paid 20 cents an hour and refused to allow them to leave their work posts. Indonesian labor organizers has been put behind bars. And, most troubling, nearly all the soccer balls made in Pakistan have been revealed to be made by young children getting paid just cents a day.

Nike chairman Phil Knight also acknowledged that a shipment of soccer balls Nike purchased in Pakistan in the year 1996 was made by a subcontractor using child labor in "horrible conditions." Although 1996 was the first year in which real public attention was focused on Nike's labor practices abroad, it's important to recognize that manufacturing shoes in low-wage countries was, from the start, a crucial part of Phil Knight's plan for his company. In other words, American jobs have not been shipped abroad. On the contrary, Nike has never made shoes in the United States. Its first factories, built in the 1960s, were in Japan, when that country was still a part of the Third World. And since thirty years Nike have migrating from nation to nation, arriving as countries install the necessary mechanisms for orderly business operations and leaving as living standards become too high to make manufacturing profitable.

<hr /></blockquote>

Nike could easily be based in the US and still make a healthy profit. The only problem is that they wouldnt have 1.6 billion a year to spend on "demand creation".ie brainwashing kids into thinking Nike is a must-have product.

They empoly kids for 60ct a day to make their products and they pay Micheal Jordan 30 million to wear the FN things.
To me there is something morally wrong there.

I bet the guys at Nike still call themselves Christians.

Q

Gayle in MD
11-08-2004, 10:44 AM
Again, you twist what I said. What I wrote is that in elections such as 2000, I think it would make more sense to go by the popular vote, rether than the Supreme Court, or the brother of the President and his appointed Judges.

G.

eg8r
11-08-2004, 10:50 AM
Q, care to answer the question, or should we just always continue to stray away in the fashion of your post?

My question was directed at business profit, only a fool would believe they would cut their profits. My question was, what do you think the cost of the shoes would be, if they were made here. As far as what would be an acceptable amount of profit is not up to you (unless you are a shareholder) so, for you to say they would still make a decent amount of profit is negligible.

eg8r

eg8r
11-08-2004, 10:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Again, you twist what I said. What I wrote is that in elections such as 2000, I think it would make more sense to go by the popular vote, rether than the Supreme Court, or the brother of the President and his appointed Judges.
<hr /></blockquote> I did not twist anything, the problem is that your position is wavering. In this portion of the thread you did not think religion should be part of the campaign. I merely mentioned that the majority of people did not feel exactly the same as you. With that information, given your previous position that you agree with majority rules (when it fits your desired outcome) then you should accept it when it happens this way.

As far as whether some elections are decided majority rule and others are not (in a sense what your post implies), who gets to decide which elections will deviate from the Constitution?

eg8r

highsea
11-08-2004, 11:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> There are 80 million Evangelists in this country. Although I did not do a good job of it, I admit, what I was trying to point out is that the right has targeted the evangelistic segment of our society, a vast number (80 M.) available from which to draw. I don't know the statistics off hand of the Bush voters other than that they were a large percentage of Bush Votes. I am trying to point out that with this great number of evangelists, (And no, I don't recall where I got that number, but have read it a number of times, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong) this election takes on the color of a religeous movement.<hr /></blockquote>I don't know where that number came from either. We're talking about nearly 40% of voting age Citizens being defined as "evangelicals", and I guess it depends on your definition, but that seems unlikely to me.

The Democrats, in their desire to explain away their losses, are taking an unfortunate path, imo. Rather than ask themselves honestly where they are diverging from mainstream thinking, they have chosen to belittle the people who chose Bush. They seem to have broken down Republicans into about 3 categories. Fundamental Religious Zealots, Homophobes, and Idiots. I addressed homophobes in a previous post. Let's talk about the religious zealots, aka evangelicals.

In particular, Democtrats are assuming that the 22% of the electorate that placed “Moral Values” as their number one priority view morals exclusively from a religious perspective. Unfortunately, this is not only not the case, but also not supported by the data. For instance, only 8% of those polled suggested that “Religious Faith” was the most important quality in a candidate; this is likely 1/3 of the Moral Values component. What makes up the other 2/3? Well, 11% stated that being “Honest and Trustworthy” was the key; Mr. Bush won this segment of the population 70% to 29%. So we have 1/2 of the voters that stated "Moral Values" selecting "Honesty and Trustworthy" over any religious reason.

Additionally, those who felt that having a “Clear Stand on the Issues” was their top priority – 17% of those polled – supported Mr. Bush at a 79% to 20% clip. Though not as clearly a component of moral values as being honest and trustworthy, I would strongly suggest that Kerry’s continual flip-flopping indicated a lack of moral character to some of the electorate.

I will address the "idiot" component of the Bush voters in a later post.

