PDA

View Full Version : Did You Know?



Gayle in MD
05-04-2007, 08:12 AM
Rudy Giuliani resigned from the Iraq Study Group, and then criticized their findings.
When John McCain took his famous stroll through a Baghdad market, he was joined by 100 Soldiers, 3 Blackhawks, and 2 Apache Gunships.
Mitt Romney once claimed he couldn't weigh in on Iraq because he was "still a Governor."
Duncan Hunter stalled hearings on the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal, even though members of both parties agreed that Congress should do more to investigate the abuse of prisoners.
Asked what he would do in Iraq, Fred Thompson replied, "I would do essentially what the president's doing."

This bunch adds up to more of the same old lies and political glitz, with no substance.

Not a single candidate in the Republican Debates acknowledged the mistake of invading Iraq, or had a credible, reasoned position on how to go forward in trying to remedy the very dangerous circumstance which the Bush Administration's policies have exascerbated with the invasion of Iraq. Nor did they address the failure to provide the protections outlined in the 9/11 commission report, or the importance of addressing the deceit which was used to create our present risk filled circumstances regarding this president's overall foreign policy, and the resulting expansion in the newly created factions of, and fast increasing recruitments into, Radical Islamist organizations.

While there is no doubt that most Americans have unfortunately become apathetic and comfortable again in their false feelings of security, believing that fighting a civil war between Iraqis, will somhow prevent another terrorist attack here on our shores, and the mantra of the Bush administration that if we don't continue to lose lives and treasure in Iraq, "they" will follow us home,.... if Americans do not educate themselves on the realities which we face, we will surely not recieve the most important debate which has never been launched in the political theater, and has only been addressed in the books written by those who have spent their lives addressing this very dangerous, and growing threat from the Radical Islamist global movement, which has grown so alarmingly since the Iraq invasion.

The very idea that this most wasteful, un-necessary, ineffective, and counterproductive policy of continuing our quagmire in an Iraqi Civil War, is approved by the Republican candidates, and not the center of discussion in either Democratic, or Republican debates, is outrageous, and regardless of which party one is likely to support, or which candidate, Americans must make every effort, and take every possible action to force our candidates from both sides of the isle to focus on our most pressing issue, the existence of terrorist cells here in America, our open borders, our unattended ports, unchecked shipping containers, insufficiently, and in some cases completely ungaurded Chemical and nuclear plants, and the impotence and incompetence of the Homeland Security Department, and its present ineffective condition, and inability to either predict, or respond to our coming future attack.

Our country is at great risk, more so than ever before, and our political candidates must be FORCED, by we the people, to address their specific plans and intended policies for addressing that risk, and ending our present overwhelmingly expensive, and defeating distraction from that risk, the Civil War in Iraq, in which we have neither an interest, or obligation, nor any reasonable cooperation from the corrupt, unappreciative, and decietful Iraqi Government.

Grudges, hatred and anger, cannot be suppressed with bombs and guns. Only through action and outspoken condemnation, and participation of moderate Islamists to rid themselves, and the rest of the world, of these barbarians and their hate filled ideology, can prevent further expansion of Radical Islamist elements, or bring about the end of Radical Islamists. They, Moderate Islamists, must speak and act against the convoluted version of Islam, and only through their efforts will this hate filled ideology ever be overcome. WAR is NOT the answer.

Gayle in Md.

reggie182
05-04-2007, 08:51 AM
If war is not the answer, then what is the question?

Deeman3
05-04-2007, 09:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Grudges, hatred and anger, cannot be suppressed with bombs and guns. Only through action and outspoken condemnation, and participation of moderate Islamists to rid themselves, and the rest of the world, of these barbarians and their hate filled ideology, can prevent further expansion of Radical Islamist elements, or bring about the end of Radical Islamists. They, Moderate Islamists, must speak and act against the convoluted version of Islam, and only through their efforts will this hate filled ideology ever be overcome. WAR is NOT the answer.

Gayle in Md.

<font color="blue"> Respectfully,

Islanic terrorists kill moderate islamics at a much faster rate than they do Americans or American soldiers. How in the wide world of sports do you think there is a diplomatic solution with a group who's only intent is to kill everything, non-radical islamic, and convert the world or destroy it?

How is the rational left going to do this aside from making calls to be tolerant and negoiate and withdraw. like these thugs will then settle back down and see they need love in their hearts?

I agree the Republicans have botched this job/war. What I do beleive is that the Islamic terrorists are occupied at the moment to the extent they have not been able to fly other planes into our buildings, the start of this struggle, and would do so if they were not so intrenched in Iraq. We go away, they do come here. Our brave soldiers while not satisfying left political needs except for allowing constant critique or the administration, some justified, are defending us directly and indirectly from the escape of that mass of hate toward us to our shores. No matter all the shortcomings you point out, we have not been attacked since 9/11. I beleive, in my heart, that if we had done nothing, they would have more successful attacks. I do believe Bush to be money wasting fiscal liberal and he should have crushed the entire nation of Iraq in a few days but he did not. Now we will see what Hillary or Obama brings to the table in terms of defending the U.S. I do not see you deriding their positions on border security, gay marriage, etc. You only pick out republicans for your wrath. Why? Why have you not pointed out the inconsistency of Pelosi's position on minimum wage, did even a single democrat come out and say, "Yes, I am for crushing the skulls of unborn children and sucking their brains out as long as it saves a mother the agony of an unwanted birth!

I now dislike both parties and see the democrats first 100 hours pledge as much a hoax as their pretense of patriotism through partisan politics. I just don't understand why you are so selective and never identify any other villans other than republicans. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
05-04-2007, 09:40 AM
The first question should be an earnest debate, for once, about what led to the attack, on 9/11. Here is a brief summary of former Terrorist Zar, Richard Clarke's, take on it.

1. Ronald Reagan, who did not retaliate for the murder of 278 United States marines in Beiruit and who violated his own terrorism policy by trading arms for hostages in what came to be called the Iran Contra scandal;

2. George H.W. Bush, who did not retaliate for the Libyan murder of 259 passengers on Pan Am 103; who did not have an official counterterrorism policy; and who left Saddam Hussein in place, requiring the United States to leave a large military presence in Saudi Arabia;

3. Bill Clinton, who identified terrorism as the major post-Cold War threat and acted to improve our counterterrorism capabilities; who (little known to the public) quelled anti-American terrorism by iraq and Iran and defeated an al Qaaeda attempt to dominate Bosnia; but who, weakened by continued political attack, could not get the CIA, the Pentagon, and the FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the threat;

4. George W. Bush, who failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite repeated warnings and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks, and who launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that srengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide.

This is, unfortunately, also the story of how America was unable to develop a consensus that the threat was significant and was unable to do all that was necessary to deal with a new threat until that threat actually killed thousands of Americans.

