Slashdot Mirror

Ethanol has lower energy content per volume, so you can't directly compare costs. Plus E85 gets subsidized and tax breaks from the government, so it is hard to say if it is sustainable.

I don't think it is much of a conversion for E85. Maybe a different fuel tank and some sensors / adjustments to the carb for a different air / fuel mix. The number I read was $100 but I don't know how easy it is to do it yourself.

http://www.washtimes.com/business/20060521-102936- 3945r.htm

Lots of stories on E85 popping up recently. Fleets have been running LPG and LNG for a long time.

Good many pages out there on LNG and LPG conversion, but it is all do it yourself. I don't think you can buy LPG LNG cars for personal use, but maybe for commercial use. LNG you can fill in your own house if you get an extra compressor.

"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it."

Since you can't *give* the Canadians weapons

Right. And when Canada buys weapons from another country we get used pieces of crap that nobody else wants. We don't buy new - we take the mothballed junk.

Okay, I'll take you on. You say the war was all of Bush's doing. This is obviously a clear sign of your misunderstanding of what power the President actually has. All of your elected liberals voted for the war as well. The exception is your hero, Kerry, after voting for the war decided he didn't want to supply our troops with any armor. What a POS. Also, you might want to avoid "popular opinion" regarding the war, and stop listening to Hollywood. Do a bit of reading, it will help you out. Start with this article: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060219-092126-178 8r.htm Katrina - I don't want to hear any of your "please take care of us because we're too damn stupid and want to live below sea level" crap. I live in Mississippi, and Katrina did alot more damage in this state than it did in the cess pool known as New Orleans. I have a family member killed by Katrina. I see the devestation done by Katrina every single day. If you want to place "blame" on Katrina, then that lies 100% with the city of New Orleans, and the state of Louisiana. The FACT is that the city didn't have any plain in place. Their big plan? Put them in the SuperDome. Have you ever been in there? It really is a dump, and was contracted out to the lowest builder. The state didn't invest any money into the city to prepare for such things to take place. It is NOT the federal government's responsibility to take care of a bunch of idiots that chose to live in a place below sea level. That's like saying if I wanted to build a house on top of an active volcano, that it is the federal government's responsibility to make sure my house doesn't get damaged, and to give me handouts for such stupidity. Louisiana has the most corrupted government among all of the states in the US. There is no denying that. Do you know that in NOLA, there are only two hospitals that actually have working ER's? Guess what the city is doing right now? Spending money throwing a parade. If you really believe it is the federal governments responsibility to take care of you, then I absolutely pity you. If you want a socialist system, there's other nations that you'd be thrilled to live in. However, I don't want nor need the federal government to hold my hand throughout my life. It's people like you that expect the federal government to give you handouts that burdens our system so badly. Now run along to your mailbox. I'm sure you've got a welfare check in it waiting for ya.

These theories (Electromagnetism & General Relativity) have results that are observable, repeatable, and (as best as we can guesstimate) direct results caused by what we are theorizing exists.

The results of the theory of the big bang are observable (we've seen that galaxies are spreading apart) and we can guess that these observations are the result of the big bang (or at least that's what Georges Lemaître proposed). The problem that hangs everyone up on this is that it can't be repeated; at least not while humans are still alive. This means it can never be proved.

The other hangup for the big bang theory is that it goes against what 55-61% of Americans (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion /polls/main657083.shtml, http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955- 2061r.htm) believe. Electromagnetism & General Relativity (as well as most other scientific theories, apart from evolution) don't go against what's in the Bible (I bet you could find some extremest somewhere to disagree with me on that, though).

I know everyone wants to let "science [be] science and religion [be] religion and there is no problem with the two co-existing so long as neither tries to intrude onto the others territory." The problem is that occasionally the two do collide, especially when it comes to origins (and the poor scientists of old were the ones that started that fight, as religions had their ideas written down long before science started theorizing).

And just for the record (before anyone starts namecalling), I have no problem with anyone believing anything they want to, even if it is contrary to popular opinion (99% of the world believed that the world was flat, even though it was written in the Bible that it was round). We all get crazy ideas in our heads, brainwashed into us by culture, and then call people crazy who don't believe them (walked under any ladders lately?). That's part of what makes us who we are. And now I'm rambling, so I'll shut up.

