AGuSTiN wrote:

Rollinredcavi wrote:

Oh god... where do you start on that one. Basically everything. But to hit some of the main points.

-voting against the safty of the nation
-loudly protestin hunting animals yet its ok to kill an unborn child
-undermining the efforts to destroy those who attacked our country
-desparatly attempting to use every scandle and remove every republican from the government who has done somthing wrong, while at the same time vigorously supporting and cheering on the members of thier party who did the same thing.
-removing all aspects of good vs. evil from the school system by teaching that God is bad.

Did you put two seconds of thought into that? Because it looks like it.

-voting against the safty of the nation
Who? On what bill?

-loudly protestin hunting animals yet its ok to kill an unborn child
First, PETA <> Democrats.

I don't like abortion. But no one does, really. What people like are the right to choose what to do with their body. But abortion isn't a problem, it's a symptom. Treating symptoms nevers cures the disease.

Did you know there are 136,000 kids waiting for adoption, and it would only take 1/500 adults to adopt one for all of them to have a home? We outlaw abortion without getting people to start adopting, the social disaster would be unimaginable.

In addition, 1/3 of foster kids end up in prison, another 1/3 on welfare and more than 1/3 don't graduate high school. 80% of our prison population has been in foster care. Do you know why? Because the state is a terrible parent.

Chew on it.

-undermining the efforts to destroy those who attacked our country

I thought Bush did that by sending our troops to Iraq instead of Afghanistan?
-desparatly attempting to use every scandle and remove every republican from the government who has done somthing wrong, while at the same time vigorously supporting and cheering on the members of thier party who did the same thing.

In 1994 the Republicans rode into the power in the exact same circumstances. Pot, meet kettle.

-removing all aspects of good vs. evil from the school system by teaching that God is bad.

While I think that the separation of church and state has gone too far, they do need to be separate. This is more of an angry athiest problem than a liberal problem. So far, every athiest I've seen at JBO is Republican. Go figure.

I hate to say it, but blind loyalty does seem to be your problem. I could do WAY better to name liberal stupidity.

Well then... with all do respect your wrong. simply wrong.

-Democrats voted against the safety of the nation by undermining the efforts to eliminate the most tyranical leader since hitler, and voting against things that whether take very few rights away give the added safety that is necessary. They have voted against almost anything to do with safety... kinda makes you think they have somthing to hide.
- PETA = most likely 99% democrat. And BTW go read what I wrote. I never said I completely dissagreed with abortion. I disagree with it if your a completely stupid teenager these days and you F-up you take the responsibilty. But when it comes to things like mothers with aids or women who became pregnant through rape. Those are circumstances where I feel it is acceptable.
-The sad part is that the Republicans did quite little to use the Clinton scandle to get in office. They may have but clinton did it to himself. He was continuously changing his story to the point that it all became a huge lie.

- Main thing. Separation of church and state is great. But if a kid in a public school is suppose to have equal oprotunity then why cant he talk about God in school. Example- now days in science and history and what not, they only thing they are willing to teach in a public school is evolution, evolution is against many people's religions. So why cant they say "well some people believe that they humans evolved and others believe that we were created by a God. At least you are attempting to teach the kids that there is other beliefs out there.

Liberals are absolutely @!#$ stupid and deserve no life in this country. And I will never side with anyone that has the stupidest and most dangerouse ideas that our nation has ever seen.

I'm not wrong, and definitely not simply. You have your history confused.

First, the democrats voted for the war in Iraq. What the Democrats offer now is a differing plan to get out. Further, your argument that the most tyranical man since Hitler threatening the nation is false. We KNOW that now. The sanctions were working, and he didn't have WMD's, and he wasn't a threat to anyone. You should get your facts straight.

PETA members may be Democrats, but most Democrats are not PETA members. Your logic is faulty.

I would love nothing more for a teenager to take responsibility for her child, but I'd rather more that she never had sex. Again, abortion is a symptom, and birthing a child into this world that isn't wanted is no way to solve our social ills. A child without good parenting becomes exactly what I stated in my statistics...a criminal, a welfare case, a prisoner, uneducated. Those kind of people are drains on America, the exact thing that we don't want. And since conservatives aren't putting their spare bedrooms where their mouths are, I wish they'd just shut the hell up about it.

I have nothing against your specific example about church and state. Like I said, I think it goes too far when you start limiting the children's own religious speech. And there is nothing wrong with stating the FACT that there are other beliefs, as long as they are not taught.

Do you or do you not recognize that a lot of this administration's and congress's fiscal policy has been extremely liberal from a spending point of view?

You're a fool with you think warrantless searches and suspension of habeas corpus is good for America. The reason that Americans let the administration get away with this is because they don't know their history. There are STRONG REASONS and LOTS OF HISTORY as to why we have these rights.

How exactly do you reconcile in your mind violating the Bill of Rights? I bet every gun law is a "stupid liberal" thing, but violating your due processes resulting from a warrantless search isn't a "stupid conservative" thing? Seriously, how to you reconcile that?

And to say liberals don't deserve a life in this country? How is that American?!?!

Man, you are so blinded by the word "liberal" you can't see the forest for the trees. You're the most un-American I've seen post at JBO yet.

Further, you are no conservative. The real conservatives are going to vote to congress out Nov 7th as punishment for their failures.


---

AGuSTiN wrote:I'm not wrong, and definitely not simply. You have your history confused.

First, the democrats voted for the war in Iraq. What the Democrats offer now is a differing plan to get out. Further, your argument that the most tyranical man since Hitler threatening the nation is false. We KNOW that now. The sanctions were working, and he didn't have WMD's, and he wasn't a threat to anyone. You should get your facts straight.

PETA members may be Democrats, but most Democrats are not PETA members. Your logic is faulty.

I would love nothing more for a teenager to take responsibility for her child, but I'd rather more that she never had sex. Again, abortion is a symptom, and birthing a child into this world that isn't wanted is no way to solve our social ills. A child without good parenting becomes exactly what I stated in my statistics...a criminal, a welfare case, a prisoner, uneducated. Those kind of people are drains on America, the exact thing that we don't want. And since conservatives aren't putting their spare bedrooms where their mouths are, I wish they'd just shut the hell up about it.

