trying to NOT grant geneva convention rights to the detainees at Guatanamo. They fight for NO country and are not covered by the Geneva convention.
Another one I belive was a good move was going into Iraq, and yes we can argue this one all day, but you asked what I thought were good moves. WMDs or no WMDs, Saddam had to go. Unfortunately I believe the only way to deal with terrorists is from a position of strength. You can not project strength while a two bit dictator leads you on wild good chase for over 10 years. Funny how Libya suddenly got REAL cooperative after we took out Saddam. As far as the UN coming along, well considering Annan and his Son were getting rich off of Oil contracts, well, kind of shoots the UN credibility to shit. Finally, even if he did not have WMD's, he had the ability to develop chemical weapons. I believe he would have supplied terrorists groups with these weapons since he was willing to pay 10K to the families of suicide bombers.
How many of you that were gun ho about GWB during the election still feel the same way now?
but he is better than the options we were presented by the Democrats for the last two elections. While many will scream when I say this, I support his moves with the war on terror.
What I don't like is the fact that he spends too much damn money and his bonehead moves on the Schivo case.
BTW, when it comes to picking justices for the supreme court, I do not want a Dem putting more liberals on the court so they can vote more great laws like the emminient domain law they just passed!!
we're in the same boat, Snowman. Forced to chose between the moralizing hypocrites shoring up the Republican base, or the moonbat-idiots-without-a-plan that are currently infesting the Democratic party.
RLTW
He is a Democrat that has deep moderate roots and tendencies. There are moderate Democratic Senators and Governors. Would you vote for any of them?
I don't care if their name is followed with an (R) or (D), just what their politics are.
Hell, back in the 60s I might have been a Democrat. Remember, Kennedy believed that the way to raise revenues to the treasury was to cut taxes, but when was the last time you hear someone with a (D) behind their name say that...
Keep the Religious Right out of my bedroom or the Dems away from my money.
I can generally keep my sex life private, but the Dems always know how much money I made, and it's always TOO MUCH in their book (I am the evil rich)
Amigo, have you ever considered it's the same billionaires that fund both sides? They only sort of care who wins, they just want to be able to talk to the guy in charge. That's why you had a choice between Witless and Witless Lite. The billionaires actually liked the job Witless has done, so he got four more years, thanks to brother Jeb and about 1.5 million stolen votes in Ohio (which reminds me, 9 months later, I'm still waiting for ballot box errors which favoured Kerry).
It's just one big kabuki, if you ask me, and guys like you fall for it. I have much bigger fish to fry, tyvm. I don't mean to alarm you, but we are much closer to being ont he same team than you could possibly ever imagine.
by Republican Presidents. Two of the five that voted for it were appointed by Democratic Presidents. The vote only reinforces the idiocy of appointing people to the court to satisfy a particular political point of view. Some will be reliable appointees, as Thomas and Scalia are so far, but most will exercise independence in how they interpret laws. Harry Blackmum, for example was an appointee of a Republican president and for years voted as a conservative, but in his later years on the court, became a Liberal bastion of the court. The same goes for Justices Brennan and Powell.
you pretty much hit it on the head. It's just a matter of plkaying the odds...
As far as the Eminent Domain ruling goes (and I disagreed with it to) the court said "local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community".....The point being, I thought conservatives wanted things to be left for the states to decide, which is the case with this ruling, is it not?.....Again, I didn't like the decision either, but the courts put the power in the states hand.......
On a side note, when conservatives always say Scalia & Thomas are "strict constructionalists"-- the translated version of that means Scalia & Thomas see the world the same way as they do, hence they want their type on the bench......
What moves on terror? And be specific, so I can comment.
trying to NOT grant geneva convention rights to the detainees at Guatanamo. They fight for NO country and are not covered by the Geneva convention.
Another one I belive was a good move was going into Iraq, and yes we can argue this one all day, but you asked what I thought were good moves. WMDs or no WMDs, Saddam had to go. Unfortunately I believe the only way to deal with terrorists is from a position of strength. You can not project strength while a two bit dictator leads you on wild good chase for over 10 years. Funny how Libya suddenly got REAL cooperative after we took out Saddam. As far as the UN coming along, well considering Annan and his Son were getting rich off of Oil contracts, well, kind of shoots the UN credibility to shit. Finally, even if he did not have WMD's, he had the ability to develop chemical weapons. I believe he would have supplied terrorists groups with these weapons since he was willing to pay 10K to the families of suicide bombers.
You still believe that Saddam/Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, the 9/11 Commission stated that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but you, Rush, Sean, Bill and people like you know better than a bi-partisan commission appointed by Bush.
I guess innocent until proven guilty is just for Americans, and if you’re at Gitmo, you must be guilty of something, just like the people in the concentration camps, right! I hope you never get swept up in something you had nothing to do with and get arrested.
