Conservative point of view

Give a man a fish & he'll eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish & he'll eat for a lifetime.

Liberal point of view

Tax a man for fishing.
Use his fish to feed your constituency.
Regulate fishing in such a way that he can no longer make a profit fishing &
goes out of business.
Give him a fish so he can eat.
Then, give him a tax return as if you had taxed him for the fish you gave
him.
Then, raise his taxes because he has more fish now.
Subsidize the failing fishing industry.
Raise taxes to pay for subsidizing the failing fishing industry.
Pass a law creating more fish.
Fund a three year study to find out whether fishing causes global warming.
Give some of his fish to illegal aliens.
What the hell, they're voting now too right?
Pump money into a failed education system for socialization programs, so his
children will feel good about themselves and others whether they have fish
or not, yet be so illiterate that they will believe this system to be
optimal.

I voted for Barry Goldwater, you thick skulled cretin, who would now be
considered a liberal. Do you remember ol' price and wage control Nixon?
Before the hogs in a trough Dixiecrates joined the Republicans, they had
a shred of decency. Face it. The last two elections were stolen by Bush,
a third of the population thinks he had a hand in 9/11
(http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll), his base is raking in the blood
soaked dough hand over fist, and you want to play Newt Gingrich? I'm
sure you know where you can go and what to do. We are all in this
together you ....... Where is your tax money going, into infrastructure?
Follow the money. Bin Laden is our boy. We gave him the money, the guns,
the boots, and the opportunity. We gave Saddam the freakin' gas. Who do
you think the great Satan is? Hello? Read your freakin' history. The
naked theft of native American land, the "Green Mountain Rebellion" in
Vermont, the "arranged" Mexican American War where we took half of
Mexico, the Hay Market Massacre, the over throw of Arbenze in Guatemala
for defying United Fruit, the annexation of Hawaii, the murder of
Salvador Allende, the over through of Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq
by Kermit Roosevelt and the installation of the Shaw, Vietnam,
Nicaragua, El Salvador, the attempt on Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and
Lebanon all point in one very ugly direction. Greedy, self-severing,
grasping American Capitalists leading us on to the new "American
Empire". For God's sake man, grow up and get a clue.

_ Bill

"A man who would give up some of his liberty for security deserves
neither." - Ben Franklin


In article >,
"Gottaluvbush" > wrote:

> Conservative point of view
>
> Give a man a fish & he'll eat for a day.
> Teach a man to fish & he'll eat for a lifetime.
>
> Liberal point of view
>
> Tax a man for fishing.
> Use his fish to feed your constituency.
> Regulate fishing in such a way that he can no longer make a profit fishing &
> goes out of business.
> Give him a fish so he can eat.
> Then, give him a tax return as if you had taxed him for the fish you gave
> him.
> Then, raise his taxes because he has more fish now.
> Subsidize the failing fishing industry.
> Raise taxes to pay for subsidizing the failing fishing industry.
> Pass a law creating more fish.
> Fund a three year study to find out whether fishing causes global warming.
> Give some of his fish to illegal aliens.
> What the hell, they're voting now too right?
> Pump money into a failed education system for socialization programs, so his
> children will feel good about themselves and others whether they have fish
> or not, yet be so illiterate that they will believe this system to be
> optimal.

Gottaluvbush wrote:

> Conservative point of view

Right. Just like in real life. That fearlessly independent
cowboy of lore and legend who exemplifies the America of
imagination, of long-ago, and never was.

> Give a man a fish & he'll eat for a day.
> Teach a man to fish & he'll eat for a lifetime.

Lately, it's been more like "steal a fish..."

And this kind of "bumper-sticker philosophy" is what has
marked this administration. Well, that and the character
assassination and swift-boatery. "For Brutus is an honorable
man..."

But conservatives in congress have slashed the budgets for
all educational programs. No fish-catching lessons
available. And because we now have the highest deficit in
history - all of human history - never been a bigger debt
than this administration has created. More than *all*
previous American administrations combined, there's no money
to invest in the future education of our citizenry. So we've
brilliantly reduced taxes... and gone on the biggest
spending spree in history, with 20,000 Americans dead or
wounded in Iraq and 5 times that many Iraqis, and nothing
constructive to show for it. "The war in Iraq will cost
about $80 Billion," said the administration. We're over $300
Billion and still counting.

What lessons have emerged about making a living have come
from Enron, Adelphia, Tyco, big oil ($18 *Billion* in
*profit* in the last quarter for Exxon and BP). While we
have the highest gas prices ever (have you noticed them
coming down - just in time for the elections) and the
housing market has started to tube. Halliburton is a good
lesson for how to overcharge the government - that's our
taxes they're playing with

It's this conservative administration that has decided that
the president has blanket powers to do anything he wants.
Torture, detain people without due process, tap phones
without court sanction, check your freakin library choices,
fer crissakes. Oh, sure. Small government, they say. More
government employees than ever before. They restored all the
cuts from the previous 8 years and added thousands more

Wanna talk about Katrina and what a swell job this
administration did and is still doing? A year later and they
still don't have their act together. People's lives
demolished when they should have reasonably been able to
expect some help, based on what was said back at the
beginning of it all from Washington - and none forthcoming.
Spend limitless money for bombs and bullets, and little for
afflicted Americans.

And my absolute favorite ploy from Cheney who says that it's
treasonous to be critical of the president. Funny how that
"conservative" principle didn't seem to apply when Clinton
was president. Here's a guy who wants to legislate that
marriage is between a man and a woman and his own daughter
is a *******. More important to pander to the voter base
than to be true to family.

> Liberal point of view

The liberal point of view is how people are more important
than all that empty conservative talk about principles that
falls apart when the money starts flowing. Abramoff, Scooter
Libby, Duke Cunningham, the 14th street gang...

Liberals are the ones that created Social Security that this
administration is trying to castrate. The plan takes in more
than it spends, so why not just leave that money in SS and
invest it? That way, there'll never be a shortfall. Instead,
the extra goes into the general fund and gets spent so
there's no backup. Brilliant.

The liberal point of view is what formed this country. The
declaration and constitution are the most liberal political
documents in history. The conservatives were the ones that
wanted to preserve the monarchy. History.

Read a book that doesn't come with its own crayons.

Final note: If you want to be funny, the humor has to have
some basis in truth. Some element of fact about it. This is
Rush Limbaugh empty-headed partisanship. Complete with all
the mean-spirited distortion and outright fabrication that
marks him and his ilk. The very simple fact is that the last
three "conservative" administrations have run this country
into being a debtor nation. Reagan built the biggest deficit
up to that time. Then Bush One with his "read my lips - no
new taxes" ended up raising taxes to try to cover the
increased and still increasing debt. Eight years after he
left, we had a treasury surplus. More money coming in than
going out. The BushTwo and it all went into the toilet. So
if you want to talk about bungled financial management,
there's one real good place to be looking. And it's not
where you're trying to say.

I'm truly sorry to bring all these facts into your smug
little joke. Sorry to step on your convulsively funny (!)
bit of humor. But sometimes the truth is ugly and just
squashes the merriment.

You may go now.

Pastorio


> Tax a man for fishing.
> Use his fish to feed your constituency.
> Regulate fishing in such a way that he can no longer make a profit fishing &
> goes out of business.
> Give him a fish so he can eat.
> Then, give him a tax return as if you had taxed him for the fish you gave
> him.
> Then, raise his taxes because he has more fish now.
> Subsidize the failing fishing industry.
> Raise taxes to pay for subsidizing the failing fishing industry.
> Pass a law creating more fish.
> Fund a three year study to find out whether fishing causes global warming.
> Give some of his fish to illegal aliens.
> What the hell, they're voting now too right?
> Pump money into a failed education system for socialization programs, so his
> children will feel good about themselves and others whether they have fish
> or not, yet be so illiterate that they will believe this system to be
> optimal.

William L. Rose

top posted:

> I voted for Barry Goldwater, you thick skulled cretin, who would now be
> considered a liberal. Do you remember ol' price and wage control Nixon?
> Before the hogs in a trough Dixiecrates joined the Republicans, they had
> a shred of decency. Face it. The last two elections were stolen by Bush,
> a third of the population thinks he had a hand in 9/11
> (http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll)

Well that certainly doesn't say much for the population, does it?

--
Craig

William L. Rose wrote:
>>
> _ Bill
>
> "A man who would give up some of his liberty for security deserves
> neither." - Ben Franklin
>

The actual quote is, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor
Safety." Is the liberty for Resident Aliens to call Yemen or check out
bomb-making books really essential?

As for the rest - typical "America bad" nonsense. Judging a long dead
past against an impossible ideal.

One Nation:
Defeated the Axis
Defeated Imperial Sovietism
Feeds the poor of the world.
Does what it can to clean up the messes created by petty tribalist
dictators and venal leaches around the world.

Your list of imperfections is unballanced and myopic.

Greg Zywicki

> The very simple fact is that the last
> three "conservative" administrations have run this country
> into being a debtor nation. Reagan built the biggest deficit
> up to that time. Then Bush One with his "read my lips - no
> new taxes" ended up raising taxes to try to cover the
> increased and still increasing debt. Eight years after he
> left, we had a treasury surplus. More money coming in than
> going out. The BushTwo and it all went into the toilet. So
> if you want to talk about bungled financial management,
> there's one real good place to be looking. And it's not
> where you're trying to say.
>
Since you're plenty smart enough to know that Congress, not the
President, is responsible for what America does with it's money, you
might want to explain why you're pushing a lousy line.

> It's this conservative administration that has decided that
> the president has blanket powers to do anything he wants.
> "Torture", detain "people" without "due process", "tap" phones
> without court sanction, check your freakin library choices,
> fer crissakes.

I added scare quotes, since much or the "torture" is things like
keeping "people" up late, playing loud music, and generally making
their life less than pleasent. Since these "people" are commited to
beheading our children after raping them, I don't lose much sleep over
whether or not they have to sit in the comfy chair, or if their phone
conversations are treated with the same due process as drug deallers
(which have been "tapped without court sanction" for decades.)

> And my absolute favorite ploy from Cheney who says that it's
> treasonous to be critical of the president. Funny how that
> "conservative" principle didn't seem to apply when Clinton
> was president...

....and was not at war with nationless fascists bent on destroying every
one of us, such that he was able to at least eat a dinner without his
detractors telling the enemy, "this guy isn't America. Don't pay any
attention to him. We'll see to it he doesn't succeed."

Sorry, but the Jihadis really are that bad, and the constant message
they get from the disgruntled Gore voter crowd (and that's all this is
ever about - the immature, "He cheated! He cheated!" When the worst you
could say is that he cheated 1 percent harder than Gore) that if they
just hang on, they won't have to worry about the US opposing them
anymore, is actually destructive, could result in our destruction, and
is therefore unpatriotic. It is akin to the isolationism of the 30's
and early 40's that assured the worst element then that they could act
without sanction.

Greg Zywicki

Zywicki wrote:

> The actual quote is, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
> purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor
> Safety." Is the liberty for Resident Aliens to call Yemen or check out
> bomb-making books really essential?

Well yes, it is. I have the liberty to look up bomb making books.
So do you. Why should we be different?

> As for the rest - typical "America bad" nonsense. Judging a long dead
> past against an impossible ideal.

> One Nation:
> Defeated the Axis

With its allies.

> Defeated Imperial Sovietism

> Feeds the poor of the world.

Whilst bombing part of the world.

> Does what it can to clean up the messes created by petty tribalist
> dictators and venal leaches around the world.

Whilst invading countries as it sees fit.

--
Craig

Craig Welch wrote:
> Zywicki wrote:
>
> > The actual quote is, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
> > purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor
> > Safety." Is the liberty for Resident Aliens to call Yemen or check out
> > bomb-making books really essential?
>
> Well yes, it is. I have the liberty to look up bomb making books.
> So do you. Why should we be different?

Because at this particular time, we've got an enemy with agents on our
soil trying to find ways to kill as many of us as possible. The right
to speak, own property, and worship (or not) are essential. The right
to borrow a book from the municipal government without raising a red
flag isn't.
>
> > As for the rest - typical "America bad" nonsense. Judging a long dead
> > past against an impossible ideal.
>
> > One Nation:
> > Defeated the Axis
>
> With its allies.
>
Who admit they couldn't have done it without us

> Feeds the poor of the world.
>
> Whilst bombing part of the world.