I have nothing against your specific example about church and state. Like I said, I think it goes too far when you start limiting the children's own religious speech. And there is nothing wrong with stating the FACT that there are other beliefs, as long as they are not taught.

Do you or do you not recognize that a lot of this administration's and congress's fiscal policy has been extremely liberal from a spending point of view?

You're a fool with you think warrantless searches and suspension of habeas corpus is good for America. The reason that Americans let the administration get away with this is because they don't know their history. There are STRONG REASONS and LOTS OF HISTORY as to why we have these rights.

How exactly do you reconcile in your mind violating the Bill of Rights? I bet every gun law is a "stupid liberal" thing, but violating your due processes resulting from a warrantless search isn't a "stupid conservative" thing? Seriously, how to you reconcile that?

And to say liberals don't deserve a life in this country? How is that American?!?!

Man, you are so blinded by the word "liberal" you can't see the forest for the trees. You're the most un-American I've seen post at JBO yet.

Further, you are no conservative. The real conservatives are going to vote to congress out Nov 7th as punishment for their failures.

Amen. To all of that.

Quote:

How exactly do you reconcile in your mind violating the Bill of Rights? I bet every gun law is a "stupid liberal" thing, but violating your due processes resulting from a warrantless search isn't a "stupid conservative" thing? Seriously, how to you reconcile that?

this is something I've been saying for a while. Liberals want to take certain freedoms away - the 2nd amendment is a perfect example - although not the only.

Conservatives are no better - in fact many of them are WORSE. They want to take away numerous constitutional rights and governement checks and balances. If you support the actions that this administation(and this congress/senate) has taken against your rights(and against our own constitution) - then you'd better STFU about your gun rights. Many conservatives don't hide the fact that they want to legislate their morality on everyone. Denying gay marraige(as KOTL says - let them suffer too), outlawing abortion(like it or hate it - what right do you have to legislate this?) On the same coin, Liberals want to legislate THEIR OWN MORALITY - aka abolishing the Death Penalty for example.

Both parties are anti-rights. Both parties want to legislate their own BS sense of morality on everyone. Both parties are more alike than they are different. And they both have their heads up their asses.

As was mentioned - yes the whole can't talk about religion in school thing - it is true and it is BS. Our eduation system does openly advocate the athiest theory(evolution on its own right does not contradict Christianity - I'm not sure about Islam or others) as the 100% absolute truth and dismisses everything else as not even potentially valid. Christianity(and other faiths) are under attack in certain fashions in this nation. Yet how many Christians are trying to push a "Christian-agenda" (I would call it a FALSE-Christian-agenda - as a Christian myself) on the rest of the nation? No those two things do not balance - two wrongs do not make a right as the saying goes. Both sides are wrong.

As for the PETA example - I'd bet most all KKK members vote conservative - but that sure as hell doesn't mean consevatives have anything in common with the KKK. See what you can do when you twist statistics?

Rollinredcavi wrote:[Democrats voted against the safety of the nation by undermining the efforts to eliminate the most tyranical leader since hitler, and voting against things that whether take very few rights away give the added safety that is necessary. They have voted against almost anything to do with safety... kinda makes you think they have somthing to hide.

I've never seen someone who bought heavier into partican propaganda BULL-@!#$. The only thing Democraps have done recently which is endangering this nation is in their failure to stand against this administration. They are weak and ineffective against tyranny. That tyranny is in the oval office. What you have sprouted is typical propaganda BS. If a Democrat votes against one version of a defense bill(in favor of another version which they do vote for) - its all over Rush Limbaugh etc how they're voting against a defense bill. You have bought it hook, line, and sucker. This administration has repeatedly taken actions which don't actually grant any new powers to them, only remove any supervision to make sure they aren't abusing their powers. Sounds like THEY have something to hide.

Quote:

voting against things that whether take very few rights away give the added safety that is necessary.

Prepare for a rant here. I'm sure you've seen this quote around here - "Those who would trade freedoms for a little temporary security, deserve neither" - the great patriot and American forefather Benjamin Franklin.

Well he doesn't go far enough IMO. YOU DESERVE NETHER FREEDOM OR SECURITY. Anyone who wants to surrender freedom for security IS A WEAKLING AND A COWARD, AND HAS NO RIGHT TO CALL HIM/HERSELF AN AMERICAN. That is the most Anti-American thing you could possibly do - any coward who would take that option has no right to call him/herself an American - no right at all. "Very few rights away" - how about you let the Liberals take "very few firearms away" or "very few religious liberties away?!"

Furthermore - have you thought about the insult of what you want to do?! Yeah 3000 people died on 9/11. Guess what?! Over 100,000 American servicemen have died protecting your liberties - the SAME liberties that you are so quick to forfiet. What @!#$ing right do you think you have to @!#$ on their collective sacrafices like that?! If you want to do that - then you should find a veteran memorial, dig up the body, open the coffin, and literally take a dump on the body of the hero whose sacrafices you ARE @!#$ing on by waiving your liberties.

If you want to give up your AMERICAN FREEDOM in order to be secure - Get the @!#$ out of America!! Go move to Communist/Socialist @!#$ING China or Cuba - You don't have rights but you do have security. ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU WANT?! If that is then GTFO of America!! America is the land of the free, home of the proud, and Un-American cowards who @!#$ on our Veteran's sactifices don't belong!! GTFO!!

myself in another thread wrote:Maybe I'll be killed by terrorism one day, but until that day...
I will live free.
I will live proud.
I will not live in fear.
I will not disrupt my life due to any terrorist threat.
I will not let terrorist change my American way of life(if you change anything due to terrorism they already won).
I will do my best to live the American dream or at least my version of it.
I will not let terrorist nor the cowards who would yield freedoms due to terrorist threats stop me.

If I do therefore die due to a terrorist act...
I will die a free man.
I will die a proud man.