Gayle in MD
11-08-2004, 11:39 AM
"Against All Enemies" recounts how the administration was asleep at the switch, and not taking proper stock of Clarke's repeated warnings or those of the C. I. A. which that summer was receiving escalating intelligence reorts of al-Qaeda activity. In the spring of 2oo1, Clarke sent Rice and N.S.C. staffers an e-mail saying al-Qaeda'Was trying to kill Americans, to have hundreds of dead in the streets of America'

The final straw for clarke came with what he sees as the administration's wrong-headed obcession with invading Iraq. He views it as a costly, dangerous distraction that merely handed al-queda the psychological arsenal it had previously lacked, by turning the more moderate Muslim community against us. 'We played right into Osama bin Laden's hands' Clarke says. 'He told the moderate Muslim world we'd to in and attack a neutral, oil-rich country and take it over, and what did we do? Ecactly that'

In his book, Clarke outlines how on September 12, 2001 the president asked him to find out if there was any connection between the terrriist attacks and Iraq. Clarke's collegue Paul Kurtz led the research effort and prepared a memorandum stating that there was no indication of Iraqi state sponsorshi of terrism. The memorandum was reutrned ')Please update and resubmit' was written on it.

Clarke's pent up anger spills onto the pages of Against All Enemies, written in the summer and fall of 2003. The book became a No. 1 best seller and the movie rights have been bought by Sony Pictures Entertainment in a reported six figure dear. The books publication date coincided with Clarke's testimony at the bipartisan 9/11 comission hearings in the Hart Senate Office Building. During his testimony he famously apologized to the country, and to the relatives and loved ones of the victims who sat behind him, for failing to prevent the loss of 3,000 lives. 'Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I fialed you' he said. It was the first time anyone in governmenton 9/11 had said I'm sorry.

The white House reacted furiously and in an uncharacteristically disorganized fashion. It wasted no time in charging that Clarke had a book to sell and that he had a less prominent role under Rice than he wanted. 'He wasn't in the loop' said Dick Cheney-A statement later contradicted by Rice, who said 'Actually yes, he was.

Regarding Rices Lies

' Infact Clarke and his staff felt that counterterrorism was being shoved to the bottom of the agenda 'I was being told by people in the Pentagon they couldn't get money. People in the Justice Dept were telling me they couldn't get money...I was told terrorism was no longer on the priority list for the attorney general for priority issues.'


Further in this article

Meanwhile, in May and June the CIA was getting increasingly scary intelligence reports that al-Qaeda was planning something big. Clarke sent rice and her N.S.C. colleagues additional memos. At the same time, George Tenet was personally briefing the president about the reports.

Clark leans forward. 'Im not sure everybody has grasped this...Tenet on 40 occasions in these morning meetings mentioned al-qaeda to the president. FORTY TIMES, many of them in a very alarmed was, about a pending attack.

In her testimony to the 9/11 commission, Rice described the Aubust 6 memo as 'Historical.' william Wechsler say, 'I saw inteligence every day...I mean, that is hair-raqising, that headline,' These these [warnings] are very unusual.' For Condoleezza rice to say it's historical, according to Wechsier, is absolutely ridiculous...Intelligence reports to the president are very very qualified, trying to be very succinct.

When asked why he had not requested to brief the president himself-as Rice had testified-Clarke maintains that he did, back in January, but Rice told him Bush would not be briefed unless there was a new policy he needed to make a decision on.

Before he left the White House, Clarke had a one-on-one lunch with Rice in her office in which he says he told her he was deeply concerned about the impending invasion of Iraq. 'She obviously forgets the conversation took place,' he says, referring to Rice's claims that he never told her of such concerns, [and] there are no other witnesses in the room'

In his new book, Against All Enemies, and in an inteview with 60 minutes' Lesley Stahl, Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism coordinator for Clinton and Bush tells of a far stronger impulse to go after Iraq among seniou Bushadministratin officials in the days after September 11. Rumsfeld began pushing for retaliatory attacks against Iraq almost immediately, Clarke recalled. 'We all said,'...No, no. Alqaeda is in Afghenistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan' At one point, Clark said 'the preisdent dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now, he never said, 'Make it up' but the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted ne to come back with a report that said 'Iraq did this'

These are excerpts from several articals in Vanity Fair magazine, but there are many good books which reveal a very different "Family Values" administration, although you will probably never read them

G.

This is from an article in Vanity Fair magazine, however, the Clarke book lists many many lies which have been told by the Bush administration

Gayle in MD
11-08-2004, 12:04 PM
I can certainly understand your feelings, but you should also remember that many who fought in Vietnam felt that they were fighting an unwinnable war, (Apparently they were right) and that many who came back, many, many, protested the war, and their repulsion with lies that were fed to the American public by Lyndon Johnson.

Many more, after Vietnam, vowed to get involved, and wished to prevent our country from ever getting involved again in any wars which can never be won. Richard Clarke being one of those. His book, "Against All enemys" gives a very broad and sell documentation of how this administration set out to decieve all of us about Iraq. His is not the only one.