In a targetted fashion, with a specific goal, and in a way that seeks
to minimize casualties

>
> > Does what it can to clean up the messes created by petty tribalist
> > dictators and venal leaches around the world.
>
> Whilst invading countries as it sees fit.
>
In accordance with stated international accords, regardless of whether
those making the accords thought it would go that far or meant what
they said.

Like I said - judging against an unrealistic standard that no action is
better than an action that might hurt some.

Zywicki wrote:
> > The very simple fact is that the last
> > three "conservative" administrations have run this country
> > into being a debtor nation. Reagan built the biggest deficit
> > up to that time. Then Bush One with his "read my lips - no
> > new taxes" ended up raising taxes to try to cover the
> > increased and still increasing debt. Eight years after he
> > left, we had a treasury surplus. More money coming in than
> > going out. The BushTwo and it all went into the toilet. So
> > if you want to talk about bungled financial management,
> > there's one real good place to be looking. And it's not
> > where you're trying to say.
> >
> Since you're plenty smart enough to know that Congress, not the
> President, is responsible for what America does with it's money, you
> might want to explain why you're pushing a lousy line.
>
> > It's this conservative administration that has decided that
> > the president has blanket powers to do anything he wants.
> > "Torture", detain "people" without "due process", "tap" phones
> > without court sanction, check your freakin library choices,
> > fer crissakes.
>
> I added scare quotes, since much or the "torture" is things like
> keeping "people" up late, playing loud music, and generally making
> their life less than pleasent. Since these "people" are commited to
> beheading our children after raping them, I don't lose much sleep over
> whether or not they have to sit in the comfy chair, or if their phone
> conversations are treated with the same due process as drug deallers
> (which have been "tapped without court sanction" for decades.)
>
> > And my absolute favorite ploy from Cheney who says that it's
> > treasonous to be critical of the president. Funny how that
> > "conservative" principle didn't seem to apply when Clinton
> > was president...
>
> ...and was not at war with nationless fascists bent on destroying every
> one of us, such that he was able to at least eat a dinner without his
> detractors telling the enemy, "this guy isn't America. Don't pay any
> attention to him. We'll see to it he doesn't succeed."
>
> Sorry, but the Jihadis really are that bad, and the constant message
> they get from the disgruntled Gore voter crowd (and that's all this is
> ever about - the immature, "He cheated! He cheated!" When the worst you
> could say is that he cheated 1 percent harder than Gore) that if they
> just hang on, they won't have to worry about the US opposing them
> anymore, is actually destructive, could result in our destruction, and
> is therefore unpatriotic. It is akin to the isolationism of the 30's
> and early 40's that assured the worst element then that they could act
> without sanction.
>
> Greg Zywicki

Well said Greg. Thank you. Man, I hope you have a poncho on. You're
going to get whined on.

Gottaluvbush wrote:
> Conservative point of view
>
> Give a man a fish & he'll eat for a day.
> Teach a man to fish & he'll eat for a lifetime.

Then allow him to overfish until the population of fish that many
people rely on are dead. Complain that the fisheries are no longer
making obscene profits and now need federal subsidies. Pass tax laws
that tax working class citizens at a much higher rate than wealthy
investors have to pay. Complain that everything is Bill Clintons fault,
despite the fact that he hasn't been in office for over five years now.

> Liberal point of view
>
> Tax a man for fishing.

As far as I know, fishing isn't taxed. There may be a permit required
in some places, but this is the choice of the land owner.

If the fisherman makes a profit off of commerce in sea-food, then he
should pay taxes like everyone else.

> Use his fish to feed your constituency.

The fact is that the taxes gained from these efforts do not even cover
the losses the commercial fisheies are foisting on the rest of the
public.

> Regulate fishing in such a way that he can no longer make a profit fishing &
> goes out of business.

Fortunately, Democrats also favor public education that covers proper
English grammar. However, I digress. With many food fish species being
overfished, it is necessay to have some regulation, or there will be no
more fish. No more fish means no more commercial fisheries. Already,
many important food fish species are at historically low levels and
falling. If we continued with Republican disregard for the environment,
they would soon be extinct, or at such a low level as to put commercial
fisheries out of business.

> Give him a fish so he can eat.

People who are starving should be fed. We have far more than enough
resources to do this if we don't squander and destroy them to make a
quick, but short term profit.

> Then, give him a tax return as if you had taxed him for the fish you gave
> him.
> Then, raise his taxes because he has more fish now.

Apparently you are having problems with reality. Income is taxed by the
federal government, but property is not.

> Subsidize the failing fishing industry.

Actually it is the Republicans who are always pushing for subsidies for
commercial efforts. These subsidies include tax abatements, direct
finding, as well as leasing public land at below market prices. Also,
it is very well know that "red states" receive more federal money than
they pay in, while "blue states" pay more than they recieve. It is the
Republicans who suckle to frequently from the federal teat, and
Republicans who are subsidized by the Democrats. Sorry to let reality
**** on your fantasy parade.

> Raise taxes to pay for subsidizing the failing fishing industry.

No, we don't need to raise taxes, but we certainly didn't need to cut
capital investment taxes in half (to a rate significantly below what
the average worker pays.) Indeed, by doing so, we have created a
deficit under the Republican administration, while under the last
Democratic administration we had a surplus. In addition to this, the
Republicans have out-spent the Democrats by a VERY wide margin, leading
to not only deficits, but record high deficits. The recent Republican
deficits have been so high that they are adding significantly to the
rate of inflation, making everyones dollar worth less.

> Pass a law creating more fish.

No, we want to pass laws that limit fishing to sustainable levels, so
there can continue to be profitable commercial fisheries for many years
to come, instead of a very profitable one for only a few more years.

> Fund a three year study to find out whether fishing causes global warming.

Wake up, you are dreaming again.

> Give some of his fish to illegal aliens.

George W. Bush favors amnesty for illeagal immigrants, but somehow this
is Clinton's fault, right ?

> What the hell, they're voting now too right?

If they are voting, then they are not illegal aliens. Either way,
apparently you are upset because they speak better English than you do.

> Pump money into a failed education system for socialization programs, so his
> children will feel good about themselves and others whether they have fish
> or not, yet be so illiterate that they will believe this system to be
> optimal.

I'll agree that whatever education system you went through is a
failure, but most public schools do a decent job. They are rarely the
best, but they do better the equally funded charter schools, which are
the "Republican solution".

Dean G.

"Zywicki" > wrote in
oups.com:

>
> Craig Welch wrote:
>> Zywicki wrote:
>>
>> > The actual quote is, "Those who would give up Essential
>> > Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve
>> > neither Liberty nor Safety." Is the liberty for
>> > Resident Aliens to call Yemen or check out bomb-making
>> > books really essential?
>>
>> Well yes, it is. I have the liberty to look up bomb making
>> books. So do you. Why should we be different?
>
> Because at this particular time, we've got an enemy with
> agents on our soil trying to find ways to kill as many of
> us as possible. The right to speak, own property, and
> worship (or not) are essential. The right to borrow a book
> from the municipal government without raising a red flag
> isn't.

yes, it is!

>> > As for the rest - typical "America bad" nonsense.
>> > Judging a long dead past against an impossible ideal.
>>
>> > One Nation:
>> > Defeated the Axis
>>
>> With its allies.
>>
> Who admit they couldn't have done it without us
>
>> Feeds the poor of the world.
>>
>> Whilst bombing part of the world.
>
> In a targetted fashion, with a specific goal, and in a way
> that seeks to minimize casualties

what is the specific goal? why are we killing so many Iraqi
civilians? why are we in Iraq at all, for that matter? Bin
Laden & his cohorts are in *Afghanistan*, you know, that
country Bush seems to ignore? while Saddam was a nasty
dictator, the US put him in power *and* neither he or his
country had anything to do with the terrorist attacks on the
US. while Saddam was in power there *were no terrorists* in
Iraq. he had zero plans of attacking the US, and no WMDs. so
what the hell are we doing invading a sovereign nation FOR NO
GOOD REASON (except to grab the oil & employ Halliburton)?

lee
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if
there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of
blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson

Zywicki wrote:
> > The very simple fact is that the last
> > three "conservative" administrations have run this country
> > into being a debtor nation. Reagan built the biggest deficit
> > up to that time. Then Bush One with his "read my lips - no
> > new taxes" ended up raising taxes to try to cover the
> > increased and still increasing debt. Eight years after he
> > left, we had a treasury surplus. More money coming in than
> > going out. The BushTwo and it all went into the toilet. So
> > if you want to talk about bungled financial management,
> > there's one real good place to be looking. And it's not
> > where you're trying to say.
> >
> Since you're plenty smart enough to know that Congress, not the
> President, is responsible for what America does with it's money, you
> might want to explain why you're pushing a lousy line.


It is because George W. Bush is the leader of a Republican
adimistration that has controlled both the White House and Congress
during this period. There was a time when Republicans spoke of
"personal responsibility", but that time is saddly gone.

>
> > It's this conservative administration that has decided that
> > the president has blanket powers to do anything he wants.
> > "Torture", detain "people" without "due process", "tap" phones
> > without court sanction, check your freakin library choices,
> > fer crissakes.
>
> I added scare quotes, since much or the "torture" is things like
> keeping "people" up late, playing loud music, and generally making
> their life less than pleasent. Since these "people" are commited to
> beheading our children after raping them, I don't lose much sleep over
> whether or not they have to sit in the comfy chair, or if their phone
> conversations are treated with the same due process as drug deallers
> (which have been "tapped without court sanction" for decades.)

First, I am not aware of a single case of one of the people in
Guantanamo having beheaded and then raped a child. If they were, then
there should be no problem taking them to trial and convicting them.
Why do Republicans always resort to fantasy scare tactics to support
their point ? Is there no real events to support them ?

Second, drug dealler are tapped without sanction from the courts
because the tappers get a warrant. It is just that simple. Under FISA,
terrorists and terrorist suspects can be tapped as long as you get a
warrant. To make it easier, you do not even need to do this until AFTER
the line is tapped. Another false problem invented by an administartion
that needs someone to blame for their failures.

Finally, I note you list the mildest things that might qualifiy as
tortue, but leave out near-drowning of people, mock execution,s beating
people, occasionally to death, and many other things which have been
used by American forces. Sorry, but this is not how I would spread
"American values" across the globe.

>
> > And my absolute favorite ploy from Cheney who says that it's
> > treasonous to be critical of the president. Funny how that
> > "conservative" principle didn't seem to apply when Clinton
> > was president...
>
> ...and was not at war with nationless fascists bent on destroying every
> one of us, such that he was able to at least eat a dinner without his
> detractors telling the enemy, "this guy isn't America. Don't pay any
> attention to him. We'll see to it he doesn't succeed."

Fascist : an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian
views.

Fascism : A philosophy or system of government that is marked by
stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government
usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent
nationalism.

Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Islamists are bad, but they are not fascists. Republicans prefer this
term to "religious wackos" because they do not want to offend their
base.

>
> Sorry, but the Jihadis really are that bad, and the constant message
> they get from the disgruntled Gore voter crowd (and that's all this is
> ever about - the immature, "He cheated! He cheated!" When the worst you
> could say is that he cheated 1 percent harder than Gore) that if they
> just hang on, they won't have to worry about the US opposing them
> anymore, is actually destructive, could result in our destruction, and
> is therefore unpatriotic. It is akin to the isolationism of the 30's
> and early 40's that assured the worst element then that they could act
> without sanction.

The Jihadis are that bad, but there are not more of them because of the
policies of the current administration. He has done more to help them
than to harm them. Iraq was a secular dictatorship before we invaded.
They had no WMDs and were not a threat to Americans. They had nothing
to do with 9/11. Now Iraq is a hotbed of Jihadism, and has helped
Jihadis elsewhere in their recruitment efforts.

Not only is the Republican strategy not working, it has been
counter-productive. We are on the wrong course, but the only Republican
"solution" is to "stay the course". This is a strategy only for
continued failure.

Dean G.