Bill Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches in 1994:

In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.

On December 20th Glenn Reynolds noted this CATO Institute Report published back in 1997:

The Clinton administration has repeatedly attempted to play down the significance of the warrant clause. In fact, President Clinton has asserted the power to conduct warrantless searches, warrantless drug testing of public school students, and warrantless wiretapping...

That's a bit hyperbolic, but is exactly why we don't want the UN running DNS.

One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.

In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

You joke about this, but apparently, for a few hundred dollars, one can build an EMP weapon that will destroy all the electronics in a good sized building. And, what's possibly even more disturbing, there is a widespread belief that the detonation of just a single nuclear warhead at an altitude of a few hundred miles could take out most of the electronics in an entire nation [maybe even a continent].

That's one of the reasons that military grade electronics are so expensive [and so heavy]: Typically, they're shielded in lead.

*Fortunately no one has tested that belief in practice. Yet.

He has the authority to do it:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-051 2210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinionc ommentary-hed

It's the necessary thing to do:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/20 05-12-21-bush-spying-edit-yes_x.htm

It's been done before by your pals Clinton and Carter
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610- 7772r.htm

You are all for it when it serves your politics :
http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_21_ 05_MM.html

----------
A Troll post for a Troll post.

Please try and keep up:

Take a look at this: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610- 7772r.htm

More to the point, Clinton actually went much much further then this currently goes. He used it in purely domestic areas . Not that I expect this to actually change anyone's mind. What is being brandied about has very little to do with thought and everything to do with emotion (typically hate and fear -- on both sides).

BTW, critics of this. How do you explain that the one program that actually might have been able to stop 9/11 (Able Danger) would be illegal under your incomplete reading of the law? The FISA court itself ruled that Bush's constitutional duties and rights trumped FISA when it came to intellegence gathering?

Here is a reference:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610- 7772r.htm

The effects are naturally occuring - albeit in a very small population of humans. Usually we suppress muscle growth - probably because too much is hard on the circulatory system. Not only that, but you only need so much muscle to hunt and all that jazz to stay alive. When we were evolving, we probably got this gene so we didn't overproduce muscle and raise our energy costs.

You may recall the german superbaby who was born with two defective copies of the inhibiting gene - he has twice the muscle mass and half the body fat of other kids his age - link:

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040626-060 429-4116r.htm

How about this? Or this? Or this? Or this?

Yep.

Germany's economy is dropping down the tubes.
http://www.willisms.com/archives/2005/11/social_se curity_30.html

Meanwhile America's economy shows the best growth in 60 years.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20051108-102830-744 9r.htm

Although if we can't get social security under control we could be heading the same place. The problem with things like social security, and welfare is that they remove incentive to work. If you work you make less money due to taxes while if you don't work you get "free" money. Private accounts would put incentive back because the amount of money you put in to the system guarantees the amount of money you get from the system. Right now congress controls the amount you get from SS, and they can raise or lower rates in order to panic people who depend on SS for their retirement.

I'm not surprised that the circulation of most newspapers is going down. What is happening is that there are too many liberal reporters and editors chasing after too few liberal readers. It isn't that anyone is intentionally "punishing" these papers, rather this is simply supply and demand. The invisible hand strikes again. There is less demand for liberal news and more demand for conservative news. Case in point, the circulation boom currently being enjoyed by the Washington Times:

http://www.washtimes.com/business/20050518-120247- 7729r.htm

Another example is Fox news, which currently pulls more viewers than CNN and MSNBC put together. If this were a technology issue created by the internet, you wouldn't be seeing a shift from liberal television outlets to a conservative one, instead you'd see an overall shift AWAY from television as a news source.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/20 04-07-25-media-mix_x.htm
http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295 .asp
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=43120

The premiere liberal radio network, Air America, is also doing badly. In Washington DC its listener share is actually so low that it can't even be detected according to the Arbitron rating service:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=46954

The issue here is not one of technology, but ideology. This country is, day by day, moving further and further away from the left and closer to the right. A conservative person is not going to choose news presented with a liberal bent to it when the same information is available with a conservative bent. The liberal media is basically selling the ideological equivalent of buggy whips. Each year there are fewer and fewer customers to sell their wares to. As a consequence the entire liberal media industry is suffering as a whole. The plight of the liberal newspaper business is just one aspect of this.