One would think that the participation in the war, the decision to go to the aid of his country, when Bush totally copped out on Vietnam, would be the more important issue then his post war efforts to educate Americans about the realities of what actually happened.

As for the Swiftboaters, If you could watch the PBS biography of these two men, there is much about Bush campaign tactics going all the way back to Anne Richards many years ago.

I think also that many who critisized the "War" were really not slamming their fellow troops, but slamming the leaders, and the administration who decieved us.

Bottom line, Hell no, Little Bushy didn't go!


This time is the worst, since Iraq was not occupied by some invader, we are the invader, we have occupied their country.

I wonder where are the people in the streets which Rumsfeld promised would be throwing us roses and cheering the Americans.

I can understand how you feel about your awards, my own Dad's ribbons and medals from WWII are on a sort of alter with his picture in my home. He was extremely proud of them, but I do not think that people who judge our country when they feel that we have been wrong love America any less than those who subscribe to the "right when we're right, right when we're wrong even more so" theory.

Deeman2
11-08-2004, 12:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> "Against All Enemies" recounts how the administration was asleep at the switch, and not taking proper stock of Clarke's repeated warnings or those of the C. I. A. which that summer was receiving escalating intelligence reorts of al-Qaeda activity. In the spring of 2oo1, Clarke sent Rice and N.S.C. staffers an e-mail saying al-Qaeda'Was trying to kill Americans, to have hundreds of dead in the streets of America'

The final straw for clarke came with what he sees as the administration's wrong-headed obcession with invading Iraq. He views it as a costly, dangerous distraction that merely handed al-queda the psychological arsenal it had previously lacked, by turning the more moderate Muslim community against us. 'We played right into Osama bin Laden's hands' Clarke says. 'He told the moderate Muslim world we'd to in and attack a neutral, oil-rich country and take it over, and what did we do? Ecactly that'

In his book, Clarke outlines how on September 12, 2001 the president asked him to find out if there was any connection between the terrriist attacks and Iraq. Clarke's collegue Paul Kurtz led the research effort and prepared a memorandum stating that there was no indication of Iraqi state sponsorshi of terrism. The memorandum was reutrned ')Please update and resubmit' was written on it.

Clarke's pent up anger spills onto the pages of Against All Enemies, written in the summer and fall of 2003. The book became a No. 1 best seller and the movie rights have been bought by Sony Pictures Entertainment in a reported six figure dear. The books publication date coincided with Clarke's testimony at the bipartisan 9/11 comission hearings in the Hart Senate Office Building. During his testimony he famously apologized to the country, and to the relatives and loved ones of the victims who sat behind him, for failing to prevent the loss of 3,000 lives. 'Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I fialed you' he said. It was the first time anyone in governmenton 9/11 had said I'm sorry.

The white House reacted furiously and in an uncharacteristically disorganized fashion. It wasted no time in charging that Clarke had a book to sell and that he had a less prominent role under Rice than he wanted. 'He wasn't in the loop' said Dick Cheney-A statement later contradicted by Rice, who said 'Actually yes, he was.

Regarding Rices Lies

' Infact Clarke and his staff felt that counterterrorism was being shoved to the bottom of the agenda 'I was being told by people in the Pentagon they couldn't get money. People in the Justice Dept were telling me they couldn't get money...I was told terrorism was no longer on the priority list for the attorney general for priority issues.'


Further in this article

Meanwhile, in May and June the CIA was getting increasingly scary intelligence reports that al-Qaeda was planning something big. Clarke sent rice and her N.S.C. colleagues additional memos. At the same time, George Tenet was personally briefing the president about the reports.

Clark leans forward. 'Im not sure everybody has grasped this...Tenet on 40 occasions in these morning meetings mentioned al-qaeda to the president. FORTY TIMES, many of them in a very alarmed was, about a pending attack.

In her testimony to the 9/11 commission, Rice described the Aubust 6 memo as 'Historical.' william Wechsler say, 'I saw inteligence every day...I mean, that is hair-raqising, that headline,' These these [warnings] are very unusual.' For Condoleezza rice to say it's historical, according to Wechsier, is absolutely ridiculous...Intelligence reports to the president are very very qualified, trying to be very succinct.

When asked why he had not requested to brief the president himself-as Rice had testified-Clarke maintains that he did, back in January, but Rice told him Bush would not be briefed unless there was a new policy he needed to make a decision on.

Before he left the White House, Clarke had a one-on-one lunch with Rice in her office in which he says he told her he was deeply concerned about the impending invasion of Iraq. 'She obviously forgets the conversation took place,' he says, referring to Rice's claims that he never told her of such concerns, [and] there are no other witnesses in the room'

In his new book, Against All Enemies, and in an inteview with 60 minutes' Lesley Stahl, Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism coordinator for Clinton and Bush tells of a far stronger impulse to go after Iraq among seniou Bushadministratin officials in the days after September 11. Rumsfeld began pushing for retaliatory attacks against Iraq almost immediately, Clarke recalled. 'We all said,'...No, no. Alqaeda is in Afghenistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan' At one point, Clark said 'the preisdent dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now, he never said, 'Make it up' but the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted ne to come back with a report that said 'Iraq did this'

These are excerpts from several articals in Vanity Fair magazine, but there are many good books which reveal a very different "Family Values" administration, although you will probably never read them

G.

