I disagree on a few points. If they are so stupid why hasn't our vastly superior military (and intelligence agency) been able to find OBL? He has evaded us for almost a decade. I don't call that stupid. I would think it is actually very impressive if it weren't for this administration not caring about getting him and instead waging war on a crippled country in order to gain access to 'phat' oil contracts.
I also believe, as I said before, that they are waiting until we become complacent (which we already are) and will strike us again. It is only a matter of time before one of these radicals gets their hands on some plutonium. According to the news, materials have already been looted from Iraq that could be used in building a Nuke and explosives powerful enough to detonate this device were also looted. And this administration denys it.
The terrorists in Iraq are organized and strike very specific targets (police, political leaders, and oil wells). How can you call that "Amaturish". I can't find the url, but Time magazine had an article on just how organized these guys really are, and it is scary when you combine that with fanatics willing to commit suicide for them.
This kind of misguided belief that they could not possibly attack us again is exactly how we got caught with our pants down in the first place.
You obviously don't understand how al-qeada works. Now, I am not claiming I know this for sure, but they would certainly NEVER EVER attack at a place or time where it was at all expected. They have patience enough to wait for years to carry out a task and will do it in such a way as to have the most impact possible. Attacking a monumnet on the 4th of July or a voter booth on election day is just not their style. I believe they would go for someplace that we would never expect, that would be socially important, and nigh impossible to defend. I believe this is why the DC Snipers were so successful in their brand of terror. EVERYONE for hundreds of miles around was afraid to get gas or even be out in public. OBL made us all afraid to fly. Jaws made us all afraid of the water. The whole point is to take something we take for granted and make us afraid of it.
Claiming that the FBI or the DoHS had any effect is just silly.
They will attack again, and it will come as a complete shock to us all, and it will be somplace obvious (like subways, jesus, you cant have a candy bar on the DC metro, but I sure bet you could get leave a bomb there during rush hour), and what is REALLY scary, no one with any authority over what happens will ever be blamed or held responsible, because it just gives us (the current administration) another reason to take away more civil liberties or invade another country for the wrong reasons.
>>and they didn't/don't have anywhere near as many guns per capita
But apparently is is real easy to down to the local warehouse and loot yourself some high explosives. Plus, while Americans have handguns and rifles, Iraqis had access to AK-47s and RPGs.
I am not disagreeing with you, I am just pointing this out.
Regarding being invaded by ANYONE... It would be a mistake to try and take us by force. The better way is what OBL will be attempting (or so he says) and that is to bankrupt us first. Ruin our economy, then have the Saudis take awaay their 17 billion (or whatever hideious sum they have invested in the US) and we will be begging them to help us out. They will take control and then use our own nukes to destroy us while they laugh at how easy it was. With the deficit as it is and a president that will stop at nothing to destroy terrorism, we are playing right into their hands. [dang, my tinfoil hat has a tear in it]
After reading the posts to the parent, I believe we know why we have problems in the mid-east. While I believe that the USA (with the UN) may have to intervene with other countries to ensure they aren't up to no good (ethnic cleansing, terror camps, slavery, nuke facilities or mass polluting, to name a few) I seriously think the replies here are the result of a very arrogant thinking that the people in these countries want Democracy. If they do, then yes, we should assist them in achieving it (IF THEY ASK), if they don't ask, we should keep an eye on them, but otherwise leave them the F alone.
Why do we feel the need to spread something that bareley works here to people that don't want it?! God we are arrogant fukkers.
... I disagree.(mostly) I thought the christian/catholic/babtist/protestant/whatever/etc.. god was all about one word. LOVE Love felt by any person is just that, love. A fine quote from some bible:
There are three things that remain - faith, hope, and love - and the greatest of these is love."
Now it seems to me that if Jesus or whatever diety you happen to worship has LOVE as their bottom line then they should say so and stand by that.