"Dean G." > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Gottaluvbush wrote:
> > Conservative point of view
> >
> > Give a man a fish & he'll eat for a day.
> > Teach a man to fish & he'll eat for a lifetime.
>
> Then allow him to overfish until the population of fish that many
> people rely on are dead. Complain that the fisheries are no longer
> making obscene profits and now need federal subsidies. Pass tax laws
> that tax working class citizens at a much higher rate than wealthy
> investors have to pay. Complain that everything is Bill Clintons fault,
> despite the fact that he hasn't been in office for over five years now.
>

Woooooooooooooo Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Amen, brother.

cybercat wrote:
> > Then allow him to overfish until the population of fish that many
> > people rely on are dead. Complain that the fisheries are no longer
> > making obscene profits and now need federal subsidies. Pass tax laws
> > that tax working class citizens at a much higher rate than wealthy
> > investors have to pay. Complain that everything is Bill Clintons fault,
> > despite the fact that he hasn't been in office for over five years now.
> >
>
> Woooooooooooooo Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
>
> Amen, brother.

I may have to divorce DH and marry this guy....

-L.

Dean G. wrote:
>> > Since you're plenty smart enough to know that Congress, not the
> > President, is responsible for what America does with it's money, you
> > might want to explain why you're pushing a lousy line.
>
>
> It is because George W. Bush is the leader of a Republican
> adimistration that has controlled both the White House and Congress
> during this period. There was a time when Republicans spoke of
> "personal responsibility", but that time is saddly gone.
>
>

You're not Pastorio, are you? Regardless, Congress is not the Bush
Administration.


> > > It's this conservative administration that has decided that
> > > the president has blanket powers to do anything he wants.
> > > "Torture", detain "people" without "due process", "tap" phones
> > > without court sanction, check your freakin library choices,
> > > fer crissakes.
> >
>
> First, I am not aware of a single case of one of the people in
> Guantanamo having beheaded and then raped a child. If they were, then
> there should be no problem taking them to trial and convicting them.

They were intercepted by our troops in a military action and therefore
there's no jurisprudence invlolved.

> Why do Republicans always resort to fantasy scare tactics to support
> their point ? Is there no real events to support them ?

Ok, the raping and then beheading thing was a bit extreme. I conflated
two common events (a high occurance of homosexual pedophilia in the
arab world and the often displayed glee for beheading.) I suppose I
should just say that the folks in Guantanemo _may_ want to rape our
children, and would behead them if given the chance.

> Second, drug dealler are tapped without sanction from the courts
> because the tappers get a warrant. It is just that simple. Under FISA,
> terrorists and terrorist suspects can be tapped as long as you get a
> warrant. To make it easier, you do not even need to do this until AFTER
> the line is tapped. Another false problem invented by an administartion
> that needs someone to blame for their failures.

Except that the administration asserts that the president can, as
commander in cheif, do this in times of war against a foreign enemy.
The court doesn't agree. Big deal. Doesn't make them correct.

> Finally, I note you list the mildest things that might qualifiy as
> tortue, but leave out near-drowning of people,

BOO HOO
> mock execution,s

Again, BOO HOO

>beating people, occasionally to death

resulting in courts martial, so it doesn't seem to be something that's
allowed.
> and many other things which have been
> used by American forces.

Like humiliating photography. Boo hoo. Please, mr. big bad american,
don't put me naked in a room with a dog and take a photo. Behead me
instead as I would do to you.
Boo hoo.
>
> >
> > > And my absolute favorite ploy from Cheney who says that it's
> > > treasonous to be critical of the president. Funny how that
> > > "conservative" principle didn't seem to apply when Clinton
> > > was president...
> >
> > ...and was not at war with nationless fascists bent on destroying every
> > one of us, such that he was able to at least eat a dinner without his
> > detractors telling the enemy, "this guy isn't America. Don't pay any
> > attention to him. We'll see to it he doesn't succeed."
>
> Fascist : an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian
> views.

Such as the authoritarian Islam where all law is Sharia.

> Fascism : A philosophy or system of government that is marked by
> stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government
> usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent
> nationalism.

As the Wahabis and Iranian Shi'ites seek to establish.

>
> Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
> merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Well, he would know better than us but I don't think his has to be the
final word.

> Islamists are bad, but they are not fascists.

They walk and quack like it.

> Republicans prefer this term to "religious wackos" because they do not want to offend > their base.

Becuase their base is a bunch of stupid walmart nascarians who can't
see the difference between people who want to keep women from getting a
particular elective surgery and those who force women into non-elective
desexualization and enforced beatings.
>
> >
> > Sorry, but the Jihadis really are that bad, and the constant message
> > they get from the disgruntled Gore voter crowd (and that's all this is
> > ever about - the immature, "He cheated! He cheated!" When the worst you
> > could say is that he cheated 1 percent harder than Gore) that if they
> > just hang on, they won't have to worry about the US opposing them
> > anymore, is actually destructive, could result in our destruction, and
> > is therefore unpatriotic. It is akin to the isolationism of the 30's
> > and early 40's that assured the worst element then that they could act
> > without sanction.
>
> The Jihadis are that bad, but there are not more of them because of the
> policies of the current administration.

You mean, "a lot," I think.

> He has done more to help them
> than to harm them.

Right. The Madrassas and training camps and the rocket factories that
have been growing for a decade and a half are a result of time
travelling Bush hating Jihadists.

> Iraq was a secular dictatorship before we invaded.
> They had no WMDs

Sure they did. Joe Wilson has been shown to be a liar.

> and were not a threat to Americans.

Unless that American was flying an airplane enforcing UN resolutions.

> They had nothing
> to do with 9/11. Now Iraq is a hotbed of Jihadism, and has helped
> Jihadis elsewhere in their recruitment efforts.

Right. The 9/11 hijackers killed people based on a unkown desire to
hurt America. It had nothing to do with our military presence in Saudi
Arabia to maintain and enforce the gulf war treaties. There is no
connection at all between the genocidal, treaty breaking, weapons
collecting, Terrorist sponsoring Hussein regime and the 19 hijackers,
because Hussein didn't call them up and say, "Pretty please, hurt
America." We could have just ignored 9/11 and kept our troops in SA
and enforced the sanctions that had starved a generation of Iraqis
because, hey, what are the chances that they'd try again?

> Not only is the Republican strategy not working, it has been
> counter-productive. We are on the wrong course, but the only Republican
> "solution" is to "stay the course". This is a strategy only for
> continued failure.

Like many thing America does, it's the least worst option, and is often
the result of our supposed allies (I'm looking at you, Turkey) giving
in to craven self interest.

Greg Zywicki

enigma wrote:
> "Zywicki" > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
> >
> > Craig Welch wrote:
> >> Zywicki wrote:
> >>
> >> > The actual quote is, "Those who would give up Essential
> >> > Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve
> >> > neither Liberty nor Safety." Is the liberty for
> >> > Resident Aliens to call Yemen or check out bomb-making
> >> > books really essential?
> >>
> >> Well yes, it is. I have the liberty to look up bomb making
> >> books. So do you. Why should we be different?
> >
> > Because at this particular time, we've got an enemy with
> > agents on our soil trying to find ways to kill as many of
> > us as possible. The right to speak, own property, and
> > worship (or not) are essential. The right to borrow a book
> > from the municipal government without raising a red flag
> > isn't.
>
> yes, it is!
>

Why, exactly? Why is it Essential? Try to answer without Hyperbole or
Slippery Slope arguments.

> > In a targetted fashion, with a specific goal, and in a way
> > that seeks to minimize casualties
>
> what is the specific goal?

Transforming a dictatorship into a working democracy so we don't have
to oversee treaty obligations or sanctions.

> why are we killing so many Iraqi
> civilians?

Bad luck on their part, plus no way to tell who's a civilian and who's
a terrorist.
> why are we in Iraq at all, for that matter?

Because Hussein invaded Kuwait.

> Bin Laden & his cohorts are in *Afghanistan*, you know, that
> country Bush seems to ignore?

I think the families of servicemen that have died there recently don't
agree.

> while Saddam was a nasty
> dictator, the US put him in power *and* neither he or his
> country had anything to do with the terrorist attacks on the
> US. while Saddam was in power there *were no terrorists* in
> Iraq.

Except for those training camps we found. And that Zarqawi fellow.

>he had zero plans of attacking the US, and no WMDs...

Yeah, he did.

> so
> what the hell are we doing invading a sovereign nation FOR NO
> GOOD REASON (except to grab the oil & employ Halliburton)?

Right. No good reason. Leave the Irqais to their sanctions. Hussein
was lying about having weapons and probably wouldn't have used them if
he had them. We could have known this with our psychic powers. In
fact, Clinton did know this and so when he called for Regime change and
told us Hussein had weapons, he was lying. We should have known he was
lying, since his lips were moving.

Greg Zywicki

Zywicki wrote:
> Dean G. wrote:
> >> > Since you're plenty smart enough to know that Congress, not the
> > > President, is responsible for what America does with it's money, you
> > > might want to explain why you're pushing a lousy line.
> >
> >
> > It is because George W. Bush is the leader of a Republican
> > adimistration that has controlled both the White House and Congress
> > during this period. There was a time when Republicans spoke of
> > "personal responsibility", but that time is saddly gone.
> >
> >
>
> You're not Pastorio, are you? Regardless, Congress is not the Bush
> Administration.
>

Nope. I always post as Dean G. Same old me.

>
> > > > It's this conservative administration that has decided that
> > > > the president has blanket powers to do anything he wants.
> > > > "Torture", detain "people" without "due process", "tap" phones
> > > > without court sanction, check your freakin library choices,
> > > > fer crissakes.
> > >
> >
> > First, I am not aware of a single case of one of the people in
> > Guantanamo having beheaded and then raped a child. If they were, then
> > there should be no problem taking them to trial and convicting them.
>
> They were intercepted by our troops in a military action and therefore
> there's no jurisprudence invlolved.
>
> > Why do Republicans always resort to fantasy scare tactics to support
> > their point ? Is there no real events to support them ?
>
> Ok, the raping and then beheading thing was a bit extreme. I conflated
> two common events (a high occurance of homosexual pedophilia in the
> arab world and the often displayed glee for beheading.) I suppose I
> should just say that the folks in Guantanemo _may_ want to rape our
> children, and would behead them if given the chance.
>
> > Second, drug dealler are tapped without sanction from the courts
> > because the tappers get a warrant. It is just that simple. Under FISA,
> > terrorists and terrorist suspects can be tapped as long as you get a
> > warrant. To make it easier, you do not even need to do this until AFTER
> > the line is tapped. Another false problem invented by an administartion
> > that needs someone to blame for their failures.
>
> Except that the administration asserts that the president can, as
> commander in cheif, do this in times of war against a foreign enemy.
> The court doesn't agree. Big deal. Doesn't make them correct.

The Republican administration could solve the "problem" quickly and
efficiently by just getting warrants. Why don't the Republicans want to
get warrants ? Do they have something to hide ? Are they against the
American value of due process ? Do they have the Constitution ? Are
they against the rule of law ? The courts are right, and Constitution
is right, and there is no reason at all for the Republicans to behave
like a bunch of spoiled brats over this issue.

>
> > Finally, I note you list the mildest things that might qualifiy as
> > tortue, but leave out near-drowning of people,
>
> BOO HOO

So you wouldn't mind if people did this to you ? Apparently you also
don't care about what happens to American troops. While the Republicans
loudly claim to support the troops, their real actions have been to cut
veteran's benefits, and set precedences that endanger our troops.

> > mock execution,s
>
> Again, BOO HOO

Another precendent.

>
> >beating people, occasionally to death
>
> resulting in courts martial, so it doesn't seem to be something that's
> allowed.

While it was not official allowed, until there was great outcry from
Americans and our allies, this practice was overlooked with such total
disregard as to warrant being called officially sanctioned.


> > and many other things which have been
> > used by American forces.
>
> Like humiliating photography. Boo hoo. Please, mr. big bad american,
> don't put me naked in a room with a dog and take a photo. Behead me
> instead as I would do to you.
> Boo hoo.

The more you hate an enemy, the easier it is to commit attocities
against them. You don't seem to care about other people, and then
wonder "Why do they hate us." One of the reason more Muslims hate us
today is because of American actions like these. By condoning these
actions, you are indirectly encoraging the terrorists. I hope you feel
good about that, because many Americans are now in far more danger
because of attitudes like yours.

> >
> > >
> > > > And my absolute favorite ploy from Cheney who says that it's
> > > > treasonous to be critical of the president. Funny how that
> > > > "conservative" principle didn't seem to apply when Clinton
> > > > was president...
> > >
> > > ...and was not at war with nationless fascists bent on destroying every
> > > one of us, such that he was able to at least eat a dinner without his
> > > detractors telling the enemy, "this guy isn't America. Don't pay any
> > > attention to him. We'll see to it he doesn't succeed."
> >
> > Fascist : an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian
> > views.
>
> Such as the authoritarian Islam where all law is Sharia.