This is from an article in Vanity Fair magazine, however, the Clarke book lists many many lies which have been told by the Bush administration <hr /></blockquote>

Gee, it is unthinkable that a man who was preparing to run for president against an encumbant would write a book critical to the administration!

hondo
11-08-2004, 01:37 PM
Holy crap! Bush has a higher i. q. than Kerry!?!?!!!
Bush must be the greatest actor of all time then.
He sure had me fooled. Keep er hidden, George.
That's what the masses love about you. You appear
to be as dumb as them.

eg8r
11-08-2004, 01:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think also that many who critisized the "War" were really not slamming their fellow troops, but slamming the leaders, and the administration who decieved us. <font color="red"> How is Kerry stating that his fellow soldiers are raping the innocent not a slam against them. Reminding you, that these poor guys were still fighting while Kerry was slandering them and they couldn't defend themselves. </font color>

Bottom line, Hell no, Little Bushy didn't go! <font color="red"> This seemed a non-issue when draft-dodging Clinton was trying to get elected. Why the flip-flop now? </font color>
<hr /></blockquote> eg8r

highsea
11-08-2004, 01:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr>That's what the masses love about you. You appear to be as dumb as them. <hr /></blockquote>I just love these comments by the so-called "intellectual" left. Oh! I feel so inferior. Hondo, didn't you say you were a teacher? ROFL.

Qtec
11-08-2004, 02:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Gee, it is unthinkable that a man who was preparing to run for president against an encumbant would write a book critical to the administration! <hr /></blockquote>

First of all, I didnt know Clarke was running for President! Is this another thing you "just saw on ABC"?

Secondly, I,m sure it never occurred to you that he might have been telling the truth! The guy served his country for what, 40 odd years with distinction and you are calling him a liar just because you cannot believe that your new Rep messiah could never be wrong or tell a lie?
That does show respect, I must say.

Get your head out of the sand Deeman. Stop listening to the GOP BS propoganda.
The fact is, there was nothing wrong with Clarke until he spoke out about what really happened. He had the integrity to take responsibility and to apologise for what he saw was his own failure .He expected the Govt to do the same. Some chance!
GW on the other hand was AGAINST the 911 commission, AGAINST Rice testifying,AGAINST a time extension,allocated HALF the amount that was spent on BC,s BJ, was AGAINST testifying himself, which he eventually did on condition he was not under oath and Dick Cheney could hold his hand. And on,and on, and on........................

DC choose the safety of the US above his own reputation and the Govts and thats why he told the truth. GW on the otherhand was more interested in public opinion and opted for political benefit.
I,m waiting for 911 the investigation Part 2.

Q

highsea
11-08-2004, 02:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> GW on the other hand was AGAINST the 911 commission, AGAINST Rice testifying,AGAINST a time extension,allocated HALF the amount that was spent on BC,s BJ, was AGAINST testifying himself, Q <hr /></blockquote>I think the reason Bush didn't want a big Congressional investigation was because he was concerned about it turning into a partisan blame game, which of course it did.

As far as cabinet members or the President testifying before Congress, this treads very closely on separation of powers, and every President has had to defend executive power against the legislative branch. It's always been that way in US politics. It's just an ongoing power struggle, no reason to read more into it than what's really there.

Finally, GW had nothing to do with allocating the funds for the 9/11 comission or the Clinton investigations. Congress that does that. As a matter of fact, the US President never allocates funds for anything. He asks Congress for the allocations, and it's up to them to hash out the details. A President doesn't even have the power to block an investigation. If that was the case, Clinton would have excersized that power. The most they can do is go along with it (like Bush did), or fight it (like Clinton did).

silverbullet
11-08-2004, 03:01 PM
Gayle's comments on 'Against all enemies' makes me wonder if I missed something.Perhaps it is because I did not read the congressional hearings.

I dont want to rehash that book. Yes he was mad at the Bush administration in the last pages of the book, but the rest of it was a good documentary about the struggles of finding out who was behind various terroist attacks, trying to locate alquada and information about the funding of the organization.

Through it all, it was hard to get reliable intelligence, which also comes through in the summer intelligence before the 9-11 (there is a bad attack coming but we dont know where or exactly when).

Then, if you read Woodward's book 'plan of attack', with documented planning relating to going to work with IRAQ, the problem with getting good intelligence with respect to whether sadaam had WMD, was also a problem. At least, that was my take on it.