But it isn't that way. If a man has love, true unconditional love for a woman, it is just fine in the eyes of their lord. Now if this same unconditional love is directed towards someone of the same sex, your god has a big old problem. Or so you say. What has changed? The feeling of love is still the EXACT same feeling. It is just that those with authority and who call themselves "righteous" don't like it. But aren't all humans equal in your god's eyes?
Another good one:
"Love is patient. Love is kind. It does not envy. It does not boast. It is not proud. It is not rude. It is not self-seeking. It is not easily angered. It keeps no record of wrong doing. It does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth. It always protects, trusts, hopes, perseveres."
Corinthians 13 Paul/1 Corinthians 13:13
Now I don't see anything in there that says anything about love being gender specific.
So, I think the problem here is not about LOVE. Love is constant and love is not judgemental. It is only those who get to determine if 2 humans can legally be together that are not consistant and purely judgemental base on their hippocratic beliefs.
One last quote:
"Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work: If one falls down, his friend can help him up. But pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up! Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone? The one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves."
Ecclesiastes 4:9-12
No mention of "1 man and 1 woman" there only "Two".
If your god believes in love, I seriously doubt an almighty being has set conditions and qualifications on who can love who. And neither should we. If two people love each other, unconditionally, it shouldn't matter what sex they are and it shouldn't affect their rights to visit them in the hospital and it shouldn't affect their right to raise children or anything else. Two people who have commited their lives to be with the other should all have the same benefits as every other couple that has done the same. If your god won't accept it (according to you) there are plenty of other gods out there that will. But there are those out there who say that same gender love is "Immoral" and I think that by saying that you are saying love is immoral. Which it is not and that makes you a bloody hippocrite that has blasphemed. (according to your own standards)
Personally, I believe in nothing and I am therefore not _limited_ in any set of beliefs. And this is how the government should be as well. It should allow all religeons and represent NONE. Because god and government, by law, do not mix in this country, last time I checked anyway.
So, it should be one way or the other. 2 people CAN form a union and get benefits or they CAN'T. Why are we discriminating?
Hey pal, I agree with you. I was only pointing out that the parent to my post was modded funny, and war (any war) just isn't. The poster even said so in his post.
But you are right... the way to win the war on drugs/terror is to re-educate the users of drugs/terror. Bombing innocents in hopes to get the bad guys only inspires the need to fight a much stronger foe with the only means possible: terror.
Even if it is only 10,000, that is too many. Far too many. It means there are 10,000 relatives of those people that hate America because this President had a hard-on for Saddam and his partner had his sights on Oil.
This war is an atrocity and those responsible should be "brought to justice."
Firstly, out of context or not, he is quite plainly not satisfied with how he was treated by this administration. Much like many others.
Regarding Allawi, it is alleged that his speech was written for him by this administration. And in that speech he failed to mention beheadings of innocent contractors, no-go zones where the military in control of the country WON'T go, an average of 80 insurgent attacks EVERY DAY, and that the Iraqi police force isn't as trained as they should be at this point in time. (Our responsibility) Nor does he mention that some places in Iraq are still without fresh water and electricty. In other words he painted a falsly rosey picture of a place that is immersed in chaos and violence. It was misleading and false. I suppose we should believe him over the reports that every news channel, site and paper report on every day. Well, someone had the balls to point that out. It sure wasn't the POTUS. He would rather make it _look_ like he is doing a good job and that the Iraqis are satisfied with the job we have done.
And if you read the news lately, Allawi isn't singing our praises anymore. He is accusing the American military of neglecting to protect the Iraqis that were slaughtered last week.
Seems to me that Kerry was being honest about the situation in Iraq while the President and the person the administration "assigned" to be in charge were not.
Funny how you don't trust the person who was telling the truth and being honest with the rest of the world. But I suppose that is how it is, if it isn't good news, this administration doesn't want to hear it. Those who support W need a reality check.