[/rant]

Rollinredcavi wrote:And I will never side with anyone that has the stupidest and most dangerouse ideas that our nation has ever seen.

You already are. I won't argue that there aren't alot of stupid Liberals - cuz your right. NEWS FLASH - there are alot of STUPID CONSERVATIVES TOO. It isn't the smart Conservatives that are in power either. You know what? - it used to be the Republican duty to hold off the more radical Liberal ideas. Guess what?! Now the current batch of Conservatives in power are way more radical than anything we've seen out of Liberals(America Liberals at least.) Radicals with political power are always dangerous. And this batch is wielding and passing the "most dangerous ideas that our nation has ever seen." You're clearly on their side - therefore your statement is false.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, November 03, 2006 2:48 AM

I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

I regestered to voet when I was a Sr. in Highschool. at that time i was a democrat. My family is all democrats, and i picked up their belifes and points of view as I grew up.

As I got out into the world, and started to form my own opinions. I eventually came to realise that I do not 100% agree with either major party. So i became an independent.

Yes, unfortunataly I cannot vote in primary elections. But i at least vote and make my voice heard.

political parties are a joke and should be done away with. the only thing they have done is ruin politics and democracy.

Bastard/Cannon:

couldn't have said it better myself.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Bastardking3000 wrote:
Both parties are anti-rights. Both parties want to legislate their own BS sense of morality on everyone. Both parties are more alike than they are different. And they both have their heads up their asses.

You are my hero.


---

that guy is a moron. and we are all smarter and better than him. WOOT




Creative Draft Art Media Forums

Bastardking3000 wrote:

AGuSTiN wrote:I'm not wrong, and definitely not simply. You have your history confused.

First, the democrats voted for the war in Iraq. What the Democrats offer now is a differing plan to get out. Further, your argument that the most tyranical man since Hitler threatening the nation is false. We KNOW that now. The sanctions were working, and he didn't have WMD's, and he wasn't a threat to anyone. You should get your facts straight.

PETA members may be Democrats, but most Democrats are not PETA members. Your logic is faulty.

I would love nothing more for a teenager to take responsibility for her child, but I'd rather more that she never had sex. Again, abortion is a symptom, and birthing a child into this world that isn't wanted is no way to solve our social ills. A child without good parenting becomes exactly what I stated in my statistics...a criminal, a welfare case, a prisoner, uneducated. Those kind of people are drains on America, the exact thing that we don't want. And since conservatives aren't putting their spare bedrooms where their mouths are, I wish they'd just shut the hell up about it.

I have nothing against your specific example about church and state. Like I said, I think it goes too far when you start limiting the children's own religious speech. And there is nothing wrong with stating the FACT that there are other beliefs, as long as they are not taught.

Do you or do you not recognize that a lot of this administration's and congress's fiscal policy has been extremely liberal from a spending point of view?

You're a fool with you think warrantless searches and suspension of habeas corpus is good for America. The reason that Americans let the administration get away with this is because they don't know their history. There are STRONG REASONS and LOTS OF HISTORY as to why we have these rights.

How exactly do you reconcile in your mind violating the Bill of Rights? I bet every gun law is a "stupid liberal" thing, but violating your due processes resulting from a warrantless search isn't a "stupid conservative" thing? Seriously, how to you reconcile that?

And to say liberals don't deserve a life in this country? How is that American?!?!

Man, you are so blinded by the word "liberal" you can't see the forest for the trees. You're the most un-American I've seen post at JBO yet.

Further, you are no conservative. The real conservatives are going to vote to congress out Nov 7th as punishment for their failures.

Amen. To all of that.

Quote:

How exactly do you reconcile in your mind violating the Bill of Rights? I bet every gun law is a "stupid liberal" thing, but violating your due processes resulting from a warrantless search isn't a "stupid conservative" thing? Seriously, how to you reconcile that?

this is something I've been saying for a while. Liberals want to take certain freedoms away - the 2nd amendment is a perfect example - although not the only.

Conservatives are no better - in fact many of them are WORSE. They want to take away numerous constitutional rights and governement checks and balances. If you support the actions that this administation(and this congress/senate) has taken against your rights(and against our own constitution) - then you'd better STFU about your gun rights. Many conservatives don't hide the fact that they want to legislate their morality on everyone. Denying gay marraige(as KOTL says - let them suffer too), outlawing abortion(like it or hate it - what right do you have to legislate this?) On the same coin, Liberals want to legislate THEIR OWN MORALITY - aka abolishing the Death Penalty for example.

Both parties are anti-rights. Both parties want to legislate their own BS sense of morality on everyone. Both parties are more alike than they are different. And they both have their heads up their asses.

As was mentioned - yes the whole can't talk about religion in school thing - it is true and it is BS. Our eduation system does openly advocate the athiest theory(evolution on its own right does not contradict Christianity - I'm not sure about Islam or others) as the 100% absolute truth and dismisses everything else as not even potentially valid. Christianity(and other faiths) are under attack in certain fashions in this nation. Yet how many Christians are trying to push a "Christian-agenda" (I would call it a FALSE-Christian-agenda - as a Christian myself) on the rest of the nation? No those two things do not balance - two wrongs do not make a right as the saying goes. Both sides are wrong.

As for the PETA example - I'd bet most all KKK members vote conservative - but that sure as hell doesn't mean consevatives have anything in common with the KKK. See what you can do when you twist statistics?

Well obiously your just as misinformed as you seem to think I am.

First off, Most democrats even agree that Saddam had WMD's. Well actually it was even proven. Did you know that chemical weapons are classified under the category of WMD's? You must not know that. Remember before the 2004 elections where the democrats attempted to use that whole "missing weapons cache" decoy to try and steer people away from voting for Bush. Well, there were barrels of chemicals there which could be used for creating chemical weapons. We already know that he was using or planing on using chem's on kewait. He doesnt have to be a direct threat to our nation, but our allies. Plus you think he is just going to leave WMD's laying out when he knows we are going to attack? Only the liberals would be dumb enough to do somthing like that.