War is h#ll

sb

Qtec
11-08-2004, 03:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think the reason Bush didn't want a big Congressional investigation was because he was concerned about it turning into a partisan blame game, which of course it did. <hr /></blockquote>

CM, if you think about it, this makes no sense. More than that, its insulting to all democrats.
The whole point of the commission was to find out what went wrong and to make recommendations to stop something like 911 from happening again. I,m pretty sure the nation was ready for the truth. The Govt did all they could not to comply. That was evident for all to see. Are we to believe the Dems would compromise their own security[ and that of their families etc] to score political points in the first year of GW,s office?

[ QUOTE ]
As far as cabinet members or the President testifying before Congress, this treads very closely on separation of powers, and every President has had to defend executive power against the legislative branch. It's always been that way in US politics. It's just an ongoing power struggle, no reason to read more into it than what's really there <hr /></blockquote>

Havent you heard," 911 changed everything." !!!!

"Nothing is more important than US security and I will do everything in my power" etc, etc, blah, blah.......

Apparently this sense of duty doesnt apply to the investigation into the attack itself.

Just ask yourself this one question,
"Why would the President need to have Dick Cheney with him when he gave his testimony, even when he is not under oath?"
Do you think maybe he had something to hide ?
It is a natural conclusion, dont you think?

Q

Deeman2
11-08-2004, 03:30 PM
You are so right Q, I took it the book was by W. Clark! As you so rightly believe I don't read much from the left. Maybe I should but I am as entrenched in my attitude as you believe. Since he did serve our military for 40 odd years, he must be telling the truth as he see it. See, German verbs are not all I misplace. I won't question his truthfulness as he sees it.

I, however, do like the propaganda on the right, more than the propaganda on the left. I won't ever convince you of my poitions and you won't convince me so I'll cast my stupid American vote and you can not cast yours, unless they change the rules here.

Now that the election is over, it's just sour grapes anyway. As a nod to your passion, I will support Hillary in 2008 for the democratic nomination.

My most pressing concern now is how I break a brand new pool slump and how I can help GWB send more jobs overseas, along with how to get my new reality show on Bravo. Next is who will win the U.S Open...

People are dying at untold rates in Africa, the dems and republicans and both don't give a damn about that, the Saudis' have most of the oil, the Dutch have most of the legal dope and whatever you and I do here, on this board won't change a thing. My I.Q. along with most Americans is not nearly so high as the Europeans. I am being truthful about mine, I never claimed much above moron status anyway. You give me a plan that solves all these problems without dragging the rest of us into the same quagmire and I'll sign up for anything you come up with if a slow guy like me can be shown the way. If you didn't have food or heat tomorrow and no chance of getting it, would your attitude change? I don't know. I think none of us like to admit that we have much of what we have because the world is an unfair place. Maybe the right thing is to divide it all up equally. Is that what you want? Does that work where it's been tried before? Tell me. I am willing to listen.

Sorry for dishing Mr. Clark. It was an honest alcohol induced moment....

highsea
11-08-2004, 03:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> CM, if you think about it, this makes no sense. More than that, its insulting to all democrats.<hr /></blockquote>Nonsense. It's the nature of our politics to attempt to place blame on the other party for anything that goes wrong. The 9/11 blame game is still going on today, just look at your own post. You imply that GW had something to "hide" about 9/11. i.e., somehow GW shares the blame.

The proper venue for a real investigation was with the FBI, CIA and NSA, under the DCI, who would report to a joint session of the Congressional Intelligence Committees.

When you put politicians in charge, you get a political result. What we ended up with was a "least common denominator" investigation. One that everyone could agree on. Naturally it would be full of "necessary" changes (after all, that's what committees do, recommend changes). If you study these recommendations, they ultimately boil down to a watering down of Executive power and an increase in Congressional power (Basically, Congress would be in charge of CT rather than the Pentagon). Had the report been prepared by the Executive Branch, the recommendations would have the opposite effect. That's Government 101.

Did FDR call for a congressional investigation after Pearl Harbor? No, he declared war on Japan and mobilized the US Military to prosecute the war. There's always plenty of time for finger pointing later. Bush wanted to avoid the blame game, and keep the focus of the country on fighting those who attacked us. That's a natural response for a President. The Congress would have none of this. They needed to show their constituents that they were "doing something". And that's a natural response for a Congressman.

You are welcome to make any "natural conclusions" you like. You should realize that you look at all US politics from a Euro-centric viewpoint, and you may not understand the way things really work here as well as you think. Plus, your hatred of Bush biases your opinions very heavily. Where GW is concerned, objectivity is not your strong suit.