Lee

... at least, according to one judge.

If you think Cotecna gave Kojo Annan a sweetheart job coincidental to their bid for a fat UN contract inspecting food for oil shipments, I've got a bridge to sell you. Kofi swears he didn't know about or intervene on Cotecna's behalf at the time. There's paperwork that's recently come to light of Kofi personally intervening in 1998 in favor of Cotecna. Oops, Kofi's been lying, it seems. So much for UN accountability.

The main reason for the current oil crisis and price increases in the US was self induced by the oil companies and lack of seeing forward to meet demand, not the supply of actual crude oil. The oil companies have slowly dwindled down and consolidated crude oil refining capacity for almost 30 straight years to remain lean and mean (or by some opinions, to "limit" supply and force the price to go up). More to the point, there has not been a single refinery built in the last 30 years and many have been shut down, in fact, the US actually imports refined gas from other countries already. Now, any time there is ANY disruption in the supply of REFINED oil, the price jumps dramatically. Releasing oil from the stategic reserves or OPEC increasing production will not have any effect at all on the refining capacity, there is no main reserve of refined oil (with the exception of some heating oil in the north eastern US). There is a balancing act as to exactly what running refineries are actually producing, heating oil, kerosene, motor fuel ,diesel, and the various by-products that go with them. Being at refining capacity limits the total refined petroluem products that can come out the other end and shortages of one type or another will always occur.
Coming up soon will be the gas "shortages" and further price increases as various states switch over to the winter gas formula.
IMHO, this entire concept is a recipe for corruption and market distortion that can and has been playing out for years.

We're entering the biggest petroleum crisis in history
I don't know how old you are but the oil crisis in the mid 70's was far worse then what we have now.

Some links:
http://finance.news.com.au/story/0,10166,16600216- 31037,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/27/bush.energy /
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050901-090238-249 0r.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2005/editorial/0508/31/A12- 298216.htm

A cult linked to the Rev. Sun Myung Moon committed mass suicide through use of weaponized satellites. Friends of the recently deceased told Moon's own newspaper that they were unaware of the use of the satellites and that they believed that God was lifting them from the earth for the lifelong service against the rampant homosexuals and individualists.

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about.

Because he knew he just blew it by admitting his wife wasn't covert, and if he said anything more, he'd show he's nothing more than a partisan hack who only got sent to Niger by his wife so she could get rid if him for a few days.

(And here I will note that unlike yourself, I have not descended into name calling or profanity.)

Now lets compare that number to these. Miami at 60%, New York at 36%, London at 28%, to name a few.

In this day and age for a major city to be down there at 2.84%, qualifies it as 'ethnically isolationist'.

But hey, claiming that Japan is isolationist MUST BE RACIST!

Here's the story. It was actually a quote from a former supervisor, Fred Rustmann. If you can't trust someone with a good solid name like "fred" then who can you trust? :-)

You have zero creditability talking about "Talking Points" while linking to a site that is named "Talking Points" to refute it. Thanks for playing though!

(BTW, Rove did not know she was undercover. He got the name from Novak: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050715/D8BBQEVO0 .html), Also She was not undercover: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050715-121257- 9887r.htm and was making no effort to keep her job secret:
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/s ns-ap-cia-leak-rove,0,4798469,print.story?coll=nyc -nationhome-headlines

For the benefit of our non-American readers, I'll explain: the right to own guns is the most fundamental right we have. All the others rest on that right. What good is the right to freedom of speech if we have no means to defend ourselves physical? "If you criticize the government we're going to come into your house and take you to a detention camp" would render freedom of speech meaningless. Fortunately we have the right to own guns so that such threats are not realistic, and therefore the citizens can say "I have freedom of speech, and in fact anyone who tries to take that away from me is risking his life to do so."