Liberal from a spending point of view really means nothing. Party policy does not dictate what spending takes place. Democrats like to spend insane amounts of money on helthcare (which people should work for not be given), welfare, and other stuff so that the @!#$ ups of America can survive while smoking crack all day (that is a generalization and I know there are many people who work hard to get out of poverty, but most dont do the simple things to help themselves out). And then they cut funding for military, law enforcement, and other extemely important things. Republicans cut taxes and allow people to have the money they rightfully earned. But they are big on military and law enforcement operations. Safety Vs. equality, it is matter of opinion but the type of equality the Demie's want is more like communism. This is republican spending not liberal spending, sorry.

Bastardking3000 wrote:

Rollinredcavi wrote:[Democrats voted against the safety of the nation by undermining the efforts to eliminate the most tyranical leader since hitler, and voting against things that whether take very few rights away give the added safety that is necessary. They have voted against almost anything to do with safety... kinda makes you think they have somthing to hide.

I've never seen someone who bought heavier into partican propaganda BULL-@!#$. The only thing Democraps have done recently which is endangering this nation is in their failure to stand against this administration. They are weak and ineffective against tyranny. That tyranny is in the oval office. What you have sprouted is typical propaganda BS. If a Democrat votes against one version of a defense bill(in favor of another version which they do vote for) - its all over Rush Limbaugh etc how they're voting against a defense bill. You have bought it hook, line, and sucker. This administration has repeatedly taken actions which don't actually grant any new powers to them, only remove any supervision to make sure they aren't abusing their powers. Sounds like THEY have something to hide.

Quote:

voting against things that whether take very few rights away give the added safety that is necessary.

Prepare for a rant here. I'm sure you've seen this quote around here - "Those who would trade freedoms for a little temporary security, deserve neither" - the great patriot and American forefather Benjamin Franklin.

Well he doesn't go far enough IMO. YOU DESERVE NETHER FREEDOM OR SECURITY. Anyone who wants to surrender freedom for security IS A WEAKLING AND A COWARD, AND HAS NO RIGHT TO CALL HIM/HERSELF AN AMERICAN. That is the most Anti-American thing you could possibly do - any coward who would take that option has no right to call him/herself an American - no right at all. "Very few rights away" - how about you let the Liberals take "very few firearms away" or "very few religious liberties away?!"

Furthermore - have you thought about the insult of what you want to do?! Yeah 3000 people died on 9/11. Guess what?! Over 100,000 American servicemen have died protecting your liberties - the SAME liberties that you are so quick to forfiet. What @!#$ing right do you think you have to @!#$ on their collective sacrafices like that?! If you want to do that - then you should find a veteran memorial, dig up the body, open the coffin, and literally take a dump on the body of the hero whose sacrafices you ARE @!#$ing on by waiving your liberties.

If you want to give up your AMERICAN FREEDOM in order to be secure - Get the @!#$ out of America!! Go move to Communist/Socialist @!#$ING China or Cuba - You don't have rights but you do have security. ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU WANT?! If that is then GTFO of America!! America is the land of the free, home of the proud, and Un-American cowards who @!#$ on our Veteran's sactifices don't belong!! GTFO!!

myself in another thread wrote:Maybe I'll be killed by terrorism one day, but until that day...
I will live free.
I will live proud.
I will not live in fear.
I will not disrupt my life due to any terrorist threat.
I will not let terrorist change my American way of life(if you change anything due to terrorism they already won).
I will do my best to live the American dream or at least my version of it.
I will not let terrorist nor the cowards who would yield freedoms due to terrorist threats stop me.

If I do therefore die due to a terrorist act...
I will die a free man.
I will die a proud man.

[/rant]

Rollinredcavi wrote:And I will never side with anyone that has the stupidest and most dangerouse ideas that our nation has ever seen.

You already are. I won't argue that there aren't alot of stupid Liberals - cuz your right. NEWS FLASH - there are alot of STUPID CONSERVATIVES TOO. It isn't the smart Conservatives that are in power either. You know what? - it used to be the Republican duty to hold off the more radical Liberal ideas. Guess what?! Now the current batch of Conservatives in power are way more radical than anything we've seen out of Liberals(America Liberals at least.) Radicals with political power are always dangerous. And this batch is wielding and passing the "most dangerous ideas that our nation has ever seen." You're clearly on their side - therefore your statement is false.

Look at your whole "quote from yourself". all I can see is I..I..I...I...I..I. I is selfish, I is only thinking about yourself. I will give up myself for others. I will give up some of my freedoms for the safety of my fellow americans. Whether you agree with me or not is your choice. Continue being selfish if you wish to. I am more American because I am willing to do things for my fellow country members.

Think about you statement about the service men and women who gave thier lives. During WWII we detained how many thousands of Japanese-Americans, there are even reports of these people getting out of the detention camps and saying that they were happy to get out but completely understand that for the safety of the nation it may have been necessary. And dont even @!#$ go to the point of not supporting our troups. That is just @!#$ stupid. I have two of my best friends in Iraq as we speak. Ever since he got over there I have talked to him a few times and he has told me very little of what is going on, but has said one thing ever time..."dont forget buddy, the people on your side of the ocean are @!#$ stupid to think that we should not be here".

You can be the typical selfish American if you choose. And I even think you are absolutely anti-american in a lot of your views, but I can say I would give up some of my rights for even a person like you. So if you want to keep your biased, quite wrong, insults going your more than welcome. But just think about that when you talk about who is un-american.

you say selfish like it's a bad thing.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Rollinredcavi wrote:
Well obiously your just as misinformed as you seem to think I am.

First off, Most democrats even agree that Saddam had WMD's. Well actually it was even proven. Did you know that chemical weapons are classified under the category of WMD's? You must not know that. Remember before the 2004 elections where the democrats attempted to use that whole "missing weapons cache" decoy to try and steer people away from voting for Bush. Well, there were barrels of chemicals there which could be used for creating chemical weapons. We already know that he was using or planing on using chem's on kewait. He doesnt have to be a direct threat to our nation, but our allies. Plus you think he is just going to leave WMD's laying out when he knows we are going to attack? Only the liberals would be dumb enough to do somthing like that.

