I think that site deserves three letters... an "L" an "O" and yet another "L"

:D

~Kujila

If the reds and blues wanted to block the greens from having a relationship, then that would be wrong according to our legal system. Fortunately, that is not what is happening. Rather, the greens just don't get any benefit. Allow me to put it into a better analogy.

RF switches have their designed uses, and AV cables have theirs. You can fit the pin on the end of an RF into the receptacle for the AV, even though there is no reason to do so. If you get your jollies off of doing that, good for you. I'm not going to mix and match my chords in a way they weren't intended for since it is harmful to their well being (I once broke an appliance that way), but you go ahead if you want to. You will get no benefit from such a union, but that is not saying you can't do it.

Silly analogy, but I think it is more accurate. Still not perfect though.

As I said, that analogy was not a good one. Merely correcting a point from the analogy it was replying to. That aside, I put some of my thoughts in a reply to Xooxer. Go read and reply to that one if you disagree with my ideas.

I find YOUR MOM insulting!

You do? GO MOM! :)

Loduwijk wrote:

Also, I don't think that past generations force the current ones to be just as corrupt, but I do find it interesting that one of the things the democratic campaign tried ever so hard to cover up was that Kerry's forefathers aquired much of their worth through illegal means with their merchanting. I don't recall all the exact particulars, but that is something you probably can (and should) find on the 'net.

Then why bring it up?

Kerry isn't the perfect U.S. president. But he's at least the lesser of two evils. I mean, Bush is a friggin' evangelical fundamentalist! A religious nutjob is the last person you want running the U.S.

I find it interesting that Mike didn't reply with his moderator green to this, as it is worse than telling someone they are dimwitted (which he replied to farther up).

That's not an insult, It's a fact.

A Christian (everyone is religious, you have to be more specific) is definately not the last person you want running the U.S.

I am not religious. There are many people who are not religious, and he was being very specific. Christian Fundamentalist. That's very specific.

In fact, it is the opposite. Even if you aren't one yourself, you have to admit that at least most of the biblical commandments do nothing but give people good morals and build their character.

Uh, yeah. I don't believe in god, I don't have a religoius belief. Guess what, I still don't kill. You don't need god to threaten you with eternal burnination to know it's wrong to commit murder. Are you telling me you think murder is right if god says so?

I believe they all do; but if you won't admit that at least most of what it teaches is good then I think that, and I think most will agree with me, your views are not ideal and are not what we want in a leader.

I would rather have a leader who thought for himself, instead of relying on some 5,000 old book for advice on running a nation. Or listened to what some preacher says is right and wrong according to their interpretation of a poorly translated book a bunch of guys wrote 5 millenia ago that has little relavence to current affairs.

A "religious nutjob" is the first person we want running the U.S. As long as the person does not force his/her other religious views onto the government and other people then you would be hard-pressed to find a better candidate where that is concerned.

That's the definition of religious nutjob. People who think that their religion is the only true religion, and who are willing to go to extreme measures to make sure non-believers are either converted or destroyed. Remember the Puritains and the with burnings? Those type of people were christian fundamentalists. You want those nut jobs running your country?

~X

Hold it right there. No one has taken away any rights. I don't like the policies GWB put into place, but he hasn't taken my rights away. Name these right, if you can.

~X

I don't see how it matters. I never claimed Kerry wasn't evil. Silk said Bush wasn't evil. I just want to know what makes him believe this, because I know killing is wrong, and he has killed thousands. As far as I know, Kerry hasn't killed anyone. I could be wrong, but it really doesn't matter. Kerry isn't the one in the spotlight when it comes to 9-11, the war on Iraq and terrorism, Bush is.

~X

You forget all the middle-eastern people he's killed. And I'm sure for Kerry it was kill or be killed.

~X

Kerry's ill founded idea that he could bring allies to the table simply isn't plausible. Especially when the U.N. is covered in scandals and blood money from Saddam himself.

The United States went into Iraq without the full support of the U.N. And Iraq entirely lacked an infrastructure as a result. It's not enough to say that Saddam Hussein was running the country and sabotaged everything on his way out the door -- the scale of disruption is too grand. While a peaceful dethroning would never be possible, doing so with the full support of the rest of NATO and the UN would have had a good plan for not only the short term but the long term.

