Fred Thompson for President
|
Bronze Member Username: DirtystinkindemocratPost Number: 38 Registered: Feb-07 | Why you say??? Because he is pro life, anti gayy and pro gun. He will appoint judges that will not legislate from the bench...ie like democrat appointed judges that say its ok to take private property away from you and give it to another. |
|
Gold Member Username: WingmanaliveA pic is worth 1000 posts!! Post Number: 7058 Registered: Jun-06 | Are you reffering to eminent domain? |
|
Gold Member Username: Van_manBoston South, MA Post Number: 2508 Registered: Mar-06 | Was he one of the Thompson Twins? The guy with the dreads?  What? |
|
Gold Member Username: LklivesPost Number: 9799 Registered: Jan-06 | Well, we will have LAW AND ORDER!....hehehe...I know, that was bad! |
|
Gold Member Username: Nd4spd18Southeast PA Post Number: 2956 Registered: Jul-06 | Not sure who I like better between him and Romney........ but WTF it's way to early to be thinkin about this, lol. |
|
Gold Member Username: LklivesPost Number: 9800 Registered: Jan-06 | I like Joe Biden (D) Del..and I'm really sick of people bashing political parties...they BOTH suck, and realistically both parties are very similar!... U have both conservatives and liberals in BOTH parties.. The old days of the Democrats were for the poor and Repubs for the rich , no longer holds any water...there are losers and liars now in both parties..and I'm a life long registered democrat, who just switched to "independent", cause I have lost beliefs in both parties and now am more concerned about the candidates...the Dems have pussied out against George W (Iraq spending bill and probably Immigration next, contrary to campaign rhetoric), and I have had it with both parties.. BTW...Fred Thompson is about as qualified as Bugs Bunny, or the incumbent George W...thats scary!...any guy who co chaired McCain for president and endorsed and supported Scooter Libby is a half wit! |
|
Bronze Member Username: DirtystinkindemocratPost Number: 39 Registered: Feb-07 | U have both conservatives and liberals in BOTH parties.. A TRUE CONSERVATIVE COULD NOT BELONG TO THE DEMOCRAT PARTY (OF 2007 THAT IS) there was a day some 35-40 years ago when a democrat could lift his head high, but those days are gone. As for Scooter Libby...he did nothing wrong. He was railroaded by a out of control partisan prosecutor. The jury was also a joke!!! I see this case being over turned down the road. Just remember to say a prayer for Scooter tomorrow when the (black) judge sentenses him I say black only because its a fact that 95% of blacks are democrats, was not meant as a slur. And the fact that a person is black and lives in DC makes it even worse for Scoot. btw Black republicans are some of my closest friends, just to bad the rest of them are lead astray by the democrat party. To bad they could not think for themselves. Many claim to be Christian yet openly support the killing of Gods children (abortion) and the practice of homosexualityyy that the bible refers to as a abomination in the site of God. Just hope this black judge is a good man and will do the right thing and grant him a stay until the appeal is heard. And Yes I was refering to eminant domain, but could not think of it at the time of publication. Go Fred |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 643 Registered: Apr-06 | I think the only person I'd actively support these days is someone along the lines of Colin Powell... I used to think highly of McCain (wouldn't have minded him in 2K, especially versus our current President), but he's gone downhill in my standings in recent years. I'm not thrilled with any current candidate though....or any party for that matter. |
|
Gold Member Username: WingmanaliveA pic is worth 1000 posts!! Post Number: 7082 Registered: Jun-06 | Remember Brewster's millions? None of the above.  |
|
Gold Member Username: LklivesPost Number: 9807 Registered: Jan-06 | I respect Colin Powell and NOT because he's black...and that "black" judge talk above is a bunch of immature BS!...why even mention his race! |
|
Silver Member Username: Donnie1973Tennessee Post Number: 575 Registered: May-06 | I agree, u are voting for the lesser of two evils. I dont think it matters who get in there. I really dont think the president controls the economy so much as it controls itself. 911 killed it, not Bush. If anything, I beleive he revived it as best HE could. The only pres where I got a check in the mail from... twice. Now, the war... yes, but. I do beleive in this war. I think we should stay there for the duration. It could be handled a little differently thou |
|
Gold Member Username: LklivesPost Number: 9810 Registered: Jan-06 | I'm still an Al Gore guy, but he's not running!...and I can't stand that mental midget George W, or this needless "invasion " of Iraq...there are more serious important matters right here in the US, Dafur and Somalia.. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 646 Registered: Apr-06 | I don't fault Bush 100% for the war. We went in with the Intel that was available at that time. That it was poorly handled wasn't directly Bush's fault so much as the Pentagon and partly the State Department. Bush certainly didn't help anything in this regard though. However, I don't believe he is qualified in any way to be president, partly because of intelligence, and partly because of a sheer lack of tact. In regards to Al Gore, he had potential, and the election was his to lose. Unfortunately, he didn't fire up any of that potential until after he lost. The speaking he did after he lost the presidency is all it would have taken for him to win the first time around. |
|
Silver Member Username: Donnie1973Tennessee Post Number: 577 Registered: May-06 | Dafur... unreal we dont get in on that! I cant hardly watch that sh1t. I dont think it is a needless invasion. If we would take care of it quickly. Sadam was an evil man. Countries like that cant have WMD's. NO WAY. Those who say we never found any... blah. HE was the WMD! HE killed sooo many. HE used WMD's in the past. HE just got rid of them before we found them. Its not like he didnt know we were coming.Iran is building their Nukes. Energy? Whatever! U know as SOON as they can, they will target us. Iraq would have too, if left alone. Like it or not, we are the worlds police. Not Team America...lol. Funny movie!! Al Gore I only like his views on Global Warming. |
|
Gold Member Username: WingmanaliveA pic is worth 1000 posts!! Post Number: 7088 Registered: Jun-06 |  |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 648 Registered: Apr-06 | Dantetn: Keep in mind that we are the self appointed world police insomuch as it protects *our* interests. You'll note our actions in areas like Darfur, Rawanda, etc. As far as Iran, I'm sure they think we are a bunch of hypocritical fools for saying they can't have nukes while we have thousands of them. I doubt they much care for how the West has treated Muslims in general over the course of history, from the Crusades to the creation of Israel. Given our general animosity for them, and the firepower we possess, why the heck *wouldn't* they want the bomb? |
|
Bronze Member Username: DirtystinkindemocratPost Number: 41 Registered: Feb-07 | and that "black" judge talk above is a bunch of immature BS!...why even mention his race! LK YOU ARE A TAD NAIVE You have a case like Scooters and there is definately politics involved. Under current politcal reality are you going to have your lawyer select a jury made up of 12 gaay black women? What kind of a chance would a guy like scooter Libby (a conservative Republican) have with 12 black gayy women? Its a reality that blacks are overwhelmingly democrat. Its also well known that gGays are democrats. Its the same with the judge in this case. The first big blow to come to Scooter Libby was the by chance appointment of this black judge to the case. Not to mention that the jury foreman was a Washington Post anti war anti Bush democrat,he happened to be white and we did not want him on the jury but we lost that fight. The whole trial was a joke....probably will be overturned down the road. President Bush better be prepared to pardon him should a pardon be needed. IF Scooter spends more than 1 afternoon in jail, his poll numbers will go even lower,and that will be from me and his base. |