Close, but not exactly. Sharia law is often handled by local qadis or
whatever they call them, and lack the strong central rule implied by
authoritarianism.

>
> > Fascism : A philosophy or system of government that is marked by
> > stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government
> > usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent
> > nationalism.
>
> As the Wahabis and Iranian Shi'ites seek to establish.

Most of the Jihadis are not welcome by these countries, because these
countries correctly recognize the Jihadis as a threat to their rule.
The Jihadis simply do not have a "strong, centralized government".

> >
> > Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
> > merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
>
> Well, he would know better than us but I don't think his has to be the
> final word.
>
> > Islamists are bad, but they are not fascists.
>
> They walk and quack like it.

No, people are just using the term because they are more familiar with
it. They neither do the goose step, nor do they call their leader "Il
Duce". They do not believe in a merger of state and corporate power (a
primary characteristic of fascism in Europe). Republicans like the term
because it is currently ok to hate fascists, and they want to project
that hatred onto their enemies.

>
> > Republicans prefer this term to "religious wackos" because they do not want to offend > their base.
>
> Becuase their base is a bunch of stupid walmart nascarians who can't
> see the difference between people who want to keep women from getting a
> particular elective surgery and those who force women into non-elective
> desexualization and enforced beatings.
> >
> > >
> > > Sorry, but the Jihadis really are that bad, and the constant message
> > > they get from the disgruntled Gore voter crowd (and that's all this is
> > > ever about - the immature, "He cheated! He cheated!" When the worst you
> > > could say is that he cheated 1 percent harder than Gore) that if they
> > > just hang on, they won't have to worry about the US opposing them
> > > anymore, is actually destructive, could result in our destruction, and
> > > is therefore unpatriotic. It is akin to the isolationism of the 30's
> > > and early 40's that assured the worst element then that they could act
> > > without sanction.
> >
> > The Jihadis are that bad, but there are not more of them because of the
> > policies of the current administration.
>
> You mean, "a lot," I think.

I meant "now: instead of "not". Close enough. I'm not sure there are "a
lot" more of them, but there are more, and they are more willing to be
public about it, in part because the US military is tied up in Iraq,
blunting our influence everywhere else.

>
> > He has done more to help them
> > than to harm them.
>
> Right. The Madrassas and training camps and the rocket factories that
> have been growing for a decade and a half are a result of time
> travelling Bush hating Jihadists.
>
> > Iraq was a secular dictatorship before we invaded.
> > They had no WMDs
>
> Sure they did. Joe Wilson has been shown to be a liar.

Really ? I have heard the claim, but not seen any evidence. It seems
the Armitage is the current scape-goat, but the record still shows
other leaks before the publication of Plame's identity.

>
> > and were not a threat to Americans.
>
> Unless that American was flying an airplane enforcing UN resolutions.


Granted, but this is a smaller threat that we will have once the
Jihadis in Iraq start spreading out over the world, like Al-Qaeda did
after Afghanistan-Soviet issue. Al-Qaeda came from a group of people
the US aided in fighting the Soviets. The "training" and experience
they received in that conflict is what made them dangerous. Now much
the same thing is happening in Iraq. We have made the world a far more
dangerous place by our actions in Iraq.

>
> > They had nothing
> > to do with 9/11. Now Iraq is a hotbed of Jihadism, and has helped
> > Jihadis elsewhere in their recruitment efforts.
>
> Right. The 9/11 hijackers killed people based on a unkown desire to
> hurt America. It had nothing to do with our military presence in Saudi
> Arabia to maintain and enforce the gulf war treaties. There is no
> connection at all between the genocidal, treaty breaking, weapons
> collecting, Terrorist sponsoring Hussein regime

For a minute I thought you were going to say Republicans. I note that
Reagan supplied weapons to both Iraq and Iran during the Iraq-Iran war.
Donald Rumsfeld (special envoy to the Middle East under Reagan)worked
closely with Saddam Hussein to provide American weapons, training, and
intelligence to Iraq.

Now, we are at war in Iraq, and the Republicans are ready to attack
Iran as well. Maybe, just MAYBE, if the Republicans hadn't been such
knee-jerk warmongers in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess.
why is it that groups the Republicans call allies so frequently turn in
to our worst enemy ? Why have we provided arms, training, and
intelligence to the groups that because Al-Qadea. Why did we provider
arms to the Iranian mullahs ? Why did we provide arms to Saddam ? Ask a
Republican, as they were to ones promoting these action. Now they are
promoting going to war with the same people they once supported. It
doesn't sound like they have been very good leaders, based upon their
actions and the results of their actions.

> and the 19 hijackers,
> because Hussein didn't call them up and say, "Pretty please, hurt
> America." We could have just ignored 9/11 and kept our troops in SA
> and enforced the sanctions that had starved a generation of Iraqis
> because, hey, what are the chances that they'd try again?

They will try again. Next time, people in Iraq might help them, while
last time they did not. Does that sound like an improvement to you ?

>
> > Not only is the Republican strategy not working, it has been
> > counter-productive. We are on the wrong course, but the only Republican
> > "solution" is to "stay the course". This is a strategy only for
> > continued failure.
>
> Like many thing America does, it's the least worst option, and is often
> the result of our supposed allies (I'm looking at you, Turkey) giving
> in to craven self interest.

Maybe Turkey isn't really our ally, just like Iraq wasn't really our
ally during the Reagan years. Let's not repeat the same mistakes that
have given rise to Al-Qaeda. Let's try something else. And yes, there
are better options than staying the course. There are few if any that
are worse.

Dean G.

Yeah, yeah, I knew I had put my foot through it with the quote BUT why
do you insist on living in a "Disneyesque" fantasyland about America (if
I may use that term)? America doesn't go to war for pride but the bottom
line. This isn't a uniquely American characteristic. But why do you try
to pretend that the monied class haven't been userous with the poorer
classes. Now we have corporations using the emergency rooms for employee
health care and public shelters for housing. Just because Hugo Chavez
doesn't want to play with the World Bank is no reason to try and kill
him. It isn't blame America first. It's look in the mirror.

- Bill

Coloribus gustibus non disputatum

In article .com>,
"Zywicki" > wrote:

> William L. Rose wrote:
> >>
> > _ Bill
> >
> > "A man who would give up some of his liberty for security deserves
> > neither." - Ben Franklin
> >
>
> The actual quote is, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
> purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor
> Safety." Is the liberty for Resident Aliens to call Yemen or check out
> bomb-making books really essential?
>
> As for the rest - typical "America bad" nonsense. Judging a long dead
> past against an impossible ideal.
>
> One Nation:
> Defeated the Axis
> Defeated Imperial Sovietism
> Feeds the poor of the world.
> Does what it can to clean up the messes created by petty tribalist
> dictators and venal leaches around the world.
>
> Your list of imperfections is unballanced and myopic.
>
> Greg Zywicki

I am not my government. I am not a plutocrat. Most of the world thinks
that Americans like me are good guys. Then there are the Americans who
worked for the overthrow of democratically elected Mossadeq in Iran in
1953 for oil, the overthrow of Arbenze of Guatemala in 1953 for the
United Fruit Company, and the deaths of Trujillo in Panama, Allende in
Chile, Diem in Vietnam, death squads under Negroponte in Central
America, and have tried to kill Castro, and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
When was the last time that America promoted a democratic government? It
wasn't the Shah, nor Pinochet, nor Somosa, who? We blocked the election
of Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, and look what that brought us. We supported
Suddam. Before he invaded Kuwait, he asked and was given permission.
Rumsfeld is pictured with his arm around Saddam AFTER he gassed the
Kurds. What democracies do we support in the Middle East? Well, there is
Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Good allies bought and payed for with foreign
aid. Egypt, where we send prisoners to be tortured. Ah yes, the master
of the cluster bombs, Israel is our allie for $3 BILLION/year. (What do
you think the reaction would have been if two million Zionists had set
down in the middle of Utah and tried to run everybody off their lands?)
History didn't start yesterday.

This is supposed to be our country folks. We are supposed to think for
ourselves. Respect is supposed to be earned. If you work hard, you are
supposed to be rewarded. Well we had to earn the 5 day week and the 8
hour day by fighting the bosses.

We don't salute the uniform until we become a military state. If we are
a society, then it's all for one and one for all. If not, then it's
everybody for them selves and screw the laws.

- Bill

Mangiamo

In article . com>,
"Zywicki" > wrote:

> enigma wrote:
> > "Zywicki" > wrote in
> > oups.com:
> >
> > >
> > > Craig Welch wrote:
> > >> Zywicki wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > The actual quote is, "Those who would give up Essential
> > >> > Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve
> > >> > neither Liberty nor Safety." Is the liberty for
> > >> > Resident Aliens to call Yemen or check out bomb-making
> > >> > books really essential?
> > >>
> > >> Well yes, it is. I have the liberty to look up bomb making
> > >> books. So do you. Why should we be different?
> > >
> > > Because at this particular time, we've got an enemy with
> > > agents on our soil trying to find ways to kill as many of
> > > us as possible. The right to speak, own property, and
> > > worship (or not) are essential. The right to borrow a book
> > > from the municipal government without raising a red flag
> > > isn't.
> >
> > yes, it is!
> >
>
> Why, exactly? Why is it Essential? Try to answer without Hyperbole or
> Slippery Slope arguments.
>
> > > In a targetted fashion, with a specific goal, and in a way
> > > that seeks to minimize casualties
> >
> > what is the specific goal?
>
> Transforming a dictatorship into a working democracy so we don't have
> to oversee treaty obligations or sanctions.
>
> > why are we killing so many Iraqi
> > civilians?
>
> Bad luck on their part, plus no way to tell who's a civilian and who's
> a terrorist.
> > why are we in Iraq at all, for that matter?
>
> Because Hussein invaded Kuwait.
>
> > Bin Laden & his cohorts are in *Afghanistan*, you know, that
> > country Bush seems to ignore?
>
> I think the families of servicemen that have died there recently don't
> agree.
>
> > while Saddam was a nasty
> > dictator, the US put him in power *and* neither he or his
> > country had anything to do with the terrorist attacks on the
> > US. while Saddam was in power there *were no terrorists* in
> > Iraq.
>
> Except for those training camps we found. And that Zarqawi fellow.
>
> >he had zero plans of attacking the US, and no WMDs...
>
> Yeah, he did.
>
> > so
> > what the hell are we doing invading a sovereign nation FOR NO
> > GOOD REASON (except to grab the oil & employ Halliburton)?
>
> Right. No good reason. Leave the Irqais to their sanctions. Hussein
> was lying about having weapons and probably wouldn't have used them if
> he had them. We could have known this with our psychic powers. In
> fact, Clinton did know this and so when he called for Regime change and
> told us Hussein had weapons, he was lying. We should have known he was
> lying, since his lips were moving.
>
> Greg Zywicki

Gottaluvbush wrote:
> Conservative point of view
>
> Give a man a fish & he'll eat for a day.
> Teach a man to fish & he'll eat for a lifetime.
>

Teach? Naw. It's more like:

Give a democrat a fish and he'll for a day.
And be dead by next election year.

Dean G. wrote:

> > Except that the administration asserts that the president can, as
> > commander in cheif, do this in times of war against a foreign enemy.
> > The court doesn't agree. Big deal. Doesn't make them correct.
>
> The Republican administration could solve the "problem" quickly and
> efficiently by just getting warrants. Why don't the Republicans want to
> get warrants ? The courts are right, and Constitution
> is right, and there is no reason at all for the Republicans to behave
> like a bunch of spoiled brats over this issue.

The administration asserts that as commander in chief he had the right
to do all this in the theater of war.
The constitution doesn't say anything about the rights of non-citizens
on foreign soil. The court basically decided it should say something,
so they'd make it up.

There is no reason for Democrats to act like shrill harpies over this.
There are more vital issues to devote their time to. The main
difference between this and previous administrations is that every pen
stroke is examined for another opportunity to "get" Bush because he
Stole the Election.

> >
> > > Finally, I note you list the mildest things that might qualifiy as
> > > tortue, but leave out near-drowning of people,
> >
> > BOO HOO
>
> So you wouldn't mind if people did this to you ?