So prohibiting gun ownership based on a secret list is like saying that the government can secretly take away all the rights of anyone it wants to. This is a terrifying possibility.

The rupture spread from south to north, resulting in a Doppler effect in instruments measuring it. Seismometers in Russia recorded the quake at a higher frequency because it was moving toward them, while those in Australia measured a lower frequency as it moved away.

I was wondering about this: Depending where you are measuring the signal, you should observe different frequencies. Science paper doesn't give too much details about this though.

Link to the Science article. Article has some interesting numbers as well:

It released 4.3 x 1018 J, equivalent to a 100-gigaton bomb, or about as much energy as is used in the United States in 6 months. Shifts in the sea floor displaced more than 30 km3 of seawater, generating a tsunami that traveled to the Antarctic, the east and west coasts of the Americas, and (with lessening amplitudes) the Arctic Ocean.

Yes they do. This is how they catch missile smugglers and their middlemen in the US and abroad. Google for "undercover sell arms". Here are a few cases:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1392009/p osts
http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/30/nuclear.bust/
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030813-120408- 5099r.htm
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/569
http://earthops.org/rus_mafia_carib.html

• it's Washington's second-largest newspaper;
• it was founded, and is still owned and controlled, by investors "associated with" the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church;
• it's consistently ultra-conservative in outlook;
• it was endorsed by then-President Reagan;
• and continue with the queasying bedfellows angle...

The FAIR site has a nice quote from "Former top UC official Steve Hassan" to the effect that the paper's a Trojan Horse -- "Conservative politics is glad to have a voice through the Times, but ultimately it has nothing to do with conservatism. It has to do with fascism." (As if today's conservatives would know the difference, given the people they elect and their own fundie-authoritarian leanings.)

As far as space stories go, the WT op/ed page reads like a throwback to Sputnik, which I guess isn't much of a surprise. (Of Chinese moon plans and our apparent lack of response: "'Space dominance is a 21st-century challenge we dare not refuse.")

Sorry man, metrosexuals are out....

Scratch politics from that list. The Pentagon has its Office of Special Plans. I am suspicious about crimes and disasters as well, given the amount of money involved in dealing with them.

Well, maybe it's evidence that Thomas Gold's observations are true - that oil is an abiotic substance constantly "leaking upward" from the Earth's core, that the "oil is decomposed dinosaurs" story is an absurd theory, propagated by the oil companies to trick us into paying more for oil by making us think that it's almost gone, when in fact all the oil fields are constantly refilling:

See this and this for more info...

The biggest conspiracy theory, ever! And just think if it's true. All the X-Files, all the UFO stuff, all the black helicopter stuff is all concocted by the Oil companies to keep us in the dark and disbelieving the "Conspiracy People".

The scariest, most intriguing thing about all the conspiracy theories out there: At least a few of them are true. The question is: Which ones?

Personally I believe that if you took a public vote of whether or not the list of banned words should be allowed on broadcast tv, and everyone voted, it would come out by far against it. Is that hard to believe when in the last election even the hispanic vote shifted to 50% bush because they lean conservative on social issues?

This explains why something like 95 out of 100 US Senators voted against Kyoto. (gasp, the President doesn't approve American entry into a treaty?).

Go here for more details.

Israel? North Korea comes to mind, but the Resolutions were blocked by china AFAIK

BZZZT. There are no other countries that have UN resolutions passed under the 7th chapter of the UN charter. If you had any clue about the UN, you would know that Chapter 7 resolutions are the only kind that allow member states that are not party to the resolution to enforce with military or economic action.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02 -un-wmd_x.htm

I see your link, and raise you one:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/: Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/200 3/david_kay_10022003.html: We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN.

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Anthropology/pu blications/General_Powell.htm
think YOU are making a fool of yourself by claiming "well known facts" without backing

Without backing, huh? The only thing you have provided is an op-ed that directly contradicts your own claim. You said "Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. And THAT is well known and documented" and then "backed" that up with piece called "Al Qaeda-Iraq Connection Tenuous at Best". Which are you arguing? That there was no connection, or that there was a tenuous connection?