Your logic is faulty. Again. You really should read up on logical fallacies.

Excerpt:
History provides at least two more pieces of evidence that demonstrate Saddam is deterrable. First, although he launched conventionally armed Scud missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel during the Gulf War, he did not launch chemical or biological weapons at the coalition forces that were decimating the Iraqi military. Moreover, senior Iraqi officials—including Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz and the former head of military intelligence, General Wafiq al-Samarrai—have said that Iraq refrained from using chemical weapons because the Bush Sr. administration made ambiguous but unmistakable threats to retaliate if Iraq used WMD. Second, in 1994 Iraq mobilized the remnants of its army on the Kuwaiti border in an apparent attempt to force a modification of the U.N. Special Commission’s (UNSCOM) weapons inspection regime. But when the United Nations issued a new warning and the United States reinforced its troops in Kuwait, Iraq backed down quickly. In both cases, the allegedly irrational Iraqi leader was deterred.

Saddam’s Use of Chemical weapons

Preventive-war advocates also use a second line of argument. They point out that Saddam has used WMD against his own people (the Kurds) and against Iran and that therefore he is likely to use them against the United States. Thus, U.S. President George W. Bush recently warned in Cincinnati that the Iraqi WMD threat against the United States “is already significant, and it only grows worse with time.” The United States, in other words, is in imminent danger. Saddam’s record of chemical weapons use is deplorable, but none of his victims had a similar arsenal and thus could not threaten to respond in kind. Iraq’s calculations would be entirely different when facing the United States because Washington could retaliate with WMD if Iraq ever decided to use these weapons first. Saddam thus has no incentive to use chemical or nuclear weapons against the United States and its allies—unless his survival is threatened. This simple logic explains why he did not use WMD against U.S. forces during the Gulf War and has not fired chemical or biological warheads at Israel.

Furthermore, if Saddam cannot be deterred, what is stopping him from using WMD against U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, which have bombed Iraq repeatedly over the past decade? The bottom line: Deterrence has worked well against Saddam in the past, and there is no reason to think it cannot work equally well in the future.

President Bush’s repeated claim that the threat from Iraq is growing makes little sense in light of Saddam’s past record, and these statements should be viewed as transparent attempts to scare Americans into supporting a war. cia Director George Tenet flatly contradicted the president in an October 2002 letter to Congress, explaining that Saddam was unlikely to initiate a WMD attack against any U.S. target unless Washington provoked him. Even if Iraq did acquire a larger WMD arsenal, the United States would still retain a massive nuclear retaliatory capability. And if Saddam would only use WMD if the United States threatened his regime, then one wonders why advocates of war are trying to do just that.

- By John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt

Quote:


Liberal from a spending point of view really means nothing. Party policy does not dictate what spending takes place. Democrats like to spend insane amounts of money on helthcare (which people should work for not be given),

Without health, you can't work. And it'd be cheaper to insure everyone than to wait until they are terribly sick, when they go to the ER and cost us $10,000 for an overnight stay for pneumonia that could of been treated with a $50 Dr. visit and $10 worth of amoxicillin.

It's called preventative maintenance. You practice it with your car, why shouldn't you practice it with your body?

Quote:


Look at your whole "quote from yourself". all I can see is I..I..I...I...I..I. I is selfish, I is only thinking about yourself. I will give up myself for others. I will give up some of my freedoms for the safety of my fellow americans. Whether you agree with me or not is your choice. Continue being selfish if you wish to. I am more American because I am willing to do things for my fellow country members.

More fallicies. Seriously, learn how to debate. I bet people roll their eyes when you speak about politics.

Quote:


Think about you statement about the service men and women who gave thier lives. During WWII we detained how many thousands of Japanese-Americans, there are even reports of these people getting out of the detention camps and saying that they were happy to get out but completely understand that for the safety of the nation it may have been necessary.

That's not true. WTF? Who told you that? There's a Japanese interment camp historical site right here in my town, and believe me, the Japanese still living here are still pretty pissed off.

Quote:


but I can say I would give up some of my rights for even a person like you. So if you want to keep your biased, quite wrong, insults going your more than welcome. But just think about that when you talk about who is un-american.

Really? You're so honorable. Support your troops by volunteering your rights away. Awesome.

I'm so happy for you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, November 03, 2006 11:37 AM

---

Since I'm Canadian, I can't vote down there, but I'd probably edge towards the Republicans. They're the ones that seem to have most of their crap together. Funny thing is that I'd be totally for an economically conservative and socially liberal government but those never seem to exist.

As for voting in my own country, I never seriously vote. What's the point? To elect the best liar? ALL POLITICIANS are liars. It's like how people call George Bush a conservative. What are you HIGH? He's a politician. He's been molded and rehearsed into a "role" he has to play. Kerry's exactly the same, as will anyone who'll run for president in 2008. If the government REALLY cared about our opinion they'd put a no-confidence vote option on the ballot box. That means that if none of the candidates seem worthwhile, you check that. And if "No-confidence" get's the most votes then they'd better get their sh*t together and haul some better candidates out because we're going through the whole election thing again and again and again until both leading political parties are either bankrupt or incapable of countering the ads for the 3rd parties because they can't spend any more money on their campaigns. Watch how they shape up real freaking quick.

Of course that won't happen, because you don't really have a choice. Democrats and Republicans are likely conspiring together to hot potato the Presidential position. When one side screws up too bad, they toss it to the other party. That way the one that created the problem can say the new guys are making it worse, and the new guys can say they didn't create the problem. Either way, the problem isn't solved. It's like Iraq, vote for the Democrats ALL you want, but none of the troops are coming back home. They're gonna stay there for as long as was intended and there's no one you can vote for that will make any difference whatsoever.

Support the troops, give up your rights and join the marines if you back Iraq so much.