I would prefer it to beheading, yes.

> Apparently you also
> don't care about what happens to American troops.

They aren't tortured by our enemies. They are killed and mutilated by
our enemies.

> > > mock execution,s
> >
> > Again, BOO HOO
>
> Another precendent.
>
Pretending to behead someone would be an upgrade.

> >
> > >beating people, occasionally to death
> >
> > resulting in courts martial, so it doesn't seem to be something that's
> > allowed.
>
> While it was not official allowed, until there was great outcry from
> Americans and our allies, this practice was overlooked with such total
> disregard as to warrant being called officially sanctioned.
>
And you have vital proof that undocumented mistreatment occurred.

Oh, that's right, the Al Qaeda prisoners who are trained to allege
every false abuse against their captors said it happened. Subsequent
"investigations" that disproved them were just whitewash campaigns
meant to blame the victim. Typical Rethuglican ploy, right?


> > > and many other things which have been
> > > used by American forces.
> >
> > Like humiliating photography. Boo hoo. Please, mr. big bad american,
> > don't put me naked in a room with a dog and take a photo. Behead me
> > instead as I would do to you.
> > Boo hoo.
>
> The more you hate an enemy, the easier it is to commit attocities
> against them. You don't seem to care about other people, and then
> wonder "Why do they hate us." One of the reason more Muslims hate us
> today is because of American actions like these.

You are firmly in the steaming doltocracy that can't open their eyes to
this fact:

THEY'VE HATED YOU SINCE BIRTH!

They hated you enough to blow stuff up on your shores (Assuming you're
American, British, Spainish, Canadian, Kenyan, Indonesian, or Indian)
WITHOUT PROVOCATION.

You are hated because you're not Muslim (or are you?) and you don't
wrap women in veils and abstain from drink and you laugh out loud in
public and you put photographs on your walls and a hundred other sins.
You must die or be made to submit for these sins.

It isn't geopolitics. It isn't economics. It's basic lifestyle. You
and I are bad and wicked and must be cleansed from the earth.

There is nothing we can do, aside from Die, that will appease them.

> > > Fascist : an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian
> > > views.
> >
> > Such as the authoritarian Islam where all law is Sharia.
>
> Close, but not exactly. Sharia law is often handled by local qadis or
> whatever they call them, and lack the strong central rule implied by
> authoritarianism.

Because the empire was dismantled and the role of (what was the leader
of the ottoman empire called? Oh yeah - Caliph) Caliph set aside for
the time being.
>
> >
> > > Fascism : A philosophy or system of government that is marked by
> > > stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government
> > > usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent
> > > nationalism.
> >
> > As the Wahabis and Iranian Shi'ites seek to establish.
>
> Most of the Jihadis are not welcome by these countries, because these
> countries correctly recognize the Jihadis as a threat to their rule.
> The Jihadis simply do not have a "strong, centralized government".

Neither did the Nazis, the Italian Fascists, or the Baathists until
they took one over.
>
> > >
> > > Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
> > > merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
> >
> > Well, he would know better than us but I don't think his has to be the
> > final word.
> >
> > > Islamists are bad, but they are not fascists.
> >
> > They walk and quack like it.
>
> No, people are just using the term because they are more familiar with
> it. They neither do the goose step, nor do they call their leader "Il
> Duce". They do not believe in a merger of state and corporate power (a
> primary characteristic of fascism in Europe). Republicans like the term
> because it is currently ok to hate fascists, and they want to project
> that hatred onto their enemies.

No, they use it because the enemy wants to establish a thuggish
totalitarian world government and so they don't care about polishing
the point more finely than necessary.


> > > The Jihadis are that bad, but there are now more of them because of the
> > > policies of the current administration.
> > > He has done more to help them
> > > than to harm them.
> >
> > Right. The Madrassas and training camps and the rocket factories that
> > have been growing for a decade and a half are a result of time
> > travelling Bush hating Jihadists.
> >
> > > Iraq was a secular dictatorship before we invaded.
> > > They had no WMDs
> >
> > > and were not a threat to Americans.
> >
> > Unless that American was flying an airplane enforcing UN resolutions.
>
>
> Granted, but this is a smaller threat that we will have once the
> Jihadis in Iraq start spreading out over the world, like Al-Qaeda did
> after Afghanistan-Soviet issue. Al-Qaeda came from a group of people
> the US aided in fighting the Soviets. The "training" and experience
> they received in that conflict is what made them dangerous. Now much
> the same thing is happening in Iraq. We have made the world a far more
> dangerous place by our actions in Iraq.
>
No. Innaction in Iraq for 13 years was all that was necessary to lead
to the senseless death of 2996 INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO DIED IN FLAMES AND
HORROR! What are they going to do now that they didn't want to do
before? Put more nails and anthrax in the pipe bombs? Get more
radioactivey radioactive weapons?

> >
> > > They had nothing
> > > to do with 9/11. Now Iraq is a hotbed of Jihadism, and has helped
> > > Jihadis elsewhere in their recruitment efforts.
> >
> > Right. The 9/11 hijackers killed people based on a unkown desire to
> > hurt America. It had nothing to do with our military presence in Saudi
> > Arabia to maintain and enforce the gulf war treaties. There is no
> > connection at all between the genocidal, treaty breaking, weapons
> > collecting, Terrorist sponsoring Hussein regime
>
> For a minute I thought you were going to say Republicans. I note that
> Reagan supplied weapons to both Iraq and Iran during the Iraq-Iran war.
> Donald Rumsfeld (special envoy to the Middle East under Reagan)worked
> closely with Saddam Hussein to provide American weapons, training, and
> intelligence to Iraq.

Ok. You were an American Citizen then to, right? Or at least a
westerner. You can have the spot in front of me in the beheading line.
>
> Now, we are at war in Iraq, and the Republicans are ready to attack
> Iran as well. Maybe, just MAYBE, if the Republicans hadn't been such
> knee-jerk warmongers in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess.

How many more years and UN resolutions and failled inspection schemes
with venal profit taking treaty suborning "allies" does it take to get
off the "Knee-jerk War Monger" list?

> why is it that groups the Republicans call allies so frequently turn in
> to our worst enemy ? Why have we provided arms, training, and
> intelligence to the groups that because Al-Qadea. Why did we provider
> arms to the Iranian mullahs ? Why did we provide arms to Saddam ? Ask a
> Republican, as they were to ones promoting these action. Now they are
> promoting going to war with the same people they once supported. It
> doesn't sound like they have been very good leaders, based upon their
> actions and the results of their actions.

We should all die for bad cold war foreign policy practiced by (oh no!)
Democratic and Republican administrations. If only Truman's commie
advisors hadn't been treasonous, Stalin might have crumbled. If only
the Archduke had worn a helmet, the Bolsheviks might have been nothing
more than a labor union. If only Katherine Medici had eaten mad
mushrooms one evening, there never would have been a czar. Let us all
submit to Jihad because of past mistakes.

> > and the 19 hijackers,
> > because Hussein didn't call them up and say, "Pretty please, hurt
> > America." We could have just ignored 9/11 and kept our troops in SA
> > and enforced the sanctions that had starved a generation of Iraqis
> > because, hey, what are the chances that they'd try again?
>
> They will try again. Next time, people in Iraq might help them...

More than they did in the past...

> while last time they did not...

In a provable way.

> Does that sound like an improvement to you ?

No. We should have done nothing, like we did when they bombed the WTC
in 93, or when they bombed Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Bali, The USS Cole.
After all, the only differences between those attacks were numbers and
location.

> > Like many thing America does, it's the least worst option, and is often
> > the result of our supposed allies (I'm looking at you, Turkey) giving
> > in to craven self interest.
>
> Maybe Turkey isn't really our ally, just like Iraq wasn't really our
> ally during the Reagan years. Let's not repeat the same mistakes that
> have given rise to Al-Qaeda. Let's try something else.

How is maintaining sanctions and hoping the UN will stage just the
right interpretive dance doing something else?

> And yes, there
> are better options than staying the course. There are few if any that
> are worse.

I've yet to hear any. We could pull out. Let the Shiites and Sunnis
try and kill each other, let the winner take over, and see how much
they like us. We could install a puppet government, but that's what
got us here in the first place. We could flood the region with more
troops, but then you've got the whole, "We are humiliated dailly by
American Pig Dogs!" rhetoric amping up.

So what else is there?

Greg Zywicki

Zywicki wrote:
>> The very simple fact is that the last
>> three "conservative" administrations have run this country
>> into being a debtor nation. Reagan built the biggest deficit
>> up to that time. Then Bush One with his "read my lips - no
>> new taxes" ended up raising taxes to try to cover the
>> increased and still increasing debt. Eight years after he
>> left, we had a treasury surplus. More money coming in than
>> going out. The BushTwo and it all went into the toilet. So
>> if you want to talk about bungled financial management,
>> there's one real good place to be looking. And it's not
>> where you're trying to say.
>>
> Since you're plenty smart enough to know that Congress, not the
> President, is responsible for what America does with it's money, you
> might want to explain why you're pushing a lousy line.

Lessee... The White House is controlled by Republicans, the
House of representatives is controlled by Republicans, the
senate is controlled by republicans. That comprises the
"administration." I could buy your defense if the president
came out against any of the spending proposals, but he
hasn't. And it's rather naive to try to get him off the hook
for this. He's the president and very much the leader of his
party.

Reagan was the driving force behind all that deregulation
that cost us a few hundred billion dollars to fix. You
remember the savings and loan business, right? Airlines?
Phone companies? Air traffic controllers? Trading arms to
Iran? Illegal arms with Sandinistas? You remember all that
right? You remember how he turned tail and ran when the
Marines were killed in Beirut, right? This is all rhetorical
because you'll try to divert it as you do in the last
paragraph in your reply, below.

But, more to the point, I've read ahead to some of your
answers to other people and I'll drop out now. You don't
really want to discuss these points, you just want to "win."

>> It's this conservative administration that has decided that
>> the president has blanket powers to do anything he wants.
>> "Torture", detain "people" without "due process", "tap" phones
>> without court sanction, check your freakin library choices,
>> fer crissakes.
>
> I added scare quotes, since much or the "torture" is things like
> keeping "people" up late, playing loud music, and generally making
> their life less than pleasent. Since these "people" are commited to
> beheading our children after raping them, I don't lose much sleep over
> whether or not they have to sit in the comfy chair, or if their phone
> conversations are treated with the same due process as drug deallers
> (which have been "tapped without court sanction" for decades.)

Sorry, not a balanced analysis; not a realistic assessment.
Waterboarding isn't making "life less than pleasant."

>> And my absolute favorite ploy from Cheney who says that it's
>> treasonous to be critical of the president. Funny how that
>> "conservative" principle didn't seem to apply when Clinton
>> was president...
>
> ....and was not at war with nationless fascists bent on destroying every
> one of us, such that he was able to at least eat a dinner without his
> detractors telling the enemy, "this guy isn't America. Don't pay any
> attention to him. We'll see to it he doesn't succeed."

You win. Everything I said is just wrong. Your superior
knowledge and depth simply overwhelms my feeble attempts to
introduce facts. I also deeply admire the breadth of your
erudition and the Nobel-worthy objectivity you've brought to
the table. Nothin' but the facts, ma'am...

I'm in awe. Nearly.

Pastorio

> Sorry, but the Jihadis really are that bad, and the constant message
> they get from the disgruntled Gore voter crowd (and that's all this is
> ever about - the immature, "He cheated! He cheated!" When the worst you
> could say is that he cheated 1 percent harder than Gore) that if they
> just hang on, they won't have to worry about the US opposing them
> anymore, is actually destructive, could result in our destruction, and
> is therefore unpatriotic. It is akin to the isolationism of the 30's
> and early 40's that assured the worst element then that they could act
> without sanction.
>
> Greg Zywicki
>

Bob (this one) wrote:
> Zywicki wrote:
> >> The very simple fact is that the last
> >> three "conservative" administrations have run this country
> >> into being a debtor nation. Reagan built the biggest deficit
> >> up to that time. Then Bush One with his "read my lips - no
> >> new taxes" ended up raising taxes to try to cover the
> >> increased and still increasing debt. Eight years after he
> >> left, we had a treasury surplus. More money coming in than
> >> going out. The BushTwo and it all went into the toilet. So
> >> if you want to talk about bungled financial management,
> >> there's one real good place to be looking. And it's not
> >> where you're trying to say.
> >>
> > Since you're plenty smart enough to know that Congress, not the
> > President, is responsible for what America does with it's money, you
> > might want to explain why you're pushing a lousy line.
>
> Lessee... The White House is controlled by Republicans, the
> House of representatives is controlled by Republicans, the
> senate is controlled by republicans. That comprises the
> "administration."