Iraq posed no threat to the United States. Iraq is, in fact, a better place for terrorists now than it was before, because it lacks a functioning infrastructure to force them out of the woodwork.

Finding allies might not seem like a good plan, but as much as the United States pretends otherwise, allies are the key to winning wars. When you compare the success of the United States by itself (or with one or two allies) versus the success of the United States in combination with several allies, you notice a clear difference. You can, for instance, compare Bosnia and Herzegovina to Viet'nam -- Bosnia didn't turn out well, but it turned out way better than Viet'nam or Iraq did.

France has no backbone, they will not strike at terrorists until they are the last (socialistic) democracy on earth.

Democracy is defined literally as government by the people as a whole. Nations like France are good places to live because of the utter freedom you have there. Progress is starting to become defined in terms of social development and not in industrial and economical development. We have plenty of proof that industrial development is ruining this planet -- the world is moving to a much more brotherly place.

George W. Bush is not a strong leader. He has a strong party and is secure in his convictions, but that doesn't make him wise. A good leader is intelligent enough to recognise a changing situation and change his views accordingly.

I wouldn't say that Kerry would be the greatest president, but if you look at the fiscal and social changes as a whole under the Bush regime, countries around the world actually wonder what the heck the American people are thinking by re-electing him. This isn't just hearsay or rumour, either. Almost all countries, with the exception of Russia (which wants a familiar face in the White House when talks are going so good) and a couple others, wanted the Democrats to win.

That's not to say that they wanted Kerry... just that they wanted a democratic United States.

Backbone isn't defined as "going after people you hate and ripping their guts out". Backbone is defined as refusing to cave in the face of adversity. The United States wanted to hurry the U.N. into immediate action against Iraq, while the rest of the U.N. wanted to wait.

It's obvious by now that I'm a diametrically opposed liberal, but just to clarify my position, I don't see the modern world as being nearly as corrupt and tumultuous as conservative people like to think of it. Nor do I see government as inherently evil. I am convinced that the U.N. works. It's when people -- such as the United States -- go against the grain and demand things of the U.N. and accept no answers other than the ones they want, that the U.N. ceases to function.

Do I think the U.N. needs to be purged for a fresh start? Yes. But I think it needs to be immediately rebuilt thereafter.

Only a few frenchmen had the qualities necessary to defend their country from Hitler and the germans(In the form of resistance, [the churchhill gang - merely a group of boys]) What makes you think the french government would do anything to help us now?

The French didn't want to participate in the Iraq war for humanitarian reasons. Likewise for Germany. The countries of Europe, and to a similar extent Canada, like to think that they're civilised nations and that diplomacy, humanitarianism, and careful planning is the real key to any national operation, not raw force.

The whole "they sold missiles to Iraq" bull is just propaganda littered on the American streets by people who are angry by the lack of support from France and Germany.

You should see how poorly Canadians are treated in the United States lately just because my countrymen refused to go along with a military action which they felt was hasty. Before the War started, you could display a Canadian flag in your window and Americans would smile and wave as you drove by. Now if you even mention edgewise that you're Canadian, they want nothing to do with you.

The United States likes to think they did the world a great favour, but they really alienated everyone by doing so.

The Germans and the French are waylaid with corrupt politicians, and only recently is their ally Russia even interested in fighting terrorism (though Vladimir Putin is using it as a cover to pull the country back to his KGB roots).

While this may be true, I doubt neither France nor Germany would hold any punches if they felt they were threatened by either Iraq or al Qaeda, at any time.

Iraq was a tactical move, both politically and militarily. We had enough cause to get even the weak hearted liberals on our side to invade it, and in doing so we destroyed countless terrorists, and have made it dangerous for any to exist in Iraq.

It was a tactical move, but it was a premature move; in doing so, they didn't accomplish much. They deposed a dictator, but in doing so created the largest anarchy-in-conquered-territory the modern world has seen.

Also, very little proof exists that terrorists have been targetted specifically or are having any problems in Iraq. Militants and terrorists have been performing raids and attacks on American/Coalition troops with startling efficacy for quite some time.