Even worse, it is the story of how even after the attacks, America did not eiliminate the al Qaeda movement, which morphed into a distributed and elusive threat, how instead we launched the counter-productive Iraq fiasco; how the Bush administration politicized counter-terrorism as a way of insuring electoral victories; how critical homeland security vulnerabilities remain; and how little is being done to address the ideological challenge from terrorists distorting Islam into a new ideology of hate.

from the preface of Richard Clarke's book, ....Against All Enemies


I must say, that after listening to the Republican Candidates last night....I hope that every voter will make the effort to learn how we got where we are, so that they can accurately assess for themselves, who is best equipped to lead our country. Denial, has cost us a great deal. In the interest of our safety here at home, it is critical that we each make an effort to decipher which candidates are still lying to us about how we arrived in our present dangerous circumstances, and why Republicans refuse to take responsibility for their devastating policies of division among us, political gain above all else, denial of their failures, rather than the demise of bin Laden, al Qaeda, safety here at home, and the end of the waste of life and treasure, our involvement in an Iraqi Civil War, which has failed, and has in fact, put us at greater risk than ever before.

So the question for each of us is, will we take off our team shirts, and commit to learning the truth, in the interest of avoiding being used, Politically, against our own best interests? The first step in achieving this, is to stop denying the facts, for political purposes.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
05-04-2007, 10:05 AM
Deeman.
First, I am not in complete support of every Democratic position overall. However, their platform is much more appealing to me, than the Republican platform. But, rather than get into a debate about how wrong it is for Government to intrude into our lifestyles, bedrooms, and personal decisions, and fuel rejection toward gay people, and dismantle women's rights, my main concern is about safety here at home.

We do have terrorist cells here. U. bin Laden is the most likely nuclear threat we face, as he has vowed to nuke us, is still free to actively seek the weapons to do so. Other Nations face retaliation if they nuke us, but Radical Islamist terrorists, are all over the world.

Secondly, the war in Iraq is no protection against a terrorist attack here. We saw what 19 people could accomplish, here in America, so we should know that it would take even less than that, to luanch a nuclear attack, right here, and they ARE right here.

As for your accusation that I am partisan, I am in the issue of religious efforts supported by the Republican Party, to force their beliefs upon all Americans. this, in my view, is not what our country was founded upon, nor is it, in my opinion, what our Constitution was meant to insure. I cannot say strongly enough, how angry I feel at the thought of men, in black robes, or even men in general, imposing their political, or religious power, upon a woman's private life, and decisions about her life and body. IMO, it is not to be contemplated by Government, or religion, if it is the outgrowth of religious doctrine, or masculine efforts of any kind to control women. Hence, the Democratic Party represents my views on the subject, and also on the War in Iraq. Further, to suggest that our people should die, on the other side of the world, to benefit a country which has failed completely to meet the political obligations worthy of the sacrifice which has been made by our soldiers, and further, believe they should kill our soldiers, by a huge percentage, is outright insanity. Also, to suggest, inspite of vast evidence to the contrary, that our presence in Iraq, has achieved anything at all to protect us from another terrorist attack here at home, is a premise which is simply not true. If you think that bin Laden has given up his dessire to secure a nuclear weapon to launch against America, I just don't know what I can say to you. That is surely not the projection which has been made by the majority of Intelligence, or national security operatives, and agents. That, IMO. is nothing more than political rhetoric, manufactured by the Republican Party, in an effort to cover up their failures, and pretend to have made us safer, which they have not.

Also, I might add, that Democrats are not suggesting that we stop going after whatever small faction of al Qaeda is present in Iraq. Their premise, is that we redeploy our soldiers, away from the Civil War which presently rages between Iraqis, and concentrate our efforts in those areas where some Iraqis have launched their own reisistance against al Qaeda, and a number of other terrorist organizations which have been born of our occupation of Iraq.

And last, only the Democrats have been consistantly concerned about, bin Laden, and the decent, rightful obligation to pretect our troops against the inhumane treatment which this administration has forced upon them, and also consistantly sought to re-focus our efforts on our true threat, bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the growing radical islamist movement.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
05-04-2007, 10:44 AM
Deeman, I have to add, I have never heard, or read, any Democrat, suggesting tolerance for al Qaeda, or for Radical Islamist groups.

Herein lies the difficulty which separates our country. Republicans have so completely misconstrued everything Democratic, or, horror the word, Liberal, that some in this country are no longer to hear what any Democrat says. It is as though their brains are now unable to decipher anything said, by any Democrat, about anything. Fortunately, this seems to afflict only some Republicans, and the numbers are shrinking every day. Framing Democrats in some illogical Republican Talking Point, such as soft on terror, in a justification to mask the Repulbican party's failures, corruption, lies, and incompetence, is really not sensible, given that they have been damanding that our government, and the Bush Administration, focus on our true threat, bin Laden. The vast majority of fighting going on in Iraq, is between Iraqis, although, our soldiers, represent EVERYONE'S target, Iraqis, al Qaeda, and a number of newly created other Radical Islamist movements. Given the humongus number of Islamists in the world, and the widely global locations of the many cells, and training areas, one would hardly think that our threats reside only in Iraq, or that killing every one of them in Iraq, will provide us safety from any of the many others around the world, from attacking us here. I only wish we had spent the last six years, "swatting at flies" as Bush calls fighting al Qaeda, rather than spinning our wheels Spreading Democracy in Iraq, or losing lives, and treasure, for the benefit of Iraqis who want us to either stay and fight their battles for them, since they won't fight for themselves, AND, let them kill our troops, and dictate policy, as our guys and gals are slaughtered.

This is insanity!

Gayle in Md.

reggie182
05-04-2007, 10:44 AM
Ah yes Gayle, all of Bill Clinton's inadequacies were caused by those nasty Republicans. Bill was a Democrat after all, and as you seem to believe, no Democratic president ever does any bad, and no Republican any good. Please try to get off the kool-aid.

Gayle in MD
05-04-2007, 10:58 AM
Well thanks. We can always use more realilty seeking Republicans! The War has been completely mismanaged. Bush, has escalated three times previous to this time. Every single time, the situation got worse. The man who led those who attacked us on 9/11, is still at large. He now has many many more enlisted into his cause. Other leaders have formed their own groups of radical Islamist terrorists in Iraq. The Saudis, and Iran, are financing their own sides of this battle. The war is costing now, 9 billion a month, and we just discovered another wasted 9 billion which the corporate contractors have wasted through incompetence. We are now approaching 3500 dead in this Iraq civil war, and the Iraqi Government is asking for a time line for our leave. Iraqis want us out. The majority of Americans want us out. Our Army is broken. Every "Surge" results in greater violence, more deaths, more injuries, some of which could have been prevented had Bush spent our money protecting our troops with the proper equipment, instead of looking the other way while his corporate cronies gouged us to death in Iraq, but YOU still support George Bush.....and YOU think I'M drinking the cool aid? <font color="red"> HA HA HA HA....That's a good one. </font color>

reggie182
05-04-2007, 11:04 AM
You are drinking kool-aid because you are a demogogue. You are drinking kool-aid because you seem to think all that Republicans do is evil, and all that Democrats do is good. You imply in your post that I enthusiastically approve of everything George W. Bush has done, which would simply be projecting a demogogic mindset onto me. He has done certain things right, and certain things wrong. I'm not in incessant partisan full spin mode like you are. I can acknowledge mistakes that (gasp) some in my own party have made.

Gayle in MD
05-04-2007, 11:21 AM
You are drinking kool-aid because you are a demogogue. You are drinking kool-aid because you seem to think all that Democrats do is evil, and all that Republicans do is good. You imply in your post that I enthusiastically approve of everything Bill Clinton has done, which would simply be projecting a demogogic mindset onto me. He has done certain things right, and certain things wrong. I'm not in incessant partisan full spin mode like you are. I can acknowledge mistakes that (gasp) some in my own party have made. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

You're just another angry Conservative, who can't swallow the truth about the mess Bush has made, and the trick bag he has put us in.