I'm sorry, I thought you meant the standard meaning of Administration;
the executive branch. I didn't know you meant, "everyone I don't like
and want to blame.

> And it's rather naive to try to get him off the hook
> for this. He's the president and very much the leader of his
> party.
>
Say that at a Republican cocktail party. Wearing a poncho,
prefferably. The Senate, especially, is at sea. They're beyond any
party control.

But, really, I was more attacking the "Republicans waste money" trope
you flogged on false premises. In invoking Reagan and Clinton, you
ignored that in _those_ cases, the house leadership was the opposite of
the point you were trying to prove.


> Reagan was the driving force behind all that deregulation
> that cost us a few hundred billion dollars to fix. You
> remember the savings and loan business,

You mean, when Congress changed Tax law leading to a big savings and
loan mess? And the first man in space was one of the crooks involved?
Yeah, I remember that.

> Airlines?
I was young then, but didn't it cost $400 to fly to the next state?

> Phone companies?

You mean those companies that have been able, due to increased
profitability, create a system that among other things allows us all to
have the internet on a cell phone in the middle of wyoming? Yeah, I
remember that.

> Air traffic controllers?

Those bums? What about them?

> Trading arms to
> Iran?

Yeah, that wasn't the best...

> Illegal arms with Sandinistas? You remember all that
> right?

Well, I was young. Why was it illegal to sell them arms? I don't
mean, "Stupid and wrong like a lot of the cold war."

> But, more to the point, I've read ahead to some of your
> answers to other people and I'll drop out now. You don't
> really want to discuss these points, you just want to "win."

No, pleaese, don't go yet. But I don't want to discuss, "Republicans
bad Dem's good Impeach Bush Bring the Troops Home!"

Because it's petty, isolationist, and ignorant of recent history.

>
> >> It's this conservative administration that has decided that
> >> the president has blanket powers to do anything he wants.
> >> "Torture", detain "people" without "due process", "tap" phones
> >> without court sanction, check your freakin library choices,
> >> fer crissakes.
> >
> > I added scare quotes, since much or the "torture" is things like
> > keeping "people" up late, playing loud music, and generally making
> > their life less than pleasent. Since these "people" are commited to
> > beheading our children after raping them, I don't lose much sleep over
> > whether or not they have to sit in the comfy chair, or if their phone
> > conversations are treated with the same due process as drug deallers
> > (which have been "tapped without court sanction" for decades.)
>
> Sorry, not a balanced analysis; not a realistic assessment.
> Waterboarding isn't making "life less than pleasant."

On a scale from slivers to beheading...

>
> >> And my absolute favorite ploy from Cheney who says that it's
> >> treasonous to be critical of the president. Funny how that
> >> "conservative" principle didn't seem to apply when Clinton
> >> was president...
> >
> > ....and was not at war with nationless fascists bent on destroying every
> > one of us, such that he was able to at least eat a dinner without his
> > detractors telling the enemy, "this guy isn't America. Don't pay any
> > attention to him. We'll see to it he doesn't succeed."
>
> You win. Everything I said is just wrong. Your superior
> knowledge and depth simply overwhelms my feeble attempts to
> introduce facts. I also deeply admire the breadth of your
> erudition and the Nobel-worthy objectivity you've brought to
> the table. Nothin' but the facts, ma'am...
>
> I'm in awe. Nearly.
>
> Pastorio

I don't understand. I shouldn't argue with you because I'm trying to
win an argument? Your rhetoric is unasaillable? I'm not allowed to
alter the context of your statements?

Ah well. Now, Pizza, that's good stuff. I like the wood oven kind,
but that's pricey.

And I like Beer with my Pizza. I need to find a good lager. There's a
great one in Toronto, but they don't export it. I bet there's
something close to it, but I'm not in the mood to canvas for it.

Greg Zywicki

Bob (this one) wrote:
> But, more to the point, I've read ahead to some of your
> answers to other people and I'll drop out now. You don't
> really want to discuss these points, you just want to "win."
>

I should add - the sad part of all of this is so many people lose focus
on the real enemy...

The guys posting lousy jokes.

Greg Zywicki.

Zywicki wrote:
> Dean G. wrote:
>
> > > Except that the administration asserts that the president can, as
> > > commander in cheif, do this in times of war against a foreign enemy.
> > > The court doesn't agree. Big deal. Doesn't make them correct.
> >
> > The Republican administration could solve the "problem" quickly and
> > efficiently by just getting warrants. Why don't the Republicans want to
> > get warrants ? The courts are right, and Constitution
> > is right, and there is no reason at all for the Republicans to behave
> > like a bunch of spoiled brats over this issue.
>
> The administration asserts that as commander in chief he had the right
> to do all this in the theater of war.
> The constitution doesn't say anything about the rights of non-citizens
> on foreign soil. The court basically decided it should say something,
> so they'd make it up.
>

The administration can assert anything, but this does not make it
legal. And while the Constitution doesn't speak to non-citizens on
foreign soil, that is not the issue at hand. The issue is the tapping
of lines on American soil, and the Constitutions gives rights to "all
men" (Republicans stopped the ERA which would have defined the equal
rights of women) in America. The FISA already allows the tapping of the
lines on foreign soil, but the administration refuses to get warrants
to tap lines on American soil. Trying to divert the issue by bringing
up an irrelevant case is dishonest. Where are your "Christian moral
values" ? It seems the moral values of the Republicans are decidedly
anti-Christian.


> There is no reason for Democrats to act like shrill harpies over this.

There is good reason for every American to fight to maintain the
liberties that are fore-fathers fought and died to give us. Why do you
hate America ? You hate us for our freedom. Republicans hate America
because the American Constitution, including that glorious liberal
manifesto know as the Bill of Rights, is preventing them from
destroying America to make an authoritarian plutocracy.

> There are more vital issues to devote their time to. The main
> difference between this and previous administrations is that every pen
> stroke is examined for another opportunity to "get" Bush because he
> Stole the Election.
>
> > >
> > > > Finally, I note you list the mildest things that might qualifiy as
> > > > tortue, but leave out near-drowning of people,
> > >
> > > BOO HOO
> >
> > So you wouldn't mind if people did this to you ?
>
> I would prefer it to beheading, yes.

Because you allow this, there will be more beheadings. Do you
understand cause and effect ?

>
> > Apparently you also
> > don't care about what happens to American troops.
>
> They aren't tortured by our enemies. They are killed and mutilated by
> our enemies.

And they are more motivated to kill more Americans becuase you support
the torture of their people.

>
> > > > mock execution,s
> > >
> > > Again, BOO HOO
> >
> > Another precendent.
> >
> Pretending to behead someone would be an upgrade.

So would pretending to invade their country. A "Wag the Dog" campaign
would be a great improvement over the invasion of a country to rid them
of something they did not have. An invasion that has fueled the
recruitment efforts of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and thus
made America less safe. Actions have consequences.

>
> > >
> > > >beating people, occasionally to death
> > >
> > > resulting in courts martial, so it doesn't seem to be something that's
> > > allowed.
> >
> > While it was not official allowed, until there was great outcry from
> > Americans and our allies, this practice was overlooked with such total
> > disregard as to warrant being called officially sanctioned.
> >
> And you have vital proof that undocumented mistreatment occurred.
>
> Oh, that's right, the Al Qaeda prisoners who are trained to allege
> every false abuse against their captors said it happened. Subsequent
> "investigations" that disproved them were just whitewash campaigns
> meant to blame the victim. Typical Rethuglican ploy, right?


Shall we go over the court-martial records ? Shall we go over the
testimony of American troops who admit these actions occured ? The
administration encouraged these actions, and the court-martials only
came when there was public outcry, but the court-martials did occur,
and many people were found to be guilty.


> > > > and many other things which have been
> > > > used by American forces.
> > >
> > > Like humiliating photography. Boo hoo. Please, mr. big bad american,
> > > don't put me naked in a room with a dog and take a photo. Behead me
> > > instead as I would do to you.
> > > Boo hoo.

Many of them would prefer death to hummiliation. Just because you would
not does not make it so for everyone else.

> >
> > The more you hate an enemy, the easier it is to commit attocities
> > against them. You don't seem to care about other people, and then
> > wonder "Why do they hate us." One of the reason more Muslims hate us
> > today is because of American actions like these.
>
> You are firmly in the steaming doltocracy that can't open their eyes to
> this fact:
>
> THEY'VE HATED YOU SINCE BIRTH!

No, they have not. At birth, a baby is incapable to even understanding
that other human beings exist. They have been indoctrinated by their
hate-mongering religious fundementalist leaders. They are trained to
hate Ameircans in much the same way that bible-belt Republicans are
trained to hate liberals. They are trained to hate us much the way that
Christian Germans in the 1920's and 1930's were trained to have the
Jews.

> They hated you enough to blow stuff up on your shores (Assuming you're
> American, British, Spainish, Canadian, Kenyan, Indonesian, or Indian)
> WITHOUT PROVOCATION.

You are being very vague about who "they" are. Many Muslims do not want
to kill you. however, on The Republicans current course of action, more
want to kill us now than have ever wanted to do so in the entire course
of human history. They are saying we invaded one of their countries
(Iraq) without provocation. The more I think about it, the more
Republicans sound like the Jihadis. Each will tell you that "they" are
our to destroy our way of life. Each encourages us to go to war to
fight "them".

>
> You are hated because you're not Muslim (or are you?) and you don't
> wrap women in veils and abstain from drink and you laugh out loud in
> public and you put photographs on your walls and a hundred other sins.
> You must die or be made to submit for these sins.

The Jihadis believe this, but all Muslims do not. But you hate all
Muslims just like the Germans were taught to hate all Jews. And yet you
still have to ask "Why do they hate us ?" They hate you because you
hate them and have killed many of them. We have killed far more of them
than they have killed of us. Now, with people like you supporting the
torture of their prisoners, they will hate us even more. They hate us
because of people like you. Your actions, and the actions of the
Republicans are making the lives of every American more dangerous.


>
> It isn't geopolitics. It isn't economics. It's basic lifestyle. You
> and I are bad and wicked and must be cleansed from the earth.

Rant on, Herr Goebbles.

>
> There is nothing we can do, aside from Die, that will appease them.
>
> > > > Fascist : an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian
> > > > views.
> > >
> > > Such as the authoritarian Islam where all law is Sharia.
> >
> > Close, but not exactly. Sharia law is often handled by local qadis or
> > whatever they call them, and lack the strong central rule implied by
> > authoritarianism.
>
> Because the empire was dismantled and the role of (what was the leader
> of the ottoman empire called? Oh yeah - Caliph) Caliph set aside for
> the time being.

With Iraq in chaos, a return of the Caliphate is closer than ever.
Congratulation on the most short sighted and counter productive
strategy ever taken by an American administration.

> >
> > >
> > > > Fascism : A philosophy or system of government that is marked by
> > > > stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government
> > > > usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent
> > > > nationalism.
> > >
> > > As the Wahabis and Iranian Shi'ites seek to establish.
> >
> > Most of the Jihadis are not welcome by these countries, because these
> > countries correctly recognize the Jihadis as a threat to their rule.
> > The Jihadis simply do not have a "strong, centralized government".
>
> Neither did the Nazis, the Italian Fascists, or the Baathists until
> they took one over.

Baathists are preferable to Jihaids. The Baathists were secular. Tariq
Aziz was a Christian. Now the country will be officially Islamic, and
persecution of non-Muslims will become far more common. That is not an
improvement in my book.

> > > >
> > > > Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
> > > > merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
> > >
> > > Well, he would know better than us but I don't think his has to be the
> > > final word.
> > >
> > > > Islamists are bad, but they are not fascists.
> > >
> > > They walk and quack like it.
> >
> > No, people are just using the term because they are more familiar with
> > it. They neither do the goose step, nor do they call their leader "Il
> > Duce". They do not believe in a merger of state and corporate power (a
> > primary characteristic of fascism in Europe). Republicans like the term
> > because it is currently ok to hate fascists, and they want to project
> > that hatred onto their enemies.
>
> No, they use it because the enemy wants to establish a thuggish
> totalitarian world government and so they don't care about polishing
> the point more finely than necessary.
>
>
> > > > The Jihadis are that bad, but there are now more of them because of the
> > > > policies of the current administration.
> > > > He has done more to help them
> > > > than to harm them.
> > >
> > > Right. The Madrassas and training camps and the rocket factories that
> > > have been growing for a decade and a half are a result of time
> > > travelling Bush hating Jihadists.
> > >
> > > > Iraq was a secular dictatorship before we invaded.
> > > > They had no WMDs
> > >
> > > > and were not a threat to Americans.
> > >
> > > Unless that American was flying an airplane enforcing UN resolutions.
> >
> >
> > Granted, but this is a smaller threat that we will have once the
> > Jihadis in Iraq start spreading out over the world, like Al-Qaeda did
> > after Afghanistan-Soviet issue. Al-Qaeda came from a group of people
> > the US aided in fighting the Soviets. The "training" and experience
> > they received in that conflict is what made them dangerous. Now much
> > the same thing is happening in Iraq. We have made the world a far more
> > dangerous place by our actions in Iraq.
> >
> No. Innaction in Iraq for 13 years was all that was necessary to lead
> to the senseless death of 2996 INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO DIED IN FLAMES AND
> HORROR!

Already resorting to complete and total fabricated lies ? Iraq had
nothing to do with 9/11. Even George Bush has admitted that. Zero, not
one, not two, but ZERO of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq. The money
to fund the effort came from Saudi Arabia and the UAE. (The Same UAE
that George Bush was ready to hand our ports over to not long ago.)
Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia
has been the chief exporter of the Jihadi doctrines (Wahabbism came
from Saudi Arabia, Al-Wahabb having been key to Saudi rule of Arabia.)

But lie as much as you want, most people are beginning to see through
the distortion and realise that Iraq is not relevant to the war on
terror.

Also, you are again helping the terrorists. You are fanning the flames
of fear that the Jihaists are trying to hard to spread. Why are you
helping the terrorists with your lies and fear-mongering ?


> What are they going to do now that they didn't want to do
> before? Put more nails and anthrax in the pipe bombs? Get more
> radioactivey radioactive weapons?

Now that the Jihadists have been able to recruit more people because of
Iraq, and now that they have hands-on trianing using bombs and fighting
Americans, they will be MORE dangerous, MORE likely to harm Americans,
and more capable in carrying out that objective. This is exactly the
opposite direction we should be going in. Invading Iraq has not reduced
the terrorist threat, but has in fact GREATLY increased it.

> > > > They had nothing
> > > > to do with 9/11. Now Iraq is a hotbed of Jihadism, and has helped
> > > > Jihadis elsewhere in their recruitment efforts.
> > >
> > > Right. The 9/11 hijackers killed people based on a unkown desire to
> > > hurt America. It had nothing to do with our military presence in Saudi
> > > Arabia to maintain and enforce the gulf war treaties. There is no
> > > connection at all between the genocidal, treaty breaking, weapons
> > > collecting, Terrorist sponsoring Hussein regime
> >
> > For a minute I thought you were going to say Republicans. I note that
> > Reagan supplied weapons to both Iraq and Iran during the Iraq-Iran war.
> > Donald Rumsfeld (special envoy to the Middle East under Reagan)worked
> > closely with Saddam Hussein to provide American weapons, training, and
> > intelligence to Iraq.
>
> Ok. You were an American Citizen then to, right? Or at least a
> westerner. You can have the spot in front of me in the beheading line.

Republicans are cowards at heart. They cause the problem, then expect
to blame the liberals, all the while making the situation worse and
worse. Now they need the liberal to bail them out of yet another failed
policy. Reagan and Rumsfeld armed Saddam Hussein. They were
Republicans. This was before Bill Clinton was in office, so you can't
blame him.

a brief history lesson :

Reagan armed Iran. Now they want to attack Iran.

Reagan armed the Afghani mujahideen, who became Al-Qaeda and the
Taliban.

Regan Armed Saddam Hussein and the Republicans attakced him, twice !\

Do you see a pattern here ? It seems very obvious to me that the
Republicans have done more to support the terrorists than they have to
prevent terrorism. Indeed, if they hadn't supplied weapons, training,
and intelligence to the Afghani mujahideen, Osama bin Laden would
probably have died in the Afghan-Soviet war.

Currently, George W. Bush and the Republicans are supporting Pakistan
and Saudi Arabia as our allies, and providing them weapons. Pakistan
just signed a truce with the Taliban, if effect guaranteeing the safety
of Osama bin Laden. Yet another complete and total failure of the
Republicans.

What about our other allies, our REAL allies ? We used to count Spain,
Italy, and Great Britian as our allies, but George W. Bush has done
such a horrible diplomatic job that Spain and Italy are gone, and Tony
Blair is being forced to resign. Blair will be replaced by a more
liberal PM, who will not be so ready to help George W. Bush.

Do you understand that ? That means George W. Bush's only remaining
"allies" are actually the allies of the terrorists. You couldn't
possibly do any worse than that. It wasn't just bad, it wasn't just one
of the worst options, George W. Bush managed to come up with the
absolute worst diplomatic result possible. What is the Republican
strategy going forward ? " Stay the course. The Republicans want to
stay on the worst possible course, a course that has aided the
terrorists, increased the danger that Ameircans face, and completely
lost any real allies that we had so many of during Clinton's term.

> > Now, we are at war in Iraq, and the Republicans are ready to attack
> > Iran as well. Maybe, just MAYBE, if the Republicans hadn't been such
> > knee-jerk warmongers in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess.
>
> How many more years and UN resolutions and failled inspection schemes
> with venal profit taking treaty suborning "allies" does it take to get
> off the "Knee-jerk War Monger" list?

It takes an actual threat. Not a made up threat, not a paranoid
fantasy, but an actual real threat to American and American interests.
Nothing less than reality will do.

Lacking a real threat, we have managed to turn a non-threat into a very
real an long-lasting threat because of the knee-jerk war-mongering.

> > why is it that groups the Republicans call allies so frequently turn in
> > to our worst enemy ? Why have we provided arms, training, and
> > intelligence to the groups that because Al-Qadea. Why did we provider
> > arms to the Iranian mullahs ? Why did we provide arms to Saddam ? Ask a
> > Republican, as they were to ones promoting these action. Now they are
> > promoting going to war with the same people they once supported. It
> > doesn't sound like they have been very good leaders, based upon their
> > actions and the results of their actions.
>
> We should all die for bad cold war foreign policy practiced by (oh no!)
> Democratic and Republican administrations. If only Truman's commie
> advisors hadn't been treasonous, Stalin might have crumbled. If only
> the Archduke had worn a helmet, the Bolsheviks might have been nothing
> more than a labor union. If only Katherine Medici had eaten mad
> mushrooms one evening, there never would have been a czar. Let us all
> submit to Jihad because of past mistakes.

Let's just stop making the mistakes. Let's just stop turning allies
into enemies. Let's just stop helping the terrorists. Is that too much
to ask ?

>
> > > and the 19 hijackers,
> > > because Hussein didn't call them up and say, "Pretty please, hurt
> > > America." We could have just ignored 9/11 and kept our troops in SA
> > > and enforced the sanctions that had starved a generation of Iraqis
> > > because, hey, what are the chances that they'd try again?
> >
> > They will try again. Next time, people in Iraq might help them...
>
> More than they did in the past...

How did they help with 9/11. Just one tiny little shred of real
evidence would be sufficient. Before, they were not a threat, but you
have managed to turn a non-threat into a very real and continuing
threat. They will help them next time, despite the fact they did
nothing to help them last time. Anything is more than nothing.

>
> > while last time they did not...
>
> In a provable way.

But of course they helped them in so many paranoid Republican fantasy
ways. Too bad you can't use that as evidence. Tell me, what color is
the sky in your world ?

>
> > Does that sound like an improvement to you ?
>
> No. We should have done nothing, like we did when they bombed the WTC
> in 93, or when they bombed Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Bali, The USS Cole.
> After all, the only differences between those attacks were numbers and
> location.

You forgot Tanzania.

I'll agree that not enough was done, but to say that nothing was done
is false.

The proper response to Hitler's demands was not Chamberlain's policy of
appeament. It should also be noted, the proper response was not to
invade Switzerland, either.

Doing "something" is not always better than doing nothing, if the
"something" you do is counter-productive.

> > > Like many thing America does, it's the least worst option, and is often
> > > the result of our supposed allies (I'm looking at you, Turkey) giving
> > > in to craven self interest.
> >
> > Maybe Turkey isn't really our ally, just like Iraq wasn't really our
> > ally during the Reagan years. Let's not repeat the same mistakes that
> > have given rise to Al-Qaeda. Let's try something else.
>
> How is maintaining sanctions and hoping the UN will stage just the
> right interpretive dance doing something else?

A policy of containment worked in the cold war. The USSR was a greater
real threat, with a capability to actually destroy the world. Invading
France wouldn't have helped win the cold war. Yes, there were a lot of
"communists" in France during to cold war, but the invasion would have
actually helped the Soviet Union instead of harming it. Much the same
is true with Iraq and the Jihadis. We have replaced people who disliked
Americans with people who really hate us and are willing to die to harm
us.

In retrospect, interpretive dance would have been a far more productive
respone than invading Iraq.

>
> > And yes, there
> > are better options than staying the course. There are few if any that
> > are worse.
>
> I've yet to hear any. We could pull out. Let the Shiites and Sunnis
> try and kill each other, let the winner take over, and see how much
> they like us. We could install a puppet government, but that's what
> got us here in the first place. We could flood the region with more
> troops, but then you've got the whole, "We are humiliated dailly by
> American Pig Dogs!" rhetoric amping up.
>
> So what else is there?

A better option was to not invade in the first place. Now that we are
there, the best option is to get out. As long as we are there, the
Jihadis are able to recruit more terrorists than they would if we were
not there. As it is, we have essentially given the country to Iran. The
Shi'ite majority will have closer ties with Iran than ever before,
becomming an ally of our enemy instead of an enemy of our enemy. They
never were an ally, but they will now be an enemy, and have become a
real threat to America, instead of the imagined threat they were
before.

Dean G.

"Zywicki" > wrote in
oups.com:

> I should add - the sad part of all of this is so many people lose
> focus on the real enemy...
>
> The guys posting lousy jokes.

Or those commenting on it.

--

"People should not be afraid of their governments--
Governments should be afraid of their people"

V

Zywicki wrote:
> Bob (this one) wrote:
>> Zywicki wrote:
>>>> The very simple fact is that the last
>>>> three "conservative" administrations have run this country
>>>> into being a debtor nation. Reagan built the biggest deficit
>>>> up to that time. Then Bush One with his "read my lips - no
>>>> new taxes" ended up raising taxes to try to cover the
>>>> increased and still increasing debt. Eight years after he
>>>> left, we had a treasury surplus. More money coming in than
>>>> going out. The BushTwo and it all went into the toilet. So
>>>> if you want to talk about bungled financial management,
>>>> there's one real good place to be looking. And it's not
>>>> where you're trying to say.
>>>>
>>> Since you're plenty smart enough to know that Congress, not the
>>> President, is responsible for what America does with it's money, you
>>> might want to explain why you're pushing a lousy line.
>
>> Lessee... The White House is controlled by Republicans, the
>> House of representatives is controlled by Republicans, the
>> senate is controlled by republicans. That comprises the
>> "administration."
>
> I'm sorry, I thought you meant the standard meaning of Administration;
> the executive branch. I didn't know you meant, "everyone I don't like
> and want to blame.

I said what I meant and didn't really need your "help."
Apparently it was too complex for your limited grasp. Only
someone trying so frantically to dissolve the blame would
even consider saying something so transparently ridiculous.

>> And it's rather naive to try to get him off the hook
>> for this. He's the president and very much the leader of his
>> party.
>>
> Say that at a Republican cocktail party. Wearing a poncho,
> prefferably. The Senate, especially, is at sea. They're beyond any
> party control.

Puhleeze. The numbers are clear and the breakdown of
virtually every congressional vote for the past decade is
precisely in line with that. Obviously, you have no business
or contact inside the beltway. You're going to actually say
that the congress is "beyond any party control." <LOL>

> But, really, I was more attacking the "Republicans waste money" trope
> you flogged on false premises. In invoking Reagan and Clinton, you
> ignored that in _those_ cases, the house leadership was the opposite of
> the point you were trying to prove.

Did Reagan's policies not create the deficits? Did Clinton's
policies not eliminate the deficits? Did not Bush's policies
create deficits? Why is that all so hard to understand?
Clinton was saddled with a Republican congress but still
managed to navigate the shoals of legislative creation to
cut spending. None of the Republican administrations
mentioned managed to do that. Period.

>> Reagan was the driving force behind all that deregulation
>> that cost us a few hundred billion dollars to fix. You
>> remember the savings and loan business,
>
> You mean, when Congress changed Tax law leading to a big savings and
> loan mess? And the first man in space was one of the crooks involved?
> Yeah, I remember that.

<LOL> Debate or argument - in the true sense - means to give
credit where due and blame where due. You appear to have a
great deal of difficulty with that part of it. The snotty,
diversionary, misleading, falsifying part you have down. Oh,
wait. That's not debate, it's blowing smoke.

>> Airlines?
> I was young then, but didn't it cost $400 to fly to the next state?

<LOL> Nice try, ignorant-boy. I can only wish you had
travelled the New York-Boston Shuttle. Pocket change. The
first time I flew it, the tab was $22 one way. The last
time, it was $25. Then they were deregulated and it all went
into the toilet.

Yes, you were young then. And don't know what air travel was
like and what it cost. Real meals with real tableware,
booze, comfortable seats, pillows, blankets, legroom.

>> Phone companies?
>
> You mean those companies that have been able, due to increased
> profitability, create a system that among other things allows us all to
> have the internet on a cell phone in the middle of wyoming? Yeah, I
> remember that.

That "due to increased profitability" thing is the serious
flaw in your ignorant diversion. The majors are not doing
well. Have you bought any AT&T stock lately? Perhaps you
haven't noticed how many small operators have been putting
up towers. Or how many internet phone companies there are.
It's been entirely market pressure that's forced the majors
to expand their service limits. And their pieces of those
markets have been seriously eroded by cable, satellite and
community internet companies. As for the middle of Wyoming,
nah. I live in Virginia in the Shenandoah Valley and can't
get cell signals most of the time. Rural areas have crap
cell service.

>> Air traffic controllers?
>
> Those bums? What about them?

<LOL> How deeeeeep you are. Bums, indeed... First line of
defense against highjackers. Bums... Deeeeep, you are.

>> Trading arms to Iran?
>
> Yeah, that wasn't the best...

Not "the best." Imagine. We armed Iran and it "wasn't the
best." <LOL> Deeeeeep.

>> Illegal arms with Sandinistas? You remember all that
>> right?
>
> Well, I was young. Why was it illegal to sell them arms? I don't
> mean, "Stupid and wrong like a lot of the cold war."

Read a ****ing history book. Or maybe start with a few
newspapers. The degree of your ignorance is stunning and a
telling case for the reality of a depleted education system.
Education is something we do for ourselves. You're
neglecting yourself. Still. I'm not going to do your
homework for you. Get off your dead ass and learn something.

>> But, more to the point, I've read ahead to some of your
>> answers to other people and I'll drop out now. You don't
>> really want to discuss these points, you just want to "win."
>
> No, pleaese, don't go yet. But I don't want to discuss, "Republicans
> bad Dem's good Impeach Bush Bring the Troops Home!"

You ****ing moron, I didn't say anything even approximating
that. When you invent the words you're trying to refute,
that's not arguing, that's dishonest propaganda. Strawman
disputation. Bullshit of a corrupt order. Moral and
intellectual bankruptcy. You're a canary in a hawk's world,
chirp, chirp...

Sound and fury, you have...

> Because it's petty, isolationist, and ignorant of recent history.

Nice job, ****wit. Demolish an argument I never made, hinted
at or implied. Golly, you're really smart. Approximately.

>>>> It's this conservative administration that has decided that
>>>> the president has blanket powers to do anything he wants.
>>>> "Torture", detain "people" without "due process", "tap" phones
>>>> without court sanction, check your freakin library choices,
>>>> fer crissakes.
>
>>> I added scare quotes, since much or the "torture" is things like
>>> keeping "people" up late, playing loud music, and generally making
>>> their life less than pleasent. Since these "people" are commited to
>>> beheading our children after raping them, I don't lose much sleep over
>>> whether or not they have to sit in the comfy chair, or if their phone
>>> conversations are treated with the same due process as drug deallers
>>> (which have been "tapped without court sanction" for decades.)
>
>> Sorry, not a balanced analysis; not a realistic assessment.
>> Waterboarding isn't making "life less than pleasant."
>
> On a scale from slivers to beheading...

No scales. You too easily forgive your heroes and too easily
condemn your targets. You have no moral compass. And you
have no sense of what it means to be a nation of laws rather
than a nation of capricious leadership.

>>>> And my absolute favorite ploy from Cheney who says that it's
>>>> treasonous to be critical of the president. Funny how that
>>>> "conservative" principle didn't seem to apply when Clinton
>>>> was president...
>
>>> ....and was not at war with nationless fascists bent on destroying every
>>> one of us, such that he was able to at least eat a dinner without his
>>> detractors telling the enemy, "this guy isn't America. Don't pay any
>>> attention to him. We'll see to it he doesn't succeed."
>
>> You win. Everything I said is just wrong. Your superior
>> knowledge and depth simply overwhelms my feeble attempts to
>> introduce facts. I also deeply admire the breadth of your
>> erudition and the Nobel-worthy objectivity you've brought to
>> the table. Nothin' but the facts, ma'am...
>>
>> I'm in awe. Nearly.
>>
>> Pastorio
>
> I don't understand. I shouldn't argue with you because I'm trying to
> win an argument?

No. You shouldn't argue by presenting flawed logic, glossed
facts and distorted assertion. You shouldn't argue if you
don't really know what you're talking about. You shouldn't
argue when all you want is that victory rather than to
arrive at some real understanding, some real grasp on the
facts.

< Your rhetoric is unasaillable?

How silly a thing to say. Besides your not knowing what
rhetoric means and not being able to spell. It's all of a
package. You're strutting around here and you're over your
head and you don't even know it. All you have left is nastiness.

> I'm not allowed to alter the context of your statements?

No. Just as I'm not allowed to do that to yours. I can
dispute what you say by offering countering information. I
can dispute what you say by offering an opinion, when
opinion is the kind of information we're dealing with. But
I'm not allowed to create false implications about what
you've said. And I'm not allowed to create strawmen. I'm not
allowed to invent meanings, as in your use of "fascists."
You haven't the remotest idea what that means and neither
does the administration. In actual fact, it's a political
technical term, not just a blanket pejorative as you use it.

I doubt you'll understand why I'm not allowed to. It's all a
matter of ethics. It's a matter of offering the truth as
available. It's not about diverting, evading or distorting
it. I'm not allowed to do those things because it's morally
wrong to do so. It's a conscience thing. An internal thing.
The truth is more important than winning the debate.
Realistic understanding is more important than winning. You
clearly don't have any appreciation of that.

So you win. Congratulations. Look up "Pyrrhic Victory." All
it costs is your credibility.

Pastorio

Dean G. wrote:
> Zywicki wrote:
>> Dean G. wrote:
>>
>>>> Except that the administration asserts that the president can, as
>>>> commander in cheif, do this in times of war against a foreign enemy.
>>>> The court doesn't agree. Big deal. Doesn't make them correct.
>>> The Republican administration could solve the "problem" quickly and
>>> efficiently by just getting warrants. Why don't the Republicans want to
>>> get warrants ? The courts are right, and Constitution
>>> is right, and there is no reason at all for the Republicans to behave
>>> like a bunch of spoiled brats over this issue.
>> The administration asserts that as commander in chief he had the right
>> to do all this in the theater of war.
>> The constitution doesn't say anything about the rights of non-citizens
>> on foreign soil. The court basically decided it should say something,
>> so they'd make it up.
>>
>
> The administration can assert anything, but this does not make it
> legal. And while the Constitution doesn't speak to non-citizens on
> foreign soil, that is not the issue at hand. The issue is the tapping
> of lines on American soil, and the Constitutions gives rights to "all
> men" (Republicans stopped the ERA which would have defined the equal
> rights of women) in America. The FISA already allows the tapping of the
> lines on foreign soil, but the administration refuses to get warrants
> to tap lines on American soil. Trying to divert the issue by bringing
> up an irrelevant case is dishonest. Where are your "Christian moral
> values" ? It seems the moral values of the Republicans are decidedly
> anti-Christian.

Well said.

Pastorio

Bob (this one) wrote:
> Dean G. wrote:
>> Zywicki wrote:
>>> Dean G. wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Except that the administration asserts that the president can, as
>>>>> commander in cheif, do this in times of war against a foreign enemy.
>>>>> The court doesn't agree. Big deal. Doesn't make them correct.
>>>> The Republican administration could solve the "problem" quickly and
>>>> efficiently by just getting warrants. Why don't the Republicans want to
>>>> get warrants ? The courts are right, and Constitution
>>>> is right, and there is no reason at all for the Republicans to behave
>>>> like a bunch of spoiled brats over this issue.
>>> The administration asserts that as commander in chief he had the right
>>> to do all this in the theater of war.
>>> The constitution doesn't say anything about the rights of non-citizens
>>> on foreign soil. The court basically decided it should say something,
>>> so they'd make it up.
>>>
>>
>> The administration can assert anything, but this does not make it
>> legal. And while the Constitution doesn't speak to non-citizens on
>> foreign soil, that is not the issue at hand. The issue is the tapping
>> of lines on American soil, and the Constitutions gives rights to "all
>> men" (Republicans stopped the ERA which would have defined the equal
>> rights of women) in America. The FISA already allows the tapping of the
>> lines on foreign soil, but the administration refuses to get warrants
>> to tap lines on American soil. Trying to divert the issue by bringing
>> up an irrelevant case is dishonest. Where are your "Christian moral
>> values" ? It seems the moral values of the Republicans are decidedly
>> anti-Christian.
>
> Well said.
>
> Pastorio


The President has inherent power under Article II of the Constitution,
and the Congress does not really have the authority to limit those
powers (other than to cut the President's budget.) However, the
President *does not* have the power to violate the rights enumerated by
the Constitution. The Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act didn't
/limit/ the powers of the President, it created a secret court to
provide the necessary checks and balances on the executive branch --
with provisions for retroactive warrants, if necessary. The current
administration (I don't think it's Bush specifically) didn't bother to
obtain FISA warrants for the wiretaps because it doesn't recognize any
limits to the President's Article II powers. (The Unitary Executive
theory.) Even though the FISA court is pretty much just a rubber stamp,
requesting a warrant from them means they have the authority to say
"No". The Bush administration doesn't recognize anyone's authority to
tell it "No." And since the Republicans control both houses of
Congress, the Congress will let the President get away with whatever he
wants because there's no threat of impeachment.

(BTW, I hope the Democrats take 400 seats in the House the November.
I'm voting for whoever the Democrat is in that race this year, and I
don't even know who it is)

Best regards,
Bob <-- a very young Paleolibertarian

zxcvbob wrote:

> (BTW, I hope the Democrats take 400 seats in the House the November.
> I'm voting for whoever the Democrat is in that race this year, and I
> don't even know who it is)

Fine, I'll counter your bullshit vote with my vote. I'm going to vote
for every single Republican on the ballot.

I've asked all my Republican friends to do the same.

Even the absolutely worst Republican on the planet is better than the
best Demoncrat that has ever existed.

It's a damn shame we can't elect GW Bush for a third term.

I'd vote for him again in a second.

USA IS WONDERFUL wrote:

>
>
> It's a damn shame we can't elect GW Bush for a third term.
>
> I'd vote for him again in a second.

Maybe you could also make him an honorary Vietnam war hero since he
managed to avoid going to the war that Kerry fought in. :-)

Dave Smith wrote:
> USA IS WONDERFUL wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > It's a damn shame we can't elect GW Bush for a third term.
> >
> > I'd vote for him again in a second.
>
> Maybe you could also make him an honorary Vietnam war hero since he
> managed to avoid going to the war that Kerry fought in. :-)

You mean the one that whiny kerry murdered women and children it, so he
says?

And you wanted that scum as the President?

Muahhahaahahahahaa!!!!!!!!!!