Insult is a term used by W to spin what Kerry said. Kerry said we are paying for 90% of this war (money and casualties). I know... "What about Poland?!"
Bush (approximately): 'He says we didn't have allies? What does he say to Tony Blair? What does he say to Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland?'
President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland: 'They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride.'
So, I ask you this? What is more insulting? Being lied to about why you are being asked to go to WAR or being told the truth about who is bearing the brunt of this war?
The war was a mistake, but regardless it must now be faught and WON by America. Here is a nice site on who is actually there about 23,900 troops from EVERY other country TOTAL. Leaving massive piles of explosives and nuclear materials unguarded, and toturing prisoners is not the way to win the war.
It is a fact that the rest of the world would rather have Kerry instead of W as our POTUS. So don't you think that the rest of the world would be more willing to work with someone they prefer instead of someone who has lied to them and then told them they can't share in any of the profitable oil contracts after the invasion.
W has screwed our foriegn policy into a place where it will be hard for anyone to get us out of, I believe Kerry has a far greater chance of salvaging some of these relations that most. W has no chance at all.
You see, this statement: If your best information indicated that a enemy has WMD... Is just not true. The POTUS used tailored information, not the best information. He only wanted to hear that they had WMD so that is the only information that made its way to his tiny little redneck wanna-be brain. There were many in the CIA and other agencies (like the WEAPONS INSPECTORS, that were there)that informed him that there were no WMDs. This may have not been a hard fact at the time, but W didn't even give them the chance before he launched his attack. We know the facts now, and..your best information... was just plian wrong. Face it, we were lied to, so the POTUS could make his buddies at Halliburton even filthier in richness.
Regarding this: I think he's been at best a mediocre president and Bush may promise things you don't like or want but he at least attempts to keep them and stick to them baring new information.
Tell me, there is new information coming in all the time and this guy has stuck to his guns, even though that path has been wrong all along. [not enough troops, and the ones that were there weren't properly equipped, and they still arent] Where has it gotten us? 1100+ Americans dead, 7000+ wounded, hundreds of tons of missing explosives that he was warned about and decided not to guard, 10s of thousands ot innocent Iraqis dead, massive job losses, health care increases, poverty stricken increases, environmental failures.. the list goes on. Here are some more
How can you say he is mediocre? There has never been a more pathetic display of what to do as POTUS in the entire history of there being a POTUS. You are severely deluding yourself. As far as Kerry is concerned, I guarantee he has a better grasp of things than W does. My dog has a better grasp than W. Kerry is intelligent and brave and has led men into real combat. Can W claim any of this? Can Cheney? Oh, they could, but like usual, they would be lying.
How can you claim empty promises when he hasn't had a chance to excute? I am disgusted by the belief that W has been anything but a complete failure as POTUS, just like everything else in his life. He was handed a great job and he flushed it and everything surrounding it right down the sh1tter. Even when the entire world was for the USA after 9/11, he has managed to squander any good feeling towards us throughout the entire planet. The republican and conservative world needs to face reality and give up on their Unholy Messiah.
Kerry also used a Bush campaign line, telling the crowd that the president had jumped to conclusions about Saddam Hussein's connection to the September 11, 2001, attacks and about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
"I'm going to apply the Bush standard to this: Yesterday... George Bush said and I quote him: 'A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief when it comes to your security.' Well Mr. President, I agree with you."
Kerry may have supported this War, but it is W and his cronies that have seriously screwed things up over there. To be honest, at the time, I also supported the war, but that was when I believed the lies of this pathetic administration.
How can Bush supporters continue to believe the constant stream of spin and lies? Are they just blind and refuse to accept the reality that W has really made things a lot worse since he has been in office?
How is this? "For a political candidate to jump to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief," Bush said.
This is the guy who went to war because a certain country had WMDs, and now we know they don't and didn't.