Anything you really believe in you should be prepared to throw down the gauntlets and be willing to take a McSorely for.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

the only thing i can think of when reading his posts is:

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety - Ben Franklin"





Creative Draft Art Media Forums

To respond to some of Rollinredcavi's points:

#1 There is no such thing as safety okay? Forget that. It's impossible. If you wanna live in a prison to be safe, that's fine. But no one else wants that. Most conservatives DEFINITELY don't want that. Just ask the NRA guys and the Survivalists.

#2 Iraq. You are in luck buddy. Because the war in Iraq isn't going to end any time soon. The cold war lasted 41 years. This war against Islamic Extremists is likely to last even longuer. So if it's not Iraq it'll be some other godforsaken craphole. Probably Syria or Somalia. As for Hussein being the worst dictator since Hitler... oh my god. How can you say that with a straight face??? Go read about Stalin who made Hitler's genocide look amateurish. Go read about Idi Amin who used to EAT PEOPLE. Go read about Pol Pot who extrerminated almost half of his country's population... and got ZERO response from us btw. The Vietnamese army, our old enemies actually had to stop him. Talk about irony. Anyway, my point is that in 2045 we should still be at war so your grandkids will get to fight and die to protect you. Doesn't that make you proud? By the way, I say this without irony or humour. I've long ago accepted that perpetual war is the way of the free world. We were at war in some form or another for 70-75 of the 20th century's 100 years. What hippy crap about peace were people smoking to believe that war isn't the normal state of affairs?

#3 Killing children is wrong? Could have fooled me. We drop bombs on Afghanistan and Iraq every day and some have surely killed children. You've already said you support the war. So that means that you don't mind killing (or maiming) children when it comes to YOUR safety. And to be honest I don't mind killing children when it comes to mine. Be it war or abortion, it comes down to the same damn thing. Acceptable casualties. I don't want to be carjacked by some 15 year old crackhead with a gun. You don't want some wacko Iraqi blowing himself up on the plane you're flying in. We're both ready to accept some innocents to die to keep us safe. Oh, and don't give me that "It's an accident" about child casualties in war. Modern warfare kills gobs of civilians, this is inevitable. We KNOW we're going to kill children eventually and to be honest we don't care. So this whole "Save the children" crap is just pure hypocrisy. You support the war, you support the death of children. End of story.

#4 Liberals are scum? You'll get no argument from me on this. I'm in total agreement. However, where exactly are these people? I see none in government except for guys like Ted Kennedy and he's hardly a threat. The Clintons? Oh please. They play to whatever base will give them more votes. I don't see liberals voting to increase welfare, just like I don't see conservatives vote to stop social(ist) security. Both sides play to the voters. Ahnuld plays the liberalish Republican to entice Californians, Hilary's gonna play the Conservative Democrat to snag some religious conservatives. It's all a game. It's all lies. And it's all very easy to notice once you figure out that EVERYTHING the government says is either a lie or a half-truth. Nothing they say is true. Nothing.

Did you know there are 136,000 kids waiting for adoption, and it would only take 1/500 adults to adopt one for all of them to have a home? We outlaw abortion without getting people to start adopting, the social disaster would be unimaginable.

In addition, 1/3 of foster kids end up in prison, another 1/3 on welfare and more than 1/3 don't graduate high school. 80% of our prison population has been in foster care. Do you know why? Because the state is a terrible parent.

Chew on it.



heres something to chew on agustin. chances are pretty good that if those 1/500 adults could adopt the children they would. i know of a few close friends that have gone to china to adopt because it was way to hard to adopt in the us. less red tape and less cost to adopt a kid from china, and i know that they probalby spent about 10 grand when it was all said and done to go thru china rather then in the u.s. political redtape has just as much to do with why the kids arnt adopted as anything.

secondly you state that 1/3 of foster kids end up in prison,welfare etc.etc.etc. but um doesnt that mean that 2/3 of them dont. the way you state it is like saying lets kill these 3 kids becaue one of them will turn out bad. that to me is kinda an odd way of thinking.




and just on a side note, were all wrong in this post because the original poster just wanted to know who was repulican not get into a war like it has.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

Jeremy Knox wrote:To respond to some of Rollinredcavi's points:

#1 There is no such thing as safety okay? Forget that. It's impossible. If you wanna live in a prison to be safe, that's fine. But no one else wants that. Most conservatives DEFINITELY don't want that. Just ask the NRA guys and the Survivalists.

#2 Iraq. You are in luck buddy. Because the war in Iraq isn't going to end any time soon. The cold war lasted 41 years. This war against Islamic Extremists is likely to last even longuer. So if it's not Iraq it'll be some other godforsaken craphole. Probably Syria or Somalia. As for Hussein being the worst dictator since Hitler... oh my god. How can you say that with a straight face??? Go read about Stalin who made Hitler's genocide look amateurish. Go read about Idi Amin who used to EAT PEOPLE. Go read about Pol Pot who extrerminated almost half of his country's population... and got ZERO response from us btw. The Vietnamese army, our old enemies actually had to stop him. Talk about irony. Anyway, my point is that in 2045 we should still be at war so your grandkids will get to fight and die to protect you. Doesn't that make you proud? By the way, I say this without irony or humour. I've long ago accepted that perpetual war is the way of the free world. We were at war in some form or another for 70-75 of the 20th century's 100 years. What hippy crap about peace were people smoking to believe that war isn't the normal state of affairs?

#3 Killing children is wrong? Could have fooled me. We drop bombs on Afghanistan and Iraq every day and some have surely killed children. You've already said you support the war. So that means that you don't mind killing (or maiming) children when it comes to YOUR safety. And to be honest I don't mind killing children when it comes to mine. Be it war or abortion, it comes down to the same damn thing. Acceptable casualties. I don't want to be carjacked by some 15 year old crackhead with a gun. You don't want some wacko Iraqi blowing himself up on the plane you're flying in. We're both ready to accept some innocents to die to keep us safe. Oh, and don't give me that "It's an accident" about child casualties in war. Modern warfare kills gobs of civilians, this is inevitable. We KNOW we're going to kill children eventually and to be honest we don't care. So this whole "Save the children" crap is just pure hypocrisy. You support the war, you support the death of children. End of story.