-CM~~~and with that, I am off to the PR to liberate some money from a friend. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Ross
11-08-2004, 04:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> I think the reason Bush didn't want a big Congressional investigation was because he was concerned about it turning into a partisan blame game, which of course it did. <hr /></blockquote>

Why do you say this Highsea? My impression, and the impression of most Repubs and Dems alike that I've heard quoted, is the opposite. The 9/11 Commission Report was remarkably free of blame especially considering a) that part of its goal was to figure out what went wrong (how do you talk about mistakes being made without someone getting a little smudged in the process?). and b) it was written by Dems and Repubs that don't get along very well. In fact, from what I've read of it, it smooths over some of the rough spots in the history after 9/11 in an effort to be palatable to all. It's main point was to look forward, not back.

The Commission made a lot of important recommendations - the main one being that there be one head of intelligence with strong authority. The current situation is having a bunch of warring agencies each protecting their turf, withholding info from each other and having no boss with any real power overseeing them. Currently that the House Republicans are blocking the passage of Senate approved legislation to implement the Commissions recommendations. I don't know if their arguments are legit or just reflect the Pentagon trying to protect it's turf the House Repubs want to reduce the National Intelligence Director's budgetary control, keeping more in the hands of the Dept of Defense) but I hope the bill doesn't just die.

Also, from what I've read, Bush opposed the commission because he initially didn't want a call to create a National Intelligence Director because that would be ceding some of the power of the White House. He and Rummy may still be trying to undermine the NID's power by having General Myers oppose the Senate version of the bill. Publicly Bush is saying the NID should have full budgetary powers, but most people doubt General Myers would have spoken against the bill without getting approval from Rumsfeld, his boss. If this is true then Bush is trying to have it both ways - look good in public but simultaneously undermine the power of the NID. Who knows what is really going on behind the scenes?

Qtec
11-08-2004, 04:15 PM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif LOL HaHaHa.

Deeman, I,m not here to convert you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif All I do is present a different view from the the die-hard GOPs on the board.
I dont claim to have all the answers either , but if we are going to come to the right conclusions, we need to know the truth.

Two things about 911 you probably dont know.
1. One of the hijackers passport was found[ intact] two blocks from the TTs.
2 M Atta,s baggage, [ Atta was assumed to be flying one of the planes], missed the flight. Inside was all the evidence to link him with the plot. The thing is, he had TWO suitcases.

As Columbo would say, " Why would he take two bags when he was planing to kill himself?".

Its a question that needs to be answered.

Q

SnakebyteXX
11-08-2004, 07:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
No, I caught this on ABC Evening News last Wednesday night. It was just a short notation on a story. I hope someone else saw it as I don't want to be taken as just making hay here.

it was a reference to how smart both men are but that GW outdid JFK a few point in I.Q. on the standardized tests. <hr /></blockquote>

Kerry's IQ Likely Lower than Bush's? (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm)

highsea
11-08-2004, 08:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>The 9/11 Commission Report was remarkably free of blame especially considering a) that part of its goal was to figure out what went wrong (how do you talk about mistakes being made without someone getting a little smudged in the process?). and b) it was written by Dems and Repubs that don't get along very well. In fact, from what I've read of it, it smooths over some of the rough spots in the history after 9/11 in an effort to be palatable to all. It's main point was to look forward, not back.<hr /></blockquote> Reference my earlier statement about a "least common denominator" solution. Well, yes, it was remarkably free of blame. That's because on a 3-3 partisan balance, you will not get a majority...ever. What did you think they would report? Lol. So you get the watered down version that every can agree on. i.e. milk toast. A very nice and palatable political solution. Gerber Baby Food. Easy to digest, but it doesn't taste that great.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>The Commission made a lot of important recommendations - the main one being that there be one head of intelligence with strong authority. The current situation is having a bunch of warring agencies each protecting their turf, withholding info from each other and having no boss with any real power overseeing them. Currently that the House Republicans are blocking the passage of Senate approved legislation to implement the Commissions recommendations. I don't know if their arguments are legit or just reflect the Pentagon trying to protect it's turf the House Repubs want to reduce the National Intelligence Director's budgetary control, keeping more in the hands of the Dept of Defense) but I hope the bill doesn't just die.<hr /></blockquote> One head of authority that reported to Congress. Recommended by a Congressional committee. Put aside your partisanship for a second, Ross, and think about this. Remember, there is no such thing as a NID. The question is who has control over intelligence, the Pentagon or the Congress? You advocate adding yet another level of confusion and debate, with an additional department and it's associated beaurocracy. Personally, I prefer we leave defense in the hands of the Pentagon.

I hate to denigrate our representatives, but honestly, the Congress is comprised mostly of C students. That's fine as far as domestic politics goes, but I choke up a little when I think of politicians making the really tough calls, such as when to start shooting. That's why we choose a President.

Anyway, our system has worked for for a long time, I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some tweaking may be appropriate, but radical change is a bad idea. Doesn't every President push for a line item veto? Doesn't every Congress try to usurp executive power? Isn't the Judicial constantly legislating? Lol. It's an old story. Government 101. Each branch of government tries to steal power from the other two. The other two gang up and defend themselves. The alliances shift based on who is trying to steal from who.