Problem: Many voter registration numbers are Social Security numbers. Mine is. And it wouldn't be cool to publish that. Other than that, not a bad plan IMHO.
There is nothing more sacred to a republican than freedom.
Is that why people get arrested for wearing anti-W t-shirts. Is that why guys get reported to the FBI for speaking against this administration.
Republicans in general may believe in freedom. But thier current version of it is skewed towards facism. There are a lot of things out there that the RIGHT is against that is necessary for the evolution of our race. One example is Stem-cells. Another is the end of the hippocracy of these rightious scumbags who are guilty of exactly what they accuse everyone else of being [i.e. Rush, O'reilly, Cheney]. They lie to our faces and then proceed to commit attrocities. And the sheep suck it up like it was the gospel.
Don't you think a more intelligent person could appoint a more intelligent staff? W did nothing but drum up a bunch of good ol' boys that were his father's friends. Those that are questionable: Rice (playing the obsequious lapdog and ignoring her job so she can go on the campaign trail with W, and lying for him in front of the 9/11 commission ("there were no actionable items on that memo" Hey Condi, it is YOUR job to take those actions)) is obviously just along for the ride. And I honestly can't figure out Powell. I used to think he would be POTUS some day, but I think W has ruined his career.
Let's face it.. W's staff have screwed up as much as, if not more that W has.
The world was better off when the worse thing the POTUS did was get a BJ in the OO.
I _just_ read that article. And I agree with you 100%. We should all be afraid... very afraid. Even more scary are those fanatics that support this guy. Like he is the Messiah. I got news for you... He isn't.
God save us. [What am I saying? He thinks he is god]
Exactly... the thing the snipers did was to sit tight while the police searched for people trying to escape the scene. With your plan, you could crawl up into the luggage torpedo and even if they looked in your car they wouldn't think to look in one of those attached to an empty car.
Are you getting all this carnivore? Where is my stash of Tin foil?
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree on a few points.
If they are so stupid why hasn't our vastly superior military (and intelligence agency) been able to find OBL? He has evaded us for almost a decade. I don't call that stupid. I would think it is actually very impressive if it weren't for this administration not caring about getting him and instead waging war on a crippled country in order to gain access to 'phat' oil contracts.
I also believe, as I said before, that they are waiting until we become complacent (which we already are) and will strike us again. It is only a matter of time before one of these radicals gets their hands on some plutonium. According to the news, materials have already been looted from Iraq that could be used in building a Nuke and explosives powerful enough to detonate this device were also looted. And this administration denys it.
The terrorists in Iraq are organized and strike very specific targets (police, political leaders, and oil wells). How can you call that "Amaturish". I can't find the url, but Time magazine had an article on just how organized these guys really are, and it is scary when you combine that with fanatics willing to commit suicide for them.
This kind of misguided belief that they could not possibly attack us again is exactly how we got caught with our pants down in the first place.
You obviously don't understand how al-qeada works. Now, I am not claiming I know this for sure, but they would certainly NEVER EVER attack at a place or time where it was at all expected.
They have patience enough to wait for years to carry out a task and will do it in such a way as to have the most impact possible.
Attacking a monumnet on the 4th of July or a voter booth on election day is just not their style.
I believe they would go for someplace that we would never expect, that would be socially important, and nigh impossible to defend. I believe this is why the DC Snipers were so successful in their brand of terror.
EVERYONE for hundreds of miles around was afraid to get gas or even be out in public.
OBL made us all afraid to fly.
Jaws made us all afraid of the water.
The whole point is to take something we take for granted and make us afraid of it.
Claiming that the FBI or the DoHS had any effect is just silly.
They will attack again, and it will come as a complete shock to us all, and it will be somplace obvious (like subways, jesus, you cant have a candy bar on the DC metro, but I sure bet you could get leave a bomb there during rush hour), and what is REALLY scary, no one with any authority over what happens will ever be blamed or held responsible, because it just gives us (the current administration) another reason to take away more civil liberties or invade another country for the wrong reasons.