#4 Liberals are scum? You'll get no argument from me on this. I'm in total agreement. However, where exactly are these people? I see none in government except for guys like Ted Kennedy and he's hardly a threat. The Clintons? Oh please. They play to whatever base will give them more votes. I don't see liberals voting to increase welfare, just like I don't see conservatives vote to stop social(ist) security. Both sides play to the voters. Ahnuld plays the liberalish Republican to entice Californians, Hilary's gonna play the Conservative Democrat to snag some religious conservatives. It's all a game. It's all lies. And it's all very easy to notice once you figure out that EVERYTHING the government says is either a lie or a half-truth. Nothing they say is true. Nothing.

1. First off, did I ever say there was anything such as "complete safety"? If so I would like to see where I posted so. No one can ever be completely safe from the evil this nation has become with the upbringing of liberal society and nations who opose us for that fact.

2. Yeah, I hope my grandchildred have the honor to fight for what is right. BTW though the thing about Saddam not being the worst dictator since Hitler... You may find this post EXTREMELY interesting. Basically, you know GAM from the forums, now I AM NOT putting words in his mouth but he definatly admited that he was unaware of this peculiar coincidence (which in my mind is definatly not a coincidence, rather and exact link) from Nazi germany to Saddam's rise to power. Follow the links on the page to what I have posted and it may not completely change your mind but it may get a little thought stiring! Here is Saddam and the Third Reich.

3. Where did I completely opose abortion or killing childred for safety? Is it wrong...Yes. Now if there were people on this board that thought things through a little further they would be a little better off in convicing me toward one side. The problem is everyone tends to put words in everyones mouth and lacks to understand the actuallity of someone elses words. Origionally I disagreed with Liberals in America. Which I still do and always will. But that doesnt mean that I completely disagree with the democrat's side of things. Not a single person has differatiated the two, rather they have said that I have disagreed with everything the democrats say when thats not true.

@!#$ it... I am making a post basically putting myself on the chopping block. Well @!#$ it thats going to be the title. So look for it on this forum.

Saddam is certainly not the worst dictator since Hitler. Kamir Rouge? Pol-Pot? Edie Amine?

Think. Heck for that Matter Mao was no saint.

Saddam was put in power power by the CIA directly. If Nazis were in the background, that's all they were. The direct link to his rise in power is through both MI6 and the CIA. Get over it. It can now be seen as a mistake, at the time, considering what was happening in Iran, it seemed like a good Idea.. Kinda like backing Osama in Afganastan.. Seemed like a good idea at the time... Also a mistake.

Follow the money, it leads to the players.

PAX

I'm a Republical as of this year! I started out as a Democrate then went Independent but this year its clear to me that the main stream Democratic party has gotten WAY to liberal for my tastes and I'll never be able to agree with them on most issues.

Now the Republicans have gotten a tad to the right for me but much less extreme then the Dems have gone.

Hopefully the Republicans can come back to center a little more. But the more I see of John Kerry and Hillery Clinton I know theres no turning back for them.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

RRC: Have to do this:

Quote:

Well obiously your just as misinformed as you seem to think I am.

we keep him here because he's house broken and blends with the couches.

Quote:


First off, Most democrats even agree that Saddam had WMD's. Well actually it was even proven. Did you know that chemical weapons are classified under the category of WMD's? You must not know that. Remember before the 2004 elections where the democrats attempted to use that whole "missing weapons cache" decoy to try and steer people away from voting for Bush. Well, there were barrels of chemicals there which could be used for creating chemical weapons. We already know that he was using or planing on using chem's on kewait. He doesnt have to be a direct threat to our nation, but our allies. Plus you think he is just going to leave WMD's laying out when he knows we are going to attack? Only the liberals would be dumb enough to do somthing like that.

The Mustard Gas found was made AFTER the invasion. ie: AFTER Scientists fled the country, AFTER the insurgents went in and setup shop.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
The Iraqi Survey Group found NO WMD capability, there were NO CBRN [Chemical/Biological/Radiological/Nuclear] apparatus in place to create WMD.

All the Chemical Weapons facilities and stock piles that were found in Iraq were destroyed by 1994 by Army Corps of Engineers and attached groups as part of the disarmament treaties after Operation Desert Storm.

Quote:

Liberal from a spending point of view really means nothing.

And current Republican policy means... what? If money meant nothing, then why, oh why is it that in 2000, GW. Bush and the Republican controlled senate AND congress had Government surpluses, and there was record deficits (ie: not covering your financing charges, let alone not paying off any debt) not 2 years after he took office?

Quote:

Party policy does not dictate what spending takes place.

It does when the executive and legislative branch are controlled by the same party. Think about it.

Quote:

Democrats like to spend insane amounts of money on helthcare (which people should work for not be given), welfare, and other stuff so that the @!#$ ups of America can survive while smoking crack all day (that is a generalization and I know there are many people who work hard to get out of poverty, but most dont do the simple things to help themselves out).

Health care is something that the rest of the civilised world has for their people. Without it, you'll get back things like Malaria, Cholera, Typhoid and other assorted diseases wiping out populations of consumers and workers.

The Republican party is not adverse to spend ludicrous amounts of money on wars that really didn't need to be fought either, lets not forget... And they're CERTAINLY not doing a damned thing to help the underprivileged get out from under the thumb of Poverty or their own problems.

Quote:

And then they cut funding for military, law enforcement, and other extemely important things.

Really?

1995: Clinton pushed for congress to pass funding for 100,000 more police officers on the street, thereby guaranteeing lower crime rates every year during his presidency. LINK
2004: Congress gets the first Bush administration proposed Military R&D budget increases. LINK
2003: The Military that was reformed into a fast-deployment force under Clinton invades Iraq
2002: The Military that was reformed into a fast-deployment force under Clinton invades Afghanistan
1999: Clinton proposes 100 Billion dollars more defense funding [LINK]

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251793&kaid=124&subid=159
Pay attention to this paragraph:

Quote:

"A commander-in-chief leads the military built by those who came before him," then-vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney said during the 2000 campaign. "There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow."