Do I think he has done anything right? NO, I DON'T. Not because he's a Republican, because he's a F.UP.

Do I believe that conservatives are conservative? NO! Not because they're Republicans, but because they have run up more damn debt than any party in history.

Do I beleive that Republicans are honest? HELL NO. I've seen more illegal, immoral, untruthful, and unconstitutional bahavior these last seven years than ever before in my lifetime. Even Nixon's corrupt administration can't light a candle to this one. Republicans allowed this F.UP in the White House to go unhampered for seven years. Why the hell would I support ANY Republican? It isn't just this idiotic wasteful, pointless war in Iraq, either, it's EVERYTHING the Republican Party stands for. They're religious zealots, who are dismantling our Constitution, with their religious dogma, and I resent it. They are trashing our water and air, refusing to gaurd our borders, lying about every damn thing they talk about, denying all the damage they have done, and you think that my feelings about them are because they aren't Democrats? BULLSH*T. It's becasue of who they ARE, and what they have done, period. I'm sick of their lies, corruption and incompetence, and so are the majority of Americans. If you support Republicans, I don't think YOU, ought mention KOOL AID!
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

wolfdancer
05-04-2007, 11:23 AM
I consider myself somewhat neutral on this...a political "agnostic" My heart tells me that God wouldn't have told GWB to begin this war, nor selected these two, Bush and Cheney, to lead this tenth Crusade....however the Lord works in mysterious ways!!! Once before In 1095, Pope Urban the second claimed that is was Gods will for these crusades to be carried out.
At least Leopold IX and Andrew II, actually participated in the fifth crusade.
But maybe Bush sees himself more like Richard the Lionheart, or perhaps King Louis IX, who became known as Saint Louis because of his great devotion to God.
Some of the earlier crusades had initial success....unlike this one, which has been a loser from the start.
I believe it was a terrible mistake to begin this war....and
will be another mistake to just pull out...
We may have gone over there to fight terrorism....but it has certainly increased the threat of terrorism over here.
To justify the onset of war...one had to place the core of terrorism in Iraq....don't look know ....but just about every Mid East country....has their share....
I agree with Gayle....while we have committed our manpower to fighting a remote war.....we haven't done near enough at home to protect ourselves.
The recent gasoline truck explosion in the Bay Area, which caused a section of freeway to collapse upon another freeway...points out that every petroleum delivery truck is in fact, a potential moving bomb....
And just a small percentage of ship's cargo, and truck contents actually get inspected.
On one hand, I'd like to see another republican President elected, another right win majority Congress.....they got us into this mess...I'd like to see them get us out, and take the heat for that. Unfortunately...it'll be the Dems that have to do the dirty work....and #1...raise taxes....
On the other hand...once either party remains in power too long....the corruption becomes too rampant, too pervasive...and while the Dems are not above making a buck or two...the real goals of this Republican leadership are very suspect imo

reggie182
05-04-2007, 11:25 AM
The Republicans are the party of open borders? Where do democrats stand on that issue then? Oh also, can you provide me with an example of conservatives implementing religious dogma into public policy.

Gayle in MD
05-04-2007, 01:34 PM
Where do Democrats stand on the issue of illegal immigration, certainly not in line with my wishes. As I have said many many times on this forum, though it is never noticed, I do not agree with all of the Democratic policies, and I have stated my dis-illusionment with their stance on illegal immigrants. I want them all deported. Unfortunaltely for me, neither party is for that, because they are both playing for votes, and for the corporate facists who are the only ones who get all the benefits of cheap labor, and pay none of the price, so ultimately, we're not only paying for the massive welfare and educational, and health costs from illegal immigration, but we're paying it partly to benefit the billionaire Corporate Fascist pigs who are destroying our country, with the help of politicians on both sides.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh also, can you provide me with an example of conservatives implementing religious dogma into public policy.


<hr /></blockquote>

Yes, their intrusion into a woman's right to decide how to live her own life as regards abortion, and in some cases, even birth control....and their whole position on gay people, they have demonized them, because they want their BS religious dogma, hatred, discrimination, and judgmental attitudes to be legislated into all our lives, regardless of whether we believe in their God, or not. They're desire to limit stem cell research, and their insistance that a fetus, is a baby, total Bull! If that were true, than every single woman on birth control pills, is potentially killing babies, every single woman who uses spermacide for birth control, is committing murder, and every single woman who uses the morning after pill, likewise.

The fascist Religious right, would have all women in Burkas, if they thought they could get away with it, or if cheney Halliburton were in the Burka business.

The religious right, in this country, is completely out of hand. They scare me more than the terrorists, because they want religious dictatorship of all Americans. Their penchant for authoritarianism, makes me sick! I view them as the most ignorant of all Americans, and their philosophies archaic. The very idea that there is a movement by the religious right to add Intelligent Design into Science classes, is just one example of how completely nuts they really are.

I get a big case of indigestion over people who seek to tamper with the constitution Of The United States of America, The Bill Of Rights, and/or who seek to force their religious beliefs on others, who are Americans, and do not buy into religious dogma, or even necessarily believe in God at alol. We do have athiests in this country, and the Constitution does say that we have a right to either worship as we wish, or not worship, at all, and therefore, laws which are based on religious belief, are unconstitutional, period. BTW, the number of late term abortions, are extremely few, and of those, the vast majority are performed for health reasons, in spite of the lies told by the religious dictators, and the Right wing Republican politicians.

The religious right is out of control, and must be stopped if we are to remain a free people, with the rights that our Constitution gaurentees, and nothing proved it more than Jerry Jackass Falwell, when he said that the people in Ner York deserved what they got on 9/11, for being sinners. Imagaine that, fatass Jerry Fallwell, a glutton, with jowels hanging down to his shirt collar, talking about sin and addiction! I find that disgusting, and also men, talking about crushing babies brains, when they discuss abortion. Women, now that Bush has installed his idiotic religious fanatics on the Supreme Court, will likely have to die if a pregnancy compromises their health. Not all conditions are recognizable during the first months of pregnancy. They're chipping away at women's rights, and if you think your hands are full dealing with terrorism, just wait until this Kangaroo Court overturns Roe V. Wade, and you'll see what social disorder is really all about. Women are not going back to caot hangers, in back alleys, regardless of how much the nutty religious right would like to force them there.

Gayle in Md.

reggie182
05-04-2007, 02:09 PM
With respect to the parties' stances on the issue of illegal immigration, I agree wholeheartedly that our border security should be enforced. However you seem to be saying that neither party in Congress wants this to happen. This isn't exactly correct. The Republican party is split on the issue. There are populist Republicans representing the interests of the middle and upper-middle class of Americans who are staunchly for border security (Tom Tancredo most notable among them). With respect to Democrats, I see no such split. They seem unananimous in selling out our sovereignty to claim the rich vote total that hispanics represent.