>>and they didn't/don't have anywhere near as many guns per capita
But apparently is is real easy to down to the local warehouse and loot yourself some high explosives. Plus, while Americans have handguns and rifles, Iraqis had access to AK-47s and RPGs.
I am not disagreeing with you, I am just pointing this out.
Regarding being invaded by ANYONE... It would be a mistake to try and take us by force. The better way is what OBL will be attempting (or so he says) and that is to bankrupt us first. Ruin our economy, then have the Saudis take awaay their 17 billion (or whatever hideious sum they have invested in the US) and we will be begging them to help us out. They will take control and then use our own nukes to destroy us while they laugh at how easy it was.
With the deficit as it is and a president that will stop at nothing to destroy terrorism, we are playing right into their hands.
[dang, my tinfoil hat has a tear in it]
The problem is... Now I am mad at the people instead of the lawyers/justices that appointed him in the first place.
I will get over it. It still bewilders me though.
After reading the posts to the parent, I believe we know why we have problems in the mid-east.
While I believe that the USA (with the UN) may have to intervene with other countries to ensure they aren't up to no good (ethnic cleansing, terror camps, slavery, nuke facilities or mass polluting, to name a few) I seriously think the replies here are the result of a very arrogant thinking that the people in these countries want Democracy. If they do, then yes, we should assist them in achieving it (IF THEY ASK), if they don't ask, we should keep an eye on them, but otherwise leave them the F alone.
Why do we feel the need to spread something that bareley works here to people that don't want it?!
God we are arrogant fukkers.
When you only allow research on a certain amount of fetuses (fetusi?, feti?) and those have been contaminated, then there might as well be a ban.
Are you allowed to use any of the aborted fetus material that is (donated) every day, legally?
I think not.
Therefore a limit is in place and that limit has been reached. If you cannot do any more research how is this not a ban?
I thought the christian/catholic/babtist/protestant/whatever/et
LOVE
Love felt by any person is just that, love.
A fine quote from some bible:Now it seems to me that if Jesus or whatever diety you happen to worship has LOVE as their bottom line then they should say so and stand by that.
But it isn't that way. If a man has love, true unconditional love for a woman, it is just fine in the eyes of their lord.
Now if this same unconditional love is directed towards someone of the same sex, your god has a big old problem. Or so you say.
What has changed? The feeling of love is still the EXACT same feeling. It is just that those with authority and who call themselves "righteous" don't like it. But aren't all humans equal in your god's eyes?
Another good one:Now I don't see anything in there that says anything about love being gender specific.
So, I think the problem here is not about LOVE.
Love is constant and love is not judgemental. It is only those who get to determine if 2 humans can legally be together that are not consistant and purely judgemental base on their hippocratic beliefs.
One last quote:No mention of "1 man and 1 woman" there only "Two".
If your god believes in love, I seriously doubt an almighty being has set conditions and qualifications on who can love who.
And neither should we.
If two people love each other, unconditionally, it shouldn't matter what sex they are and it shouldn't affect their rights to visit them in the hospital and it shouldn't affect their right to raise children or anything else.
Two people who have commited their lives to be with the other should all have the same benefits as every other couple that has done the same.
If your god won't accept it (according to you) there are plenty of other gods out there that will.
But there are those out there who say that same gender love is "Immoral" and I think that by saying that you are saying love is immoral. Which it is not and that makes you a bloody hippocrite that has blasphemed. (according to your own standards)
Personally, I believe in nothing and I am therefore not _limited_ in any set of beliefs.
And this is how the government should be as well. It should allow all religeons and represent NONE. Because god and government, by law, do not mix in this country, last time I checked anyway.
So, it should be one way or the other. 2 people CAN form a union and get benefits or they CAN'T.
Why are we discriminating?
Hey pal, I agree with you.