As bad as Saddam was, and yes he was bad, we made the lives of the Iraqis worse. Did you notice that nobody speaks about the 75,000 to 100,000 Iraqis that American forces have killed, and we lament over 1700 Americans, men and women that died in vane? Actually they did not die in vane, they helped George get reelected, you know we (America) have always reelected a President during a time of war, you know Karl Rove knew it, hence we invade Iraq, more about Rove latter.
There are leaders all over world that are far worse than Saddam that have nuclear capabilities, how come we are not knocking on their doors?
And one correction, Libya was disarming way before we invaded Iraq, wow just think, diplomacy worked. But you believe what the unholy trio keeps feeding you.
And Karl Rove outing a CIA covert agent for political gain, are you behind this type of behavior? I call it treason.
first of all, you show me an unbiased source...
My guess is you might point out Dan Rather and the major networks or CNN, give me a break. BTW, you need to better understand the difference between a news source and a pundit. Yes, I enjoy the pundits, but do not use them for my news. With as many links as I've seen to moveon.org on this web-site, my friends on the left do not have room to criticize.
As far as links to Al'Quida, it was the Clinton/Gore administration that proved that (see link)
As far as Gitmo, I have never know a war where we released enemy combatants until hostilities have ceased. Let me know whan Al'Quida surrenders and then we will talk, until then you are wasting your breath.
I loved your numbers about the number of people "we" have killed, but I noticed you NEVER mention how many Saddam had killed. Am I to assume that you believe that oppression from a dictator is acceptable to his own people since you do not mention it here? Following your logic, we never should have invaded Germany (they never attacked the US)and given Hitler a pass on the concetration camps. Nice train of thinking you have there...
As far as other leaders, show me the ones with ALL the years of negotiations, the failure to abide by a surrender document and then you might have a leg to stand on...
about being preznit, but I've screwed things up so much that now I'm having second thoughts. But whenever I have doubts about my resoluteness I always ask myself "What would Dick Cheney do?" Then I just go over to his office and ask him.
I for one am tired of seeing stuff like this done under an alias.
If people believe something then they should be willing to post under their username. Our usernames are aliases, after all. It is not like someone is going to show up in people's bedroom with a knife at their throats if something that is posted offends.
I am sorry if you think that I am trying to set rules, because I am not.
of guy who ever admitted doing anything wrong, I'd do it right here and right now. Of course I am not, so I won't. Pass the pretzels. (Gack!)
he was and remains preferable and superior to the alternative.
Maybe the other guy would work on health care, restore free speech, not giving tax breaks to the very wealthy etc
-- Modified on 7/12/2005 8:43:10 AM
Thanks for making my point.
The only point that's been demonstrated here is that you're unable to defend your inane assertion that our rights to free speech have been repressed.
RLTW
-- Modified on 7/11/2005 9:54:40 PM
I've been a Howard Stern listener for over twenty years and enjoyed it the way it was. Now, the show he does now is bleeped and censored, phrases he used to use like "three input" to describe anal sex he can no longer used. Did you know they censor farts if they are to wet sounding. Now I know, I'm a jerk for being a Stern fan, but that has nothing to do with anything. Have you noticed that sitcoms language is much less risqué and more "middle America". Several ABC stations would not show Private Ryan because they are afraid of FCC fines because of the language, remember broadcast television showed Schindler's List without any cuts and there were no FCC fines, and that had nudity. Where do you think this chilling effect is coming from? If you don't see it, there in nothing anyone can do to open your eyes. Don't you think that all the conservative news outlets (Fox, CNBC, MSNBC, all the broadcast networks) and except AirAmerica, there is no liberal outlet, you see that as censorship. Wake up. And don't write using foul language, give me with the respect I give you.
Do you know who Michael Copps is? He's the DEMOCRATIC commissioner of the FCC who was the driving force behind the increased indecency fines that the FCC recently imposed on broadcasters. Wasting government resources by over-regulating "indecency" on public airwaves is a bi-partisan effort, my friend. It's been going on for years, regardless of who resides the White House. It's also nowhere close to falling under the definition of repressing free speech.
So yes, "wake up" indeed, and take off the partisan blinders.
RLTW
Freedom of speech/expression? Not in Bush America.
Protesters at the 2005 Inaugural Address.
I gave you one. Two 50 year old schoolteachers are a far cry from what you've posted.
I'll wait fir your apology. Until hell freezes over, likely - because Republicans just lie, and lie, and then act hurt when they're confronted with facts. Just look at the spin on Benedict Rove.
BTW - those are pictures of Bush and Cheney, and their documented lies are legion.
-- Modified on 7/13/2005 6:32:20 PM