Here are some more sources:
Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
US State Department Indictment
Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right
Saddam Hussein offered Bin Laden asylum
Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
UN envoy confirms terrorist meeting
Ansar al-Islam: Back in Iraq

Israel? North Korea comes to mind, but the Resolutions were blocked by china AFAIK

BZZZT. There are no other countries that have UN resolutions passed under the 7th chapter of the UN charter. If you had any clue about the UN, you would know that Chapter 7 resolutions are the only kind that allow member states that are not party to the resolution to enforce with military or economic action.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02 -un-wmd_x.htm

I see your link, and raise you one:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/: Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/200 3/david_kay_10022003.html: We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN.

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Anthropology/pu blications/General_Powell.htm
think YOU are making a fool of yourself by claiming "well known facts" without backing

Without backing, huh? The only thing you have provided is an op-ed that directly contradicts your own claim. You said "Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. And THAT is well known and documented" and then "backed" that up with piece called "Al Qaeda-Iraq Connection Tenuous at Best". Which are you arguing? That there was no connection, or that there was a tenuous connection?

Here are some more sources:
Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
US State Department Indictment
Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right
Saddam Hussein offered Bin Laden asylum
Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
UN envoy confirms terrorist meeting
Ansar al-Islam: Back in Iraq

Boy, you are uninformed.

12/07/02 - Iraq gives 12000 pages of documentation to UN. 12/13/02 - The US (NOT U.N.) claim "missing answers"

You seem to have forgotten about 1/27/03 - Hans Blix said: "On 7 December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to paragraph 3 of resolution 1441 (2002) and within the time stipulated by the Security Council... Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues."

Other countries fail to meet U.N. resolutions without being invaded

Yeah? Name one.

Wow, two things: 1. You admit he DIDN'T have a WMD program. 2. You say he wanted to build a WMD program, i assume you got that iformation via CNN.

If you ever bothered to read the ISG report regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities, you would know that 1. Iraq certainly did have WMD programs and 2. He retained equipment and intellectual capital that was in violation of the UN requirements and 3. He had clear intentions of mass producing WMD as soon as the UN sanctions were removed.

But my guess is that you never even bothered to read the report.

I call bullshit. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. And THAT is well known and documented.

Don't be ignorant. There are clear and documented ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda that date back to the early 1990's. The Clinton Administration connected Al Qaeda and Iraq when they bombed the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, and the Clinton State Department issued a clear indictment that Al Qaeda "reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Zarqawi has been in Iraq since early 2002, and has a clear history with Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. The Iraqi terrorist group Ansar Al-Islam also had a relationship with Al Qaeda.

More importantly, Iraq was on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism for the better part of 2 decades.

Arguing that Iraq was not involved with terrorists only makes you look stupid and ignorant, but I think most people already knew that about you after reading some of your other idiotic posts.

Christian Zionists, an evangelical subset whose ranks are estimated at 20 million in the United States, in the past two decades have poured millions of dollars of donations into Israel, formed a tight alliance with the Likud and other Israeli politicians seeking an expanded "Greater Israel," and mobilized grass-roots efforts to get the United States to adopt a similar policy.

All the recriminations now begin, even before the bodies are buried (or even counted). Bottom Line: This is an unprecedented natural disaster, and the same warning/response systems that existed in the pacific didn't really exist in that area of the world.

This is something so far out of the realm of most peoples experience, that it's quite natural to assume some incredulity on their part. Do you pay attention to the wide-eyed guy on the street corner with the sign that says "The end is near?" I thought not... most people ignore him, just as you probably do.

Just to add to the political fray, some reports have UN officials already complaining that the US and other western nations are being "stingy" with their aid packages... and even suggesting that those countries raise taxes on their citizens to pay for more aid (if you believe the Wash. Times).

Maybe some of these folks should focus more on helping, rather than wasting their breath trying to find a scapegoat.

While it must be agreed that democracy and freedom are noble goals, it is unclear whether the unlawful invasion and occupation of Iraq had anything to do with spreading democracy and freedom.