As for religious dogma becoming policy i.e. abortion, there are varying opinions within the Republican party with respect to that issue. Many of them believe (as I do) that Roe vs. Wade was an egregious misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and that under the Tenth Amendment this issue should properly be decided by the individual states. Additionally, if Roe vs. Wade were overturned tomorrow, abortion would not be made illegal anywhere by Federal mandate. Any state that sought to maintain the legality of the procedure would be permitted to do so. As for the moral aspects of the issue, I fail to see how opposition to abortion could anymore be constricted to religious motivation as an opposition to mass murder. Those who oppose it genuinely believe these to be innocent human beings who are being killed. You may disagree with their position, but to characterize this as an attempt at theocracy implies that respect for life is strictly delegated to the religious. And as for the procedure itself, at what stage of pregnancy do you consider it to become unacceptable? Do you actually support the crushing of full term babies' skulls and the sucking out of their brains? Is opposing such a procedure the sign of a religious zealot?

Regarding religion in general, Christians have just as much right to participate in our political process as you do. Your paranoia about a theocracy is without any substantive foundation.

Deeman3
05-04-2007, 03:36 PM
Wolfdancer,

As usual we agree a little more than you would suspect and I agree that power has corrupted the Republicans as it will now corrupt the democrats if they don't self destruct which they are very highly skilled at doing. It never is a good idea to let people vote their own raises, set up their own retirements and let their own body of people set law without pubic debate nor full disclosure. We now see the result of republican power that will, perhaps, replaced by a kinder, gentler profanity. It is now beyond our control as we reward the tyrades while making choices based on fear and ignorance. I know the right prays on fear of physical harm while the left prays on dear of loss of rights all the while the terrorists laugh at all of us and are just waiting for us to give them the opening they need.

Recently we have seen domestic muslims attacking outside terrorists with increasing frequency. This is a good thing. If it continues, there is at least a slight chance of a brokered peace between the Sunnis and Shites.

If we leave now, they will turn their attention to us. Not that they don't try now but their bigger interest for the moment is Iraq. I still beleive this but still think Bush has not done a good job at expediting this war and may not finish before being forced to pull out and let the whole place blow up.

Even you with your Goresk carbon neutral lifestyle will not ask how we get the oil then. Let congress manage this war? They can't even manage their own crooked lives.

You say now every mideast country has their sahre of terror. You just didbn't notice it before 9/11. It has and will be in the middle east for a long time. We just didn't notice it before like we don't notice Africa right now and will ingore China for a convienent while.

If I thought a feel good Obama could help. I'd stand in the streets for him. We just have a miserable collection so windbags on both sides and no one to step up and tell the truth 'cause we can't deal with truth anymore.

Now go read my book! or no cookies for the Wolfdancer.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
05-05-2007, 06:16 AM
Republican politicians, seem, and I do mean, seem, to be more in agreement with my own views as regards the issues of illegal immigrants. It is the one time when they have spoken out in favor of established law, rather than ignoring it, and doing as they pleas, just as they ignore, and/or demonize Democrats, when they asert their Constitutional duty of oversight, for example. The question is, what are they doing about it. Nothing, as far as I can see.

As for abortion, If the question is, do I approve of abortion, as a remedy for unwanted pregnancy, for myself, (meaning in my younger years of child bearing age) no, it could never have been an option for me, but, as I have stated before, I have never lived in poverty, looked into the faces of my hungry babies, and faced the result of bring another one into the world, for example. As a woman, however, my belief is that no man, including you, or an other man, has any right to even judge, or voice an opinion on the subject of what a woman does with her body, period, and certianly not religious men, of all people. When men begin to have babies, that will change, but not until.

As regards late term abortion, absolutely it should be available, when the mother's life is at risk, and only then. There are many conditions which threaten a woman's life which do not develop until late term in her pregnancy. No court, no men in robes, no Republican, no man on the street, and certainly, no religious spokesman, has the right to dictate death to a woman, instead of saving her own life through abortion, period. Just as they have no right to dictate that she bring a suffering child into this world, which will eventually die, after suffering further. It is not an issue for any court. It is a matter of free will, personal conscience, and privacy rights. No person, has the right to dictatorship according to their own beliefs, derrived from their own religion, or their on personal beliefs in general, over another's private decisions, as regards private, personal issues of health, well being, and the pursuit of happiness, to another person. This is what the religious right seeks. It is unconstitutional, according to the framers of the Constitution, many of whom were athiests, to use religious beliefs, as their basis for arguments, such as when life begins, to dictate law to all, believers, and non believers, IMO. Religion, in general, has no place in our government, our private decisions, our bedrooms, our sexual preferences, all such decisions, except those illnesses which afflict men who rape, women who rape, or use sex as a vicious tool of agression against another human being. As long as a fetus remains inside the body of a woman, it is a part of her body, and her body alone, and therefore, her decision alone.

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding religion in general, Christians have just as much right to participate in our political process as you do. <font color="red">I never said they had no right to participate, just no right to dictate to all others in America, by designing or overthrowing our laws, according to their religious beliefs, and doctrines, and especially in the case of accepted law regarding private, personal issues. There is nothing more private and personal than what is growing inside a woman's body. The intrusion of legal law, inside the body of a woman, ir worng on its face, period. </font color> Your paranoia about a theocracy is without any substantive foundation. <hr /></blockquote>

If you won't accept that the religious right has become an organized movement, hell bent on removing a woman's rights, including the right to use birth control, and intends dictatorship of all Americans, based on their religious beliefs, then the discussion is over. What you call paranoia is a phenomena which I am watching with my own two eyes, which many constitutional experts have also recently observed, identified, and written books about, an entire list of which are available presently. I hardly think the issue is a figment of my own personal imagination.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
05-05-2007, 07:01 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Even you with your Goresk carbon neutral lifestyle will not ask how we get the oil then. <hr /></blockquote>

May I say, no country has the right to occupy another sovereign country, destroy their neighborhoods, kill their people, rape their women and children, in the midst of an effort of dictating to them their form of government, and stealing or brokering a deal to get their oil. Bush's policies, and our occupation of Iraq, have led to all of this, and none of it was legal. To have done so, working in advance in a secret, hidden, illegal agenda, without abiding by international law, after lying and creating false premises in order to do so, is absolutely not only treasonist, but also evil, and Unconstitutional. It falls under the banner of committing War Crimes. It is, again, more of the evil deciet, and criminal actions, falsely framed in a cloak of humanitarianism, by lying to the American people, under the direction of George Bush, et al, and enabled by the Republican majority, which blocked all Constitutionally mandated duties of the Congress to provide investigative oversight, and failing to hold the President of the United States to the laws of our land. Hence, another form of Republican law breaking, and Unconstitutional, unamerican activity.

All due respect, please explain how keeping 500, or for the sake of fair discussion, lets say two thousand, or even five thousand, Radical Muslim Terrorists, al Qaeda, and others, busy fighting in Iraq, is a distraction to all the other terrorists all over the globe, and hidden presently in our country. This premise, to me atleast, iis completely illogical, just as believing that our occupation in Iraq, has prevented any terrorist attacks here, in recent years. Terrorist attacks have increased all over the world, since we occupied Iraq. The fact that bin Laden's current plan for attacking us here, has not yet occured, is completely unrelated to Republican management of our country, George Bush, or our occupation in Iraq. And, in fact, the failure of this administration to implement the required safety, and emergency response safegaurds, will make our coming attack ever so much more effective, IMO. We have already seen the results of George Bush's idea to meld all our protective response systems into one huge bureaucracy, Homeland Security, after Katrina, not to mention that as we waste nine billion a month in Iraq, instead of acquiring our own energy independance of foreign fuel, our infrastructure here, critically degraded, and in urgent need of rebuilding, will surely contribute to future devastation and emergency circumstances, terrorist attack, or not, simply through collapse, from accidents, and the wrath of nature. Not to mention, the degradation of our armed forces, overall, and the billions yet to be spent, incompetently, I might add, in the rebuilding of Iraq.