|
Gold Member Username: LklivesPost Number: 9817 Registered: Jan-06 | If Libby had such poor legal advice and representation , then don't u think that your boy Fred Thomson should be partiallly to BLAME since: In 2006, Thomson served on the advisory board of the legal defense fund for I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby, Jr, who was indicted and later convicted of lying to federal investigators during their investigation of the Plame affair. How can U rave and suggest Thomson for Prez, then bash Libby's trial and legal proceedings, which Thomson was an advisor to, along with an entire board..U are contadictory!...take a look in the mirror before u throw stones and call me naive!! |
|
Silver Member Username: Donnie1973Tennessee Post Number: 580 Registered: May-06 | Its not just the USA that says they cant have Nukes, its the world, besides Russia. They take in to consideration the past actions and the size of these nuclear ambitious countries. Thats why they cant, nor should N Korea. I totally agree about the politics we follow. (Dafur) We should be there in the same capacity as we are anywhere else in the world. But our intrests are greater elsewhere for the moment. I like to think if we werent at war (conflict), we would be there to help those poor people out. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 650 Registered: Apr-06 | The world can say all it wants. It doesn't mean that Iran won't think were a bunch of hypocrites for having our own stockpiles and tell us to go stuff ourselves. The security counsel of the UN has told Iran that they can't have nukes. Of course all of the security counsel members have nukes.... If you were locked in a room with five guys who didn't really like you, and they all had baseball bats, wouldn't you like a bat too? As far as Darfur goes, I doubt we'd do much of anything other than condemn the actions there even if we weren't involved in our own set of current problems. Simply put, Africa has nothing of value to us. We didn't help in Rawanda. We haven't done a hell of a lot except give them birth control and make token efforts to help with disease (which compared to our war spending, is a paltry, and insignificant amount). Note: Keep in mind that as an American, I don't want to see a nuclear armed Iran. However, I can certainly see their viewpoint. |
|
Bronze Member Username: DirtystinkindemocratPost Number: 42 Registered: Feb-07 | OK LK Firstly when I said a tad Naive, that was not meant as a insult. Sorry if you took it that way. You suggested that it did not matter what color the judge was. I wish that was true but its not. I added the idea about 12 black gayy women(that was a bit extream on my part) but I was just making the point. It would be the same as if it was a innocent black man falsely accused of some crime in the old south. Imagine the poor black fellow being tried by 12 white red necks...you get the point. You also would not have Michael Moore in front of 12 jurors in Utah.... Scooter Libby had one of the finest lawyers in the country in Ted Wells. Thanks to Fred Thompson for heading up the defense fund. This trial was lost by the appointment of the black judge and the picking of the jury. It was lost before the arguments began,the finest lawyer in Ted Wells had no chance. But if you honestly believe that the make up of a jury in a political case has no bearing then you are a tad naive. |
|
Gold Member Username: LklivesPost Number: 9821 Registered: Jan-06 | Now U are changing lanes...I mentioned "black" judge as a non issue...U now talk of a biased jury...NOT the same thing or subject! BTW...in the US, the lawyer has a part in jury selection!...so the "alleged" best lawyer should have done a better job...OR, NO MATTER who the jury is, Libby is as GUILTY as can be!...Also why would ANY jury believe a man who LIED to another previous "grand jury! His lawyers, for example, write earnestly about his "great contributions to the public interest," but we know that the jury convicted Libby of lying to a grand jury and the feds about the disclosure of the name of a covert CIA agent. Libby's attorneys also remind U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton that their client "has demonstrated strong moral character," even though the judge and everyone else now knows precisely how and to what extent Libby tried to use the media to do the White House's dirty work against Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, Joe Wilson. Libby's grand career probably won't help him now that he is a felon; it probably works against him. If Libby had been convicted of grand larceny, or even a violent crime, his lawyers might have been better able to argue to the judge that the misdeeds were an anomaly in an otherwise productive and exemplary life. But Libby, an attorney, was not convicted of some random crime. He was convicted of something that not only goes to the heart of what it means to be a lawyer but what it means to hold high office, too. He was convicted of subverting the very rule of law he was sworn to uphold. Libby could have been an upright guy and told the truth when asked about the Plame leak, or he could have even exercised his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.. It was easier to use the media to anonymously slime Plame and Wilson and then plead a lack of memory about the shoddy affair when the law came calling.. Many men and women of so-called "strong moral character" working in Washington who are called upon every day to do sleazy things to one another as part of their jobs in and out of government. Sometimes the law catches up with these people; usually it doesn't. But here's hoping anyway that the next honorable man of government convicted of a felony doesn't use the achievements of his high office to excuse or diminish his low work. |
|
Bronze Member Username: DirtystinkindemocratPost Number: 43 Registered: Feb-07 | Just for the record Prosecutor Fitgerald found out several years ago that there was no crime in regards to leaking of CIA agent. In fact we now know that he learned almost immediatly that it was Rich Armitage (sp) that leaked. Furthermore when asked repeatedly he wont even confirm if she/Plame was ever covert. The intelligence comm in the Senate found her not to be covert.....ANYWAY...Libby was only charged with lying after the fact. If you remember Fitgerald argued to the judge that Libby should not be allowed to go into Plame at all in trial because it was only a narrow charge. The Jury complained about this after the trial, they thought it was strange that they where not allowed to take the whole picture into the jury room....Well they did anyway and they broke the law. We now know that Plame lied under oath and this may not be the end of the story for her. BTW Libby maintains he was forgetful, the jury chose not to buy it. LK I cant convince you...I have followed this forum for a number of years and you are a partisan BUSHhater not capable of being objective. This jury was partisan as well. |
|
Gold Member Username: LklivesPost Number: 9832 Registered: Jan-06 | Yeah, like Libby's a stand up patriot..and anybody who disgrees, such as a JURY AND THE LAW, are all "partisan...or "black", which you make an issue of!... But of course I cannot be objective, like U...LMAO Put down the crack pipe...and have a reality check, instead of being so biased about the TRUTH and FACTS! Another idiot and pawn goes down! |
|
Gold Member Username: LklivesPost Number: 9833 Registered: Jan-06 | BTW....even your selected "nick" and "username here "Dirty Stinkin Democrats", tells it all about your UNBIASED OBJECTIVE attitude!....go watch Fox news and praise Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell...U are all on the same planet, and it aint Earth!...maybe Rush can get u some more crack! done with ya... |
|
Bronze Member Username: DirtystinkindemocratPost Number: 44 Registered: Feb-07 | What has Scooter Libby ever done to you.... Jerry Falwel was a great man...now with the Lord. God Loves Scooter The reason i say dirty democrat is because they are for killing Gods unborn as well as supporting homosexuality. God condems both of these. John Edwards, Hillary and Obama claim to be followers of Christ while laughing and mocking the WORD of God. If you are not Pro Life, you do not have the Spirit of God within you. STOP IT and ask Christ into your life and all will be forgiven. Scooter Libby is a man of God. Those jurists will have to answer at the judgement seat of Christ, as we all will. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 652 Registered: Apr-06 | "The reason i say dirty democrat is because they are for killing Gods unborn as well as supporting homosexuality. God condems both of these. " Not all democrats are pro-abortion, nor are they all pro-homosexuality. In the same vein, not all republicans are anti-abortion or anti-homosexuality. As for God condemning both of them, he created homosexu@ls, just as he did heterosexuals, so if he condemns his creations, thats his problem, not ours. As for abortion, I don't support it, but the people who have them shouldn't have kids anyways, so its for the betterment of society in the long run. "Jerry Falwel was a great man...now with the Lord. " He was a jackass and a blowhard. True Christians don't sit and judge people all day long, they leave that to God. It remind me of how everyone though AIDs was the g@y mans disease, and the Lord was striking them down. I don't think there are too many ignorant enough to believe that now. "God Loves Scooter " God supposedly loves everyone, last I checked (homosexu@ls included, as they are his children). "John Edwards, Hillary and Obama claim to be followers of Christ while laughing and mocking the WORD of God. " Its the WORD of God as interpreted by MAN. Big difference there. |
|
Silver Member Username: Donnie1973Tennessee Post Number: 583 Registered: May-06 | They know why they cant have them. They would build 2 and launch 2 in the same year. Or they would be "stolen". Let Iran "supe-up"? Just because other countries have them? Not a valid argument. There is a reason why only certain countries have them. The world agrees. Just my opinions of course. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 655 Registered: Apr-06 | "They know why they cant have them. They would build 2 and launch 2 in the same year. Or they would be "stolen"." The Iranians aren't that stupid. They know full well what would happen if they started a nuclear war. If they manage to develop the ability to hit us (a very very long ways off; and no, you can't just sneak a primitive nuke into a country easily either, given they don't just fit into a suitcase, and they have a fairly notable radioactive signature) and launch a couple our way, there would be an overwhelming retaliation. There is a reason why we survived the Cold War after all. "Let Iran "supe-up"? Just because other countries have them? Not a valid argument." Not valid to those of us that have them, but it is perfectly valid to them I'm sure. "There is a reason why only certain countries have them." Sure: Technical ability, a moral abhorrence of such weapons (Japan among others), the US and its allies complete dominance of the world economy, and the fact that we have them allows us to say who can develop them or not simply by the fact that we can eradicate those who oppose us. "The world agrees." Who is the "world"? There are over a billion Muslim folks out there, and I'm sure very few of them would mind if Iran got a nuke. I doubt the Chinese really give a rats @ss or the Russians given that they are on favorable terms (and the Russians are building the Iranian's nuclear reactor...). Certainly the US and its allies don't want a nuclear armed Iran, but given the fact that we haven't talked to them in thirty years, I doubt they really care a whole heck of a lot what we think. |
|
Silver Member Username: Donnie1973Tennessee Post Number: 584 Registered: May-06 | Man, first of all, u are dealing with Iran. The same people who THINK they are martyrs when they strap a bomb to their backs and kill as many "evil" people as they can. Im sure retaliation is of no concern to them, after all, they would get 40 virgins or whatever they believe in. If I believed that stuff, try to get me to not strap a bomb to my back. Just kidding, but u get what im getting at. And its not JUST the USA that says they cant. When I say the "world", I mean the UN. The majority. Has been voted on. Russia is always on their side. There is no dealing on a rational level with people that would RATHER die killing u than not. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 656 Registered: Apr-06 | While it is fun to demonize ones enemies, you have to keep in mind that they are human. A: While there are a few Muslims (not many, considering there are over a billion of them) that have resorted to suicide bombing tactics, not many of them would. And unfortunately, a lot of the ones that have are already in dire straits (the average life of a Muslim just ain't that great, especially in places like Israel). B: Iran is interested in what is good for Iran. They aren't interested in being annihilated, which they know full well would happen if they attacked the US with a nuclear weapon. In spite of their rhetoric, they aren't out to take over the world or anything else. C: I'm not sure even a majority of the population of the world gives a damn if they get the bomb or not. Like I said, over a billion Muslims probably really don't care. China doesn't really care (given that they won't support any harsh measures against them, I'd say its a fair assessment). Thats another billion right there. Russia doesn't care. Thats another hundred thousand or so. All the various African countries really don't care, as they've got other things to worry about, like starving to death. The various "enemies" of the US like Hugo Chavez down in Venezuela and Fidel Castro over in Cuba don't care. |
|
Silver Member Username: Donnie1973Tennessee Post Number: 586 Registered: May-06 | Yes they are human. Very much so. I just say why even take a chance with known terrorists. You back these little guys in to a corner... Nip it in the bud immediately. They are already breaking international laws by enriching. If we allow them to do it, whats next? Laws are laws. I cant see how a reasonable person could have an argument FOR Iran becoming nuclear. Unless u are from the region of course. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 661 Registered: Apr-06 | "I just say why even take a chance with known terrorists." Who is a known terrorist within the government of Iran? Nobody has tied al Qaeda to them AFAIK. Certainly they support people in Iraq and Lebanon that we call terrorists, but depending on your view point, they could just as easily be called freedom fighters. For the folks in Iraq, don't forget, we are invaders. And for the folks in Lebanon, look at the history before judging Hezbollah as evil terrorists. They didn't just decide one day, gee, I don't like Jewish people. Lets blow a few up. "They are already breaking international laws by enriching." Only because we made a law to tell them to stop. Beyond that measure, they didn't do anything that was proven illegal by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. "If we allow them to do it, whats next? " Who knows. The balance of power will likely be shifted in the Middle East, although I daresay Iran has quite a bit of work to do in order to catch up with the undisclosed arsenal of Israel. However, in direct respect to the United States, little or nothing will happen. We have delivery systems that will hit them within an hour, and can exterminate every last Iranian. Iran can do jack to us directly. "I cant see how a reasonable person could have an argument FOR Iran becoming nuclear." I don't see how a reasonable person can make an argument for anyone having nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, it is the reality of the world. "Unless u are from the region of course." Or you can understand the viewpoints of others... Its not like were talking about 20 or 30 people in al Qaeda, we're talking about a nation of roughly 65 million people. They have as much right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as we do. They have as much a natural right to protect themselves as we do. As it is, they are heavily outgunned by people that really don't much care for them. If I were them, I'd certainly like to have a balanced table. If you were in their position, you probably would too. And FWIW, I personally don't think anyone has a right to a weapon that can kill millions in the blink of an eye, the United States included. |
|
Silver Member Username: Donnie1973Tennessee Post Number: 587 Registered: May-06 | I wish nuclear weapons were not a reality also. They are. Unstable countries shouldnt have them. Sure I say they arent stable. The UN says it as well OR they would say they can have them. I would want them too if I were outgunned. Sure would, but would also understand if I were a country that had ties to terrorism AND a history of it why I couldnt/shouldnt be allowed to get it. I know they are 60 million people, they are 60 million that dont have the ability to get all the facts out there. They are 60 million that only know what they are told or ALLOWED to research. Iran can do jack to us directly. Right, in that capacity sure. But they sure could hit US intrests or allies. UN made the laws. Not the US. They are called freedom fighters... in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan. They border Iraq, and got blasted a while back for allowing open access at their borders. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 665 Registered: Apr-06 | "Unstable countries shouldnt have them." Who says Iran is unstable? In what sense? They are financially and politically stable at this time. The USSR was fairly unstable. The states it broke up into are still not exactly the zenith of stability. Should we pass laws saying they can't have nukes? "Sure would, but would also understand if I were a country that had ties to terrorism AND a history of it why I couldnt/shouldnt be allowed to get it." One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter/operative. Remember our own history. It was less than three hundred years ago that we were the terrorists, as far as the British were concerned. And of course we have our spies and operatives all over the world, some of which have been indicted in other countries, such as Italy for charges of kidnapping. "But they sure could hit US intrests or allies." Not really. They know what would happen if they used a nuclear weapon in anger. "UN made the laws. Not the US." Perhaps, but we have a lot of sway in the UN given that we are still the military and economic superpower of the world (in spite of our current economic issues). Between us and our allies, we have a large degree of control over the UN. Russia and China provide some check in the balance, and while they allowed the resolution to pass, they sure as heck haven't helped to actually punish Iran for failing to comply with the resolution. Above and beyond that, Iran views the resolution as unjust, and thus they choose not to comply with it. "They border Iraq, and got blasted a while back for allowing open access at their borders." So? They're no friend of the US. Why do you expect them to help us in our mess? |
|
Gold Member Username: LklivesPost Number: 9848 Registered: Jan-06 | I surely hope that u don't consider the US as "stable' with George W" and his pocket filling pawns at the helm! Oh yeah...lets put more nukes in Eastern Europe now too, and piss of Russia, Italy, Turkey, France, China, North Korea, all the Europeans and incite the Middle East some more!...what a scary fricking man this clown is!...he has no clue of the reaction created by his actions.. |
|
Silver Member Username: Donnie1973Tennessee Post Number: 588 Registered: May-06 | The terrorism that comes from the middle east isnt isolated to the US. We are the #1 target because we are THE superpower. Iran hasnt been liked to al qaeda? They opened their borders to them to come in and go freely. They border Afghanistan also. Harboring terrorists. That makes you a terrorist. 300 years ago was 300 years ago. Like a lot of African Americans talking about slavery. Man, that ship has sailed. No one want to be responsible for their actions. " 300 years ago we were the terrorists" that makes it OK? See, I just dont think there should be any debate with them. They cant go nuclear. Ur right, the UN isnt doing much, neither are we. The UN keeps handing out sanctions. Big deal. I understand ur argument perfectly. This is one of those issues (in my mind) that we dont need to be so politicaly correct about. God knows we are on everything else in this country. Dont know if I can even type the word "God" anymore. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 666 Registered: Apr-06 | "The terrorism that comes from the middle east isnt isolated to the US. We are the #1 target because we are THE superpower." We're hardly the number one target of terrorists. Ask Israel how many terrorist attacks they suffer. Ask Russia how they've fared with terrorism thanks to Chechnyan separatists. Ask Turkey how they've fared with the Kurds. As for the reason we're targeted, probably the foremost is that we have given Israel unending support, and Muslim countries unending crap. Israel's history in the Middle East hasn't exactly been rosy, and they have not been blame free in many of their conflicts. "Iran hasnt been liked to al qaeda?" To date, no official ties have been established between the Iranian government and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has no known bases in Iran. "They opened their borders to them to come in and go freely." Not all militants are members of Al Qaeda. " 300 years ago we were the terrorists" that makes it OK? " From their point of view they aren't terrorists, much like we weren't terrorists from our point of view. From their point of view we are oppressors that kill thousands of their people. From their point of view, we support Israel, their arch enemy. From their point of view, we threw Iraq into chaos, and have directly or indirectly caused the deaths of many thousands of people. From their point of view, we have installed puppet regimes in various Middle Eastern countries in order to loot their natural resources (the Shah of Iran for example, prior to the Iranian Revolution). Keep that in mind before you write them off as evil terrorists bent on taking away our freedom. They don't care about us. They don't want to make us their slaves. Mostly what they want is to be treated with some semblance of dignity. "See, I just dont think there should be any debate with them." That, in and of itself, is the problem. We don't talk to them. We hand out demands, and that is it. We give them no choice in their destiny, nor do we consider their viewpoint. "This is one of those issues (in my mind) that we dont need to be so politicaly correct about." Its not about being politically correct. Its about treating people with some respect. Its about communication. It isn't a hard concept to understand. If we treated Iran like we treat our allies, they wouldn't be our enemy. If we didn't choose to ally ourselves with Israel and give the middle finger to most of the rest of the Middle East, we wouldn't be in our current predicament. |
|
Silver Member Username: Donnie1973Tennessee Post Number: 589 Registered: May-06 | From the 911 commision report A senior U.S. official told TIME that the Commission has uncovered evidence suggesting that between eight and ten of the 14 "muscle" hijackers--that is, those involved in gaining control of the four 9/11 aircraft and subduing the crew and passengers--passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001. Sources also tell TIME that Commission investigators found that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border. This practice dated back to October 2000, with Iranian officials issuing specific instructions to their border guards--in some cases not to put stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda personnel--and otherwise not harass them and to facilitate their travel across the frontier. The report does not, however, offer evidence that Iran was aware of the plans for the 9/11 attacks. The senior official also told TIME that the report will note that Iranian officials approached the al-Qaeda leadership after the bombing of the USS Cole and proposed a collaborative relationship in future attacks on the U.S., but the offer was turned down by bin Laden because he did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia. The Iran-al Qaeda contacts were discovered and presented to the Commissioners near the end of the bipartisan panel's more than year-long investigation into the sources and origins of the 9/11 attacks. Much of the new information about Iran came from al-Qaeda detainees interrogated by the U.S. government, including captured Yemeni al-Qaeda operative Waleed Mohammed bin Attash, who organized the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and from as many as 100 separate electronic intelligence intercepts culled by analysts at the NSA. The findings were sent to the White House for review only this week. But Commission members have been hinting for weeks that their report would have some Iran surprises. As the 9/11 Commission's chairman, Thomas Kean, said in June, "We believe....that there were a lot more active contacts, frankly, with Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq." These findings follow a Commission staff report, released in June, which suggested that al-Qaeda may have collaborated with Hezbollah and its Iranian sponsors in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, a key American military barracks in Saudi Arabia. Previously, the attack had been attributed only to Hezbollah, with Iranian support. A U.S. indictment of bin Laden filed in 1998 for the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa said al-Qaeda "forged alliances . . . with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States." But the Commission comes to no firm conclusion on al-Qaeda's involvement in the Khobar disaster. Since 9/11 the U.S. has held direct talks with Iran--and through intermediaries including Britain, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia--concerning the fate of scores of al-Qaeda that Iran has acknowleded are in the country, including an unspecified number of senior leaders, whom one senior U.S. official called al-Qaeda's "management council". The U.S. as well as the Saudis have unsuccessfully sought the repatriation of this group, which is widely thought to include Saad bin Laden, the son of Osama bin Laden, as well of other key al-Qaeda figures. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 667 Registered: Apr-06 | Point taken. However, it isn't proof that they have a direct relationship (although they obviously have an understanding and share some common goals). You'll also note that information coming from captured operatives isn't 100% reliable, nor are intercepted communications (counterintelligence). You'll also note a direct relationship was rejected (albeit by bin Laden). In any event, it still doesn't really do much for your argument. Its obvious that *we* don't want them to have a nuke. However, it is still their fundamental right to protect themselves, and since we have them, we would be hypocrites to say that they don't have the right to them. |
|
Silver Member Username: Donnie1973Tennessee Post Number: 590 Registered: May-06 | I dont think think its hypocritical at all. They say all they want to do is enrich uranium for power. They know that if they said for weapons it would be a war. Poor Iran, they only have 10% of the worlds oil. They will run out in 10 billion years... then what will they do... |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 668 Registered: Apr-06 | "I dont think think its hypocritical at all. " I believe it was you that stated that if you were in their shoes, you would want nuclear weapons as well. Think about this though: Over the last sixty years, we've overthrown their government, effectively put in a puppet regime that was forced to agree to not nationalize their oil industry and let the US, Britain, and France have control over their oil in exchange for their support, effectively continued supporting the regime in spite of its suppressive nature, and supported Iraq in a war against Iran (one where Iraq was confirmed as using WMD)that was largely unprovoked. And the sad part is, thats just the stuff that was done directly to Iran, and doesn't include the other things we've done to screw Muslims over in the Middle East. Can you really say they don't have a valid reason to hate the US and be threatened by the US, especially considering our current relations or lack thereof? Keep in mind, I'm not saying that you should advocate that they get nukes, but at least understand where they come from. They have as much right to defend themselves as we do. While a nuke wouldn't really help their odds in a full scale conflict against the US, in their minds it is at least something. "They say all they want to do is enrich uranium for power." No definitive proof that they are doing otherwise. There are indications, but nothing concrete. "They know that if they said for weapons it would be a war." So they're not morons then. "Poor Iran, they only have 10% of the worlds oil. They will run out in 10 billion years... then what will they do..." Minor flaw, they ship a lot of it out to places like China. They'll run out in 50 or less according to most projections. Then there are issues like global warming... |
|
Silver Member Username: Donnie1973Tennessee Post Number: 592 Registered: May-06 | They say we have enough oil for 75 years here in reserve in the US. I could check this but dont have time. I took it as accurate when I read it. Oil is renewable. They arent running out. In 1999 they had 87 billion in reserve In 2002 they had 90 billion All the while pulling 3-4 million barrels a day. I never said they were morons, but... maybe I should have. I did say I would want them too. I also said I know why they wouldnt give them to me. I do agree that they should be able to defend themselves. But not in that capacity. Those who have nukes would only use them where neccessary. Thats why they cant have them. Way too volitile over there. Next thing u know, syria would want them, then Afghanistan...etc. These people over there, all they know is fighting. Arming them to the teeth is not a wise move. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 669 Registered: Apr-06 | No, oil is not renewable. US Oil Statistics courtesy of the CIA production: 7.61 million bbl/day (2005 est.) consumption: 20.73 million bbl/day (2004 est.) imports:13.15 million bbl/day (2004) proved reserves: 22.45 billion bbl (1 January 2002) Note: Proven reserves is not oil that we have just sitting around in a storeroom. It is oil that has yet to be sucked out of the earth. Now then: Iran has 132 billion. Iraq has about 112 billion. Saudi Arabia has about 260 billion. All of that put together will run the US alone for 66 years. " I also said I know why they wouldnt give them to me. " Indeed you did. However, my question is what fundamental right do we have over them to have nuclear weapons? The simple answer is none. I'm sure they understand why we don't want them to have nuclear weapons too. Simply, we don't like them, and they don't like us. That still doesn't mean they don't have the same fundamental right that we do. Its not like we asked the worlds permission to have nuclear weapons. If the world took a vote, and we didn't have our veto power in the UN, I think we'd be up sh!t creek. " I do agree that they should be able to defend themselves. But not in that capacity." Then in what capacity should they be able to defend themselves? As it is, the balance of power is grossly out of proportion. They have no ability to defend themselves if Israel were to commit to a full scale assault. They have no ability to defend themselves if we commit to a full scale assault. What would you suggest? "Next thing u know, syria would want them, then Afghanistan...etc. These people over there, all they know is fighting. Arming them to the teeth is not a wise move." You're right. But it isn't our decision to make. We have no fundamental right to tell them what to do, any more than they have a right to tell us to disarm our nuclear arsenal. |
|
Silver Member Username: Donnie1973Tennessee Post Number: 593 Registered: May-06 | Sorry, Oil is not renewable. "Then in what capacity should they be able to defend themselves? As it is, the balance of power is grossly out of proportion. They have no ability to defend themselves if Israel were to commit to a full scale assault. They have no ability to defend themselves if we commit to a full scale assault. What would you suggest?" I suggest that they start acting like they are week compared to most. Stop their crap. I wont continually mess with a 6' 6" wrestler without knowing that one day he will destroy me. You're right. But it isn't our decision to make. We have no fundamental right to tell them what to do, any more than they have a right to tell us to disarm our nuclear arsenal." We do have a right, we cohabitate this Earth and we have the ABILITY to make it a safer place, and that means u dont give terrorists better tools to kill u with. We HAVE to flex our muscles over some things. And a terrorist country trying to go nuclear is one of them. When I say terrorist, I mean terrorist. They are accused of terrorism, they have helped al qaeda, even if aleged... moreso than ever they should try to defend THAT. Not keep picking at us. The middle east in general has shown they will use whatever force they can on each other. The more they get, the more they will use. Isreal has the tools to wipe it clean over there, but knows what they can/cant do. Thats the difference between them and the rest. I know one day the whole Middle East will get nuked up. That will be the end of the world. Everyone deserves the right to defend themselves... dont start no sh1t, wont be no sh1t. " |
|
Silver Member Username: Donnie1973Tennessee Post Number: 594 Registered: May-06 | C?P from Washinton Post on May 27 "If Iran goes nucler you worry that Hezbollah goes nuclear." So said Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute in a New York Times article and an interview yesterday with The Washington Times. Mr. Leventhal points to an often-overlooked danger that Iranian possession of nuclear weapons would pose: that the regime could pass along nuclear weapons to Hezbollah or other terrorist organizations that it supports. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Hezbollah could try to smuggle a crude nuclear device into the hold of a ship or a truck and deliver it to a highly populated Israeli city. According to Mr. Leventhal, if such a fissile device functioned poorly, it would result in an explosion with the power of 1,000 tons of TNT, resulting in radiation contamination and a catastrophic number of casualties. If such a device functioned properly, it could result in an explosion with the power of 15,000 tons to 20,000 tons of TNT -- roughly equivalent to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in August 1945. This is, to be sure, very much a worst-case scenario. But, given the nature of the Iranian government -- a regime striving to obtain nuclear weapons that has supported terrorism from its inception a quarter-century ago -- it would be folly to simply dismiss the possibility that it might decide to transfer nuclear weapons to one of its terrorist allies. (After all, how many people on Sept. 10, 2001, would have seriously entertained a conversation about hijacked planes destroying the Twin Towers?) When you have a nation that actively supports terrorism and seeks nuclear weapons, "you cannot rule out the possibility" that it could collaborate with terrorists "to carry out nuclear violence," Mr. Leventhal says of Iran. Despite Iran's protests to the contrary, all signs suggest that Iran's nuclear program is anything but peaceful. Last month, Iranian exile Alizera Jafarzadeh (who in August 2002 disclosed that Iran had a covert uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and a heavy water plant at Arak) told Reuters that Iranian Revolutionary Guards are overseeing 400 nuclear experts to prevent further leaks of sensitive information about the country's nuclear facilities. The International Atomic Energy Agency will meet next month in Vienna to discuss the Iranian nuclear program. All indications are that the United States will reluctantly agree to postpone action against Iran -- effectively leaving the issue to the European Union for now. Given the Europeans' dismal track record to date, this hardly seems promising." |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 671 Registered: Apr-06 | " I suggest that they start acting like they are week compared to most. Stop their crap. " They have pride. That is one of their flaws, as it is one of ours. The fact that neither side has talked to each other for nearly thirty years is a testament to both of our stupidity. "We do have a right, we cohabitate this Earth" There are as many of them as there are of us. Yet they don't get any say in our arsenal. We are a nation of 300 million people. Yet we don't listen to what the world says. We represent roughly one twentieth of the worlds population, but we use a quarter of its resources. We bully other nations that don't cooperate with us, via economic, political, and military means. And, yes we have the means to dictate whatever we want. But the world certainly didn't vote to give us those means. What makes us better? The fact we got the bomb first? The fact that it is us instead of them? "When I say terrorist, I mean terrorist. They are accused of terrorism, they have helped al qaeda, even if aleged... moreso than ever they should try to defend THAT." They are only terrorists to the US and its allies points of view. From their point of view (and there are enough of them in the world for their opinion to count), we are the terrorists. We've made the world our playground. We've attacked countries without provocation (Iraq). We've meddled in the internal affairs of sovereign nations (Iran). We've used economic means to starve our enemies into submission (North Korea). I can assure you, in the last fifty years, the US has been directly or indirectly responsible for many, many more deaths than Iran has. We even have the gall to pretend we are the moral saviors of the world, yet with starvation, disease, and genocide going on in Africa, we have done little. Keep that perspective in your mind. "Isreal has the tools to wipe it clean over there, but knows what they can/cant do." They've actually stated they would use the bomb if they were facing military defeat. To me, that doesn't seem particularly moral. Yes, they've faced the Holocaust, but that doesn't mean they have the right to extinguish millions of innocent lives. And as for their morality, they're accused of plenty of atrocities over there. However, as they say, winners write history. In one hundred years, the Palestinians will be the evil villains, while the peaceful Israeli's did their best to help them. "Thats the difference between them and the rest. " Thats the perceived difference. The actual difference is much less than you might think. "dont start no sh1t, wont be no sh1t. " Thats the ideal. Unfortunately people get greedy. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 672 Registered: Apr-06 | "If Iran goes nucler you worry that Hezbollah goes nuclear." So said Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute in a New York Times article and an interview yesterday with The Washington Times. Mr. Leventhal points to an often-overlooked danger that Iranian possession of nuclear weapons would pose: that the regime could pass along nuclear weapons to Hezbollah or other terrorist organizations that it supports. " I'm afraid Mr. Leventhal overestimates the stupidity of Iran. Would you kill a hundred thousand Israelis knowing full well they will kill a fifty million of you? If a nuclear weapon detonates in Israel, there will be no question of where it came from. And as another simple example: India + Pakistan. Everybody figured the world would end when they went nuclear. Its still going, and they've actually come pretty far in the peace process (although they have some ways to go). Neither side will risk an all out war now, because they both realize they have a hell of a lot to lose. Even now with North Korea, the world has not ended, in spite of everyones fears. Everybody said they would sell the bomb to terrorists too. Yet they know full well if somebody detonated a North Korean nuke on American soil, what kind of response they could expect. You would have to be insane to launch a nuclear attack against a nuclear power. And while the Iranians are somewhat different in terms of how they think of things due to cultural differences, even they aren't that different. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 673 Registered: Apr-06 | "(After all, how many people on Sept. 10, 2001, would have seriously entertained a conversation about hijacked planes destroying the Twin Towers?) " The boys who carried out the Columbine shootings? Seriously though, the world saw the response to those bombings. They destroyed two buildings. We destroyed two countries. |
|
Silver Member Username: Donnie1973Tennessee Post Number: 595 Registered: May-06 | Exactly! Dont mess with the bull.... Oil shale is what we have abundance of. Would produce enough oil at current usage, for over 110 years for the US. It is worse for the environment though. Thats what I heard I guess. Still, we have the largest supply in the world. And there are different meanings of reserve. Hell, there is a massive amount in the gulf they found last year that could be 15 bil barrels. India and Pakistan- this is some of my point. They fight over there for years, the wars will get worse. There was no peace because they went nuclear. N korea is just beginning. The more we allow these places to do it, the harder it will be to track. Most countries that have these weapons are fiarly responsible. Fairly. Like I said before, to these people, retaliation doesnt mean a thing. If they believe enough. THEY STRAP BOMBS TO THEIR BODIES TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. Is this rational to you? It is to them you will say... This is my point. This shouldnt be a rational thought. Now if 1 guy was going to kill 1000's by killihng himself...but 2, 5, maybe 10?? Come on. They do believe that they get rewarded for this by "god" |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 674 Registered: Apr-06 | "Oil shale is what we have abundance of. Would produce enough oil at current usage, for over 110 years for the US. It is worse for the environment though." As I understand it, it takes more resources than its worth to actually extract the raw crude. "Hell, there is a massive amount in the gulf they found last year that could be 15 bil barrels. " Heh, fifteen billion barrels would last us two years or so. And you might also keep in mind that our oil usage hasn't gone down at all in the last couple decades. "India and Pakistan- this is some of my point. They fight over there for years, the wars will get worse. There was no peace because they went nuclear. " Really? How many full scale wars have they fought since they both went nuclear? How many nuclear weapons have they used on each other? While their relationship is still far from purely peaceful, its improved over what it used to be. "Like I said before, to these people, retaliation doesnt mean a thing. If they believe enough. THEY STRAP BOMBS TO THEIR BODIES TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. " You think they are the only people who have done things like that? In no other circumstance has someone ever went into battle, knowing full well he wasn't coming out? "Is this rational to you? " Depends on the cause, doesn't it. If you lived in 1940, would you be willing to strap a bomb to yourself to ensure you could take out Adolph Hitler? If your entire nation was being starved to death by a tyrannical dictatorship, wouldn't you fight against it, by any means needed? Look at how the Palestinians live. Next to them, the homeless in America have it EASY. Most of them are jobless, living well below America's poverty standards. Israel is no better than oppressors to them, and generally treat them as second or third class citizens. If you thought even for a second that by your death, you could help bring something better for your people, would you do it? What would you do out of desperation? No they might not be making the right choices, but they're doing what they feel that have to in order to ensure the survival for their people. They aren't doing it just to blow up a few infidels, they're doing it for a cause that they feel is just. |
|
Bronze Member Username: DirtystinkindemocratPost Number: 45 Registered: Feb-07 | Not all democrats are pro-abortion, nor are they all pro-homosexuality WHEN YOU VOTE DEMOCRAT, YOU ARE AUTHORISING THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES THAT WILL BE PRO ABORTION AND PRO HOMOSEXUALITY. SO YOU REALLY CANT SAY YOU ARE TRULY PRO LIFE AND VOTE DEMOCRAT. If Rudy is elected then there will be no difference, but that is not going to happen. As it stands now the Republican party still has a pro life pro family platform, the democrat platform is not pro life or pro family. case closed!!! |
|
Gold Member Username: Nd4spd18Southeast PA Post Number: 3006 Registered: Jul-06 | Well this thread took off lol |
|
Gold Member Username: WingmanaliveA pic is worth 1000 posts!! Post Number: 7209 Registered: Jun-06 | Yes it did. Politics is a very touchy subject. One I've stayed clear of. Oh but have I been itchy though. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 675 Registered: Apr-06 | "WHEN YOU VOTE DEMOCRAT, YOU ARE AUTHORISING THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES THAT WILL BE PRO ABORTION AND PRO HOMOSEXUALITY. " In your opinion perhaps. However, I don't really care about the opinion of a close minded b!got, such as yourself. If you think all Democrats are the same, so be it. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 676 Registered: Apr-06 | PS: You might look up info on Arlen Specters views, as he is not only a republican, but his position on the Senate Judiciary Committee makes him fairly important. |
|
Gold Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth ... Post Number: 3811 Registered: May-05 | So does this mean he's going to abolish firearms in the US and start making it a safer place to walk around? Does this mean he's into Gordon Brown with his nose stuck up his a££ hole? Does this mean he'll pull troops out of Iraq straight away? I don't follow and I'm not really following Gordon Brown who will be sniffing George Bush's a££ hole later this month?  |
|
Gold Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth ... Post Number: 3812 Registered: May-05 | |
|
Gold Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth ... Post Number: 3812 Registered: May-05 | |
|
Gold Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth ... Post Number: 3813 Registered: May-05 |  |
|
Bronze Member Username: DirtystinkindemocratPost Number: 46 Registered: Feb-07 | PS: You might look up info on Arlen Specters views, as he is not only a republican, but his position on the Senate Judiciary Committee makes him fairly important. That goes without saying... ie Arlen Specter and a handfull of others in the Senate and even more in the house. ONE HAS TO WONDER HOW DEEPLY HE HOLDS THESE VALUES WHEN HE HAS HELPED PUT IN JUDGES THAT WILL MOST CERTAINLY OVERTURN RO AND OTHERS AT SOME POINT. In your opinion perhaps. However, I don't really care about the opinion of a close minded b!got, such as yourself. If you think all Democrats are the same, so be it. iTS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION....IT`S A FACT THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTYS PLATFORM IS PRO LIFE/PRO FAMILY...thats not really desputable. If all democrats are not the same then why are they not demanding that the democrat party become open to a pro life position??? Why arent the so called pro life democrats demanding this?? Why do they continue to vote for the democrat party that appoints only abortion judges?? The answer is obvious to me,its because they are truly not pro life. And dont even try to give me the line, well we are anti war! 40 million plus abortions in the US since roe v wade became law, does not compare to a few thousand,that argument is bogus. I and many others could honestly consider voting democrat if they would reverse their abortion stance in the democrat party. It would mean ignoring the other sins of the democrat party, but many of us feel that abortion is the biggest crime of all time. As for being narrow minded/ bigotTTT...Are you saying that anyone that believes in the Bible as I do, to be 100% true, are bigotsSS and narrow minded. The bible says that hhomosexualityyy is a abomination, I believe that as do millions. I taked about a black democrat judge..I said in a political case in Washington DC, when you find out your judge is black there is a 95% chance that your case is lost at that point. Unfortunately the opposite is also true, lets say you are Michael moore in front of a unfair republican judge, that would not be a good sign for your case either. However a good republican judge can set aside his politics better than a democrat judge. Mostly because Republicans(for the most part) come from better stock ie Christian upbringing etc. TO THE FELLOW THAT SAID GOD MADE HOMOSEXUALSsss....THAT IS BLASPHEMY |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 679 Registered: Apr-06 | "TO THE FELLOW THAT SAID GOD MADE HOMOSEXUALSsss....THAT IS BLASPHEMY" Last I checked, the Bible said God created man. That, sadly for you, includes homosexualz. "Are you saying that anyone that believes in the Bible as I do, to be 100% true, are bigotsSS and narrow minded. " If you can't accept other people "as is", then yes. As I recall, there was a version of the Bible produced that condoned slavery, regarding a son of Noah. Yet somehow, we have abolished that practice. Is that blasphemy too? "Why arent the so called pro life democrats demanding this?" Why should they? They believe everyone has a say. Heck, why do you even care? The people that want to have abortions shouldn't reproduce anyways. "Why do they continue to vote for the democrat party that appoints only abortion judges?" Because the Republicans do things that are as bad to this nation as abortion. War is just the tip of the iceberg. Social Security "reform", crushing us under debt while the rich get tax breaks, giving oil companies subsidies and breaks while they rake in record profits, etc. What is better, to kill 40 million before they know what hit em, or to let them be born and starve to death? "Mostly because Republicans(for the most part) come from better stock ie Christian upbringing etc." Thats a joke right? With all the corruption charges running around out there, with people like Tom Delay, et al, you really want to play that card? |
|
Gold Member Username: WingmanaliveA pic is worth 1000 posts!! Post Number: 7229 Registered: Jun-06 | "However a good republican judge can set aside his politics better than a democrat judge. Mostly because Republicans(for the most part) come from better stock ie Christian upbringing etc." ^^^That is a loaded statement. I'm Christian, baptized, went to Sunday classes, confirmed. That alone does not make me better stock for ANY political or judicial position. All men are created equal and to stand behind a bold statement as that^^^ is as arrogant as the views on religious/world dominance by radical Muslims. When I watched the OJ trial I thought it was smart for the prosecution to allow a majority black jury. Why? Because it showed faith that the "race on trial" was smart enough to weigh the evidence at hand. Quote: Clark further believed that the defense did everything possible to eliminate those potential jurors who were not black and who were educated. After all was said and done, the jury consisted of six black females, two black males, two Hispanics, one half-Native-American male, and one white female (and twelve alternates). Clark noted that at the end of the trial, the juror with the most education had two years of college. By no means am I saying what you're thinking, but with a trial this large and evidence with such a complex nature, with testimony coming from dozens of ppl equalling thousands of pages of text, they allowed a mostly uneducated jury? A gamble I believe set him free. Sorry I went off topic. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 680 Registered: Apr-06 | "I'm Christian, baptized, went to Sunday classes, confirmed." Me too!!! I've even gone to church recently!! And it wasn't even just because it was Christmas or Easter!!!! And no, they weren't having a picnic or anything like that either  |
|
Gold Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth ... Post Number: 3826 Registered: May-05 | If elected president he won't be just dealing with matters in your country but the rest of world with odds and ends like global warming, Iraq, the Middle East, and sniffing around Gordon Brown to see what kinder guy he is. I'm sure they'll get alone because they share the same passion world domination and controlling our lives. |
|
Gold Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth ... Post Number: 3827 Registered: May-05 | By the way is your elections still in November or has it changed? |
|
Bronze Member Username: DirtystinkindemocratPost Number: 47 Registered: Feb-07 | They sure told me off eh |