I have to disagree with your assertion that this was an unlawful invasion. In 1991, Iraq signed a document with the USA ending a war. Saddam then thumbed his nose at said document. How many times does the UN need to tell Saddam to behave before there are consequences? Well, the USA decided Saddam had been told enough, so the USA, the initiator of the document (The United Nations is not a signatory to said document) decided since Saddam didn't want to play by the document, they wouldn't either and they resumed hostilities. What law was broken? I would like to say that I feel W completely messed up the political end of the resumption of hostilities, but legally, I don't believe there is an issue.

because of the deliberate lies we were fed by Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice and their lapdog Blair.

Don't forget Clinton, Berger, Pelosi, Gore, the other Clinton,and Kerry as well. Prior to the invasion, the list of people thinking Iraq didn't have WMDs was pretty darn short, please show me someone who knew at the time....no one was lying, they were merely fooled by Saddam Hussein (who was in turn fooled by his weapons experts telling him he did have such weapons...in my opinion).

"We have to remember, the number of terrorists convicted as a direct result of these infractions on our Bill of Rights remains a big 0."

Actually, the number is a little bit higher than that:

"The report said the act helped secure six guilty pleas from an al Qaeda "sleeper cell" in Lackawanna, N.Y.; allowed the surveillance of a reputed terror cell in Portland, Ore., resulting in convictions of six persons in a scheme to travel to Afghanistan to fight U.S. forces; and the successful prosecution of a money launderer for Colombia's leftist rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC."

We are still counting al Qeada sleeper cells as terrorists, aren't we?

This article from the Washington Times covers some of what prior poster was talking about Democrats file 9 suits in Florida especially near the end of the article when it talks about the 2000 election.

I don't think that it is very surprising that people who bother to inform themselves about stuff that matters are mostly pro Kerry.

Yet, from reading this, it would appear that you are completely unaware of some specific and very serious accusations against Kerry.

For example, The Swift Boat Veterans for truth. Now, the first thing that's often brought up by Kerry supporters when mentioning the SBVT is that they've been 'discredited'. However, this 'discreditation' consists of only having been shown to be funded by Bush supporters.

No shit. Who do you think was gonna fund them? George Soros?

You won't hear, however, that Kerry has now retracted his two decade old 'christmas in cambodia' story, which he has previously stated was a strong basis for his political beliefs. Swift Vets said Kerry was never in Cambodia. Kerry's people later agree. Then the swiftvets said at least one of his purple hearts was bullshit, and given for a self inflicted wound (no one ever said it was intentional, which would have been a court marshal level offense.) Kerry's people later changed their tune on that.

So, as someone who says he bothers to inform himself, why aren't you bringing that up?

Are you also aware that Kerry is either a war criminal or a liar? In the 70's, there was the 'winter soldier investigation', where Kerry and a bunch of veterans- some real and some not- claimed that US soldiers routinely commited the worst war crimes against the vietnamese, and that Kerry had seen or participated in such activities. If Kerry had seen them and not reported them, that makes him complicit and a war criminal.

More than likely he lied, however. Under oath and in front of congress. Kerry served a year on the gridley and 4 months on a swift boat. He would have never been in a position to see any such war crimes that he testified to.

Kerry stabbed our soldiers in the back for political points.

Okay, so you might say 'so what, that happened thirty years ago' And it is possible that people can change dramatically in thirty years.

But we've seen his bald-faced lies for cheap political points in the last debate. See here.
Short story: Kerry claimed to have met with the UN security council and was making buddies with them. Security council members later say that never happened at all.

Now, we all know politicians are liars, but what kind of man does it take to make such an easily and immediately provably false statement on national TV?

What else? When Kerry was skiing some time ago, he fell on the slopes after a collision with a Secret Service agent. When asked about it, he said "I don't fall, the son of a bitch knocked me down." I don't know about you, but I sure as hell wouldn't insult someone who was supposed to catch a bullet for me. What kind of a man does that?

I could go on, but that's enough for now. I've been paying attention and bothering to inform myself, and I find Kerry to be a reprobate. You don't seem to have taken much time to inform yourself of Kerry's failings, have you?

Now, why vote for Bush?