Must have been TERRIBLE to field a Clinton-era Military... So terrible in fact, that Bush did NOTHING with the Military Budget (except cut discretionary spending) for 3 years.

Then, the Pentagon ends up with this: Pay cuts for troops in Iraq.

Quote:

Republicans cut taxes and allow people to have the money they rightfully earned.

Sure, but if you make more, you got back a greater percentage of those taxes... And of course it makes perfect sense to dump personal and corporate taxes in an era of pork-barrel and colossal budget overruns, as well as in a time of war. Why, that must have been why WWII and WWI weren't paid off until the mid-60's! EGAD!

Quote:

But they are big on military and law enforcement operations. Safety Vs. equality, it is matter of opinion but the type of equality the Demie's want is more like communism. This is republican spending not liberal spending, sorry.

Under Communism, spending becomes irrelevant because there is no money... maybe I'm weird, but that's what Marx more or less envisioned.

You're right to a point, the Republicans have dumped scads of cash on the military, but not on Law Enforcement on the whole unless it deals with National Security. At the same time, you're losing educational funding, you're losing social security integrity (the point of which it CLEARLY evades republicans, it's a legacy debt, it's not something you pay into for yourself, it's for your parents...), you're losing infrastructure renewal and you're also finding out that Republicans on the whole care less than a fart in a windstorm about your rights.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Saturday, November 04, 2006 11:12 AM

Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Jeremy Knox wrote:Since I'm Canadian, I can't vote down there, but I'd probably edge towards the Republicans. They're the ones that seem to have most of their crap together. Funny thing is that I'd be totally for an economically conservative and socially liberal government but those never seem to exist.

As for voting in my own country, I never seriously vote. What's the point? To elect the best liar? ALL POLITICIANS are liars. It's like how people call George Bush a conservative. What are you HIGH? He's a politician. He's been molded and rehearsed into a "role" he has to play. Kerry's exactly the same, as will anyone who'll run for president in 2008. If the government REALLY cared about our opinion they'd put a no-confidence vote option on the ballot box. That means that if none of the candidates seem worthwhile, you check that. And if "No-confidence" get's the most votes then they'd better get their sh*t together and haul some better candidates out because we're going through the whole election thing again and again and again until both leading political parties are either bankrupt or incapable of countering the ads for the 3rd parties because they can't spend any more money on their campaigns. Watch how they shape up real freaking quick.

Of course that won't happen, because you don't really have a choice. Democrats and Republicans are likely conspiring together to hot potato the Presidential position. When one side screws up too bad, they toss it to the other party. That way the one that created the problem can say the new guys are making it worse, and the new guys can say they didn't create the problem. Either way, the problem isn't solved. It's like Iraq, vote for the Democrats ALL you want, but none of the troops are coming back home. They're gonna stay there for as long as was intended and there's no one you can vote for that will make any difference whatsoever.

Did you know that if you change the first line to this:
Since I'm Canadian, I can't vote "down there",
it would have a completely meaning? Weird.

so are you saying canadians cant vote with their genetalia? that IS weird. I guess americans really ARE better.




Creative Draft Art Media Forums

Nathaniel O'Flaherty wrote:so are you saying canadians cant vote with their genetalia? that IS weird. I guess americans really ARE better.

I can't vote with it, but I can play the piano Chicks dig me.

We mushroom stamp ballots as necessary.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

sndsgood wrote:
heres something to chew on agustin. chances are pretty good that if those 1/500 adults could adopt the children they would. i know of a few close friends that have gone to china to adopt because it was way to hard to adopt in the us. less red tape and less cost to adopt a kid from china, and i know that they probalby spent about 10 grand when it was all said and done to go thru china rather then in the u.s. political redtape has just as much to do with why the kids arnt adopted as anything.

secondly you state that 1/3 of foster kids end up in prison,welfare etc.etc.etc. but um doesnt that mean that 2/3 of them dont. the way you state it is like saying lets kill these 3 kids becaue one of them will turn out bad. that to me is kinda an odd way of thinking.

and just on a side note, were all wrong in this post because the original poster just wanted to know who was repulican not get into a war like it has.

First of all, you're guessing. Second, I'm not. So unless you've got some hard #'s to counter my claims, what you think is the problem isn't meaning a whole lot.

Like I said, I'm very involved in the issue. The primary reason people don't adopt is because they ...

1) Don't know where to go to get resources on adopting. You send your friends to me and I'll forward them to the right people as far as adoption help, resources and grants. Adopting kids from China is NOT cheaper. On one hand, you're right. But people give up too easily as it takes 20 minutes on Google to find these resources. So on the other hand, people aren't as motivated to adopt as they want to think they are.

2) Are concerned about the physical and mental well being of the child. Here are some more #'s...

Americans think 42% of adopted children and 62% of foster children are more likely than others to have problems at school. Another 37% view the amount of time in foster care as a concern.

50% had academic problems, 22% reported very severe post traumatic disorders

People are SCARED to adopt.

Quote:


secondly you state that 1/3 of foster kids end up in prison,welfare etc.etc.etc. but um doesnt that mean that 2/3 of them dont. the way you state it is like saying lets kill these 3 kids becaue one of them will turn out bad. that to me is kinda an odd way of thinking

That's not what I said. Further, you're not reading the stats right. That's not the SAME 1/3, and that's a 1/3 of general, invidually, for each statistic. The bottom line stat there is that 80% of our prison population has been through foster care. That's the telling stat that our system is failing, and no one is caring.

Here's another stat... only 2%...just TWO PERCENT, of all foster kids graduate college.

What my PROBLEM is that so-called compassionate conservatives want to do away with abortion and are just going to let these kids rot under the parental guidance of a government they say sucks at doing everything else.

I'll tell you what, you want to put this in the Democrats court? Conservatives should start a movement today to adopt every single kid, and once that's done I propose to start limiting abortions to extreme circumstances. But abortion becomes available again the moment there are 1000 kids back in the adoption buffer.

We don't make abortion illegal, we make kids without families illegal.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, November 06, 2006 10:40 AM

---