We have operated under our current heirarchy for some time. The FBI handles things domestic, the CIA handles things International, and the NSA integrates. Now we have the HSA, the TSA and possibly (if you get your way) a new NID and his associated department. Frankly, we are being overrun by new agencies. Tell me, does this improve things? Should the DOD should be watered down so a new turf war can be created? Maybe National Security should be sliced up even more, hell, let's add a few more new agencies while we're at it. Lack of integration was defined as an initial problem, let's add some layers!

The DCI always had strong authority. The HSA was a response to only one thing. The DCI failing to prevent 9/11. I'm not even willing to place the blame on Tenet, as this was something entirely new to us. But it cost him his job anyway. That's how things work. But Ridge and the HSA already addressed that issue, why do we need a NID and a DHS and a DCI and a National Security Advisor? DHS is cabinet level, but now you want another layer with an NID who reports to Congress and has budgetary control over all other agencies! In other words, you want to replace about 30% of the Pentagon with one guy. Should we abolish the DHS then? Or maybe we should abolish the NSA, CIA, FBI, and DHS and put all intelligence under the NID and Congress??? At what point will Congress be happy? Just exactly how many intelligence agencies does this country need, and what will be the heirarchy? Should we just disband the Pentagon? Create a few new Congressional committees? You're going to need to draw me a line so I understand what you are after. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>Also, from what I've read, Bush opposed the commission because he initially didn't want a call to create a National Intelligence Director because that would be ceding some of the power of the White House. He and Rummy may still be trying to undermine the NID's power by having General Myers oppose the Senate version of the bill. Publicly Bush is saying the NID should have full budgetary powers, but most people doubt General Myers would have spoken against the bill without getting approval from Rumsfeld, his boss. If this is true then Bush is trying to have it both ways - look good in public but simultaneously undermine the power of the NID. Who knows what is really going on behind the scenes? <hr /></blockquote>That makes Bush sound awfully clairvoyant. He foresaw the commission's recommendation of an NID before even they did. LOl. Hindsight. But your point of ceding power is a correct one.
Should the Executive cede National Defense to Congress beyond the level we have now? And who determines what that level should be?

Deeman2
11-09-2004, 07:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif LOL HaHaHa.

Deeman, I,m not here to convert you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif All I do is present a different view from the the die-hard GOPs on the board.

I don't know if I'm a die hard GOP, but will fess up to die hard American. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I dont claim to have all the answers either , but if we are going to come to the right conclusions, we need to know the truth.

Q, the truth is what most of us say we want but it is always (in both our cases) the part of the truth that seems to suit us. The whole truth is never completely known and as Jack Nicholson said in a right wing movie, "You can't handle the truth!" That's not a stab at you, but at all of us. The opposition is never completely right but they are never completely wrong either.

Two things about 911 you probably dont know.
1. One of the hijackers passport was found[ intact] two blocks from the TTs.

I had heard this on ABC News on Wednesday night! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

2 M Atta,s baggage, [ Atta was assumed to be flying one of the planes], missed the flight. Inside was all the evidence to link him with the plot. The thing is, he had TWO suitcases.

As Columbo would say, " Why would he take two bags when he was planing to kill himself?".

It takes a lot of changes of underwear to service 72 virgins? Seriously, there may be something to this. Maybe he escaped, changed his mind, or just had a suitcase fetish. I don't know.

Its a question that needs to be answered.

Q

I agree.

Deeman /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Elaine
11-09-2004, 11:15 AM
Dear Veteran...
I'm on your side....GO BUSH !! Anyone ever thought of blaming the terrorists for 911??? It is sad that any American (I am a Brit living in the USA) can blame any President for such a tragedy. I vote for Tony Blair and George Bush - Kerry would have fought a "more compassionate war"
Wow....I like this site - I am only buying a pool table but got entertained from some left wing and some right wing..
Interesting stuff...!!!
Elaine

hondo
11-09-2004, 12:01 PM
Dear Elaine, is Blair really gay or does he lust after
Bush for higher reasons?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Elaine:</font><hr> Dear Veteran...
I'm on your side....GO BUSH !! Anyone ever thought of blaming the terrorists for 911??? It is sad that any American (I am a Brit living in the USA) can blame any President for such a tragedy. I vote for Tony Blair and George Bush - Kerry would have fought a "more compassionate war"
Wow....I like this site - I am only buying a pool table but got entertained from some left wing and some right wing..
Interesting stuff...!!!
Elaine <hr /></blockquote>

Deeman2
11-09-2004, 12:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> Dear Elaine, is Blair really gay or does he lust after
Bush for higher reasons?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Elaine:</font><hr> Dear Veteran...
I'm on your side....GO BUSH !! Anyone ever thought of blaming the terrorists for 911??? It is sad that any American (I am a Brit living in the USA) can blame any President for such a tragedy. I vote for Tony Blair and George Bush - Kerry would have fought a "more compassionate war"
Wow....I like this site - I am only buying a pool table but got entertained from some left wing and some right wing..
Interesting stuff...!!!
Elaine <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

Elaine,

Welcome here. Don't take Hondo's remark to heart. He was recently wounded in a hostile election and is suffering Kerry withdrawal. No joke, we welcome someone from GB that has an open mind. However, we all throw and are hit by some arrows here. Give your opinion and just wait, someone will trash it. Not seriously ment to hurt, just to keep the debate going. Did you buy a fine American made table?