There is simply no end to the evidence of Bush's illogical, illegal, incompetent, decietful, and dangerous policies, and the amount and degree of risk, both financially, internationally, and practically, which this one man, his party, and his billionaire cronies, have wrought against our nation, is too great to conclude in advance of the full results, only part of which we have observed to date.

To suggest that Republicans are the providers of safety is completely absurd. Suggesting that Bush's policies have protected us in any way, equally absurd. Suggesting that a terrorist attack has not yet occured because of Bush, or his policies, or the war in Iraq, is certainly not in harmony with the evidence prevailing, but nothing more than political rhetoric, promoted by fear, in the interest of acquiring votes, and against all odds of our future and present obvious results of his administration, and the history of alQaeda. Mere fantasy, IMO.

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
05-05-2007, 10:13 AM
Reggie182 in my new mode of my replies being short could you name one thing George did right.####

reggie182
05-06-2007, 01:03 AM
To Gayle in MD, it is my understanding that the American Medical Association has opined that a partial birth abortion, which is what I was specifically referring to, is never a necessary medical procedure. It is an appalling and evil procedure that thankfully the Republican party has stood against. As for your comments about religion, the term "seperation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. It was used in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in a certain context. Laws going back to the Magna Carta are inspired by legal philosophy that goes back to the Ten Commandments.


As for immigration, the idea that some in the GOP "seem" to want immigration laws enforced is ridiculous. They aren't having any real success in Congress because about half the GOP doesn't give a damn about enforcing our borders, and again, virtually ALL of Democrats don't want it.
To Dick Leonard's question about Bush, we have not had a major terrorist attack in this country since 9/11. He deserves some credit for this, albeit the haters will never give him an ounce of it. Oh, and he cut taxes, and our economy and the stock market is good. Two constructionist appointments to the Supreme Court, as opposed to a disgraceful justice like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, aren't a bad step either.

Gayle in MD
05-06-2007, 07:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
To Gayle in MD, it is my understanding that the American Medical Association has opined that a partial birth abortion, which is what I was specifically referring to, is never a necessary medical procedure. <font color="red">Please provide proof of this statement. While the very thought that partial birth abortion inflicts such gross violence on a late term fetus absolutely makes my stomach turn, it is something that I understand is only performed to save a woman's life, or prevent greater suffering to a fetus which will never experience anything BUT pain, and has no chance of survival. I hope that you will provide information otherwise. I, personally, can't fathom Doctors performing such a horrible proceedure, and must admit, do not understand why a C-Section would not be used instead, unless the Mother, would die because of it, and also, that the proceedure is extremely rare, and only used under the above mentioned circumstances. </font color> It is an appalling and evil procedure that thankfully the Republican party has stood against. <font color="red">There have been more people killed and maimed in these last years of Republican control, than all the late term abortions that have ever been performed put together. Please, save us from having to swallow some suggestion that Republicans are pro life, when their policies have caused the deaths, destruction, permanent injuries and ruination of the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, so that they can get their immoral hands on another countries oil! </font color> As for your comments about religion, the term "seperation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. It was used in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in a certain context. <font color="red">I have posted Jefferson's letter on this forum, years ago. His many statements, prove, that this country was to be governed, free of religious mandate, and that the separation of church and state, was to be complete and perfect, and that anything less, would threaten both. The ten commandments, are not in the Constitution of the United States Of America. </font color> Laws going back to the Magna Carta are inspired by legal philosophy that goes back to the Ten Commandments. <font color="red">I have heard that arguement before. It is false, since quite a number of the framers, were athiests. However, the Constitution provides freedom from religious dictatorship, the right to worship, or not, and religous interference into the business and actions of Government, of the people, by the people, and for the people , is quite another matter, but since you bring it up, this President, protected by the Republican blank check party, has performed more illegal activities than any president before him, and has corrupted the accepted prosecution of our legal system, and has written signing statements, more than any other president, refusing to abide by the law, as he has broken more laws than even Richard Nixon, yet another power mongerer, who broke Constitutional law over and over again, and also thought he was above the laws of this land. </font color>


As for immigration, the idea that some in the GOP "seem" to want immigration laws enforced is ridiculous. They aren't having any real success in Congress because about half the GOP doesn't give a damn about enforcing our borders, and again, virtually ALL of Democrats don't want it. <font color="red">Again, it serves us well to understand how and why this massive illegal occupation of our country has expanded to emergency levels. Few could deny that Ronald Reagan's amnesty program was nothing more than a big invitation for more to invade, illegally. Hence, once again, we have yet another example of Republican destruction of our laws. This, which I observe, over and over again, is one of the main gripes that I have against the Republican party, their refusal to abide by our laws, and their penchant for removing our freedoms, and destroying our garanteed rights of freedom and privacy, and also our right to be told the truth by the President, and to have a congress which holds him to his word, "Checks" his actions, and removes his power when it is discovered that he has lied, and broken the law. We had six years of lies, mandated by the Republican led Congress. I, for one, have had enough. </font color>
To Dick Leonard's question about Bush, we have not had a major terrorist attack in this country since 9/11. He deserves some credit for this, <font color="red">Absurd statement, given that bin Laden has promised us that he is working on THE great attack, in our heartland, of his own form of shock and awe. Bush, has failed to implement safegaurds, and has cut funding for first responders, reminicent of Rudy's insistance against the warnings of experts, to not install the emergency operations center in the basement of the World Trade Center, Bush ignored all the warnings that an attack was definately about to happen, for three months, yet we have to listen to this Republican BS about how Republicans make us safer, ha ha ha, pahleeeeze!

<font color="red">George W. Bush, who failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite repeated warnings and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks; and who launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundalmentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide. from Against All Enemies, by Richard Clarke, terrorist Zar for four presidents, both Democratic and Republican. </font color>
In time, when our next attack comes, you will see the true results of George Bush, who did not get bin Laden, when he was right in our grasp, and did not pose any international hoopla by hitting other top level Arab Princes, and instead sold us an illegal war in Iraq, which has destablized the Middle East, expanded terrorism, and terrorist attacks around the world. Bush, with the help of the blank check Republican led congress, has failed to implement safe gaurds for our protection here at home. According to your style of assessment, Bush has not yet lived up to Clinton, under whom we had one attack here, in eight years, and a Federal Emergency System, which actually WORKED, unlike Bush's bureaucratic quagmire, which can't even respond to a Hurricane, and has wasted billions of dollars due to incompetence. Clinton kept us safer than Bush, all in all. Do you give Clinton any credit for that? </font color> albeit the haters <font color="red">it's hard to hate a nincompoop, but amazing that the religious right put a man into office who spent his years up till forty, drunk and high on drugs, but then, you guys have so many druggie heros, and put a Hollywood actor in the White House, while you bash people like Sean Penn, who was wading in the mud and water trying to save lives within forty-eight hours of Katrina, when it took four damn days for Bush, to fly over and peek out of the AF1 window! Yet we have to listen to Republican BS about the hollywood liberals! </font color> will never give him an ounce of it. Oh, and he cut taxes, <font color="red">and provided us with the greatest dificit in the history of our country, as he looked the other way while China has robbed us blind for seven years. </font color> and our economy and the stock market is good. <font color="red">AH HA HA HA...we're heading for recession, unemployment is up, and job creation is dropping, Americans are in more debt than when he took office, savings are at an all time low, most just trying to get by, as he and his corporate cronies allow cheap labor to illegally occupy our country, creating huges losses of manufacturing jobs, declining wages, and a crashing Real Estate Market, and our degraded Armed Services and infrastructure. America has never been viewed around the world with the contempt which the rest of the world holds for our country, at present, due to George Bush. All results of Bush's work to create a two class system here, rich and poor, and no middle class. But plenty of billions being stolen from taxpayers by Halliburton, and the other corporate fascist pigs who rob us blind everyday. Statistics prove, only the rich have been advantaged by Bush's policies, while the poor and middle class are footing the bills, they have had no representation by the Republican Party, at all. </font color> Two constructionist appointments to the Supreme Court, <font color="red">Correction, to right wing religious fanatics, hell bent on chipping away at women's rights, and creating a religious cabal, in the Highest Court Of The Land, hell bent on imposing their religious dogma, on the rest of the country. </font color> as opposed to a disgraceful justice like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, aren't a bad step either. <font color="red">Your misogeny is showing... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Don't worry, it's a Republican thing, enforced by religious dogma.</font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in Md.