Because he knows what the stakes are, that's why. I'm no Bush fanboy, as I think his domestic agenda sucks (though probably for different reasons than you.) However, Overall he's the right president at the right time.

For the past several decades, terrorists- the muslim, middle eastern variety- have been carrying out attacks against the west of increasing adaucity, culminating in 9/11. They've carried out significant attacks in other countries since then- that russian school, spain's trains, etc. They're in a war against the west. Bush realizes this, and has a decent plan that he's been executing for the past 3 years. Strangle off state support for Al-Qaeda and their brothers, and spread liberty in the middle east. Is it easy? No. But

...But every day 5000 Americans die, many of cancer and heart disease...

Most recently: http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041005-024 050-1855r.htm

I find it ironic that a bunch of anti-violence, anti-gun, peacemongers, like Democrats would behave this way. The anti-Bush crowd is foaming at the mouth. Have you all had your shots?

Al-Muhajiroun spiritual leader Omar Bakri hailed last week's attack on a school in southern Russia in which close to 400 people, including many children, were killed, and said that holding women and children hostages would be reasonable for a Muslim who has suffered under British rule.

Bakri told The Sunday Telegraph, "If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would be justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq. ... As long as the Iraqi did not deliberately kill women and children, and they were killed in the crossfire, that would be OK."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040930-114632- 6577r.htm

An Islamic spiritual leader scheduled for arraignment today on charges of counseling others to engage in a holy war against America told followers that he was "overjoyed" by the crash of the space shuttle Columbia, which killed six U.S. astronauts and one Israeli.
According to court records, Ali Al-Timimi, 40, of Fairfax, a primary lecturer at the Dar al Arqam Islamic Center in Falls Church, also known as the Center for Islamic Information and Education, said the Feb. 1, 2003, disintegration of the Columbia as it entered the Earth's atmospere brought welcome adversity to the United States.

"This morning, the world heard news about the crash of the space shuttle," Mr. Al-Timimi said, according to a six-count indictment handed up in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. "There is no doubt that Muslims were overjoyed because of the adversity that befell their greatest enemy.
"Upon hearing the news, my heart felt certain good omens that I liked to spread to my brothers," Mr. Al-Timimi said.
The space shuttle disintegrated 40 miles above the Earth. Debris and human remains were scattered over thousands of square miles in Texas and Louisiana. The seven astronauts were commander Rick Husband; pilot William McCool; payload commander Michael Anderson; mission specialists David Brown, Laurel Clark and Kalpana Chawla, a naturalized U.S. citizen from India; and Israel's first astronaut, Ilan Ramon.
Mr. Al-Timimi, a U.S. citizen, was indicted last week by a federal grand jury in Alexandria on charges of counseling members of the so-called Virginia jihad to wage holy war against the United States. He also was accused of aiding the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, violating the Neutrality Act, using firearms in the furtherance of crimes of violence and counseling others to use firearms and explosives.

So now I'm an "asshole" because I remember that those tax dollars used to be in my wallet. Nice. Real nice. I'll just otherwise ignore that little dig.

I can understand why you oppose vouchers on those grounds, but, by your logic, I would have just as valid a reason to oppose government money funding abortion. I consider that an endorsement of the practice as well as funding it.

My view is that government schools unofficially support secular humanism as the "official religion", and I wouldn't want my kids in that environment. (As a fun note, did you know that teachers are twice as likely to send their kids to private school as you or I? Don't take my word for it: read it for yourself.) So now, instead of being able to use the education that I've paid for because of my religious beliefs, I now have to pay a second time for private schooling or home schooling. That doesn't sound very fair to me at all.

From what I gather, you seem to think that people who want religious schooling for their kids should be financially punished for it through the taxation system, and that impedes on the ideals of religious freedom much more than a few people choosing relgious schools with vouchers as far as I am concerned.

John Kerry argued for unilateral preemptive action in Iraq on CNN's CROSSFIRE in '97

Please follow the link, notice the correction/retraction, and correct your .sig (preferably with a correction/retraction of your own).

(Gee, a paper controlled by the Moonies gets incorrect facts about Kerry from a Republican source. Color me shocked.)

Here's some more interesting quotes:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons