Takvah

What I love is that your sources are checkable but anyone with an opinion to the contrary and sources is a joker. Believe me but don't believe them is hypocritical don't you think? Seems to me that we're going to be advocates for the guys we want to see win... so why is there surprise? LIS you're a kid, you'll get older and maybe wiser... I am a REPUBLICAN and remain a REPUBLICAN but I won't vote for Bush, not again. It is my right and the right of many of my Republican friends to see that this guy has not been good for the country. I don't think Kerry is the answer but someone needs to put the brakes on Bush. His new commercial where he is sitting there with Laura and he is talking about bringing people to justice makes me SICK. Osama Bin Laden killed 3000 of us and he hasn't been brought to justice. Iraq is a mess that will form an alliance with Iran any day now. How can I just ignore this even if I am a Republican? I can't. I won't and I'm sorry if that means I am forced to savage someone in my own party. The guy is a liar and frankly STUPID and I find him to be an embarrassment to our nation and to my party.

OK... this would all be great if it were true... but it isn't. You guys seem to think that keeping the minimum wage low somehow insures that prices stay low. This is not a factual economic principle. First of all, since a good portion of your working force falls into this minimum wage area if you keep their spending power low you keep their ability to infuse capital into the system low. Workers that make the minimum wage are in affect a GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZE WORK FORCE. What I mean by this is that they put in the least amount in taxes and they use the most in SERVICES. So while you bust a nut and think that minimum wage workers deserve what they get you are being taxed to keep this workforce educated (their kids) and medicated. Bush gives you a tax cut in the form of a $300 - $600 rebate (which is a shell game in and of itself because while government tucks that check in your front pocket it is pulling it out of your back pocket), then he goes and BORROWS money that WE WILL ALL HAVE TO PAY BACK and then supports IMMIGRATION which floods the job market and keeps wages artificially low. It just makes no sense. Of the 1.3-1.4 million jobs supposedly created something like 25-30% of them went to non citizens and illegals... wow we'll see some great tax revenues from those won't we? But let's put that all aside and just work from simple logic which is what you guys seem to be trying to do. Wages in this country have been stagnant for a couple of years now but amazingly prices have INCREASED. That kind of throws a wrench into your argument doesn't it?

Decency to resign quickly? You guys had better do a little better with your fact checking... MMMMMM K? Rowland was under investigation and pressure from March of 2003, LYING to the people and DENYING the charges and forcing a costly investigation and process of impeachment. By the time he had decided to resign it was JUNE of 2004. Come on guys you need to do better than this! He just dealt with what he'd done and LEFT? ROFLMAO. The stink of corruption begins to waft 3/2003 $5 MILLION SPENT TO INVESTIGATE THIS LIAR FOR IMPEACHMENT Finally they swear in M. Jodi Rell 7/1/04

And again I ask you, what's your point? This is politics. The Texas legislature is trying to redefine the congressional districts while they have the votes in the Texas legislature to do it. They are doing what Steve? Cementing their power? No... it can't be! This is one of those times where I figure it's about time somebody said, F YOU. Do I think there would be any kind of a different approach by a Republican? Hell NO. You know it too so why are you sitting here arguing as if you would DEMAND that a Republican step down. If you are saying that I think you're being less than truthful. Peace

Was John Kerry President that day? Was it on him to dispatch fighters and to REMOVE HIMSELF FROM A SCHOOL WHERE HIS VERY PRESENCE MIGHT HAVE BROUGHT HARM TO KIDS? No... no I didn't think so. Next. And yeah Street there is that school of thought that perhaps they knew more than they let on. They sure as hell knew planes could be used in this way and had been briefed on it, that much has been proved after they LIED about it.

quote:Originally posted by Steve Schacher: quote:I'll stand with the guys who served on his boat...http://img37.exs.cx/img37/6421/served_defintion.jpg> Hey Steve can you deliver anybody that saw Bush fulfill his service? Can you produce the medical exam and drug test he was supposed to take prior to up and vanishing? The man SERVED ON A BASE yet he can't bring anybody out to say, "Yeah that guy farted in his bunk at night and it drove us nuts!" I don't care how you want to parce the word service, you don't even demand to know what the hell your President was doing AWOL from the Champagne unit he was tucked away in. How embarrassing for you. I suddenly have a song by the great Eric Clapton running through my head... it's a one word title... can anyone help me with that title? Man I can hear the rift as clear as day... damn I'm sure it will come to me sooner or later.

I appreciate the input Marvin... especially given your background.

I think it's been established that these guys have no more honor within themselves than they would themselves bestow on Kerry. A good guage of a man is how he measures others. Of course some of these guys have said one thing at one time and another at some other. Seems like your swiftboat captains are flip floppers, you might want to call them on that *snickers*. Which one of them was a shill for Nixon again? Truth is relative Kalshion and I have never found you to be compelling when in the pursuit of it. Hey how much would it cost me to get you to do a test to see if they done did "super-em-pose" them there fellas when they were singing Kerry's praises? Q: "Why didn't you come forward sooner about Kerry?" A: "That was Massachusetts problem." Wow, that answer just has the smell of honor all over it doesn't it? This man dishonored YOU but hell you'll ignore that, UNLESS OF COURSE, he runs for President. Profound, isn't it?

Changing stories? WHAT! Say it ain't so! UNBELIEVABLE. Kerry is a lying Flip Flopper yet it seems we have the Right Wing Attack Machine (no affiliation to the sophomoric blog) coming out and smearing everything about this guy. Then we read that people are changing their stories left and right and some of these guys didn't even serve in fire fights they are criticizing Kerry for embelishing. Worse yet we have a medic or physician who didn't treat him for wounds he suffered during battle calling them "self inflicted". I have to tell you these Swifty Captains are a disgrace. You can be pissed off at a guy for condemning a war and diminishing your service but wholesale fabrication and lies to smear the guy, that's unreal. These guys did more to diminish themselves with this propaganda smear than John Kerry could have ever done. I'll stand with the guys who served on his boat and the man he plucked from the water while taking fire. Cambodia is for another thread, the jury is still out on that but THIS has been proved to be nothing more than political hatchet work. We all wonder about Kerry with these kinds of books so that the constant wonder about Bush dodging DRUG TESTS WHILE SNORTING COKE IN 1972 can be forgotten. Oh that hasn't been proved? Should it matter to some of you? Peace

RIIIIIGHT Steve, you seem SHOCKED and HORRIFIED. You have got to be kidding me... if this was a Republican this simply wouldn't happen? Is that what you're saying? Gee... politicians playing politics. I am so disappointed. Regardless New Jersey would sadly elect a Democrat anyway... I happen to support Republican Governors although with the election fix I've had it with Jeb. Steve, you disappoint me. You gotta hand it to the Democrats? Political favors involving sex is horrific but no bid contracts and the enriching of Cheney and Bush Sr. contacts in Halliburton and Carlyle over a WAR is good business. Priceless. McGreevey is a degenerate make no bones about it. You don't give a job like Homeland Security to a lover male or female but you also don't give contracts in the hundreds of millions to billions to your buddies while our BOYS die. Spread that disgust man! Republicans and the military industrial complex, you gotta give em credit... badda bing badda bam!

quote:Originally posted by Steve Schacher: You appear to feel that the reason to have a Democrat in the White House is that the press favors the Democrat and government would operate more smoothly with a Democrat due to the press going back to doing their job with a Democrat. I feel that the press's favoritism is compromising their ability to do their jobs either way. The press also shifted away from traditional watchdog roles during the Clinton Administration because he kept inviting them to all the lavish state dinners that he threw. The press started cozying up to Clinton (and the Democrats by extension) because they wanted access to the White House and felt that if they were too critical they would lose that access to a competitor (plus lose access to the good parties). One of the first criticisms of the DC elite after Bush was elected was how the nightlife died. Bush goes to bed early and there aren't the lavish parties that Clinton used to throw. I think another reason that you might think that Congress would go back to traditional oversight with a Democrat is that Democrats feel that the positions of power are rightfully theirs, and that the Republican control is an aberration. This is why they are stalling on everything, hoping to delay judges until a Democrat regains control, and now hoping to delay confirming a new CIA chief until Democrats regain control. I feel that it is wrong to give into a Democrat just because the Democrats are obstructing the normal flow of operations and that electing a Democrat would stop the obstructing. That's almost extortion. Nope it had nothing to do with cocktail parties. When I mention the Congress what I mean to say is that when you put a Democrat in the White House the Congress is going to wake up and start LOOKING at what the guy is doing. With Bush in there they just give him carte-blanche to do what he wants. Even if there is a Republican Congress you would expect that SOMEBODY in that group would have the BALLS to say, "You are the President but we're the Congress and you have to work through us to get what you want done." To the contrary the Republican Congress has totally relinquished its power and does whatever this President requests of them. The only time you hear anybody stand up to this guy the words are being uttered by McCain who isn't Republican enough or who collaborated with the Vietnamese (Bush Campaign 2000). Even with this amazing amount of power Bush has done LITTLE on the domestic side of things and has instead used this cooperation between the Legislative and Executive branches to prop up two sham democracies on a foundation of cow chips. That's why we need a Democrat in there right now... so that we have a government engaged in checks and balances and DEBATE. As for the press, I think this has a lot less to do with parties and a lot more to do with the FCC and media deregulation. If you think this media is critical of Bush I have to say I don't agree, not one bit. If anything it is apparent that those that play ball with Bush get favors and when you're busy building media monopolies you need to be careful about your criticism. Journalism has suffered on many fronts. You have diminished competition with the major players seeming to be content with playing follow the leader. Whoever steps into a story the others just seem to fall in behind. None of them has a command over investigative reporting as I don't believe any of them legitimately do it. I think the only network that is TRULY capable of being considered anti-Bush is CBS and I have to tell you that's why I watch 60 Minutes. The rest of them... come on. CNN was liberal when Turner ran it but now its Time Warner and not so liberal. Fox News is run by Murdoch... an arch conservative. Fair and balanced might be the most brilliantly deceptive catch phrase ever devised. Aside from these two major players (CBS/Viacom and Fox/NewsCorp.) the rest of them fall into a middle ground that is a no man's land of mediocrity where partisanship is not rightly seen. That's why I cannot agree with you that journalists are anti-Bush. That might fly with a Dittohead but I see a rather gentle press that timidly approaches Bush in an effort not to be tossed from briefings or a detriment to the corporate brass that are thinking expansion and merger.

quote:Originally posted by Steve Schacher: You appear to feel that the reason to have a Democrat in the White House is that the press favors the Democrat and government would operate more smoothly with a Democrat due to the press going back to doing their job with a Democrat. I feel that the press's favoritism is compromising their ability to do their jobs either way. The press also shifted away from traditional watchdog roles during the Clinton Administration because he kept inviting them to all the lavish state dinners that he threw. The press started cozying up to Clinton (and the Democrats by extension) because they wanted access to the White House and felt that if they were too critical they would lose that access to a competitor (plus lose access to the good parties). One of the first criticisms of the DC elite after Bush was elected was how the nightlife died. Bush goes to bed early and there aren't the lavish parties that Clinton used to throw. I think another reason that you might think that Congress would go back to traditional oversight with a Democrat is that Democrats feel that the positions of power are rightfully theirs, and that the Republican control is an aberration. This is why they are stalling on everything, hoping to delay judges until a Democrat regains control, and now hoping to delay confirming a new CIA chief until Democrats regain control. I feel that it is wrong to give into a Democrat just because the Democrats are obstructing the normal flow of operations and that electing a Democrat would stop the obstructing. That's almost extortion. Nope it had nothing to do with cocktail parties. When I mention the Congress what I mean to say is that when you put a Democrat in the White House the Congress is going to wake up and start LOOKING at what the guy is doing. With Bush in there they just give him carte-blanche to do what he wants. Even if there is a Republican Congress you would expect that SOMEBODY in that group would have the BALLS to say, "You are the President but we're the Congress and you have to work through us to get what you want done." To the contrary the Republican Congress has totally relinquished its power and does whatever this President requests of them. The only time you hear anybody stand up to this guy the words are being uttered by McCain who isn't Republican enough or who collaborated with the Vietnamese (Bush Campaign 2000). Even with this amazing amount of power Bush has done LITTLE on the domestic side of things and has instead used this cooperation between the Legislative and Executive branches to prop up two sham democracies on a foundation of cow chips. That's why we need a Democrat in there right now... so that we have a government engaged in checks and balances and DEBATE. As for the press, I think this has a lot less to do with parties and a lot more to do with the FCC and media deregulation. If you think this media is critical of Bush I have to say I don't agree, not one bit. If anything it is apparent that those that play ball with Bush get favors and when you're busy building media monopolies you need to be careful about your criticism. Journalism has suffered on many fronts. You have diminished competition with the major players seeming to be content with playing follow the leader. Whoever steps into a story the others just seem to fall in behind. None of them has a command over investigative reporting as I don't believe any of them legitimately do it. I think the only network that is TRULY capable of being considered anti-Bush is CBS and I have to tell you that's why I watch 60 Minutes. The rest of them... come on. CNN was liberal when Turner ran it but now its Time Warner and not so liberal. Fox News is run by Murdoch... an arch conservative. Fair and balanced might be the most brilliantly deceptive catch phrase ever devised. Aside from these two major players (CBS/Viacom and Fox/NewsCorp.) the rest of them fall into a middle ground that is a no man's land of mediocrity where partisanship is not rightly seen. That's why I cannot agree with you that journalists are anti-Bush. That might fly with a Dittohead but I see a rather gentle press that timidly approaches Bush in an effort not to be tossed from briefings or a detriment to the corporate brass that are thinking expansion and merger.

Drop these bastards off on an island full of more animals just like them and let them kill and victimize one another. Make some place for the world to deposit its refuse and let the world keep them all on that island. If anyone starts to assume command and control kill the bastard. That's justice, removed from civilized society and placed at the mercy of people that like you, were VICTIMIZERS. If you aren't crazy or retarded and you commit murder one... you go. Others that commit especially heinous crimes can be considered (child rapists, etc.) NO SOCIETY... no hierarchy that is distinguishable. Anarchy. Hell on Earth. LOL... sees the look of shock on the faces of the folks reading this. Not very liberal now is it?

WOW! Darkling! I have never seen a more WARPED perspective on statistics. Did you even bother to read the things you were quoting or did you just go off half cocked again? I am glad that you finally learned how to spell HOSPITAL and now I'm going to SCHOOL YOU on statistics. You quoted a report saying that 1.68% of the population DIED in car crashes. Nope, sorry WRONG. That's the INCIDENTS OF INJURY NOT DEATH. DOH! There were 42,000 deaths in say ohhhh 300,000,000 people. OOPS. Go read your facts again ... ok ... great. NEXT... you went on to look at HOMICIDES and somehow determined that 8,250 out of 150,000 soldiers would have died from murder, manslaughter what have you. ROFLMAO... after I stopped laughing I ran the numbers. You must have equated the 5.5 out of 100,000 with 5.5%. I guess if you had bothered to READ or used a little common sense you might have thought, HMMM 5.5% of the population murdered, at 300,000,000 people that would be 16,500,000 deaths by homicide in this nation, that can't be right. THE ACTUAL NUMBER IS 5.5 PER 100,000 PEOPLE. SO, you would have had 9 people die in a year (rounding UP FOR YOUR ARGUMENT'S SAKE *snickers*) not 8,250. I didn't bother to look at your information on defense expenditures. I frankly agree that we should have a strong military. My beef has been that Bush has not used our military in a SANE way. We didn't finish the job in Afghanistan and we started a war in Iraq with a dictator we first propped up and then contained. Saddam Hussein was not a THREAT. This is the problem I have with Bush, he LIED. I support a strong military and if I thought throwing money at it would make it stronger then I would say get that half percent of the GDP and give it to the Pentagon. BUT LOOK AT WHO IS RUNNING THE PENTAGON. Morons that are taken in by CONMEN. I think we need to be faster, and stronger. I think we need more personnel and one way you get more people is by investing in them. A truck driver in Iraq is getting paid $80,000 a year and a WARRIOR is getting JACK SH*T! Who the hell are you kidding with your rhetoric PAL? The only one here I see you fooling is YOURSELF. By the way, Japan has an economy based on GDP that is 1/3 the size of ours not 1/20 and Japan has seen unprecedented growth in the last year (as opposed to the economic contraction they suffered in the 90s). Check the World Fact Book these numbers are for 2003 do you see where Japan ranks, (Number 4). As for the envy I have for millionaires... are you nuts? My whole family is well off. I make a good bit of money and my family doesn't hurt for a damn thing. What do I have to be envious of? I eat every night, travel where I like, have health insurance and better yet MY HEALTH. I am a prince among men in my mind. I don't have class envy ONE BIT. As for ex-wives... you remind me of mine too. She didn't know jack about numbers either... ran up the charge cards, which I paid off and now I carry next to no debt. Envy? Envy what? I live in paradise. Thanks for playing, grab your Rice-a-Roni and other parting gifts on your way out. I'll wait 6 weeks for your next reply... maybe you better think the next one through a little more. EDITED: I thought some of my verbage when it came to "schooling" was a little strong. *snickers* Takvah [ 08-11-2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Takvah ]

WOW! Darkling! I have never seen a more WARPED perspective on statistics. Did you even bother to read the things you were quoting or did you just go off half cocked again? I am glad that you finally learned how to spell HOSPITAL and now I'm going to SCHOOL YOU on statistics. You quoted a report saying that 1.68% of the population DIED in car crashes. Nope, sorry WRONG. That's the INCIDENTS OF INJURY NOT DEATH. DOH! There were 42,000 deaths in say ohhhh 300,000,000 people. OOPS. Go read your facts again ... ok ... great. NEXT... you went on to look at HOMICIDES and somehow determined that 8,250 out of 150,000 soldiers would have died from murder, manslaughter what have you. ROFLMAO... after I stopped laughing I ran the numbers. You must have equated the 5.5 out of 100,000 with 5.5%. I guess if you had bothered to READ or used a little common sense you might have thought, HMMM 5.5% of the population murdered, at 300,000,000 people that would be 16,500,000 deaths by homicide in this nation, that can't be right. THE ACTUAL NUMBER IS 5.5 PER 100,000 PEOPLE. SO, you would have had 9 people die in a year (rounding UP FOR YOUR ARGUMENT'S SAKE *snickers*) not 8,250. I didn't bother to look at your information on defense expenditures. I frankly agree that we should have a strong military. My beef has been that Bush has not used our military in a SANE way. We didn't finish the job in Afghanistan and we started a war in Iraq with a dictator we first propped up and then contained. Saddam Hussein was not a THREAT. This is the problem I have with Bush, he LIED. I support a strong military and if I thought throwing money at it would make it stronger then I would say get that half percent of the GDP and give it to the Pentagon. BUT LOOK AT WHO IS RUNNING THE PENTAGON. Morons that are taken in by CONMEN. I think we need to be faster, and stronger. I think we need more personnel and one way you get more people is by investing in them. A truck driver in Iraq is getting paid $80,000 a year and a WARRIOR is getting JACK SH*T! Who the hell are you kidding with your rhetoric PAL? The only one here I see you fooling is YOURSELF. By the way, Japan has an economy based on GDP that is 1/3 the size of ours not 1/20 and Japan has seen unprecedented growth in the last year (as opposed to the economic contraction they suffered in the 90s). Check the World Fact Book these numbers are for 2003 do you see where Japan ranks, (Number 4). As for the envy I have for millionaires... are you nuts? My whole family is well off. I make a good bit of money and my family doesn't hurt for a damn thing. What do I have to be envious of? I eat every night, travel where I like, have health insurance and better yet MY HEALTH. I am a prince among men in my mind. I don't have class envy ONE BIT. As for ex-wives... you remind me of mine too. She didn't know jack about numbers either... ran up the charge cards, which I paid off and now I carry next to no debt. Envy? Envy what? I live in paradise. Thanks for playing, grab your Rice-a-Roni and other parting gifts on your way out. I'll wait 6 weeks for your next reply... maybe you better think the next one through a little more. EDITED: I thought some of my verbage when it came to "schooling" was a little strong. *snickers* Takvah [ 08-11-2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Takvah ]

Imagine that Street.. you get taken in a shell game and then you don't want to acknowledge it heheh. What idiots. I watched Wolfowitz on C-Span yesterday in front of the House, he sees it coming. Someone is going to roll for this... and it just might be his boss.

quote:Originally posted by Steve Schacher: Further on the watchdog aspect, the Congress was supposed to exercise an oversight role on the presidency, but the Congress has lapsed into more of a reactive mode, using oversight to blame and point fingers after the fact, instead of using oversight proactively to ensure that good practices are being followed as they are occuring. Reporters aren't holding Congress to blame for their lack of proactive oversight either. [/QB]EXACTLY and that's exactly why this nation needs a Democrat in the White House. When that happens we'll get back the watchdog element in the Congress. THANK YOU! Thank you Steve, you are SO RIGHT! Just because there is a Republican in the White House it seems that every Republican in the Congress has decided to ROLL OVER. That's WRONG. Where is the ambition in the Republican Congress? It used to be that even along party lines you would have Senators and Representatives at least SHARING the power. Now it seems that they just go along with the President and don't see themselves as sharing in the power. They are simply Yes men. If I was a Democrat or a Republican in the Congress I would make it very plain to the President that nothing they wanted would get done with my support unless it was just and righteous. I don't see Frist of Hastert doing that. Instead you have Pelosi who is a LUNATIC and Daschle who is Droopy the Dog and a weakened Democratic Party being STEAMROLLED by Bush's willing accomplices. Now you know why Bush isn't getting my vote. He is a man that has been given a free ride to affect the changes WE all wanted and all he has done is LIE, CHEAT and STEAL. I'm sorry but I won't be an accomplice to his crimes. Great points though Steve... I always appreciate debate with you.

quote:Originally posted by Steve Schacher: Further on the watchdog aspect, the Congress was supposed to exercise an oversight role on the presidency, but the Congress has lapsed into more of a reactive mode, using oversight to blame and point fingers after the fact, instead of using oversight proactively to ensure that good practices are being followed as they are occuring. Reporters aren't holding Congress to blame for their lack of proactive oversight either. [/QB]EXACTLY and that's exactly why this nation needs a Democrat in the White House. When that happens we'll get back the watchdog element in the Congress. THANK YOU! Thank you Steve, you are SO RIGHT! Just because there is a Republican in the White House it seems that every Republican in the Congress has decided to ROLL OVER. That's WRONG. Where is the ambition in the Republican Congress? It used to be that even along party lines you would have Senators and Representatives at least SHARING the power. Now it seems that they just go along with the President and don't see themselves as sharing in the power. They are simply Yes men. If I was a Democrat or a Republican in the Congress I would make it very plain to the President that nothing they wanted would get done with my support unless it was just and righteous. I don't see Frist of Hastert doing that. Instead you have Pelosi who is a LUNATIC and Daschle who is Droopy the Dog and a weakened Democratic Party being STEAMROLLED by Bush's willing accomplices. Now you know why Bush isn't getting my vote. He is a man that has been given a free ride to affect the changes WE all wanted and all he has done is LIE, CHEAT and STEAL. I'm sorry but I won't be an accomplice to his crimes. Great points though Steve... I always appreciate debate with you.

HAHAHAH. I wonder who put that no bid clause into the whole Iraq thing? ROFLMAO! What a total miserable failure this thing is... just some more proof for you all. WHERE'S THE REBUILDING!

Jaguar, you are so misguided that I think that you have gone from LIAR status to just plain old dumb status. Dick Cheney was dismantling the military and the intelligence agencies as cost saving measures during the FIRST Bush administration. IT WAS THE TREND OF THE TIME. The Russian threat had been quelled and we didn't have the foresight to see our new enemies. Everything from SDI to human intelligence gathering was being slashed. Dick Cheney wanted to SLASH more than he did but Bush Sr. didn't allow it. NOW. You want to talk about INTELLIGENCE FAILURE. George Tenet all during CLINTON'S Presidency was being seduced by Ahmed Chalabi with the same BOGUS Intel that he sold G. W. Bush. Strangely enough Clinton didn't bite off on it, nor did Tenet... UNTIL WHEN? Answer me? Oh yeah, until THIS MORON came into office and decided to finish his DADDY'S WAR. Now what we have done is made it so that Iraq and IRAN can form an alliance. How? Well Chalabi got Rumsfeld and the Pentagon to go along with his STUPIDITY. How? Well Chalabi gave them the stick to beat the dog... BUT THE STICK WAS HOLLOW. At the State of the Union OUR PRESIDENT sat this HUCKSTER Chalabi beside his WIFE! Imagine that, a convicted THIEF (in Jordan) is given a place of honor and the Republicans and this Administration APPLAUD THIS ASSCLOWN at our State of the Union! You have got to be kidding me Jaguar. You are an embarrassment. You have not a critical thought in your head yet you consider yourself informed. I at least can say that I find Kerry's maneuvering on his viewpoint absurd and disgusting but you can say nothing bad about this President's obvious FAILURES where it concerns this war. I have got to tell you man. YOUR BOY GOT SUCKERED AND ***** SLAPPED. Iraq will be tighter with IRAN now that they have made the Shiites so powerful. We have UNITED MORTAL ENEMIES that is the ONLY THING we accomplished. I read another post where you said that we would STOP the Middle East from uniting against us by eliminating the more radical elements and the terrorists. Hello! The Ottoman Empire, the crusades, the Romans... NOBODY HAS EVER WALKED INTO THE MIDDLE EAST AND DONE ANYTHING BUT UNITE THEM IN DESIRING TO REMOVE EMPIRES THAT INFLICT THEIR WILL ON THEM. You call yourself a student of HISTORY! You are unbelievably naive. WE SCREWED THE POOCH. YOUR BOY CHALABI IS IN IRAN. Great job! Shouldn't Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz be FIRED for dealing with this DOUBLE AGENT SWINDLER!? No, I didn't think so... you don't have the balls to criticize. GREAT EDITORIAL ON CHALABI I could go down a list of ARTICLES sighting Chalabi as a mafia like beast, that are not opinionated but this guy was just so clear and so accurate in his criticism that I had to post that link. READ PEOPLE, WE GOT PLAYED. ITS ALL OUT THERE FOR YOU TO FIND.

BUAHAHA! Oh my god! *Holds his side* BUAHAHAHAHAHAH! Look Echo if you want fair and balanced I suggest you get your news from several sources. Bouncing from channel to channel as you have been helps but you need to read the newspaper too. The newspaper has a lot more room to cover a story and to impart news in an indepth way. There are also many magazines that you can turn to, I like US News and World Report. Just do me a favor and stay far away from Fox News and The New York Post. There is nothing UNBIASED or IMPARTIAL about Rupert Murdoch. Anyone that would even SUGGEST that the man doesn't have a stake and a hand in what his television station and newspaper reports is either deluded or a liar. Regardless Echo, finding any "reporters" worthy of the title is a real chore. Nobody reports anything anymore, nobody investigates a damn thing. It's just another symptom of the decay of democracy that has occured over the last fifteen or so years. I guess in a way we deserve the press we have because the public has made it plain that they want to be spun. Anybody that listens to Rush Limbaugh is being spun. Likewise anyone that watches a Michael Moore movie is being spun. Rush Limbaugh is as much a truth detector as Michael Moore is a documentary film maker. You have to determine where the facts end and the spin begins. Rush doesn't always lie, Moore doesn't always lie but you can be certain of one thing, either of these guys is making sure that their side is being shown in the best possible light. Fox News is the same way, they get their mandate from Murdoch an arch conservative. They point fingers at CNN and call them liberal and then have the nerve to call themselves "Fair and Balanced" they've done studies and Fox is not Fair or Balanced. That isn't to say that CNN isn't liberal, I think they are... I am merely saying that you have to get your info from VARIED sources. Fox News is NOT varied and the suggestion that it is, well that's LAUGHABLE. If you want to watch a show that at least makes an effort at balancing out the sides Crossfire is very good. You have heavy hitters and veterans that represent BOTH sides very well. Tucker Carlson and Bob Novak are no slouches and do not get steamrolled by Carville and Begala. It is honest HEATED debate. Unlike Fox and the smarmy Hannity who tramples Colmes and liberal guests with his big mouth and stupidity. Peace

BUAHAHA! Oh my god! *Holds his side* BUAHAHAHAHAHAH! Look Echo if you want fair and balanced I suggest you get your news from several sources. Bouncing from channel to channel as you have been helps but you need to read the newspaper too. The newspaper has a lot more room to cover a story and to impart news in an indepth way. There are also many magazines that you can turn to, I like US News and World Report. Just do me a favor and stay far away from Fox News and The New York Post. There is nothing UNBIASED or IMPARTIAL about Rupert Murdoch. Anyone that would even SUGGEST that the man doesn't have a stake and a hand in what his television station and newspaper reports is either deluded or a liar. Regardless Echo, finding any "reporters" worthy of the title is a real chore. Nobody reports anything anymore, nobody investigates a damn thing. It's just another symptom of the decay of democracy that has occured over the last fifteen or so years. I guess in a way we deserve the press we have because the public has made it plain that they want to be spun. Anybody that listens to Rush Limbaugh is being spun. Likewise anyone that watches a Michael Moore movie is being spun. Rush Limbaugh is as much a truth detector as Michael Moore is a documentary film maker. You have to determine where the facts end and the spin begins. Rush doesn't always lie, Moore doesn't always lie but you can be certain of one thing, either of these guys is making sure that their side is being shown in the best possible light. Fox News is the same way, they get their mandate from Murdoch an arch conservative. They point fingers at CNN and call them liberal and then have the nerve to call themselves "Fair and Balanced" they've done studies and Fox is not Fair or Balanced. That isn't to say that CNN isn't liberal, I think they are... I am merely saying that you have to get your info from VARIED sources. Fox News is NOT varied and the suggestion that it is, well that's LAUGHABLE. If you want to watch a show that at least makes an effort at balancing out the sides Crossfire is very good. You have heavy hitters and veterans that represent BOTH sides very well. Tucker Carlson and Bob Novak are no slouches and do not get steamrolled by Carville and Begala. It is honest HEATED debate. Unlike Fox and the smarmy Hannity who tramples Colmes and liberal guests with his big mouth and stupidity. Peace

Hey Lost I answered your stupid challenge. I told you all, that I thought the waffling of ALL elected officials including Kerry was DISGRACEFUL. What you seem to want to say is that this phenomenon is squarely reserved for politicians with a D before or after their name. As for saying that Americans should suck it up and work two and three jobs.. that is so ridiculous that I won't even bother to comment. Your occupation is listed as "Playing games" I suppose when you get out in the real world you might have an awakening.

Hey Lost I answered your stupid challenge. I told you all, that I thought the waffling of ALL elected officials including Kerry was DISGRACEFUL. What you seem to want to say is that this phenomenon is squarely reserved for politicians with a D before or after their name. As for saying that Americans should suck it up and work two and three jobs.. that is so ridiculous that I won't even bother to comment. Your occupation is listed as "Playing games" I suppose when you get out in the real world you might have an awakening.

U.S. leak "harms al Qaeda sting" US Intel gathering in disarray... Talk about stories that need legs. This government and this administration show a reckless disregard for properly venting intel. I swear to god they should have Andy and Barney in charge of the CIA and the FBI at this point. However, in fairness I don't believe the people in charge of the intelligence gathering are to blame for this kind of thing. This is the maneuvering of an Administration that is trying to save face for using terrorism as a motivational tool. I hope that someone pays for leaking this information and for damaging our ongoing WAR on TERROR in this way. Maybe this guy could have continued to obtain information that might have led to the prevention of the HEAVILY PROMOTED upcoming TERROR ATTACKS that will stop our elections. It is just unbelievable. After the attacks they told us to shop and now instead of saying, "WE WILL HAVE ELECTIONS AND WE WILL MAINTAIN DEMOCRACY," they are scaring the hell out of us and saying that we might have to DELAY Democracy. Whackos. [ 08-10-2004, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Takvah ]