We have secured our country from his possible WMD's (though there turned out to be none, even though he had the means to produce it, and had produced it and used it against the kurds and his own people).

Saddam wouldn't be stupid enough to ever consider using a weapon of mass destruction against any hard target like the United States. It would be suicide. Iraq was no threat to the United States.

Terrorists are likewise no real threat to the United States, in the grand scheme of things. They pose a small-scale threat to the safety and security of individuals and small groups, however.

(One thing which terrifies me, however, is the U.S. research into antimatter weaponry. Americans are already worried about nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands, and every year there are tonnes of MUF (Materials Unaccounted For) from nuclear waste facilities. If American antimatter technology actually becomes feasible, what would currently fit in a tanker to blow up New York City could fit in a briefcase.)

In taking Iraq, look at it as a game of risk, Iraq geographically gives us a stronghold in the midst of terrorist havens. Why do you think so many terrorists from the surrounding nations have made their attacks in Iraq? No neighbor of Iraq is friendly to democracy. Every surrounding nation is ruled totalarianly, and views Iraq as a threat. When the forces of evil are so desperate to undo what we have accomplished it only serves to signal that we have done the right thing.

I have no argument there. Attacking Iraq was the right thing, and it's bad for terrorism. But it wasn't the timely thing. If Saddam had a chance to get away and not face retribution for his crimes, he would still have to live in exile, and would be entirely incapable of running his country from afar -- waiting a year before a long-term plan was set into motion in Iraq would have accomplished all of the same things and additionally left Iraq in a good state.

Would it be dangerous to allow a person like Saddam to go into hiding, and thus get away with murder and war crimes? Possibly, yes. But a good hand always beats a good bluff; the U.S. played its hand too early.

Look at the millions who live free now, look at all the reconstuction, look at how much better they are living. When we occupied Germany many thought it was a "failed occupation", but not so...

The reconstruction is devastating the United States' economy, and is still functioning very poorly. Terrorist attacks are not on the decline in Iraq, and are equally targetting Iraqi citizens and foreigners in an effort to frighten Iraqis into further resenting the American occupation force.

The terrorists are alarmingly successful at this so far.

And then lets look at Afghanistan. We've done exceedingly well, capturing or killing countless top Al-Quaida members (even the second in command, and according to Newsweek we narrowly missed Osama himself) and slaughtering many Taliban in the process. Women are allowed to walk around with out fear of men, and without veils covering everything but their eyes. Equal rights, though it will take time are taking the country by storm. Children play soccer with the soldiers, there is no fear of the United States. Afghanistan's election also went off with out a hitch, where is Al-Quaida? We dominate and destroy them, their numbers dwindle and their recourses grow limited.

Afghanistan was never considered a poor course of action, neither by liberals nor by conservatives. Almost all military analysts will say that attacking the Taliban was a very wise course of action. Germany and France even offered to help with that, if memory serves. It's Iraq that's the real issue.

Only the weak in our country keep us from invading other countries to insure our protection. The liberals ask why we havn't done it, and the answer is simple. We're already involved in two nations, a third isn't plausible and the best reason of all, the moment we invade another country all the liberals will cry and moan.

Because most liberals agree with "due process". Time is the best resource we have. Rush jobs, while they get the job done, get it done in the poorest and least efficient manner. Yes, if you take your time, you might even end up paying more than if you rush it... but the end result will be so many fold better than a rush that someone would wonder why anyone even considers rushing in the first place.

I am a patriot, my family has quite the military history. My best friend is in the army, and my family is in the air force and army, currently. And trust me, if I didn't have a girlfriend who I thought I'm going to marry, I'd be the first one signing up.

Being proud of your country is probably one of the more important things in life. So run with it. Ultimately, you have your own opinions... don't let what some anonymous person on the internet says get to you.

Ignoring temporary measures and budgetary changes, Democrats generally raise taxes for the upper class and keep taxes flat for the lower class, whereas Republicans generally slightly reduce taxes for the lower class and massively reduce taxes for the upper class.

If the current trend were to continue (Bush probably isn't this stupid, however), then by 2010 the richest people in America would be paying only 1% of the taxes.