If you like HUGE national debt, left to your kids and grand kids, lies, corruption, un-necessary illegal wars, your tax dollars going to the rich, overall incompetence, a weakened first reaponse system, huge government bureaucrocy, big spenders in Congress, the House on the take for bribes, indictments flying from the GSA, to the White House, to the Congress, protected pedofiles and internet predators running the country, congressional and federal support of prostitution, the Oil Cartel in secret meetings setting up how to gouge Americans at the pumps, and the redistribution of wealth, all going to the rich, no allies, a broken infrastructure, open borders, ruined educational system, broken armed services, fertilizing the growth of terrorists around the world, a President who taunts the terrorists toward violence, "Bring em on" AND high level White House and Justice Department Officials who can't remember ANYTHING....then VOTE REPUBLICAN!

Sid_Vicious
05-06-2007, 09:54 AM
"You're just another angry Conservative, who can't swallow the truth about the mess Bush has made, and the trick bag he has put us in."

I do believe you accurately explained how these so-called educated righties can still stand behind Bush. It is pitifull that those people do not realize that so many young soldiers are being injured or killed, basically for nothing, as we banter anger emotions in place of intellegence, and close their eyes and minds to the reality. sid

pooltchr
05-06-2007, 11:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> the Constitution provides freedom from religious dictatorship, the right to worship, or not, </font color>


<hr /></blockquote>

Then please tell me why the liberals are hell-bent on not allowing Christians to pray when and where they please. If they had their way, the word Christmas would be banned from our culture. The INTENT of the separation issue was to prevent the government from creating a "National Religion", not to eliminate any reference to religion from public places.
Steve

Gayle in MD
05-06-2007, 03:24 PM
Complete separation means that Government, and Religion, stay separate. Hence, religious leaders have no business telling congregations, whom to vote for. Nor should the public schools be a place for prayer. Not all Americans want thier children swallowing up a unproven theories, as though they are absolute truth. Some prefer to teach kids right from wrong, without brain washing them into blind faith about issues which cannot be scientifically proven. Our schools are no place for religion, unless all religions are available for each and every kind. As to religion,.... government, public schools, and elections, should be void of religious discussions. People who want dogma taught to their kids, have a perfect right to send them to private schools of any denomination they chose, and pray at home, or in church, till the cows come in.

When our school system implemented laws which did not fit my personal standards, I sent my daughter to a private school of my liking. No one is denying another person's right to worship as they please, just not as part of the public school educational program, which is filled with many different kids, whose parents raise them in many different ways as regards religion. One style does not fit all when it comes to personal, private issues. Why do religious people try to dictate to all others according to their own unique personal opinion regarding private, personal beliefs and actions? Why do you think our founding fathers made an effort to separate religion from government? They knew first hand how such co-mingling of government, and religion, can threaten free people, and their right to privacy, and freedom from religious doctrine, or harassment, while still seeking no control over the personal, private choices of others, something that Republicans do not understand, hence, they try to dictate to all according to their opinion, and ignore the fact that all are not in agreement. Such behavior is extremely narcisscisstic, and opressive to some, who have a different opinion. The exercise of political power, IOW, the excercise of one's will, by overt or covert coersion, in order to avoid spiritual growth. I'm told, this is the most accurate psychological definition of evil. Spirituality is unique to each individual, and means different things to different people. Many believe that organized religion is the worst of all attacks on mankind, and leads over and over to war, fanaticism, dictatorship, and suffering. A quick review of the radical president, and his radical religious views, and HIS war on those he brands evil, his war on personal freedom and privacy, have already led him astray, since he thinks God is talking to him. The nutty religious right's stated intentions of intruding into the very bodies of women, is a good example of religion forcing its collective views, on all. Unconstitutional, declared so by the highest court in the land. Get over it.

Gayle in Md.

cushioncrawler
05-06-2007, 03:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> ...... </font color> As for your comments about religion, the term "seperation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. It was used in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in a certain context. <font color="red">I have posted Jefferson's letter on this forum, years ago. His many statements, prove, that this country was to be governed, free of religious mandate, and that the separation of church and state, was to be complete and perfect, and that anything less, would threaten both. The ten commandments, are not in the Constitution of the United States Of America. </font color>Laws going back to the Magna Carta are inspired by legal philosophy that goes back to the Ten Commandments..... <hr /></blockquote>Gayle -- There are no commandments in the bible. And, there aint 10 commandments anyhow. The headings in the bible in 8 or 9 places are not a part of the bible -- they have been inserted by modern priests who were desperate to find (invent) some sort of commandments somewhere. There are none. Or, there aint 10. Or, if there are any -- then their wording etc etc in different parts of the bible is contradictory, ie sez different things. And, the modern style of wording appearing at so-called churches (and courthouses) around the US of A just duznt appear in any form whatsoever anywhere in the bible, and i am not talking about a little bit of translation stuff or minor tweaking -- it iz a complete snow-job. madMac.

Gayle in MD
05-06-2007, 03:40 PM
Bravo, Love a man who thinks for himself. Seems that thinking, is the first required suspension for memberhipship in an organized religion.

Now lets take you, or I, and imagine for a moment that we had the power to destroy humans, with hurrricanes and floods, illness, and plagues, allow wars to obliterate the innocent, send tragedy to some, and luxury and good luck to others. I dare say, we'd make kinder, gentler Gods than the one we've been ovserving. The God men write about, well, let's just say this much, could you be that mean????
I don't contemplate things for which there will never be answers, nor do I wish the contemplation of others to be forced fed through Government. That is a personal right, as I see it. This world would be a better, safer place, if we had a global policy of don't ask, don't tell, for organized religion. People seem to think that all goddness flows from religion. hence, all athiests must be bad. And that without the fear of hell, people would be devoid of compassion, love, and respect for all others. That is simply ridiculous. It is faulty thinking at best.


Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
05-06-2007, 04:18 PM
If the Democrats want to get us out of Iraq, they could vote to cut off the funding to the war NOW and we would have to bring the troops home. Why are only some of them willing to do this?

cushioncrawler
05-06-2007, 05:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Bravo, Love a man who thinks for himself. Seems that thinking, is the first required suspension for memberhipship in an organized religion. Now lets take you, or I, and imagine for a moment that we had the power to destroy humans, with hurrricanes and floods, illness, and plagues, allow wars to obliterate the innocent, send tragedy to some, and luxury and good luck to others. I dare say, we'd make kinder, gentler Gods than the one we've been ovserving. The God men write about, well, let's just say this much, could you be that mean???? I don't contemplate things for which there will never be answers, nor do I wish the contemplation of others to be forced fed through Government. That is a personal right, as I see it. This world would be a better, safer place, if we had a global policy of don't ask, don't tell, for organized religion. People seem to think that all goddness flows from religion. hence, all athiests must be bad. And that without the fear of hell, people would be devoid of compassion, love, and respect for all others. That is simply ridiculous. It is faulty thinking at best....<hr /></blockquote>Yes -- The obvious answer to -- "do u beleev in god" -- iz -- "mightbe, but yor stupid god iz an impossibility".

"All goodness flows from religion" -- no -- religion is not about goodness -- it is about doing what pleezes god, or about what will get u into heaven -- any actual goodness is a happy accident. For instance, religion might say that u havta kowtow to the east 5 times a day (true), or not have a krap on saturdays (true), or that it is the father's responsibility to deflower hiz daughter before marriage (true) -- rules, yes -- good, mightbe.

Ok, goodness and compassion and love are/were central to most early religions, but then later priests have thrown in that sex is dirty etc etc.

Dont ask, dont tell. Unfortunately, we dont have athiests going door-to-door in SaltLakeCity selling athiesm. And, unfortunately, we dont have athiests bullying and blackmailing the religious in bizness and personal dealings etc.

Pool players would do well to google the skeptik bible and skeptik commandments etc. Its an eye-opener. madMac.

Gayle in MD
05-07-2007, 06:58 AM
Because some are still trying to reason with Bush, and work with him, but by implementing measures which will protect our circumstances from his dishonesty, and incompetence. We're all between a rock and a hard place, now. We have to consider how leaving Iraq will affect the surrounding countries, and the unsettled region Bush has created through his stubborn arrogance, and incompetence.

Democrats, are trying to work with him, and unfortunately, he refuses to accept anything short of dictatorship, without the Constitutional oversight provided for just such quagmires, created by an incompetent president, and offering nothing but negative impact, regardless of which way we go.

Bush's failures of leadership, led to greater failure on the part of Iraqis in the New Government, to step up to the plate, and come together to bring peace to their country. Bush left Rumsfeld in charge, long long after it became evident to all that he was completely incompetent, and dishonest. The general course of action with this administration is to make bad decisions, refusing to listen to expert opinion, deny the devastating results, refuse to acknowledge their poor judgement, and expect the Congress to contintue to look the other way while they continue forward without conscience, enabled by their former blank check, do nothing congress, that led to where we are now. Thankfully, that is no longer possible. He will now be held to account. I think it is obvious, they are giving him one last chance, before cutting him off. Personally, I think that is a mistake. The Iraqais want us out. We are seen as occupiers. Our troops are the targets of all the various despots, from Iraqi soldiers, to Iraqi Police, to the various independent terrorist groups. Occupations, wrought with guerilla fighters, have never worked. In this case, there are many different factions of guerilla fighters. The idea that somehow we can kill them all, or get them all to lay down their arms, is absolutely absurd, IMO. They will fight till the last despot drops, just as the Vietcong would have. But, their numbers are growing, not receeding, along with their committment. We must also consider the impact of a destablized region of oil production. Staying forever, as Bush had originally planned, to take control of their oil, makes us infidels to all radical Arabs, and even non radical Arabs, former allies, a little fact of life that the intellectual neocons, and Bush, failed to factor into their plans. Hence, we are still the target of radical Islam, regardless of which way we go, only more so than before we occupied. A classic no win situation.

I'm quite sure, that Democrats would prefer to bring things to some kind of honorable exit, if possible, and that can only come about by removing Bush from his imagined kingdom, by holding him to account for failure, giving our troops a chance to succeed, through proper rest, training and reliable, safe equipment, forcing Bush to take proper care of them, by spending money enough to care for them, in battle, and after they come home injured, and holding Iraqis to deadlines for achieving those benchmarks which are necessary for any kind of order to be restored. IOW, we must force Bush to be realistic, and drop his delusions of granduer. Hence, Democrats are trying to work with the President, with the warning that if he continues to lie to us, or fails to hold the Iraqis to a reasonable amount of committment on their part to act as honorable, intelligent people must, in order to lead a fractured nation, to peace, then WE (The Congress)will hold Iraqis to their end of the bargain, benchmarks, which they have failed on every level to meet, and a time line, for our leave. The terrorists will continue to do as they planned throughout, kill. When we leave Iraq, has no affect on the Iraqis on-going, firm committment to kill each other, or the terrorists on-going intention of destroying our country. You can't shoot down ideology.

I get the sense, that Democrats will cut off funding, if Petraeus fails in bringing law, and peace, to Baghdad, so that there is a peaceful, organized center from which to grow a legitimate government of even handed lawful actions. Quite a trick, given the Government is already fracturing, and full of curruption. As things have gone so far, Iraqis voted in thugs, just as we might have expected them to do, given that we have tried this idiotic process before, and that is always the result. We topple one despot, only to support another in his place, and nothing of value is achieved in the long run. I, personally, imagine that if Maliki were to rise to the occasion, long enough to feel the drunken state of power, it wouldn't be long before he would be performing the same inhumane actions once inflicted by Saddam.

Some estimate the number of terrorist in Iraq at 500, some say more like 2,000. Only the Iraqis can identify them, we can't, generally speaking. They aren't all alQaeda, some are new branches of terrorists, who have formed their own new organizations of terror. The best way to kill them is to get the hell out of the way, and let the Iraqis get them. Of course, that is hard to get the American people to understand, since we have some sheep around here, who believe that if we leave, they will all book a cruise on the Carnival Cruise line, or catch a flight to America. That completely overlooks the fact that they are already here, planning their next attack, with bin Laden at the lead, and a broken Emergency Response system prevailing.

We have only one real and present danger to our country. Bin Laden. He, (and his followers) is the only self-stated threat which can attack without the fear of retaliation. Bush's policies have led this country to the greatest danger in our history, created non existing threats under false pretenses, and ignored real threats in the process. The results are so dangerous, I actually see no way of avoiding the horrible consequences which will surely follow. I don't think there is any safe way out of this mess, but getting our people out of the ground battle between Iraqis, and leaving special forces, operating under the safest bases we can construct for them, in the peripheral countries, we could continue to fight the terrorists with drones, and other air power, with the cooperation of Iraqi leaders. Even Iran, was willing to help us in that kind of battle, after 9/11. Of course, many who stepped up to assist American, after 9/11, were basically told...F. U., by our illustrious leader. Diplomatic, he's not.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
05-07-2007, 07:01 AM
Tap Tap Tap... /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

reggie182
05-07-2007, 04:22 PM
Gosh Gayle, I hope that impatient tapping isn't for me. I'm sorry, but I dont' have time to post daily essays.

I digress.