Do you play well. (It's o.k. to lie, we all do.) What brings you to the colonies? Marriage, getting into the WPPA events, escaping English food?

Glad to hear from you.

Deeman

highsea
11-09-2004, 12:26 PM
Welcome to the madhouse, Elaine!

Ross
11-09-2004, 12:41 PM
Interesting view Highsea. I don't understand it though.

There is not a person in Washington (executive or legislative) that will tell you that the current system works, or comes close to working. The FBI and CIA have been warring for decades. President after President have complained about it. They don't share info, they have petty turf battles, they don't like each other, they point fingers at each other, and so on. And the President can't do anything about it, because they are career people and he is just a short term elected official. Before terrorism was such a big issue, US internal issues (FBI) were generally separate from international issues (CIA), so we could stumble along despite this lack of coordination. But now it is essential that domestic and international intelligence mesh together as seamlessly as possible. For example, the possiblity of recognizing the hijackers ahead of time would have required very tight integration of both domestic and international intelligence.

The commission recommends having someone with real power over these agencies as well as other intelligence gathering agencies. For the first time, the FBI and CIA would face real consequences if they don't do their jobs in the best interest of the country. And I believe the NID would be appointed by the President, not Congress, just like a CIA or FBI director is. This does not put "defense in the hands of congress" just like defense is not currently run by congress.

You also misunderstood what was "watered down" by the 9/11 commission. It was the highlighting of historical mistakes made by the Bush and Clinton admins that was sugar-coated (they were precisely avoiding the blame game that you want to accuse them of), NOT the recommendations for fixing the problems. The recommendations were bold and right on target. The Senate agreed, passing their version of bill 96-4 or something like that. Bush and Cheney finally agreed, both have said several times on record that they support an NID with strong powers.

Apparently, the hold-up now is that the Pentagon is worried that the intelligence will be more focused on terrorist targets rather than military targets. This could be a turf battle or a legitimate issue, I don't know. But I do know that we need someone with real power over the CIA and FBI. Someone where the intelligence buck stops. If we fail in this reform attempt, we can look forward to many more years of intelligence inefficiencies and failures. And frustrated Presidents as well...

highsea
11-09-2004, 12:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>...But I do know that we need someone with real power over the CIA and FBI. Someone where the intelligence buck stops. <hr /></blockquote>That was the whole point of having a DHS. So there would be someone to coordinate the intelligence between the FBI and the CIA. Why is another agency needed?

Wally_in_Cincy
11-09-2004, 12:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>

There is not a person in Washington (executive or legislative) that will tell you that the current system works, or comes close to working. The FBI and CIA have been warring for decades. President after President have complained about it. They don't share info, they have petty turf battles, they don't like each other, they point fingers at each other, and so on.

<hr /></blockquote>

For once we agree. There is no place for turf wars in this era. They are almost like politicians, putting their interests ahead of the country's.

Wally_in_Cincy
11-09-2004, 12:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman2:</font><hr>What brings you to the colonies? Marriage, getting into the WPPA events, escaping English food?
<hr /></blockquote>

Probably the dental care.

Deeman2
11-09-2004, 01:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman2:</font><hr>What brings you to the colonies? Marriage, getting into the WPPA events, escaping English food?
<hr /></blockquote>

Probably the dental care. <hr /></blockquote>

Wally,

Under Democratic rule, you would be tried in the Netherlands over that one!

Deeman

Ross
11-09-2004, 01:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>...But I do know that we need someone with real power over the CIA and FBI. Someone where the intelligence buck stops. <hr /></blockquote>That was the whole point of having a DHS. So there would be someone to coordinate the intelligence between the FBI and the CIA. Why is another agency needed? <hr /></blockquote>

My impression is that the DHS is in charge of protecting the US. Part of that process is evaluating intelligence, but there is a lot more. Since the DHS has no budgetary authority over the CIA or FBI Ridge really isn't the boss of the CIA or FBI. So he doesn't have a chance of modifying their behaviors.

The NID would be a real boss over the CIA and FBI. They would report to him and he would control their budgets. The CIA and FBI would both have to do their job or face funding cuts, or functions being taken away from them.

I don't know if the NID would report to the DHS or the President. I suspect both.

Mind you, these are my impressions from media reports. I haven't read the actual congressional bills themselves.