I was only pointing out that the parent to my post was modded funny, and war (any war) just isn't. The poster even said so in his post.
But you are right... the way to win the war on drugs/terror is to re-educate the users of drugs/terror. Bombing innocents in hopes to get the bad guys only inspires the need to fight a much stronger foe with the only means possible: terror.
Even if it is only 10,000, that is too many. Far too many.
It means there are 10,000 relatives of those people that hate America because this President had a hard-on for Saddam and his partner had his sights on Oil.
This war is an atrocity and those responsible should be "brought to justice."
What dumbass modded this as funny?
You should have your mod rights stripped.
Firstly, out of context or not, he is quite plainly not satisfied with how he was treated by this administration. Much like many others.
Regarding Allawi, it is alleged that his speech was written for him by this administration. And in that speech he failed to mention beheadings of innocent contractors, no-go zones where the military in control of the country WON'T go, an average of 80 insurgent attacks EVERY DAY, and that the Iraqi police force isn't as trained as they should be at this point in time. (Our responsibility) Nor does he mention that some places in Iraq are still without fresh water and electricty.
In other words he painted a falsly rosey picture of a place that is immersed in chaos and violence. It was misleading and false.
I suppose we should believe him over the reports that every news channel, site and paper report on every day.
Well, someone had the balls to point that out. It sure wasn't the POTUS. He would rather make it _look_ like he is doing a good job and that the Iraqis are satisfied with the job we have done.
And if you read the news lately, Allawi isn't singing our praises anymore. He is accusing the American military of neglecting to protect the Iraqis that were slaughtered last week.
Seems to me that Kerry was being honest about the situation in Iraq while the President and the person the administration "assigned" to be in charge were not.
Funny how you don't trust the person who was telling the truth and being honest with the rest of the world. But I suppose that is how it is, if it isn't good news, this administration doesn't want to hear it.
Those who support W need a reality check.
I know... "What about Poland?!"
So, I ask you this? What is more insulting? Being lied to about why you are being asked to go to WAR or being told the truth about who is bearing the brunt of this war?
The war was a mistake, but regardless it must now be faught and WON by America.
Here is a nice site on who is actually there about 23,900 troops from EVERY other country TOTAL.
Leaving massive piles of explosives and nuclear materials unguarded, and toturing prisoners is not the way to win the war.
It is a fact that the rest of the world would rather have Kerry instead of W as our POTUS. So don't you think that the rest of the world would be more willing to work with someone they prefer instead of someone who has lied to them and then told them they can't share in any of the profitable oil contracts after the invasion.
W has screwed our foriegn policy into a place where it will be hard for anyone to get us out of, I believe Kerry has a far greater chance of salvaging some of these relations that most. W has no chance at all.
You see, this statement: ..your best information... was just plian wrong.
If your best information indicated that a enemy has WMD...
Is just not true.
The POTUS used tailored information, not the best information. He only wanted to hear that they had WMD so that is the only information that made its way to his tiny little redneck wanna-be brain.
There were many in the CIA and other agencies (like the WEAPONS INSPECTORS, that were there)that informed him that there were no WMDs.
This may have not been a hard fact at the time, but W didn't even give them the chance before he launched his attack.
We know the facts now, and
Face it, we were lied to, so the POTUS could make his buddies at Halliburton even filthier in richness.
Regarding this:
I think he's been at best a mediocre president
and
Bush may promise things you don't like or want but he at least attempts to keep them and stick to them baring new information.
Please read these: here
Tell me, there is new information coming in all the time and this guy has stuck to his guns, even though that path has been wrong all along. [not enough troops, and the ones that were there weren't properly equipped, and they still arent] Where has it gotten us? 1100+ Americans dead, 7000+ wounded, hundreds of tons of missing explosives that he was warned about and decided not to guard, 10s of thousands ot innocent Iraqis dead, massive job losses, health care increases, poverty stricken increases, environmental failures.. the list goes on.
Here are some more
How can you say he is mediocre? There has never been a more pathetic display of what to do as POTUS in the entire history of there being a POTUS.
You are severely deluding yourself.
As far as Kerry is concerned, I guarantee he has a better grasp of things than W does. My dog has a better grasp than W. Kerry is intelligent and brave and has led men into real combat. Can W claim any of this? Can Cheney? Oh, they could, but like usual, they would be lying.
How can you claim empty promises when he hasn't had a chance to excute?
I am disgusted by the belief that W has been anything but a complete failure as POTUS, just like everything else in his life. He was handed a great job and he flushed it and everything surrounding it right down the sh1tter. Even when the entire world was for the USA after 9/11, he has managed to squander any good feeling towards us throughout the entire planet.
The republican and conservative world needs to face reality and give up on their Unholy Messiah.
Kerry may have supported this War, but it is W and his cronies that have seriously screwed things up over there. To be honest, at the time, I also supported the war, but that was when I believed the lies of this pathetic administration.
How can Bush supporters continue to believe the constant stream of spin and lies?
Are they just blind and refuse to accept the reality that W has really made things a lot worse since he has been in office?
Good point... Part of his "Crusade"
How is this?
"For a political candidate to jump to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief," Bush said.
This is the guy who went to war because a certain country had WMDs, and now we know they don't and didn't.
What a freaking hippocrite.
Problem:
Many voter registration numbers are Social Security numbers.
Mine is.
And it wouldn't be cool to publish that.
Other than that, not a bad plan IMHO.
...and some kind of "proof" that Bush is evil incarnate!
How about 101 reasons?
Here!
Or one big one:
Here
Actions speak pretty loudly.
Well, the poster was spelling "boobies", while you missed spelling "boobless".
;->
"55378008" seven, not one.
Now who is more ashamed.
There is nothing more sacred to a republican than freedom.
Is that why people get arrested for wearing anti-W t-shirts.
Is that why guys get reported to the FBI for speaking against this administration.
Republicans in general may believe in freedom. But thier current version of it is skewed towards facism.
There are a lot of things out there that the RIGHT is against that is necessary for the evolution of our race. One example is Stem-cells.
Another is the end of the hippocracy of these rightious scumbags who are guilty of exactly what they accuse everyone else of being [i.e. Rush, O'reilly, Cheney]. They lie to our faces and then proceed to commit attrocities. And the sheep suck it up like it was the gospel.
Don't you think a more intelligent person could appoint a more intelligent staff?
W did nothing but drum up a bunch of good ol' boys that were his father's friends.
Those that are questionable:
Rice (playing the obsequious lapdog and ignoring her job so she can go on the campaign trail with W, and lying for him in front of the 9/11 commission ("there were no actionable items on that memo" Hey Condi, it is YOUR job to take those actions)) is obviously just along for the ride.
And I honestly can't figure out Powell. I used to think he would be POTUS some day, but I think W has ruined his career.
Let's face it.. W's staff have screwed up as much as, if not more that W has.
The world was better off when the worse thing the POTUS did was get a BJ in the OO.
I _just_ read that article. And I agree with you 100%.
We should all be afraid... very afraid.
Even more scary are those fanatics that support this guy. Like he is the Messiah. I got news for you... He isn't.
God save us.
[What am I saying? He thinks he is god]
Exactly... the thing the snipers did was to sit tight while the police searched for people trying to escape the scene. With your plan, you could crawl up into the luggage torpedo and even if they looked in your car they wouldn't think to look in one of those attached to an empty car.
Are you getting all this carnivore? Where is my stash of Tin foil?
How condescending...
It is quite apparent that you are truly concerned for those you refer to as "mouth-breathers"
[/sarcasm]
Sorry... There were so many to choose from. And I am trying to get SOME work done.
I know... It was not what the article was about, but not entirely off-topic either.
Thanks for the debate.