You mention Jefferson's letter as proof of an absolute seperation of church and state (what this term means depends on who you ask by the way) in the Constitution, without said document explicitly saying so. However it seems that Thomas Jefferson was not the chief architect of the Constitution, James Madison was.

Gayle in MD
05-07-2007, 05:08 PM
Oh really, my oh my, you righties do have a convenient way of rewriting history to suit your agendas.

The Writing of the United States Constitution, was a colaborative effort, undertaken to some extent to insure religious freedom, and prevent the intermingling of government, and organized religion, which was the reason why many fled England, in the first place, according to my studies.

Further, there were a number of athiests involved in the process. Hence, freedom to worship, or not worship, as we so chose is part of our garentee to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. You may be interested in the upcoming series on PBS, which will address these facts.


Till then...food for thought....



James Madison
Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, &amp; the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' &amp; Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new &amp; successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion &amp; Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together; [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]



An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government. [James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,pg 124]



That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some; and to their eternal infamy, the clergy can furnish their quota of impas for such business..." [James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., Jauary 1774]



It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right &amp; necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe &amp; even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely &amp; advantageously put on a footing of equal &amp; entire freedom.... We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings &amp; Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Gov. [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]



[I]t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others. [James Madison, in a letter to Rev Jasper Adams spring 1832, from James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited by Robert S. Alley, pp. 237-238]



Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects. [James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., Jauary 1774]



What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not. [Pres. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]



Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. [James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]



...Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which prevades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest. [James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratifying the Constitution, June 1778]



It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE. [James Madison, as quoted in Robert L. Maddox: Separation of Church and State; Guarantor of Religious Freeedom]



Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man:To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. [James Madison, according to Leonard W. Levy, Treason Against God: A History of the Offense of Blasphemy, New York: Schocken Books, 1981, p. xii.]



The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state. [James Madison, 1819, in Boston, Why The Religious Right is Wrong about the Separation of Church and State]



The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, posesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state. [James Madison in a letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819]



Strongly guarded... is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.



Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion &amp; Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history [ttempts where religious bodies had already tried to encroach on the government]. [James Madison, Detached Memoranda, 1820]



Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?



(15) Because finally, the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his religion according to the dictates of conscience is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the Declaration of Rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basic and foundation of government, it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. [James Madison, Section 15 of A Memorial and Remonstrance, June 20, 1785, frequently misquoted to imply religion as the basis of gov't]



We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion, or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and that it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. [James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance to the Assemby of Virginia]



...several of the first presidents, including Jefferson and Madison, generally refused to issue public prayers, despite importunings to do so. Under pressure, Madison relented in the War Of 1812, but held to his belief that chaplains shouldn't be appointed to the military or be allowed to open Congress. [Richard Shenkman, I Love Paul Revere, Whether He Rode Or Not]



Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize [sic], every expanded prospect. [James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1,1774, as quoted by Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco:Harper &amp; Row, 1987, p. 37]



No distinction seems to be more obvious than that between spiritual and temporal matters. Yet whenever they have been made objects of Legislation, they have clashed and contended with each other, till one or the other has gained the supremacy. [James Madison in a letter to Thomas Jefferson Oct-Nov 1787]



To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself [James Madison, Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811]



The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries. [James Madison, 1803? Origin questionable]



The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity. [James Madison, Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821]



Gayle in Md.

moblsv
05-07-2007, 05:28 PM
These "Christian Nation" Revisionists need to read some History. It is nearly impossible to read a credible biography about virtually any founder, or early president, without hearing strong words warnings of the dangers of religion in the nations politics.

Right now I am reading an Andrew Jackson biograpy, and he most certainly would be appauled at the state of affairs today. He repeatedly spoke in anger about anything that might imply any establishment of religion in government.

Gayle in MD
05-07-2007, 05:51 PM
So true, I've been thinking of new names for the RNC...

How bout...
Restricting National Constitution
Ruining National Credibility
Raging National Corruption
Reconstructing National Consensus
Regurgitating Non-issue Concerns
Redundancy Nearly Critical
Removing National Checks


I am completely disgusted with organized religion in this country. Their interference into the whole illegal alien issue, is a good example of their Unconstitutional actions. They have NO place in our national electorial, or political dialog. There are some very good books available which are finally addressing the religious and corporate fascist attack on our country. No surprise, the Republican Party is right in the thick of it, and greed, as usual, the source and thrust behind the movement.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

moblsv
05-07-2007, 06:14 PM
I've decide that (R) next to their names simply means Revisionist, as in History, or Scientific Study, or CIA report, or anyting else that doesn't say what they want to hear. You can justify anything when you can make up your own "facts" (Heritage Foundation).

eg8r
05-08-2007, 07:30 AM
That is the craziest thing I have ever read. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

cushioncrawler
05-08-2007, 03:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> That is the craziest thing I have ever read. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif eg8r <hr /></blockquote>Ed -- Which bit is crazy?? Funny -- We had one TV show here where this guy (a young jewish lad actually) goze to SaltLakeCity and goze door to door trying to spread Athiesm. He is chased down the driveway with a broom at one joint (by an ex-bishop or elder or something), and at another joint the guy tells him throo the security door that "this is most inappropriate", etc etc -- it woz a very funny show, it gave a different angle on religions each week.

Me, myself, i am impressed by Paganizm, in fact i probably like most multi-god religions (except catholicism). Pagans (on TV) sound very intelligent, and sound like a very modern fun group(s) -- sort of kums over az a bit tongue-in-cheek, perhaps a bit of devil-worship thrown in (just fun really) -- and the sheila spokeperson woz Hot Hot Hot. madMac.

eg8r
05-08-2007, 04:03 PM
Everything you said about the commandments were crazy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

cushioncrawler
05-08-2007, 05:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Everything you said about the commandments were crazy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif<hr /></blockquote>Ed -- I found the site i woz referring to. It is American Athiests. Look for the article called -- (Hang em all, completely) -- by Frank Zindler. Great stuff. madMac.

...............Ten More To Hang
It seems almost certain that the lawmakers and judges who are clamoring to have the Ten Commandments hung on public walls do not know that there are three different versions printed in their bibles. Still more certain is that they do not know how bizarre the third set is, nor that it arguably is the oldest (most authentic?) version of the Decalogue. It is found in the thirty-fourth chapter of Exodus: ......

I am sure readers will agree that the above corrected translation is much more interesting than the usual listings of the Ten Taboos commonly used in Sunday schools. The uncivilized and primitive - as well as petty - nature of these admonitions is much more obvious when the name of a minor Near Eastern deity is used instead of the grandiose and abstract "the Lord." Then too, the implicit toleration of slavery in this code is more obvious when "servant" is replaced by "slave" - more accurately representing the meaning of the Hebrew text. Finally, replacing the wishy-washy word "covet" with "cast an evil eye" underscores the abysmal ignorance and superstition of the author of this code.......

If this third set of the Big Ten were displayed, the cultic origins of the so-called moral code would be a bit more obvious. What moral quality is a Gentile going to perceive in abstaining from Goat Stroganoff? It would make it clear that the Decalogue is really just a "Jewish thing," replete with animal sacrifice, special festivals, and opportunities for priests to parasitize the people. (Who do you think ends up eating all those firstfruits and first-borns?) It also should underscore the religious intolerance behind the Ten Commandments, thus highlighting the un-American nature of the code.......